America Rising

Many attempts have been made to scrub this video from the Internet. I captured, downloaded and uploaded it to my domain.

Please, feel free to send this page to anyone you know.

America Rising

If the GOP wins both houses, will they impeach Obama?

There is little, if any doubt that the GOP will take control of the House of Representatives on November 2nd. As for the Senate, who knows, they may just take it over as well. Assuming that the GOP does take back both houses of Congress, what is the possibility of impeaching the president?

And the accusations of voter fraud is already being bandied about. Do you think democrat operatives are a bit worried that the President's impeachment is inevitable?

It most likely won't happen. But, let's assume, for the purpose of this missive, that it will. What charges would he be charged with?

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Members of the House would have to determine which of these the president has committed. Assuming that they charge the president with High Crimes and Misdemeanors, what, specifically would those be? Clinton was impeached for perjury, but, he was caught dead to rights when the GOP led House figured out what is is.

But, I digress.

So, what could the president be impeached for? How about offering Joe Sestak a high level position in the White House. When the White House offered Sestak a position in the White House, if he dropped out of the race against Arlen Specter, they violated 18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office.

This is an impeachable offense. You say, "The president wasn't aware that anyone in his administration did that!"

That's irrelevant, the buck stops with him. And if you honestly believe he didn't know anything about it, then the word naive comes to mind.

Then there is the National Endowment of the Arts. On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other groups of influence in the arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.

The use of taxpayer dollars to fund federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the primary strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful. Using government e-mail accounts, or any other electronic means, as well as government personnel and resources to host a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda is a violation of the law.

To see more violations, read Representative Darrell Issa's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

But, impeachment is very unlikely. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:  And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.

Seeing how it's unlikely that either house of Congress will agree to impeachment, it wouldn't gain enough steam. And, I might add, that it doesn't look promising that the GOP will take control of both houses anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is going through his mind every day as November 2nd gets closer. One congressman has mentioned it already.

At any rate, here's how it works in a nutshell:

Impeachment proceedings must begin in the House of Representatives, where a motion is submitted into Committee describing what specific crime(s) or misdemeanor(s) the president has committed. If the committee votes to accept the motion to impeach, it then goes to a full vote in the House. If the House votes with a simple majority to impeach, then a separate committee of managers or prosecutors is chosen and the procedure then moves to the Senate.

The trial is held in the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. After the managers and the president address the Senate, the Senators are allowed to debate the issue. If the Senate votes with a simple majority to convict, then the President is removed; if less than a majority votes to convict then the President is acquitted.

Two top republicans are on record stating that impeachment will not happen. Of course, this was months ago. Besides that, would you really want Smokin' Gaffes Joe Biden running things?

Juan Williams, a victim of left wing tolerance. Watch out Mara Liasson

Now that the story of Juan Williams' firing from NPR has made the media rounds, I'll add my two pence.

“I Always Thought the Right Wing Were the Ones That Were Inflexible, Intolerant”

Well, now he knows better. Since he has been bitten by what amounts to a dog biting its owner, will Juan change his views of who is tolerant to free speech and who is not? He knew his days were numbered when he became a Fox News contributor and NPR was just looking for the right moment to pull the trigger.

And if you think that George Soros didn't have anything to do with it, then you're still blind; dumping $1.8 million into the left wing media isn't a coincidence. Moreover, the billionaire's charity to NPR should be a clarion call to remove federal funding, after all the head of NPR did say that federal funding is minuscule compared to donations and George Soros's grants.

Hopefully the reprehensible action by NPR will be a wake up call to those who thought they were a "diverse" and "tolerant" media organization. Which leads me to this question,

Is Mara Liasson next? She may want to see a psychiatrist.

Here we go again. The misuse of Separation of Church and State

If there is one term in our lexicon that has been misused and abused more often than any other, it's the Separation of Church and State. In a recent debate in Delaware, Christine O'Donnell asked Chris Coons where in the Constitution does it say there is a separation of church and state, while the audience laughed, to which the Bearded Marxist replied, "It's in the First Amendment..."

