I have been waiting for this for a long time. When I was in college finishing my latest degree here at IUSB I was making many of these very same claims about global warming alarmist nonsense as the IAC report below. Leftist students and faculty pretty much told me that I was nuts, and I wasn’t a climate scientist so how would I know? Well it looks like I knew. It was easy. First of all it doesn’t take a genius to see when the scientific method is being ignored and second of all, what I am an expert on is politics and I know a political movement when I see one.
At the bottom of the article I posted a list of links that I wrote starting in 2007 saying many of the same things the IAC has pointed out below. I have reactivated IUSB Vision just for the purpose of posting this story. All of you PhD. laden academics who doubted me and called me all of those names behind my back should ask yourselves; why was a mere undergrad like me spot on and all of you who are supposed to be teachers wrong? And this isn’t this first time that happened is it? – Chuck Norton
On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the Inter Academy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”
Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.
If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined. The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.
The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.
Alternative views not considered, claims not properly peer reviewed
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
No formal criteria for selecting IPCC authors
The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).
Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”
Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:
Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).
How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?
Phony estimates of certainty
Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.
The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”
The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.” Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.
IPCC participants had conflicts of interest
Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).
Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.
IPCC critics vindicated
So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here…keep on moving.
Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.
It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.
And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.
And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?
In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?
Related from this old college blog:
Inconvenient Questions Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You to Ask – February 18, 2007 – LINK
Top Scientists Say: You Are Not the Cause of Global Warming – October 22, 2007 – LINK
Global Cooling Continues; Global Warming Alarmists Still Issuing Death Threats – December 28, 2008 – LINK
UK Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – December 28, 2008 – LINK
National Climatic Data Center: Cooling in Last 10 Years – January 10, 2009 – LINK
The Debate is Over. Global Warming Alarmism is About Achieving Central Control of the Economy and Now They Admit It Openly – March 27, 2009 – LINK
Al Gore: Climate change issue can lead to world government – July 11, 2009 – LINK
EPA Tried to Suppress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct – October 23, 2009 – LINK
New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study – UPDATED: Look where they put THIS ground station… – October 27, 2009 – LINK
Professors Paid to Plagiarize – UPDATE: Global warming scientists hacked emails show manipulation of data, hiding of other data and conspiring to attack/smear global warming skeptics! – November 19, 2009 – LINK
National Association of Scholars on the “ClimateGate” Scandal – November 28, 2009 – LINK
Examples of the “Climategate” Documents – UPDATE: BBC Had the emails and files for 6 weeks, sat on story. UPDATE II – They carried out their conspiracy threat; much of the raw data from CRU destroyed! – November 28, 2009 – LINK
Scientific American thinks you are stupid: The dissection of a blatant propaganda piece for global warming alarmism. – December 6, 2009 – LINK
The Roundup: IPCC Authors Now Admitting Fault – No Warming Since 1995 – Sea Levels Not Rising. Senator Inhofe: Possible criminal misuse of taxpayer research funds. – February 23, 2010 – LINK
OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits… – April 23, 2010 – LINK
UN IPCC Co-chair: climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth – November 18, 2010 – LINK
More Hadley Center Global Warming Horror Claims Debunked by Real Science – December 6, 2010 – LINK
ClimateGate One Year Later. Elite Media Still Lying – December 6, 2010 – LINK
More ClimateGate One Year Later – December 7, 2010 – LINK
IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT: Most global warming models are exaggerated, many scientists in it for the grant money or treat it like a religion – December 7, 2010 – LINK
How Global Warming Propaganda Works – December 8, 2010 – LINK
NASA’s global warming evidence page filled with lies, half truths and suspect data – December 10, 2010 – LINK
Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Halt economic growth, start government rationing. Global Warming Alarmists Party Fat in Cancun – December 21, 2010 – LINK
Global Warming Conference Delegates Sign Petitions to Ban Water and “Destabilize U.S. Economy” – February 15, 2011 – LINK
Global Warming Alarmist Quote of the Day – Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart: No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.
AAUP Seeks to Limit Transparency Over Climate Science – September 19, 2011 – LINK
UPDATE – Even MORE Wild Hypocrisy – Remember this photo?
Remember how the left and the elite media had a collective conniption fit saying that Bush was “profiteering” from 9-11 and exploiting the tragedy for political gain (see links below in this update)? President Obama allowed Sony Corp to have exclusive access to the files of the Osama bin-Laden raid for their upcoming movie that they will be releasing 30 days before the election.
Remember how President Obama even dressed down the Supreme Court at the State of the Union Address over this issue?
Citizens United released a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton’s corrupt political and business dealings. One of those dealings involved ripping off Marvel Comics and film legend Stan Lee. Here is a short clip from that documentary:
The Democrats and the elite media had a collective cow blasting the Supreme Court on their decision to stand up for the First Amendment.
This is how far the left has gone folks. Once again they have resorted to just making stuff up out of thin air. Mathews claimed on his show that Rush Limbaugh said that we should reverse the reintegration of the military that happened at the end of WWII. Mathews is lying in the worst form of smear. It is no different when MSNBC made up the false quotes about Limbaugh when he was trying to buy an NFL team.
Audio and transcripts of every Rush Limbaugh show are posted online every day.
Keep in mind it was Democrats led by Woodrow Wilson that re-segregated the military after Republicans had integrated it. The NAACP before it was hijacked by the neo-marxist left, was a solidly Republican organization that formed largely in response to Wilson who was also known as “the first progressive president”.
This is indicative of what we will see in the upcoming campaign.
Mr. Walter Smith included me in his list of email recipients. Here is an excerpt.
“Does any one know Lloyd Marcus?
“Since when did African Americans become so equal that they could afford to support groups that are obviously anti-Black. Does he not know that a vote against Barack Obama is a vote against all African Americans?”
Dear Mr. Smith:
I usually delete hate mail from the left. Because your email did not begin with the typical calling me numerous expletives and the “n” word, I will reply.
I find it amazing how blind you are regarding YOUR racism. You call millions of Americans, many who voted for Obama, “obviously anti-Black” because they disapprove of his socialistic agenda . So, because we have a black president, any and all criticism is automatically deemed to be racist. Last time I checked, this is still America where folks have a right to disagree regardless of the president’s skin color.
In response to your statement: “Does he not know that a vote against Barack Obama is a vote against all African Americans?”
Good lord Mr. Smith, not only is this statement absurd, it is evil. You are instructing black Americans not to consider who Obama is as a human being. According to you, Obama’s values, principles and vision for America are irrelevant.
In essence, you are saying Obama’s skin color MUST trump EVERYTHING! Can you not see the immorality of such thinking? What if white America followed your lead. “If you do not vote for the white guy, you are voting against all white Americans.” Only a white skin head would make such an idiotic, evil proclamation.
But then, you probably do not consider black racism to be immoral. I suspect you view America’s sin of slavery, a ga-zillion years ago, as a gold credit card entitling blacks to limitless acts of racism.
