Tiger Woods And Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate And Rezko And Climategate And Faith Based Science And Hillary Clinton’s Victory In New Hampshire, Part I

At the time we were somewhat amused. Flabby and flaccid Barack Obama, his “manboobs” passing for pectoral muscles, to us was never a paragon of masculinity or the masculine form. Our amusement was such that we even kinda, sorta, in a way, defended Obama.

At the time we were somewhat amused. We received repeated outraged communications about Obama on the cover of Men’s Health magazine. Why, we were asked, was Obama on the cover of the magazine? Why?

We kinda, sorta, defended Obama by saying Obama was an egomaniac that loved to see himself on the cover of magazines. Obama, we replied, was the type of person that wanted to garner more attention than the corpse at a funeral. Obama, we replied, was the type of person that wanted to garner more attention than the bride at a funeral.

Something very recently happened which reminded us of those outraged communications about Obama on the cover of Men’s Health magazine. Tiger Woods happened.

Biracial celebrity Tiger Woods and biracial celebrity Barack Obama, those similarities (as well as base gossip) compelled us to check out what was going on. The stories were gossip drenched and lurid. Drugs, drunks, fantasy sex with baseball player Derek Jeter and actor David Boreanaz, trashed houses and a man with the Dickensian name of David Pecker.

Tiger had hit a tree with his SUV in the early morning hours and slowly but surely the truth emerged that he was having multiple extramarital affairs and his wife found out and chased him with a golf club which led to more and more revelations which exposed a side of Tiger Woods few knew about.

But quite a few did indeed know about Tiger Woods and his extramarital activities and bizarre behavior and self-medication. In fact, the reliable gossip bible the National Enquirer had the Tiger Wood story of bizarre behavior and extramarital affairs (along with photographs of Tiger in coitus) several years ago. But the National Enquirer kept the story hush-hush.

Woods’ camp, fearful of a potential public-relations nightmare in spring 2007, allegedly agreed to do a cover for Men’s Fitness — a magazine owned by the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media, former Men’s Fitness editor-in-chief Neal Boulton said yesterday.

“[American Media CEO] David Pecker knew about Tiger Woods’ infidelity a long time ago,” Boulton told The Post. “[Pecker] traded silence for a Men’s Fitness cover.”

Boulton said he left his post in April 2007, as the seedy Woods-Men’s Fitness deal was completed.

As Mae West said “A little hush money can do a lot of talking.”

The Daily Mail has more on the National Enquirer deal with Tiger Woods:

Which brings us back to that car park, that surveillance team in the spring of 2007 and the scoop that could have exploded Tiger’s myth long before now. So what happened?

Put bluntly, Tiger sold himself to save himself – or at least his management did. With an exertion of power only possible by the very rich and very famous, a deal was struck.

In return for burying the story of Tiger’s affair, he would give an exclusive cover interview to a men’s health magazine owned by the same company as the tabloid.

According to our investigation, when ‘Team Tiger’ discovered that the tabloid magazine not only had blurry pictures of him and Mindy in the car park but evidence of the consummation, they went into a panic. Then they went to work.

Neal Boulton, an editor in the tabloid magazine’s company at the time, revealed: ‘They said, “What do we have to do not to let this get out?”‘

The answer was press the magazine’s publisher to withhold the story in return for Tiger appearing on the August 2007 cover of its stablemate publication, Men’s Fitness.

And so Tiger, who regularly declines interviews on the grounds that he is a ‘private’ person, struck beefcake-style poses and gave tips on diet, exercise and weightlifting.

The tabloid’s parent company insisted that the exclusive was not a quid pro quo.

A little hush money indeed can do a lot of talking. It can turn a flabby smoker into a “Hero of Health” and a cover on a men’s health magazine.

Deals and money can protect – for a while.

But eventually the truth – oozes out and explodes.

Eventually the conflagration flares and the American Götterdämmerung arrives.

Share

72 thoughts on “Tiger Woods And Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate And Rezko And Climategate And Faith Based Science And Hillary Clinton’s Victory In New Hampshire, Part I

  1. Mae West was a remarkable woman and “a little hush money can do a lot of talking” is a brilliant 1920s quote from her. Mae was a brilliant businesswoman and knew she was no angel.