To begin with, the term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; try as you might, you will not find it...ANYWHERE.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn't even imply such a thing. It only states that the federal government cannot favor or establish a national religion, such as the case in Europe where the church is always in the governments business. Because of the dumbing down of children in our nation's schools, a vast majority of Americans don't even realize that, prior to the colonies becoming states, each colony already had an established religion. In fact, when the colonies became states, seven of them still had established religions. Thomas Jefferson was successful at dissolving Virginia's state religion in 1786, other states following suit soon after.

As a matter of fact, While Thomas Jefferson was a state legislator, he tried to pass a bill for a state "day of prayer". When he was elected as president, he was asked if he would do the same thing and he stated unequivocally that the FEDERAL government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.

Justice Joseph Story clarified this amendment when he said that religious laws are left to the states,

“It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.”

Americans must understand that simply looking at the Constitution isn't enough. They must read the Founders personal letters and arguments when dealing with these matters. For instance, James Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others. In his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance", he stated,

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

In other words, if the federal government can establish a national religion, then they will have the authority to force it on others and this was counter intuitive to the stated goal of the Constitution.

How, when and why has this term come to be misused and abused?

For starters, we need to understand where the term came from. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson stated in part,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the WHOLE AMERICAN people which declared that THEIR legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

He was talking about the "state" as a whole in regards to the First Amendment, not the individual states. Recall his attempt at establishing a day of prayer while he was a state legislator and what he said when he was president of the United States. This is where the metaphor of Wall of Separation came from.

Jefferson's terminology was perverted by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 Supreme Court ruling, Everson v. Board of Education. American University professor Daniel Dreisbach asserts that his ruling was due to his anti-Catholicism learned in the Ku Klux Klan. In the ruling, Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1,1802, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

To read more about this ruling, please visit, Justice Black's bigotry gets misread as Jefferson's belief: scholars challenge the theory of separation of church and state as a mid-20th century myth concocted by ideologues by Larry Witham.

So, the next time you run into another one of these fallacious arguments in regards to Separation of Church and State, refer back to this article.

Tides CEO to FoxNews advertisers: Drop Glenn Beck Or Have Blood On Your Hands

As much as I have disdain for the apparatchiks at the Huffington Post, I think this is worthy of posting.

It would seem that Glenn Beck must be on the right track, or why else would Drummond Pike threaten violence? Allegedly, Pike and his organization were recently targeted by Byron Williams, a mentally deranged nutcase and "assassin" who claimed to be inspired by Beck exposing Tides.

“To say we were ‘shocked’ does not adequately describe our reaction. Imagine, for a moment, that you were us and, had it not been for a sharp eyed highway patrolman, a heavily armed man in full body armor would have made it to your office with the intent to kill you and your colleagues. His motive? Apparently, it was because the charitable, nonpartisan programs we run are deemed part of a conspiracy to undermine America and the capitalist system, which is hogwash.”

Nonpartisan? Yeah, right. I wonder how many Republican organizations they've funded?

So, let me get this straight. This Byron Williams, who apparently is mentally unstable, makes an attempt to assassinate Drummond Pike and blames Glenn Beck? This coming from people who could have easily blamed the hostage situation at the Discovery Channel on Al Gore, but didn't.

Keep it up, Glenn. You know you have somebody cornered when violence is all they have left.

Delaware is a lost cause

Sorry, Christine, but the NRSC is funding races that are tight where the Republican running against a democrat has a chance.