Mr Smith, over 50% of black babies are aborted which Obama supports via Planned Parenthood. Obama supports gay marriage. Black unemployment has risen to an unprecedented high under Obama.
As a Christian, Obama’s agenda does not “jive” with my values. You are insisting that I worship Obama’s skin color over my God. I will not.
La Raza means “The Race”. La Raza calls for communist revolution in the United States, wants much of the Western United States given to Mexico (they call it Aztlan), and are so racist that they are often referred to as “The Klan with a tan”; what would one expect from a group that calls itself “the race”?
A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.
The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special “ethics waiver” to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos. Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.
This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.
Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former Californiacongresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in theU.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations withGuatemala andNicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.
The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.
Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’ appointment.
A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn’t receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won’t be reported to authorities.
Related: The speech below was at a La Raza event in Los Angeles
May 08, 2010 — ”Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico”…La Raza rally at UCLA….More gems: ‘Communist Revolution’, ‘Frail, racist white people’, ‘La Raza’ (the Race), Fidel Castro, ‘Northern Front of Latin Revolution’…”40 million…revolutionaries…in the belly of the beast”. “Our enemy is Capitalism and Imperialism”. Sedition anyone?
Sanchee H.S. history teacher Ron Gochez, La Raza Rally at UCLA
Here is his H.S. Let them know what you think of his comments: http://www.santeefalcons.org/
Phone: (213) 763-1000
Los Angeles Unified School District
Los Angeles Board of Education:
“We are revolutionary Mexican organization here. We understand that this is not just about Mexico. Its about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza. We will no longer fall for these lies called borders. We see America as a northern front of a revolutionary movement Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism.”
Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in M*A*S*H or when MacGyverproducer Vin Di Bona says anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.
But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created America’s Funniest Home Videos, becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: “I think it’s probably accurate, and I’m happy about it.”
Another video has Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is “100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth.” Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. “Absolutely,” Goldberg says.
When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney’s acquisition of ESPN, that “It’s very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in” to television, he responds: “I can’t argue that point.” Those who don’t lean left, he says, “don’t promote it. It stays underground.” …
In the book, subtitled “The true Hollywood story of how the left took over your TV,” Shapiro also tells anecdotes of bias against conservatives. One example is Dwight Schultz, best known for his roles as Murdock in The A-Team and Barclay in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
The late Bruce Paltrow knew that Schultz was a fan of President Ronald Reagan. When Schultz showed up to audition for St. Elsewhere, a show Paltrow produced, to read for the part of Fiscus, Paltrow told him: “There’s not going to be a Reagan a**h*** on this show!” The part went to Howie Mandel.
Here is Dwight Schultz in an award winning scene from Star Trek: The Next Generation
Dwight Schultz as Murdock in The A-Team
Dwight Schultz as Barclay in Star Trek: Voyager
McGuyver Creator: I am Happy With the blacklisting of conservatives
COPS – Manipulated to be politically correct? –
Fred Silverman of NBC, ABC, and CBS: The progressive perspective is the only one that is available.
Leonard Goldberg, CBS Producer: Leftism is “100% dominant” –
There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns about a candidate. We should ask tough questions and expect good answers.
It does not take long to notice that those in the GOP who “Palin bash” go out of the way to avoid discussing her record. They have been caught up in the elite media narrative and have not done their homework. To be frank, Republicans should not be so foolish to Palin bash for the sake of bashing as it can have serious consequences.
The first problems is obvious. If Republicans buy into baseless and mindless elite media spin they might as well just ask NBC to pick the nominee for them.
Related to that problem is that the elite media went all out to try and destroy a GOP nominee. They took every allegation from her political opponents and reported them as if they were facts and in most cases would not offer retractions when such stories were proved wrong. They accused her of faking a pregnancy, accused her of being a book banner, accused her of trying to deny sexual assault victims rape kits, accused her of ravaging programs to help teen mothers, and even accused her of being an accomplice to the murderous shooting by Jarred Loughner and continued that narrative even after it came out that he was a dedicated Bush hater who had gone schizophrenic. The aforementioned is just a sampling of the lies the elite media has willingly propagated. The idea of Republicans standing by and doing nothing about this doesn’t sit well with me.
You can be sure if a shooting incident happens closer to election time, the commercials and “rhetoric” from the nominee will be blamed for it by the Democrats and their friends in the elite media.
You can also be sure, it will not matter who the GOP nominee is, be it if Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann, the elite media will accuse him/her of some kind of sexual misconduct. The New York Times baselessly accused Senator McCain of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist the day after he secured the primary.
Recently I had a conversation with some Palin bashers and in every case not a one of them was familiar with her actual governing record.
Palin Bashing Republican #1:
No, we don’t like her because she doesn’t have the leadership qualities to be president.
You might enjoy how I handled this “objection”:
I Agree, everything Sarah has touched has been a disaster. Here are some examples:
She cut the state budget by 9.8% while maintaining state services. Heck, name me one GOP governor who didn’t accomplish the same and cut the budget by at least 13%.
She cut the governors personal expenses by 80% over the previous Republican governor, who cares if she had three young kids to cart around.
She implemented a plan to begin weaning the state off federal “earmarks” and cut the number of earmark requests three years in a row. No one cares about that, after all earmarks are only less than 1% of the federal budget.
Cut Alaska’s Medicaid backlog by 83%. There are no long wait lists or backlogs in Massachusetts… oh wait…
Sarah was terrible for the Alaska GOP machine. When she rooted out the corruption of bought off Republicans in state government and sent many bad actors packing lots of party people were even fined. That is no way to lead a machine /nods.
She was able to pass sweeping ethics reforms and reform a state contract bidding process that was rigged and controlled by cronies? Doesn’t Sarah understand that when WE own the machine those are OUR cronies? Sheesh!
Sarah is SO behind the times. She had the NERVE to develop a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline [which languished for decades and is the largest state financed infrastructure project in US History]. Doesn’t she understand that “green jobs” are in?
And everyone knows that nothing got done when she:
Chaired the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Chaired the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee.
Chaired the Alaska Conservation Commission.
Presided over the Alaska Conference of Mayors.
Of course her record as mayor is equally pale.
According to Wasilla City documents that are posted on their web server. The propagandists who are obviously her cronies rigged the paperwork to indicate that Sarah oversaw the economic growth of Wasilla by a factor of four as a leader in city government from 1992 to 2003. They have the nerve to claim that while Wasilla’s population increased by 80%, city services were grown at a level to meet the challenge while property and business taxes rates were dropped. They even claimed Wasilla’s tax revenue still increased by nearly 250%. How laughable. Everyone knows that when you lower the tax rate you get less revenue….
Rigged paperwork, crony government, constant under performance. That’s Sarah Palin!
As you would expect, this completely shut the GOP Palin basher #1 down. She had no response.