  2. So how many more secrets against powerful and promient people are the mags covering up for interviews? Where did their integrity go?

    I know the magazines know about the BC, and there are other things also. Money is more important to them than revealing the truth to their readers.

  3. Via AlwaysForHillary, it is appropriate that today is International Anti-corruption day.

    http://alwaysforhillary.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html#1109355086756701130

    International Anti-Corruption Day

    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Secretary of State
    Video Message For Anti-Corruption Day

    Washington, DC

    December 9, 2009

    ——————————————————————————–

    Greetings from Washington. I want to thank all of you for your work to root out corruption that weakens economic development, feeds black markets and organized crime, and undermines the promise of democracy.

    Ten years ago, OECD members brought the Anti-Bribery Convention into force, a milestone in global efforts to encourage responsible and accountable governance. Now, as we mark this International Anti-Corruption Day, we are taking steps to strengthen the Convention with a revised recommendation that includes new guidelines and best practices that will help governments provide effective enforcement mechanisms and help businesses develop robust internal controls and compliance provisions.

    I want to thank the Working Group on Bribery for its leadership in developing the revised recommendation and I urge all member states to implement it. The United States fully supports the OECD’s anti-corruption agenda and we look forward to being one of the first countries reviewed again next year. We also are encouraging our major trading partners that have not yet acceded to the Convention to join our efforts.

    As we work together to eradicate corruption in our own countries, we should also maintain the highest standards of transparency and accountability in our development efforts around the world. Corruption in emerging markets and fragile democracies undermines the confidence of citizens and investors alike, while responsible governance helps to foster sustainable economic development and political stability.

    You know curbing corruption is a serious global challenge, and so it will take global partnerships to meet it. We’re eager to work with governments, multilateral institutions, businesses, civil society leaders, NGOs – everyone with a stake in a level playing field and the rule of law.

    Thank you again for your leadership. I am confident that together, we can ensure the responsible and accountable governance that businesses and citizens everywhere deserve and expect.

  4. Admin: A few more quotable lines from Mae West:

    When I’m good I’m very good, but when I’m bad I’m better.

    A hard man… is good to find

    It’s not the men in my life that counts — it’s the life in my men.

    He who hesitates is last.

    I go for two kinds of men. The kind with muscles, and the kind without.

    So many men… so little time

    Too much of a good thing… can be wonderful

    Why don’t you come on up and see me sometime.. when I’ve got nothin’ on but the radio.

    I generally avoid temptation unless I can’t resist it.

    A man in love is like a clipped coupon — it’s time to cash in.

    A man in the house… is worth two in the street

    Marriage is a fine institution, but I’m not ready for an institution.

    It’s better to be looked over, than overlooked

    Give a man a free hand… and he’ll run it all over you

    Good sex is like good Bridge… If you don’t have a good partner, you’d better have a good hand

    To err is human — but it feels divine

    His mother should have thrown him away…and kept the stork

    I don’t like myself, I’m crazy about myself.

    “Goodness, what beautiful diamonds !” Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie

    I like two kinds of men: domestic and imported

    When a girl goes wrong, men go right… after her

    I’m the lady who works at Paramount all day… and Fox all night.

    Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

    I used to be Snow White… but I drifted

    Save a boyfriend for a rainy day, and another, in case it doesn’t rain

    I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor… Believe me, rich is better

    It’s hard to be funny…when you have to be “clean”

    I like my clothes to be tight enough to show I’m a woman… but loose enough to show I’m a lady.

    She’s the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success… wrong by wrong

    You may admire a girl’s curves on the first introduction… but the second meeting shows up new angles

    You can say what you like about long dresses, but they cover a multitude of shins.

    Those who are easily shocked… should be shocked more often

    When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I’ve never tried before.

    You ought to get out of those wet clothes… and into a dry martini

  5. Wbboei, Mae West is a fount of knowledge and wit. In one of her films she is showing off her jewelry to her maids. The maids are astounded at the huge rocks and ask Mae if she was nervous when given all the expensive jewelry. Mae replys: ‘No, I was cool, calm,… and collected.” 🙂

  6. Maybe Gorto can explain this for us – is it aliens coming for Obama? 🙂

    Pictures at link.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234430/Mystery-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html

    A mysterious light display appearing over Norway last night has left thousands of residents in the north of the country baffled.