HotAir -

O’Donnell’s comments in her exclusive interview with Fox News followed an offhanded remark she had made in her ninety-minute exchange with Coons: “I’ve had to fight my party to be here on this stage to win the nomination, and to some extent I am still fighting my party.”…

But when this reporter asked O’Donnell herself how she is fighting her own party, the Republican nominee was ready to cite chapter and verse. The Democratic senatorial committee is running ads against me. The Democratic Party is running ads against me,” she said. “The Republican Party on the state level, or on the national level, neither have come in to help me close the gap in the polls. And my opponent, there’s so much to attack him on, yet the NRSC refuses to play, and that, that baffles me. Because he’s a – he’s a sitting duck. There’s a lot to go after him [on].”

Delaware is too blue and like California and New York, it's a lost cause.

AM radio talk shows owe their survival to Rush Limbaugh

If there were a Mount Olympus of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh would be alone at the peak.

One hot summer day, I was driving the 169 mile, one way trek from Fort Lewis to Yakima to meet up with my new girlfriend, who is currently my wife. Not in any big hurry, I decided to take the I-5, I-405 to I-90 East route and about the time I reached I-90 at around 11:00 AM, I had accidentally pressed the AM button on the radio. Not wanting to play around with locating the local classic rock station while driving, I decided to leave it on the current station until I got to the first rest stop.

That was in 1988 and pressing the wrong button planted a seed in my psyche that changed my whole outlook on politics.

Listening to this person just going off on democrats was entertaining, though, I will admit I was 22 years old at the time and didn't have an interest at all in politics. Being in the Army, my life was pretty much laid out and I was on a mission to propose to my girlfriend, whom I only knew for a little over a month.

I had no idea who the person was that was railing on democrats and lauding Ronald Reagan was Rush Limbaugh (aka. ElRushbo, MahaRushie, Americas Truth Detector, The Doctor of Democracy). I was captivated by his rhetoric and even though I had no interest in politics, I agreed with everything he was saying. Odd, I know, but it felt right.

I'm not exactly sure how long he was on when another person got on the radio and began railing against the Republicans. I don't recall who he was, but, at twenty two years old, I needed blood pressure meds every minute I listened. What I do recall is people calling in and just giving this guy Hell; I seem to remember one caller mocking him with the voice of Elmer Fudd and another practically calling him a homosexual; I know now that they didn't have call screeners then like they do now.

About the time I got to the first rest stop, the signal was too weak to hear and I tried locating another station that might have been airing it to no avail.

I was hooked. I listened to Rush as often as I could until I was sent to Germany in 1992 for six years, returning to Fort Carson in 1998 where one of my first priorities was to locate a radio station that aired the talk show and pick up where I left off. Only to go back on another hiatus in 2001 when the Army decided I would make a great drill sergeant; the hiatus was due to the enormous pressures of drill sergeant duty causing a lack of interest. If you were ever a drill sergeant at Fort Benning, you will understand.

What I didn't know prior to 1988 was a law called the Fairness Doctrine. Prior to the emergence of Rush Limbaugh, AM radio was on life support with the doctor's hand getting ready to yank the plug. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan tossed the Fairness Doctrine into the waist bin, that Rush Limbaugh breathed life back into the nearly dead medium.

I attribute Rush Limbaugh with my current involvement in politics. Now that I am retired from the Army, I can openly voice my views without fear of reprisals. On a side note, ever since Glenn Beck started airing on my local radio station, he has pushed me even farther into politics, as well as my wife of 22 years, who just loves "Glenny".

With about 20 million listeners across the fruited plane, as well as on the Armed Forces Network, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Doctor of Democracy has emerged as the leader of the Conservative MOVEMENT.

Boxer, Waxman, Code Pink treachery heating up

The Daily Caller has finally picked up the story of US senators and their treasonous actions when they gave diplomatic letters to Code Pink anti war activists to enter Fallujah, Iraq with $600,000 worth of aid to terrorists that killed Americans during an operation there in 2004.

The Daily Caller

Two top California legislators are coming under fire after new evidence has emerged that they helped a group of radical antiwar activists cross the Iraqi-Jordanian border in order to deliver aid to families of enemy insurgents in the war-ridden Iraqi city of Fallujah. In December 2004, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D) each sent letters of diplomatic courtesy to the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan, requesting assistance for members of the radical group Global Exchange and the antiwar group Palisadians for Peace.