GOP Palin Basher #2:
Chuck- I think if Sarah Palin had stayed on as governor instead of becoming more of a “celebrity” she would have retained the support of conservative women. This is where I think she went wrong. And I don’t think that women hate her because of her looks (jealousy), most conservative women I know believe in being/staying attractive. You are right , she has an excellent record- just wish she stayed on that path.
Again I went back to the facts:
[Editor's Note - A legal loophole in Alaska Law allows anyone to file a lawsuit or phony "ethics complaint", each requires an investigation and a ruling - the Governor must pay their own legal bills to fight them. Democrats filed dozens of these bogus lawsuits. Sarah easily won each of them, but it was eating up the Governor's staff's time and had put her into half a million dollars in personal debt.]
Palin Basher 2, if Sarah has stayed in office would have been endless bad press as the left continued to file one frivolous lawsuit after another against her using that legal loophole . I find it interesting that those who blast her for “quitting” never have anything to say about why she did it, or have anything bad to say about how sleazy the Democrats were in their behavior. Forgive me for being skeptical when people are far more willing and eager to blast our nominee than Democrats who behaved horribly.
Also, if Sarah had not taken on ObamaCare on her nation wide tour, not taken the slings and arrows for other conservatives, and not gone after Obama constantly to drive up his negatives, the 2009 and 2010 elections win margins would not have been what they were for us, so again if Sarah had taken any other course, Democrats would have been the ones who benefited. Who needs Democrats when “Republicans” are writing their spin and talking points for them?
Said Palin basher had no response. What is there to say? These facts are irrefutable and I am confident they felt embarrassed after being shut down with such authority.
Still, in the same conversation, entered a rather clueless Palin Basher #3:
And now we are rewriting history! Paul Revere warned the BRITISH that the British were comming! For me Intelligence is one of the must have traits to be President.
Palin Basher #3 did not bother to look up the record or the news all over the internet that Palin was correct in her account.
NPR’s historian said that Palin was absolutely right about that. So did Prof William Jacobson at Cornell Law School who posted the quote from Paul Revere himself about it. Palin is a voracious reader of the Founders and if you watch her interviews she quotes them at length from memory from time to time. It is all over the net how the Palin bashers are easting crow on that one. So why are we bashing a nominee when we are not doing the homework and getting it wrong? If our “best” are going to believe the elite media narrative and not do any homework we might as well just ask NBC to pick our next nominee.
Another GOP’er claiming to be wise who has not done a lick of homework and had no response. Republicans are not supposed to behave that way and will pay a price as long as they do.
Words of Wisdom
Here is a 25 minute interview with Sarah where Chris Wallace throws every policy question in the book at her, and she answers each one with the proper detail - www.therightscoop.com/full-interview-sarah-palin-on-fox-news-sunday/ so to say that she is unintelligent is not only wrong, but foolish for Republicans in the long run. On at least 70% of the issues all of the potential candidates agree so if Sarah is an idiot and our nominee agree on most issues, what does that say about our nominee? Do you think the left will not take advantage of that? Sarah may decide to run for Senate, what then? Make no mistake, since Sarah Palin is a GOP VP Nominee, smearing her is smearing the Republican Brand.
This early in the primary season, it is wide open. ANYTHING could happen and the political landscape can change radically in a single day. Never forget that.
Early in the primary season for Reagan he was in double digit negatives as well. We need to support all of our potential candidates. I will be supporting all of them (except Ron Paul as he goes places I simply cannot follow). Early in his campaign season Ross Perot had double digit positives.
Now is NOT the time to be violating the 11th Commandment. We should express concerns about our candidates, ask tough questions and expect good answers from all of them, but we should not trash them. Anyone who says that X can win and Y cant at this stage in the game is just off their rocker. At this stage before the last election people were like “What is an Obama?” or “Someone with a last name like Obama (Usama) could never get elected”. Well here we are.
Lastly, Sarah Palin keeps score and is very good at political payback as Mitt Romney, Ed Rollins, Chris Christie, and a pile of now former political players in Alaska have found out the hard way. As the Alaska Daily News points out, “The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah”.
If Sarah Palin becomes our nominee she will control the RNC and perhaps the White House. All of those who smeared her will be on the outs for a long time.
So why has IUSB Vision always been so invested in Sarah Palin?
The simple truth is that we aren’t. The number one goal of this publication and blog, be it under Editor Chamberlain, Brigham, or Norton, has been to introduce people to points of view they will not commonly see on a college campus or in the elite media/Democrat media complex. We believe that the elite media is beyond incompetent and is in fact corrupt.
There is no better or more numerous example of this truth than the elite media coverage of Sarah Palin, which is more wrong than it is right, and in which journalistic ethics is completely abandoned more often. We take interest in correcting the record of the elite media, it is just that in the case of Sarah Palin, more correction is needed.
The Washington Post and the NYT are asking for 100 volunteers to go through Palin’s emails. Funny, I don’t recall them asking for help to read the 2000+ page ObamaCare bill. If they had perhaps they may have found the three multi-billion dollars slush funds that were hidden in it.
When CBS refused to release the video of Obama calling certain federal workers “scrubs” where was the NYT and WashPo to protest?
Our friend Nick Anderson says, “Maybe they should be reading Cong. Weiner’s email. I bet they would find more crimes in there.”
Sarah is clearly exhausted in this video. She is on a tour talking to people non stop day after day and living on a bus with never enough sleep and reporters dogging her every move. If I follow you around 24/7 on such a tour and tape everything how many moments of non perfect articulation am I likely to get on tape? Even so, Sarah gets this piece of history correct.
Prof. William A. Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell gets the truth from Paul Revere’s own words.
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and ordered me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He immediately rode towards those who stopped us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then ordered me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms.
“Palin’s short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming — that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting — appears to be true.”
[Editor's Note - I listened to a clip from NPR. The NPR reporter was all geared up to have their official goto historian on to blast Governor Palin. You could hear the excitement in the reporter's voice, it was unmistakable. It was also unmistakable how deflated said NPR reporter became when their history professor said that Sarah's remarks were correct. I must confess to taking a certain pleasure at said reporter's expense.
There were actually signal shots involved in his exploits. See “Paul Revere’s Ride” by David Hackett Fischer. Hint: There were multiple rides. As far as sounding the bell, she obviously means “alarm bells” as a figure of speech. ]
This film recreation of Paul Revere’s Ride also had his run in, and warning to the British.
The Ride – Paul Revere short educational film piece
Patterico has a list of most of the leftist bloggers and elite “media reporters” who just could not bring themselves to do a few minutes worth of homework.
ABC News is at it again. They post no retraction or any mention of the historians who said that Sarah was correct. I noticed that several of the comments of people who tried correcting ABC were vanishing. So I posted a comment telling them about the letter mentioned above and asked them for a correction. Soon after my comment was deleted.
The hit piece from ABC was written by Sheila Marikar and when one examines her twitter page it seems obvious that she views the Governor with a degree of contempt. So naturally ABC made her their official Palin correspondent for the 2012 election http://abcn.ws/mrWLIa .