    Witnesses from Trøndelag to Finnmark compared the amazing sight to anything from a Russian rocket to a meteor or a shock wave – although no one appears to have mentioned UFOs yet.

    The phenomenon began when what appeared to be a blue light seemed to soar up from behind a mountain. It stopped mid-air, then began to circulate.

    Within seconds a giant spiral had covered the entire sky. Then a green-blue beam of light shot out from its centre – lasting for ten to twelve minutes before disappearing completely.

    The Norwegian Meteorological Institute was flooded with telephone calls after the light storm – which astronomers have said did not appear to have been connected to the aurora, or Northern Lights, so common in that area of the world.

    The mystery deepened tonight as Russia denied it had been conducting missile tests in the area.

    Fred Hansen, from Bø in Vesterålen, described the sight as ‘like a big fireball that went around, with a great light around it again.’

    Watch out Norway! Don’t give Obama that Peace Prize!

  7. admin: You have just made my day. I love Mae West and your line about the boob having “manboobs” is hysterical. Was it just his manboobs they were covering up or is something more sinister? More juicy?

  8. More polls show Obama dropping to the mid 40s.

    And this:

    http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/12/obamas-december-standing.html

    Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

  9. Uh-oh

    ” Tiger Woods in the buff? Playgirl claims to have naked photos of golfing star.”

    A spokesman for Playgirl says they have what appear to be nude photos of the Woods and they plan on publishing them if they can confirm they’re the real deal.

    “We were approached by a third party who wanted to know our ‘interest level,” Daniel Nardicio claims in several published reports. “Our lawyers are currently going over them, the source, the entire package.”

    If the pix prove genuine, it would be a huge coup for Playgirl, which recently made a splash by publishing a nude spread of Levi Johnston, the baby daddy of Sarah Palin’s only grandson.

    As for Woods, who has been battered by reports he cheated on his Swedish spouse with a bevy of busty women, it could turn his personal disaster into a marketing meltdown.

    Already there are signs that Woods’ lucrative – and increasingly nervous – sponsors have misgivings about linking their products to the world’s most famous golfer.

    The Nielsen Company reported on Tuesday that the golfer, whose wholesome family man image made him millions, was last seen in a prime-time ad on Nov. 29 in a 30-second spot for Gillette.

    Pepsico Inc. also confirmed it is dropping its Gatorade Tiger Focus drink. But the company insisted the decision was made Nov. 25 and had nothing to do with the sex scandal.

    more at:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/09/2009-12-09_playgirl_may_have_tiger_woods_nude_photos_pictures_will_be_published_if_mag_can_.html

  10. Hilarious.

    The UK’s sun newspaper front page tomorrow.

    Today the UK had its pre budget report by the chancellor Alastair Darling (treasury secretary)and it was a mess a total disaster.

    The Headline is “Darling just screwed more people than Tiger Woods”

    Now whats this about New York running out of money.

  11. National Review:

    Obama should pass on Copenhagen’s tax and fraud fest

    President Obama flies to Copenhagen later this month for a fresh round of taxes and spending. To slay an imaginary beast called “global warming,” Obama and other leaders will discuss a treaty that forces industrialized nations to shake themselves down and enrich the developing world. Even worse, Copenhagen occurs as climatic computer models misfire and climatologists substitute science with deception.

    The draft Copenhagen Framework Convention on Climate Change establishes an international oversight body simply called “the government.” As the Convention draft states: “The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference of the Parties],” which will execute “public policies . . . to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate.”

    Like most big-government schemes, the Copenhagen Convention unleashes new agencies, panels, and other bureaucracies bearing such acronyms as EBFTA, TPRDA, TPRDM, and UNFCCC. The treaty even invokes “the NAMAs and the NAPAs” — sadly, not a reference to a nearly homonymous ’60s pop group. The Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Mitigation (EBFTM) pursues this riveting mission: “To organize, coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the implementation of the comprehensive framework for mitigation, including the enabling means of financing, technology, and capacity-building.”