After being exposed, Islamic website pulls article showing Senator Boxer aiding Fallujah terrorists

Gateway Pundit is breaking a story that Barbara Boxer approved a Code Pink trip to Fallujah to donate $600,000 to extremists to murder US soldiers

It seems that Code Pink was able to secure diplomatic courtesy letters that allowed them to travel to Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 to donate $600,000 worth of humanitarian aid to the people who had killed 51 Americans and wounded 561.

Below is a screen capture of the page that was yanked from the Islamic website after it was exposed. Click the image to enlarge.



The paragraph in question:

Secured diplomatic courtesy letters from US Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Congressmen Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Henry Waxman of California.

It's no secret that Senator Ma'am has very close ties to Code Pink.

Big Sis breaks the deportation record. The silence is deafening in the White House

According to Janet Napolitano (aka. Big Sis), she has broken the record of deporting illegal aliens this year.

She claims that the Obama administration deported 393,000 illegal aliens, breaking the 2009 record of 389,000 and half of the them were criminal arrests. If these numbers are accurate, then she broke Bush's record by 81,000 in his last complete year in office. Not only did she break the deportation record, she claims an audit of 2,200 businesses resulting in 180 criminal charges.

These numbers and results are impressive. But, it begs the question as to why the White House has been silent on these record breaking results. The New York Times had buried the success story so deep, you could only find it by accident.

Could it be that the White House doesn't want to jeopardize the Hispanic vote?

Read the full story at CNS News

Bill Owens (D-NY), I voted 63% of the time with...Boehner?

You just can't make this stuff up. Is this the new democrat strategy? To ride the coat tails of Republicans during the midterm campaigns?

Why doesn't he campaign on Obamacare, which he voted for?

Read the rest at Politico

Rats on a sinking ship. Dems distance themselves from The Anointed One

Ever since the midterm election campaigns started, I have yet to hear one single democrat incumbent air an ad that says they voted for Obamacare, TARP or Cap and Trade. Now, there are some democrats that are doing their best to distance themselves from Obama. Governor Joe Manchin (D-W.VA) is well behind Republican John Raese. In a FoxNews interview, Manchin says he's open to repealing Obamacare and in one campaign ad, it shows him shooting holes in the Cap and Trade bill.

"The president's plan — 'Obamacare,' as it's been called — is far too reaching. It's overreaching. It needs to have a lot of it repealed," Manchin. "If you can't fix that, repeal the whole thing."

So, he was for Obamacare before he was against it? He also claims that he's against Cap and Trade,

"The bottom line is cap-and-trade is dead wrong and President Obama is dead wrong on cap-and-trade."

Apparently, nobody could tell what his position on the jobs killing bill he was on. According to a Hunnington News article, he seems to try and have it both ways,

That's why Governor Joe Manchin's position on one of the most important economic issues facing West Virginia--Cap-and-Trade--is so perplexing. President Obama is a staunch supporter of this effort to cap the amount of carbons used by power plants and other coal-burning facilities, all based on the questionable science of climate change.

Certainly Governor Manchin appeared to be in support of Obama's Cap-and-Trade agenda when he appeared on "Power Lunch," a CNBC talk show, just one day before the 2008 elections.

Sounds like desperation. It also appears that President Obama has all but lost his mojo.

Uh oh! Trouble in Scranton, PA

The lead in to this story sounds like the beginning of a joke, unfortunately, the punch line isn't so funny. It smacks of intimidation, arm twisting and downright thuggery. You would think that if Obamacare was so popular as he claims, bullying hospitals wouldn't be necessary.

Courtesy to American Spectator

A mushrooming political battle over ObamaCare involving the White House, two incumbent Pennsylvania congressmen, three Catholic hospitals and a nun has just exploded in, of all places, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Charges from the Scranton medical community of intimidation by the Obama White House and its allies are filling the air.