This is no different than Sarah Palin’s “Party like it’s 1773″ comment. The elite media and the leftist bloggers went nuts calling her names “Doesn’t she know that the Boston Tea Party was in 1776″ … oh really… Boston Tea Party.
[Editor's Note - So lets take a walk through ABC's Hit Piece Memory Lane.
ABC News has had the most unethical Sarah Palin coverage I have seen.
When ABC's Barbara Walters asked Sarah Palin the infamous question again "what do you read" they edited out the books she mentioned about law, philosophy and history such as Liberty & Tyranny by famed attorney and legal scholar Mark Levin.
Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who spoke out against Islamic violence, so the leftist parties used one of their appointed cronies to prosecute him for “hate crimes”, all while admitting that everything he said is true.
We have seen leftist groups coordinate with the Muslim Brotherhood backed Muslim Students Association on campus. David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer have been talking about it for years. Glenn Beck has also highlighted this issue on his program. Leftist groups in coordination with MSA have joined forces to disrupt campus speeches made by traditionalists, Israeli’s, Republicans etc.
It’s known as the candy-cane case. And it’s all about religious discrimination.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments today in Morgan v. Swanson. The case demonstrates just how badly political correctness has corrupted our public schools and illustrates the extremes to which radical school administrators will go to impose their ideological, anti-religious views on our children.
The lawsuit was filed by the families of several elementary-school students in Plano, Texas. The suit states that, although the schools hold birthday and “winter break” parties, no Christmas parties are allowed. Moreover, the schools ban all “references to and symbols of the Christian religion and the celebration of the Christian religious holiday, Christmas,” at the winter-break parties. Even “red and green Christmas colors” are banned. And students were explicitly instructed “not to write ‘Merry Christmas’ on greeting cards sent to United States soldiers [or to retirement homes] because that phrase might be offensive.”
Apparently the schools never considered that such rigorous censorship might be offensive. Indeed, they went further. Students were allowed to exchange gift bags at the winter-break parties. However, the suit alleges, “students and parents [were] interrogated by school officials . . . as to whether or not the contents of their gift or ‘goodie’ bags . . . contain any religious viewpoint, religious references or religious message.” If they did, the bags were confiscated by school officials.
One student’s bags were seized because they contained pencils inscribed with the phrase “Jesus is the Reason for the Season.” Another student was banned from giving his friends candy-cane-shaped pens with a laminated card entitled the “Legend of the Candy Cane,” which explained the Christian origin of candy canes. Another student, “during noncurriculum times and with no material and substantial disruption to the operations of the school,” was giving her friends tickets to a free Christian drama production at her church. Principal Jackie Bomchill ordered the tickets confiscated and destroyed because they “expressed a ‘religious’ viewpoint.”
One student’s mother asked for a meeting with Bomchill to get prior approval for her daughter to give her friends two pencils at her own birthday party during lunch recess, one inscribed with the word “moon” and the other with the phrase “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.” Instead of engaging in a calm discussion, the principal handed the mother a letter threatening that “law enforcement officials” would be called to arrest her and told her that the Jesus pencils could only be distributed “outside of the school building.” However, when the daughter attempted to do just that, outside of the school building, Bomchill grabbed her, took the pencils, and berated her. Bomchill told the mother her daughter would be “kicked out of school” if she made any further attempts to distribute religious items. School officials even called the police, who pulled over the mother on her way home.
Since these events, the school district and the principals have only compounded their errors. Rather than acknowledge that they made a mistake, apologize, and change their discriminatory policies, they have spent over a million taxpayer dollars fighting this lawsuit all the way up to the federal appeals court. In fact, they claim that they did nothing wrong and should be granted “qualified immunity” because “the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students” and the “Constitution does not prohibit viewpoint discrimination against religious speech in elementary schools.” And these are the people teaching civics to our children!
As a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit wrote in its review of the case, “It has been clear for over half a century that the First Amendment protects elementary school students from religious-viewpoint discrimination.” This issue was decided in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, a 1943 decision of the Supreme Court. The Court recognized that school officials are subject to the Constitution and that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is no exception. Students do not “shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” As the Court pointed out in Barnette, the fact that school officials “are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.”
The Texas school district has tried to argue that the Barnette decision really doesn’t say what it says, or that it doesn’t really apply to elementary schools because supposedly there is no evidence that the plaintiffs in that case were elementary-school students. In a delicious irony, former U.S. solicitor general Ken Starr has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Barnette sisters, the plaintiffs in the 1943 case.
The two sisters, now in their seventies, were elementary-school students in West Virginia at the time. As practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses, they believed that pledging allegiance to the flag was a form of prohibited idol worship. After declining to participate in that ceremony, they were expelled from school. The sisters’ family took their challenge all the way to the Supreme Court and won. As their amicus brief says, the Plano school district is trying to “unravel decades of clearly established law” and to “unwisely turn back the clock to an era in this nation’s history when religious bigotry was often tolerated in the public schools.”
What is worrisome about this case is that the Fifth Circuit granted en banc review after its own three-judge panel clearly reached the correct decision when it ruled against the school district and these intolerant principals. We may hope that the entire court will not overturn this panel decision or grant immunity to the school officials for their biased and inequitable behavior. This case is a clear example of how the extreme liberal view that nothing may be said or done that could somehow, possibly “offend” anyone leads to gutting the First Amendment and destroying our free-speech rights.
A prime time host on NBC’s cable brand MSNBC called radio host and Fox News Contributor Laura Ingraham a “slut” on the air.
I must admit that I was surprised that NBC suspended him. MSNBC calls Republicans violent, racist, hateful, out to kill children and old people etc almost every day. They even blamed Sarah Palin for the left wing activist turned schizophrenic Jarrod Loughner who shot Gabrielle Giffords, a member of Congress. Apparently falsely accusing people of being an accessory to murder is OK, but “slut” goes too far.
Here is the clip…
Laura Ingraham had a short reaction because Ed Schult’s ratings are so low that it hardly merited a significant response:
The crude comments made about me by Ed Schultz on his radio program: First, I was surprised to learn that Ed Schultz actually hosted a radio show. Is it only available online? Second, I have to get back to recording the audio edition of my new book “Of Thee I Zing.” Now I’m tempted to insert one additional zing–about men who preach civility but practice misogyny.
Ed Shultz made a reasonably impressive apology. You can see the video HERE.
This is too crazy to make up folks. Ethnomathmatics…. multiculturalism (The West is evil) combined with social justice math. If a bomb costs $10,000 how many children are denied health care because Donald Rumsfeld bought a bomb?
Ethnomathmatics has its own Wikipedia entry and web sites:
Since moonbattery is a totalitarian ideology, nothing escapes from its poisonous lies — not even mathematics. Teachers unsure how to pass off indoctrination in race-based Marxism (a.k.a. “social justice”) as a math class can find resources to assist them at Radical Math:
There are at least two related ideas behind “Social Justice Math”. The first is that you can use mathematics to teach and learn about issues of social and economic justice. The second is that you can learn math through the study of social justice issues….