    The Convention arranges the “transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.” Such international economic redistribution would occur via “a multilateral climate change fund,” “a Mitigation Fund,” “a Capacity-building Fund,” and other schemes. By 2020, these disbursements are supposed to “meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties” — an anticipated $50 billion to $140 billion.

    Regarding revenues, the draft Convention offers options that negotiators will narrow into a final agreement. These include penalties and fines, a 2 percent tax on international financial-market transactions, a global carbon tax from which “the LDCs [Less Developed Countries] shall be exempt,” “an international adaptation levy on airfares, except on journeys originating from or destined to LDCs,” and “mandatory contributions” of 0.5 to 1 percent of GDP. Today, this tax alone would equal $72 billion to $144 billion in brand-new, annual, compulsory U.S. foreign-aid payments.

    More maddening, this tax-and-spend treaty is a costly solution to an imaginary problem. So-called “global warming” threatens Earth about as urgently as does the Loch Ness Monster. Like the Oracle at Delphi, computer models of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (essentially the Vatican of so-called “global warming”) issue frightful visions of a boiling planet in the year 2100. Too bad they so inaccurately foresaw Earth’s conditions just before 2010.

    Expressing century-long trends, the IPCC has predicted that CO2 concentrations would reach 838 parts per million in the year 2100. In fact, the Science & Public Policy Institute (S&PPI) examined actual meteorological measurements between January 2001 and September 2009 and found CO2 on a glidepath toward just 572 parts per million in the year 2100. Thus, IPCC’s computers say that by century’s end, there will be 46.5 percent more CO2 on Earth than actual climate readings indicated through last September.

    Similarly, IPCC models warned that by 2100, Earth’s temperature would increase by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, S&PPI reports, satellite and surface data between January 1980 and September 2009 point to a long-term warming tendency of just 2.7 degrees F. IPCC prophesies century-end temperatures 160 percent higher than what actual measurements reflected last September.

    Climate observations from January 2001 to September 2009 alone demonstrate a cooling trend of 1.98 degrees F by the year 2100, rather than the IPCC’s 7 degrees F of model-inspired “warming.”

    (if you can, admin- please post this jpeg graph demonstrating the globe has been cooling not warming since 2000.)

    http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/chart_murdock_120909_B.jpg

    (continued)

  12. National Review (cont)

    “Not one of the U.N.’s models had predicted the long stasis in global temperatures, which have shown no statistically significant trend since 1995 — i.e., for almost 15 years — notwithstanding continuing increases in CO2 concentration,” the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley tells me from London. The S&PPI’s Lord Monckton is a member of the House of Lords and a leading critic of the entire “global warming” charade.

    Of course, U.N. computers are no better than the data on which they dine. These data look quite dodgy considering e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which the Sunday Times of London calls “the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures.” These hacked messages show influential British climatologists and their American counterparts distorting and concealing facts that contradict their faith in so-called “global warming.” Read on:

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

    “The rest of the [CRU] databases seems [sic] to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage.”

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline” in temperatures, Prof. Philip Jones, CRU’s chief, wrote in a Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail to Prof. Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center.

    As Jones e-mailed Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

    “We need to cover our behinds on what was done here,” Mann wrote Jones on June 20, 2003.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjk3ZTRkODVjMzcwZDI0Y2ZhOTU5ZjdmN2JkZDE5NmU=&w=MA==

    much more at pg 2..

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Climategate is going viral. ABC news carried the story on it’s evening programing. This story unraveling now is perfect timing probably saving us and the planet from the thieves in charge of the WH- Hellbent on enslaving the population left standing who haven’t been victimized by job-gate and subprime-gate but are perfect prey for climate-gate, death by Global Warming Taxes.

  13. Admin: I guess Obama was in Washington when those lights appeared over Norway, huh? I can think of several scenarios for that light, but won’t discuss them here. Its pretty scary stuff, I wonder where Soros and Zbig were when this light appeared?

  14. Nobel peace prize: Norwegians incensed over Barack Obama’s

    Gwladys Fouché and Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 December 2009

    Barack Obama’s trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.

    Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

    The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

    He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

    According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable. “Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king,” said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. “This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy,” she told VG.

    The Norwegian Nobel committee, which awards the peace prize, dismissed the criticism. “We always knew that there were too many events in the programme. Obama has to govern the US and we were told early on that he could not commit to all of them,” said Geir Lundestad, secretary of the committee.