Hypocrite in Chief? Remember the untraceable, prepaid debit cards in 2008?

The Obama administration has recently made allegations that the Chamber of Commerce has been using foreign money for campaign ads. Despite the fact that this against the law, you will recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign it was discovered that team Obama was accepting untraceable prepaid debit card contributions.

Washington Post - Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Then there's an article that describes Obama using a bogus blog post to make these allegations against the Chamber of Commerce. Of course, when it was pointed out that the blog post was baseless, he seemingly throttled back on the rhetoric.

The Daily Caller - President Obama on Sunday stepped back from categorical charges he made earlier this week that foreign money was funding conservative TV campaign ads, telling a rally in Philadelphia only that such a scenario was possible. The softening of Obama’s language reflects the impact of a Saturday report on the issue by the New York Times, which concluded that charges originally made by a blog run by a Democratic-aligned think tank were baseless.

Yet, speaking to thousands at a rally in Philadelphia Sunday, he had the gall to say, “You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose.”

Mike Pence: Odds are looking good of SCOTUS smackdown of Obamacare

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the third-ranking House Republican, who serves as conference chairman, said he saw enough votes on the high court to strike a blow to President Obama's signature domestic initiative.

"It's going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to decide whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not," Pence said Friday on WLS radio in Indiana.

Courtesy The Hill

That's right Michael Mann, science and politics don't mix

Science is a strange area of our world that many don't understand, some don't care and others think they know, but don't. Despite all of that, science is a necessary part of life that has put us in the world we are in today.

The problem comes when science and government collude in order to push legislation. One particular issue that's been at the forefront of Congress is global warming/climate change; a ridiculous notion that the modern human industrial population is somehow responsible for the planet's climate to change.

Climate change/global warming skeptics, which have been likened to Holocaust deniers, have always known that the science was being manipulated, we just never had concrete evidence. That is until last fall when someone had the cajones to swipe years worth of back and forth emails between scientists at the Hadley Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.

One particular scientist came to the forefront of the scandal, who was investigated by Penn State University and was quickly exonerated, wrote a piece on the Washington Post today complaining that politicians need to stop attacking climate change scientists.

If you don't who Michael Mann is, just Google his name with "misused Keith Briffa tree ring data". I'm not going to get into this issue, but, there is no doubt that Mann's conclusions were completely wrong. Whether it was done purposely or not is up to you to decide, but, suffice it to say that the infamous and thoroughly debunked "Hockey Stick" was born out of it. If you want to see the email exchange between Phil Jones and Michael Mann on his "nature trick", click here.

In his WaPo article, Michael Mann bemoans:

As a scientist, I shouldn't have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I -- and indeed all my fellow climate scientists -- do.

You're right, Micheal. But, not having a stake in it prevents further grants to continue the man made climate change absurdity.

He further complains:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

You reap what you sow, Michael. I'm sure you've heard of the old saying about sleeping with the devil. As to wrongdoing, the emails make it quite clear what was going on, just looking at the data tells us that. If there wasn't anything to hide, then why force other scientists to use FOIA to get the data?

Continuing on, he talks about his quick exoneration:

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.

Which means nothing. I wouldn't expect anything less of Penn State University to support their faculty members, particularly when it means no more government grant money if they threw you to the wolves. As for the EPA, they have the same agenda as climate change scientists do, so there's no surprise there.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

That's right, Michael. Because the questions still haven't been satisfactorily answered. We all know that it's not the emails in and of themselves, it's the data contained within those emails that screams abuse. Particularly when it's used to sway Congress to pass job killing legislation, like Cap and Trade.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?

The truth is that they don't expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.

Gee, I don't know Michael. How about REAL questions, instead of the likely softball queries you got from Penn State? You claim Issa wants to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, however, you fail to understand that it's not the research, it's the suspect data that is vomited from it.