A subspecies of Social Justice Math is “Ethnomathematics,” defined as:
The study and celebration of mathematical practices from various countries and cultures from both historical and contemporary perspectives, including: symbolic systems, spatial designs, games and puzzles, calculation methods, measurement in time and space, architecture and design, problem solving, etc.
With all this important material to cover, it’s no surprise if teachers don’t get around to boring stuff like multiplication tables.
The Math Skills & Social Justice Topics Chart (Word doc) offers concrete suggestions for dressing up moonbat propaganda as math. For example:
Comparing how money spent on military operations could be used to support other important causes (ex: if a bomb costs $10 million and a it costs $10,000 to provide health care for an entire family for a year, how many families could get health care for the cost of this bomb).
Here’s how geometry can be combined with “environmental justice”:
Determine the density of toxic waste facilities, factories, dumps, etc, in the neighborhood.
By now it should be obvious why moonbats cannot be left in control of education. This means prying it out of the fist of Big Government and the unions that bankroll Democrat politicians.
Beck: My daughter goes to college and no one there knows she is my kid. Some of these professors say horrible things about me, none of which are true (and could ever support with evidence). So I called the college and asked how much would I have to donate every semester just so you would stop trying to fill my kid’s head with lies.
I am the chairwoman of the only conservative group at James Madison University, which is named after the father of the constitution, and I had the audacity to bring a conservative speaker, Kate Obenshain, to speak on the Failures of Feminism. I also spent the whole semester expressing my concerns to my professor that is the adviser for the school newspaper about how liberally biased it is. For those reasons I was targeted by this self-proclaimed liberal male professor because I am a conservative woman who will not bend to his beliefs.
For at least a week, I walked around school hanging posters for my event, which school employees admitted that they threw away, and students even bragged about tearing down my posters on a school sponsored feminist blog. I was viciously attacked on feminist websites, in the newspaper, and even on facebook.
In the midst of all this I made a huge mistake. I showed up at the wrong time for an exam. Well my self proclaimed liberal professor who is the head of our liberal school paper got his revenge on me!
As a conservative, I would have accepted my mistake, except my professor told me he wouldn’t allow me to take my exam even though he might allow others to because I didn’t deserve it. He said I was a trouble maker, I had a bad attitude, and I was a bad student, despite having been on the dean’s list every semester. Despite having contact many people in the administration at JMU, no one will give me a reason as to why other students are allowed to take missed exams but I am not!
On the bright side, I was able to go on Glenn Beck and talk about assistant Professor Grundmann!
Talk about a slow response to Katrina, how about no response because you are a Republican.
White House: Gov. Perry disrespected us because he would not greet us when the President flew in.
The Facts: Obama flew into El Paso, a two-hour flight for Gov. Perry and yet just a few hours later Obama was to be in Austin, where Gov. Perry was, for two fund-raisers. “We offered to meet the President here in Austin” says Gov. Perry. President Obama refused to meet with him.
White House: Border counties are safer than ever.
The Facts: The White House bases that number on the number of illegal immigration apprehensions. The apprehensions are down because the economy in the USA is bad and fewer people are coming across, but the drug cartels and border violence are up and some parts of the border have been ceded to the drug cartels and are not under our control.
White House: Gov. Perry is not telling the truth about the fires as the federal government is paying 75% of the bill.
The Facts: The Federal Government is helping with 25 fires out of 9000. [Editor's Note - By the way, wild fires would not be so bad if the federal government did not have restrictions on forest management such as cutting fire breaks and cleaning underbrush.]
UPDATE – If you want to see the depth of President Obama’s border security lie, the Federal Government through the BLM is posting these signs in Arizona just south of Interstate 8. This is not just on the border as Interstate 8 is THREE COUNTIES inland.
If the border is safer than ever, why are these signs needed now and say not when Reagan was president or even Clinton?
The Arizona TEA Party recently posted this message on one of their web sites:
“Sheriff Dever’s Dept. (Cochise County) and also the Pinal County Sheriff’s Depts (Sheriff Paul Babeu) which are the two counties that are directly on the AZ/Mexican border, are now being sued by Obama and Eric Holder to prevent them from enforcing immigration laws? Mark, this situation has become extremely dangerous now. Not only are thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants crossing our border daily, we have thousands of OTM’s (Other Than Mexican….a-hem, middle-easterners). Obama and Holder want to stop these Sheriff Depts from apprehending them, and handing them over to ICE for deportation.”
ABC’s Jake Tapper makes a few observations about the president’s border speech. He quotes the increase in border agents from the early Bush Administration, counting the increases authorized by the former president as his own. In short putting up a light fence on a few hundred miles of border when that border is thousands of miles long is hardly securing it, and neither is adding 3000 border agents which is an ounce in the bucket. Obama has hardly secured the border and in fact files harassment suits against local law enforcement to stop serious enforcement of it.
The Euros have lost it and are heading head first into dhimmitude.
One of my history professors lectured about how and why great societies get conquered. Europe is being conquered right now as they will not defend their culture, their values, or even their women.
To our friends in Europe I say this, try and stop what is happening. If you cannot then come here and help us defend America or go to England and help UKIP, because if we lose freedom here as the Danes, Swedes, Germans and others have the world will be lost.
Freedom of speech and women’s rights just took a major hit in Denmark earlier today when the public prosecutor found Lars Hedegaard, the President of the Danish (and International) Free Press Society, guilty of “hate speech” under section 266b of the Danish penal code.
Hedegaard’s crime was to note “the great number of family rapes in areas dominated by Muslim culture in Denmark.”
The prosecutor’s crime is far greater. Now, courtesy of this prosecution, it is officially “racist” to tell the truth about sexual violence against women in Denmark, at least when that violence is perpetrated by Muslim fathers, uncles, or cousins.
When feminists first brought rape and incest out of the closet, we were accused of being “strident man haters,” and “crazy” as well. We learned to say: Not all men rape but all rapists are men. To our horror, we eventually discovered that women sometimes rape or sexually abuse children. They rarely rape other adults or force unwanted sex on other women outside of a prison setting.
Islam is not a race. Muslims come in every conceivable color. The Danes, the Scandinavians, all Europe has critiqued and exposed the real and imaginary sins and crimes of both Judaism and Christianity. Now, suddenly, Islam alone is to be spared such treatment.
Hedegaard has just published a book, Muhammed’s Girls: Violence, Murder and Rape in the House of Islam. I was told that my work appears throughout. Will my work someday also be considered “hate speech” or “racism”?
I stand in solidarity with Hedegaard at this awful moment. If the Danes and the Europeans do not take some very radical measures, it will be just as Bat Ye-or predicted. Post-Enlightenment Europe will no longer exist; Eurabia will.