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton's attacks. We need more political leaders like him today.

That was in 2005 and your point is?

We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change.

You just had to go there. Remember this from 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 logical fallacy of a weak analogy is how they are trying to steer this issue. During Congressional hearings, it was discovered that the CEO's of big tobacco had lied all along about their research. 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.

The rest of his article can be read at the Washington Compost

Guess who's coming to dinner? Why, it's your friendly Hamas terrorist.

You just can't make this stuff up.

It would seem that on September 27, the FBI escorted known Hamas operative and and unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, Kifah Mustapha through the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the FBI's training center at Quantico during a six-week "Citizen's Academy", hosted by the FBI as "outreach" to the Muslim community.

According to Diana West at Townhall,

"The plugs had to be pulled on our (watch) system" just to get Mustapha in the NCTC door, Poole, writing online at Big Peace, quoted a Department of Homeland Security official as saying. After all, "the NCTC has Kifah Mustapha on the highest watch list we have."

I searched for that quote on Big Peace and I couldn't find it anywhere. If someone locates it, please send it to me.

To read the full story, visit Diana West's revealing article.

Gloria Allred all but admits her agenda

It seems that Gloria Allred is a glutton for punishment. Greta schooled her, yet again. Once you watch the video, it becomes quite clear what Gloria Allred's agenda is.

“I think she would have been a lot smarter to talk to a lawyer who worried about whether she would be deported than some sort of public statement on someone running for office… You know what Gloria? The first thing for a lawyer to do is to protect the client not throw the client out to the wolves. If you can’t protect the client you shouldn’t do the job… You can’t just keep making this stuff up.”

That's right, Gloria. A lawyers primary goal is to protect the client. Which begs the question as to why you threw her to the wolves when you outed Mrs. Santillan.

This video says it all. NFL flyovers and a message at the end

The message will become obvious at 4:27

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JgGXnJ0t-U

Hot off of Gretawire

The Hollywood, publicity hound lawyer, Gloria Allred and Meg Whitman's former housekeeper has filed a $6,210 lawsuit (Yes, you read that right).

As Greta has posted on her blog, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, but, my question is who's paying Gloria Allred's fee? I seriously doubt that she's doing it pro bono, that doesn't appear to be her style.



The moral of the story here seems to be that Republicans should scrutinize everyone before they hire them, particularly if they're running for public office. It seems that if said applicant is an illegal alien and has falsified documents and is hired, they can sue you.

Read more at Gretawire

My understanding - The Nicandra Diaz Santillan, Meg Whitman issue

This is what my understanding of what this issue is. If I have something wrong, please drop me a line.

Five weeks before the gubernatorial election in California, Nicandra Diaz Santillan, a former maid for Meg Whitman, comes out of the shadows and claims abuse (something about not being reimbursed for mileage). Though, nobody is asking how a $23/hour job can be construed as abuse, that's beside the point.

Gloria Allred comes out of thin air and apparently, via a third party, says that she is representing Mrs. Santillan.

Mark Levin is the first to break it wide open when he gets the Hollywood lawyer to come on his talk show, where he excoriates her and eventually gets the name of the lawyer that is representing Mrs. Santillan, who we now know is Mark Van der Hout. Who's he? According to Reihl World View, Mark Van Der Hout is a far left activist lawyer, who's activism goes back years.

From what I'm gathering of this whole thing, it goes something like this:

In 2000, Meg Whitman hires Nicandra Diaz Santillan as a maid for $23/hour. Unknown to Meg Whitman, she entered the country on falsified documentation. At some point in 2008 or 2009 (I'm not sure of the exact date), Meg Whitman's husband gets a "no match" letter from the Social Security Administration, which essentially means that the information they have about Mrs. Santillan doesn't match with what they have on record. Meg Whitman's husband writes something on the letter for Mrs. Santillan to resolve it, however, Meg Whitman kept Mrs. Santillan in her employment.

According to immigration lawyers, she did not act unlawfully by keeping the housekeeper employed. Had she done so, based on that letter, Meg Whitman would have put herself in legal jeopardy.

Sometime in 2009, Meg Whitman fires Mrs. Santillan, but, keeps her illegal status to herself. Quite noble, if you ask me.

Now that Gloria Allred and Mark van der Hout has come out to represent Mrs. Santillan, they have put a huge neon sign on her head and have put her and her children at risk of being deported; though ICE has not decided what they are going to do as of yet.

As far as I'm concerned, Mrs. Santillan is being used as a political pawn in a dirty campaign that may ultimately lead back to Jerry Brown. It's just a guess, but 12 million illegal aliens in this country and Mrs. Santillan just happens to come to the forefront in a hot button issue during a gubernatorial race, in California?

Just sayin'

Related articles

Listen: The Great One excoriates Gloria Allred

Watch: Meg Whitman smear attempt blows up in Gloria Allred’s face

A political tsunami in November?

According to a new Gallup poll, it's not looking too good for democrats this November.

On its generic ballot question, it asks, "which party’s candidates would you vote for in the election for House of Representatives?" Among registered voters Gallup shows Republicans ahead by 46%-42%. What's even more interesting is Gallup's numbers on both the high and low end models:

On the high turnout,Republicans lead 53%-40%. Under its low turnout Republicans lead 56%-38%.



What these numbers mean is nothing short of a repeat of 1994 and possibly even 1894. Politics being the way it is, as well as the amount of pissed off Americans there are, who knows what can happen.

Read the rest at The Washington Examiner and Gallup

Murkowski threatens Alaska broadcasters

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK - R-ino) threatened Alaska broadcasters not to air Tea Party Express backed ads on the air claiming that they are, "littered with lies and intentional mischaracterizations" about her and her write-in campaign.

In a letter to broadcasters sent by Murkowski's attorney, Timothy McKeever on Monday said they are under a "legal and moral obligation" not to air the new ads from Tea Party Express, which is supporting Joe Miller.

The issue is an ad that the Tea Party Express unveiled Monday, entitled "Arrogant Lisa Murkowski -- You Lost!" The ad attempts to portray Murkowski as a sore loser who thinks she's entitled to the Alaska senate seat. The ad also shows that she tried to manipulate the libertarian party and that she didn't earn the seat she currently holds.

According to Murkowski, some friends took it upon themselves to approach the party to see what could be done for her name to appear as a libertarian candidate, which we know was turned down.

According to Scott Kohlhaas, the libertarian parties chairman said that party leaders waited for Murkowski to ask for a ballot line but she never did.

Sen. Murkowski Asks Alaska Stations Not to Air Tea Party Ads

UK eugenesist - Suffering children should be smothered

If this doesn't shock you, then you are heartless.

Miss Ironside said: ‘If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.’
She added: ‘If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.’

If you can stomach it, read the rest of what this disgusting, reprehensible and pathetic excuse of a human being says - The Daily Mail

Lindsey Graham Betrayed - Obama regime tanks bipartisan shot at Cap and Tax

Courtesy The Daily Caller

In a remarkable story in the New Yorker, journalist Ryan Lizza reveals that President Obama, who frequently complains about the intransigence of congressional Republicans, may have tanked action on one of his top priorities by spurning the pivotal Republican senator negotiating the bill.

Lizza’s story, which provides new details about negotiations between key Washington insiders, threatens to alter the conventional wisdom that Obama has encountered lockstep Republican intransigence at every turn.

In fact, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham spent months negotiating with the liberal Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and the more moderate independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in pursuit of a cap-and-trade bill loathed by conservatives.

Cap-and-trade is one way government could limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions scientists say are warming the planet.

But at a pivotal moment, the White House betrayed Graham by leaking details of the negotiations in a way particularly damaging to Graham politically, Lizza reports.