I am ready to talk to the prosecutor to condemn this utter insanity. And so should everyone else. The real racists, the infidel-haters, the Jew-haters, the woman-haters are not being condemned. Only those who expose them are.
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown — an upstart Blue State Republican in the cross hairs of national Democrats — is lashing out at the party’s opposition researchers, accusing them of prying into his family’s private health insurance records, and demanding that they stop fighting dirty.
“It seems in bad form. Obviously, when it comes to information about my wife and daughters, it crosses the line. I find it offensive and so do they,” Brown told the Herald yesterday.
“They (Democrats) don’t have any business muddling in the private health records of my family,” said Brown, adding that his family is “disturbed” by the intrusion.
Officials from the Group Insurance Commission, the state’s health insurance provider, notified Brown on Tuesday that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee asked them “to provide insurance information,” according to a copy of the GIC letter obtained by the Herald.
The GIC, a quasi-independent state agency, administers health insurance for state employees and their families. Brown’s wife, Gail Huff, and two daughters, Ayla and Arianna, were also on his state insurance plan when he was a Wrentham state senator.
A copy of the DSCC request provided to the Herald asks for “all direct correspondence” between Brown and the GIC under the Massachusetts public records law.
Now this is rich….
A DSCC spokesman insisted the request was only for public information and never sought private medical information about the Brown family.
To provide insurance information, like what was paid out, claims made etc. It is pretty easy to reverse engineer a medical record from that information, but oh no, you don’t want medical information, WHICH IS WHY YOU SENT THE LETTER TO THE STATE MEDICAL INSURANCE COMMISSION….
Come on guys, if you are going to issue a denial, can you at least come up with one that is better than that? Remember this is the state with RomneyCare folks, they state will have those records and the Democrats want them.
The Democratic Party illegally obtained Michael Steele’s credit report and released it, Obama illegally obtained a copy of Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce papers to put the details of his sex life and such on the front page and the Democrats also put Congressman Allen West’s Social Security number and other person info in a mailer to 60,000 people.
The talking point: What do you mean drill for more oil, the oil companies do not want to drill for more oil, they bought the leases and just let them sit there so we will pay Brazil to look for oil there. [Oh by the way who has a huge money stake in Petro-Brazil? Obama money man and buddy George Soros - Editor]
That entire narrative is a complete scam as you will soon see.
WASHINGTON – An Interior Department report to be released Tuesday says more than two-thirds of offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico are sitting idle.
According to the report, obtained by The Associated Press, those inactive swaths of the Gulf could potentially hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The report also shows that 45 percent of all onshore oil and gas leases are inactive.
President Barack Obama ordered the Interior Department review earlier this month amid pressure to curb rising gas prices. The White House says Obama will address his plans for the country’s energy security during a speech in Washington Wednesday.
The first problem is that the permitting process to actually get the permits to drill on the lease take years.The government puts years worth of roadblocks in the permitting process, this complicated by the fact that in each stage of the permitting process that gets approved by the federal government, eco-extremist groups sue to stop it.
Obama instituted an offshore drilling ban as was widely reported. The ban was illegal and a federal judge ordered him to stop. Obama ignored the court order. Then look at what Obama did to the regulations to have a de facto ban anyways. The film below explains how they did it. It will infuriate you.
So here is the situation, the government charges money for the lease and then works with anti-capitalist and eco-extremist groups to prevent that lease from ever getting the permits.
Media Matters, the George Soros-backed legion of liberal agit-prop shock troops based in the nation’s capital, has declared war on Fox News, and in the process quite possibly stepped across the line of legality.
David Brock, MM’s founder, was quoted Saturday by Politico promising that his organization is mounting “guerrila warfare and sabotage” against Fox News, which he said “is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”
To that end, Brock told Politico that MM will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests …” Murdoch is the founder of Fox News and a media titan with newspaper, broadcast, Internet and other media countries around the world.
There is nothing in the Politico article to suggest that Brock, who was paid just under $300,000 in 2009, according to the group’s most recently available tax return, plans to ask the IRS to change his organization’s tax status as a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation.
Being a C3 puts MM in the non-profit, non-commercial sector, and it also bars the organzation from participating in partisan political activity. This new, more aggressive stance, however, appears to run directly counter to the government’s requirements for maintaining a C3 tax status.
Since Brock classifies Fox News as the “leader” of the Republican Party, by his own description he is involving his organization in a partisan battle. High-priced K Street lawyers can probably find a federal judge or a sympathetic IRS bureaucrat willing to either look the other way or accept some sort of MM rationale such as that it is merely providing educational information about a partisan group.
But in the IRS application for 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation status, Section VIII, Question I asks the applicant: “Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?“ (Emphasis added).
Under Brock’s definition of Fox News, it appears he is setting MM on a course of actively opposing all Republican candidates. Brandon Kiser at The Right Sphere blog argues that this new statement of MM’s mission means it must change its tax status.
Beyond the partisanship issue, explicitly declaring that your purpose as a tax-exempt non-profit public foundation is to interfere with the commercial interests of somebody else’s legal business enterprise falls nowhere within the scope of purely educational activities.
The official purpose of MM, according to its 2009 tax return, is to “notify activists, journalists, pundits and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and take direct action against offending media institutions.”
At another point much later in the same return, MM’s purpose is more succinctly described as being “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the media.”
Besides Brock, who is MM’s CEO, Eric Burns, who is the organization’s president, received just under $260,000 in compensation in 2009. Burns has since left MM to form Bullfight Strategies, a media consulting firm.
For the complete Politico piece, go here. And for additional analysis, check out Ed Morrissey’s balanced assessment here.
How could anyone who wants fiscal responsibility ever vote for any of these people again. You heard me. If you take exception to that comment please try and justify what we have just seen in the comments below.
UPDATE: Rand Paul: What Schumer is doing to the country is extreme
Michelle Bachmann responds as well:
Mike Pence: If the Democrats want a shutdown so bad, do it and see what happens…
Boehner/Bachmann: Democrats rooting for a shutdown
Its true too. Every time the Republicans make a compromise the Democrats move the goal post. First it was move spending back to 2008 levels; then it was cut by $100 billion; then it was $61 billion’ then it was, 10.5 or 33 billion dollars depending on what Democrat you were talking to. How anyone, and I mean anyone who tells you that they are for fiscal responsibility and want to vote Democrat in 2012 is either duped or just lying to you.
I appreciate their candor, even it if is a tad revolting.
Bottom line, they want to engage in all of the irresponsible behavior they want and they believe they have the RIGHT to make you pay for the consequences. Many of them also have some serious hate issues as you will see.
This is just something that has got to be seen to be believed.