One Nation Rally falsely claims larger numbers than Beck's Restoring Honor Rally

As Winston Churchill once said, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

And it's not bad enough that leftist hypocrites left the National Mall looking like a landfill, as well as disrespecting the World War II monument, now they are claiming that their rally had a larger turnout than Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28 (not 8/29 as Ed Schultz claims). Even more disturbing is why CSPAN decided to use footage from the 8/28 Rally to make it appear as though there were more socialists than there really was.

Far be it from us to make any off the cuff observations, but, it doesn't take a genius to see that by comparing an aerial photo from the leftist, wingnuts at the Huffington Post and one from the Restoring Honor Rally, which was larger.

But, don't take our word for it, use your own eyes.

Below is an aerial photo posted at the Huffington Post. For a larger view click the images

Now, here is a photo from the Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28

Nope...it doesn't take a genius to see which one was larger. Oh, we're still waiting for the satellite photo from Ed Schultz, that'll put the matter to rest. Of course, Photoshop experts need time.

Update: Gloria Allred worked for Brown campaign

Anyone else not shocked?

Courtesy goes to California Watch

Gloria Allred, the attorney at the center of this week's spectacle over Meg Whitman's illegal immigrant housekeeper, spent time working for Jerry Brown's gubernatorial campaign in the mid-1970s, according to a decades-old article in an American Bar Association magazine.

Allred has downplayed her ties to Brown. But to the Whitman campaign - which released a photograph of Allred and Brown at a C-SPAN panel in 1994 - the celebrity attorney is long-time supporter of the former governor and a partisan Democrat.

It kind of reminds me of the annoying thread you see hanging on a piece of cloth. When you pull on it, the cloth starts to come undone. So it seems with this political dirty trick. Sadly, when it's all said and done, Whitman's former maid will be the one getting the short end of the stick.

Leftists leave our nation's capital looking like a landfill

When people left Glenn Beck's 8/28 Restoring Honor Rally, they left it cleaner than before they arrived. On the leftists 10/2 No Nation Rally, they left it looking something similar to a landfill. Of course, we wouldn't expect anything less from socialist union members.









I mean really? Should anything else be expected from people that don't care about anyone else but themselves?

Meg Whitman smear attempt blows up in Gloria Allred's face

How many cliche's can be used in this smear campaign? How about, stupid is as stupid does?

The recent smear attempt against Meg Whitman (and that's what it is) has blown up in Gloria Allred's face and is quickly unraveling. According to immigration lawyers, Whitman acted within the law by keeping Nicandra Diaz Santillan employed. If she had fired her, then she would have violated the law, the California gubernatorial hopeful would have potentially put herself in legal jeopardy.

What Meg Whitman's husband received is what's referred to as a "no match" letter from the Social Security Administration. This letter is to inform the employee that the information does not match and to verify it. Whitman's scrawl on the letter merely indicates that Diaz needed to follow up on it.

However, in light of Gloria Allred's involvement, Meg Whitman's former maid now has a big neon sign on her head that outs her as an illegal alien and potentially puts her at risk of being deported.

Watch Greta literally destroy Gloria Allred:

One Nation astroturf rally a bust?

It was supposed to rival Glenn Beck's 8/28 Restoring Honor rally, but the head of the AFL-CIO Tweeted this image.



Looks rather dismal. Here is a picture from the 8/28 Restoring honor rally and you decide.



Guess they didn't pay union members enough astroturf money to show up.

The Great One excoriates Gloria Allred

The left has always screamed that illegals should be allowed to work freely in this country. Currently there is about 12 million illegal aliens in the US, yet one out of these 12 million just happened to have worked for Meg Whitman, who is currently campaigning for the California gubernatorial race.

So, the question is why aren't the left screaming at Gloria Allred for going after Meg Whitman hiring an apparent illegal alien?

Listen to Mark Levin excoriate Gloria Allred.