By the way, Planned Parenthood engages in institutional violations of the law. This is merely one of these videos we could post:
Planned Parenthood “We can make sure that your donation aborts black babies only…” no joke folks:
Black community leaders speak out:
Planned Parenthood apologized for the phone calls, but there is one little problem. Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who wanted to use abortion, segregation, sterilization, birth control both voluntary and involuntary, to create a master race. According to Sanger if we have to “clear the weeds” to “cultivate the garden” so be it and should be used to solve “the negro problem”:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” – Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
Anti Israeli-ism and anti-Zionism often goes too far on campus. This is no secret. When you have professors who are PLO/Hamas sympathizers and professors who are so outrageously biased that they use Jimmy Carter’s mistake ridden anti-Israeli screed as a textbook it creates a hostile environment for Jews and supporters of Israel’s right to exist. And when I was in student government I got complaints from Jewish students about these professors but none would go on the record out of fear of grade retaliation.
So what to do? Campus Watch does a great job of outing bigoted academics, but many academics are very comfortable in their bigotry. This is also about academic freedom. Many bigots use academic freedom as a shield for bigoted indoctrination and harassment of Jews. Antisemitism is quite fashionable among the far left so many academics and administrators provide cover for each other. The excuse is always the same “You just oppose any critique of Israel”. Of course this is a canard because those who say that provide nothing even close to a balanced view of the issue and only make a token gesture at it when investigated.
The course could be taught from the Hamas perspective for half a semester and from the Israeli perspective the other half. Or it could be a two semester course.
Eventually the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) came out with a policy that very imbalanced anti-Israeli-ism is antisemitism and is actionable. While freedom of speech and academic freedom issues should prevent close cases from being acted upon, which is a good thing because one should tilt the scales toward freedom, this policy could be effective at going after the more egregious cases, which is long over due.
The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has announced plans to investigate the University of California at Santa Cruz for anti-Semitism, based on a lecturer’s complaint that administrators there had turned a deaf ear to her concerns that critics of Israel were creating a hostile climate for Jewish people on the campus.
The case marks the first major investigation of anti-Semitism on a college campus by the civil-rights office, known as OCR, since its decision last fall to step up its efforts against such discrimination in a manner that some civil-rights experts saw as likely to pull the agency into debates over campus speech critical of Israel or Zionism. The University of California system is now defending itself against allegations of anti-Semitism on several fronts, as its Irvine campus remains the subject of a separate OCR investigation, undertaken in 2008, and its Berkeley campus and system administration were named in a discrimination lawsuit filed by a Jewish student this month.
Kenneth L. Marcus, who was the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights from 2002 to 2004 and now directs the Institute for Jewish and Community Research’s efforts to fight anti-Semitism, said on Tuesday that the investigation of Santa Cruz “would have been a nonstarter” if the OCR had not adopted the harder line against anti-Semitism urged by his organization and other Jewish groups.
Under the agency’s changed approach toward such complaints, announced in October as part of a broader effort to crack down on forms of student bullying and harassment seen as violating antidiscrimination laws, the OCR made clear that it intends to investigate charges of anti-Semitism where the discrimination might be based partly on ethnicity, and will be less likely to assume that anti-Semitic incidents are the result of religious discrimination, which falls outside its purview.
The Santa Cruz investigation “is a really important signal from OCR that they may be taking their new approach to anti-Semitism as seriously as we wanted them to,” Mr. Marcus said. “There is still a big question as to how vigorously they will pursue cases that involve a mix of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. This suggests a willingness to go forward.”
‘Harassment and Intimidation’
The new investigation is in response to a June 2009 complaint sent to the OCR by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer in Hebrew on the campus. In her letter, she describes several incidents in recent years in which administrators there rejected demands that the university drop its sponsorship of events focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that she regarded as one-sided attacks on Israel and Zionism. In some cases, she said, all that resulted from such complaints was that the people who brought them were villified by faculty members as threatening academic freedom.
“The anti-Israel discourse and behavior in classrooms and at departmentally and college-sponsored events at [Santa Cruz] is tantamount to institutional discrimination against Jewish students, which has resulted in their intellectual and emotional harassment and intimidation, and has adversely affected their educational experience at the university,” Ms. Rossman-Benjamin’ letter said. [This is exactly the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood sponsored chapters of the MSA and their far left allies - Editor]
In a letter sent to Ms. Rossman-Benjamin on March 7, Arthur Zeidman, director of the OCR’s enforcement office in San Francisco, said his agency would investigate whether the university had failed to fufill its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to respond to her concerns. He noted that the OCR’s decision to open such an investigation “in no way implies” that it has made a determination as to the merits of her complaint to the agency.
In a written statement, Santa Cruz’s campus counsel, Carole Rossi, said the university would “fully cooperate” with the OCR’s investigation.
The separate lawsuit against the University of California system was filed in U.S. District Court this month by Jessica Felber, a former Berkeley student who now works as a campus liaison for Hasbara Fellowships, an organization established by the Jewish organization Aish International. It argues that the university tolerated an anti-Semitic climate on the campus and failed to deal with complaints of “campus terrrorist incitements” by two student groups, the Muslim Students Union and Students for Justice in Palestine.
The lawsuit accuses the university of failing to have provided Ms. Felber with adequate protection against anti-Semitic violence in a March 2010 incident in which a student involved with Students for Justice in Palestine “intentionally rammed” a shopping cart into her on the campus, causing her an injury for which she received medical attention.
The Berkelely campus on Tuesday issued a statement that said it “is committed to maintaining an inclusive and respectful campus environment that is safe and welcoming for everyone, without regard to religion, race, ethnicity, or ideology,” and rejects “any allegation or implication that bias or prejudice plays any role” in how the administration deals with students or student groups.
Imagine, for a moment, you’re sitting next to your child and video of a class reciting the Pledge of Allegiance flashes across the TV. Your child tugs on your shirt and innocently asks, “Mom, what are they doing? What are they saying?” Shocking, you might say. It would never happen. Guess what? It happened in New York City.
Joe and Winnie Fleischer of Brooklyn, NY were flabbergasted when they realized recently their daughter Brianna, 8, had no idea what the Pledge of Allegiance was. They thought it was common knowledge, especially in the classroom.
“I was shocked that she didn’t know the pledge,” Joe, a NYC firefighter, told the New York Daily News. “I thought she’d been doing it in school.”
They thought wrong.
So they went to the school, PS29, to change that. After spirited meetings with parents, teachers, and an “educational unit for kids,” the principal agreed to have the Pledge broadcast over the school’s loud speaker “for the first time in years.”
But here‘s what’s interesting. In New York, reciting the Pledge daily in schools is the law. The principal, then, isn’t doing anything revolutionary — she‘s just complying with what’s been mandated since just after 9/11.
Public School Teacher: We hate you. Now give us your kids so that we can turn them against you.
That is what it is like for many schools. Every few days I have to sit down with my child and undo the damage that is done in public school. I have to undo the union propaganda they push on my child in class, the one sided politicking, the slanted history education, and the eco-extremism.
The late American philosopher Richard Rorty (d. 2007) in describing his assessment of the role of university professor wrote: “When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization.” The re-education imperative is one that he, “like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.” Rorty explains to the “fundamentalist” parents of his students: “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.” He helpfully explains that “I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”
In fact, some of our student clients have heard simplified versions of this very sentiment, and I can distinctly remember my own southern, religious upbringing being venomously caricatured during my law-school days. The fact that my father was a math professor who earned his Ph.D. (a real-life Good Will Hunting) in a mere ten months was irrelevant compared with his status as an elder in a very conservative evangelical church. I had to be “rescued” from my own heritage.
I stubbornly resisted rescue, but many students — eager for acceptance and feeling isolated — give up, surrendering to the dominant culture and feeding an academic beast that demands conformity, in speech and belief.
This is a lesson that everyone should learn. You cannot placate or satisfy the radical left. If you give in to them just a little, they will move the goal post continually and as long as demonizing you yields results they will continue to do so.
The radical leftist group objects because Target gave a pro-business lobby a small donation, that lobby gives some money to Republicans, some of which oppose gay marriage. The homosexual angle is just that, an angle. These people are anti-capitalist and will keep up their harassment until forced to stop, Target closes, or they realize it is not in their interests to stay.
Target first started giving in by making new “pro-gay” policies etc etc. Look at what it has gotten them. This isn’t about gay policy, this is about money and anti-capitalism. So now Target has crossed its “Amy Grant” customer base that it had courted for many years and still the gay leftist group trashes them.
[Editor's Note - Valuable Lesson: Once you are targeted in the culture war, or you participate in it as Target did with their Amy Grant ads, you had better stake out your territory, stick to it and not waffle or you WILL lose support with all sides. If Target had made it clear that this pressure group would receive no quarter they could appeal to its cultural advertising base for support and would have gotten it. Now Target has put off both sides. Target's old cultural ad base now believes Target's traditional cultural appeal was just an insincere gimmick.]
The best way to deal with groups like this is to make them talk to the hand, and if they use union thug tactics you have to go on the offense.
When Jesse Jackson, CAIR and other leftist shakedown artists targeted radio stations to try and silence talk radio, talk host Jim Quinn had a very effective strategy. No meetings, keep them off your property and don’t respond to them. Pretend that they do not exist other than occasionally saying on the air that you know what these groups are all about. Several groups and companies have used this tactic and it works. It works because Jesse Jackson, CAIR and other pressure groups do not want it known that they are ineffective. So in cases when they are ineffective they go away quietly after a time.
Target is getting no quarter because they showed signs of giving in and actually communicated with these people in an attempt to placate them. These pressure groups on the left are predatory. Once they get blood they will keep coming back for more.
I suggest that every PR director or information officer read the book SHAKEDOWN by Ken Timmerman (a man who I have had the pleasure of meeting).
Speaking of Jesse Jackson, Benton Harbor, Michigan had riot trouble a few years ago and Jackson was able to calm the situation down. Do you know why he calmed it instead of fanning the flames for the press? Jesse Jackson went to Whirlpool Corp and made it very clear that he would use those crowds and march against Whirlpool if they did not present his group “Rainbow Push” a nice fat six figure check. Jackson was aware that Whirlpool was outsourcing and flying in foreign workers to replace local Americans in a town that had the highest unemployment in Michigan. It would not have gone over well for Whirlpool if they had resisted. I know this because I worked at Whirlpool at the time and had regular access to many of the top people there (and for the record I thought their employment practices were offensive too).
SAN DIEGO (AP) — Target Corp. is suing a San Diego pro-gay marriage group to get it to stop canvassing outside its San Diego County stores, alleging its activists are driving away customers.
Rights advocates say the trial between Target and Canvass For A Cause that begins Friday could further strain relations with the gay and lesbian community after controversy over its $150,000 donation to a business group backing a Minnesota Republican candidate opposed to gay marriage.
Minnesota-based Target insists it remains committed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and its lawsuit has nothing to do with the political agenda of the organization.
“Our legal action was in no way related to the cause of the organization and was done so to be consistent with our long-standing policy of providing a by not permitting solicitors at our stores,” the company said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.
Target says it has taken similar action against a number of organizations representing a variety of causes. It alleges in the lawsuit that the San Diego group‘s activists harass customers by cornering them near its stores’ front entrances and debating with them about their views on gay marriage.
The group says it canvasses at shopping malls, college campus and stores like Target to collect signatures and donations in support of gay marriage.
The corporation says at least eight Target stores in the area have reported receiving more than a dozen complaints daily since canvassers started working outside their stores in October 2010. Target says the activists have refused to leave when asked politely and shown the company’s policy prohibiting “expressive activity” on its property.
It is called Taqiyya, deception. Preach peace, love and tolerance while attacking anyone who would critique Sharia Law or the other parts of Islam that are anti-American and anti-civilization.
The Islamic Circle is such a group, like CAIR, which documents obtained by the FBI among other evidence shows that this Islamic Circle group you will see in the video below, is in fact a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and oldest radical Islamic group in the world, whose founding goes back to the Grand Mufti in WWII. This group wanted to help Hitler to carry out “the final solution” against the Jews.
To see the evidence about the Islamic Circle you can get the narrative, filled with links and the documents themselves right HERE.
[Editor's Note - Notice that the anchor said that the councilwoman made statements about Muslims. No she didn't. She made a statement about Islam itself, which is a theo-political, legal and cultural belief system. This is another example of reporters just making dumb mistakes.]
Islam is not a religion of peace, a statement I will be happy to debate anytime. Most Muslims do not take their religion to militant levels of seriousness, but since he Koran, the Hadith and Islamic precedent are what they are we cannot be afraid to acknowledge that many of the militant groups are interpreting these documents correctly. We also cannot forget the lesson of Lebanon. Lebanon was a modern Christian country. When Islamists started coming in many Christians wanted it stopped, but they insisted that they were about peace, love, democracy and “social justice”. The numbers continued to grow. It was not long before Christians were being killed, and the Islamist numbers grew to the point where they started to get power in the government. Anyone who wanted to slow down the immigration was dealt with by the tactics you see in this video above into silence, or otherwise eliminated. Now look at what has happened. Within a few short years the Christians are out of power, being slaughtered and many had to flee. Then Lebanon started launching missiles against Israel.
Now Lebanon is a Iranian satellite state controlled by Hezbollah. These same tactics were used the 70′s in Iran. Jimmy carter and Zbignew Brzezinski were so fooled that they helped the Mullahs come to power. The same tactics have been used in Egypt where now it seems that the Muslim Brotherhood may take over the country, and Obama helped them by helping them force Mubarak out. The same tactic is bing used in Sweden and France and England. All of these countries are having problems with Islamic Rape gangs targeting young girls. Those who speak out against the gangs in Europe get the treatment you saw in that video, and these militant Islamists combined with their allies on the radical left have set up the hate crime laws and their biased enforcement to makes it dangerous for others to speak out against them.