    Although Obama will not lunch with King Harald, he will see him on a visit to the royal palace.

    Peace activists opposed to the Afghanistan war are planning a 5,000-strong protest in Oslo.

    The visit will test Obama’s rhetorical skills as he seeks to reconcile acceptance of the Nobel peace prize with sending an extra 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan.

    White House officials said that Obama, who was planning to work on the final draft of his speech on his flight from Washington to Oslo, would directly address the issue of the irony of being awarded the peace prize while escalating the war.

    The Nobel peace committee has been criticised for awarding Obama the prize before he has any major accomplishments in international relations.

    A White House official said that it was not necessarily an award that Obama would have given himself.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-snub

  15. “A White House official said that it was not necessarily an award that Obama would have given himself.”

    Laughable… Well, dah- neither would we!

  16. “I guess Obama was in Washington when those lights appeared over Norway”…

    Connie- are you hinting at ufo’s?

  17. “A White House official said that it was not necessarily an award that Obama would have given himself.”
    ————————–
    Correct. He is far too humble to do anything like that. He would never claim credit for something he never did. or blame others for something he screwed up.

    But if Daddy Soros wants him to have a Nobel Prize and bought it for him then far be it from him to refuse.

  18. As for Woods, who has been battered by reports he cheated on his Swedish spouse with a bevy of busty women, it could turn his personal disaster into a marketing meltdown.;
    ——————————————————
    United Colors of Benneton will pick him up. Not to worry. They will make him a bigger celebrity than ever. It is a known fact that celebrities including celebrity presidents can do no wrong. In the eyes of big media who are with him on the trip, like the elephant caravan in a Barnum and Bailey event joined trunk to tail in a long line fascinated by his every move. And they will praise him til hell wont have it anymore.

  19. Okay, saw this as a comment on a negative Obama article, and I love it. I want a bumper sticker.

    “YES WE CAN!
    WTF DID WE DO?”

  20. Hilarious.

    The UK’s sun newspaper front page tomorrow.

    Today the UK had its pre budget report by the chancellor Alastair Darling (treasury secretary)and it was a mess a total disaster.

    The Headline is “Darling just screwed more people than Tiger Woods”

    Now whats this about New York running out of money.
    ——————————————————
    Moon–Perhaps Obamas legacy will read> “The One” has screwed more people than Tiger Woods. The strange turquoise light over Oslow is a sacred omen that The One Is Coming to Norway to save the world.

  21. Dear President Obama,

    My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

    I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

    One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man. So here goes.

    I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

    I can’t figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

    ” We’re no longer a Christian nation”
    ” America is arrogant” – (Your wife even
    announced to the world,”America is mean-
    spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching
    that nonsense to 23 generations of our
    war dead buried all over the globe who
    died for no other reason than to free a
    whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
    hopelessness.)

    I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

    After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.” Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

    I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

    Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

    Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

    And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

    One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

    You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

    You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

    And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

    Sincerely,

    Harold B. Estes

  22. fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/09/obama-fail/

    By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday December 9, 2009 10:16 am

    We just sent this email out:

    Obama FAIL
    The Senate is cutting a deal to kill the public option by giving the President the “trigger” that his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been fighting for since he took office.

    Shoveling taxpayer dollars into “too big to fail” insurance companies is not the change I voted for. The failure to establish a public option to control medical costs and increase competition is President Obama’s failure alone.

    Sign our petition to President Obama: the triggered public option is your failure, and it’s up to you to fix it. Click here to sign:

    action.firedoglake.com/page/s/obamafail

    When Barack Obama announced his health care plan in 2007, he said insurance premiums for a family of 4 would be cut by $2500. This plan will see premiums increase $1000 each year.

    Obama said “coverage without cost containment will only shift our burdens, not relieve them.” This plan does nothing to meaningfully contain spiraling health care costs.

    Obama said “it’s time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they’ll get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair.” This plan includes a deal between the White House and PhRMA that guarantees there will be no negotiation for Medicare prescription drug prices.

    Obama said he’d go after the drug companies who “sell the same exact drugs here in America for double the price of what they charge in Europe and Canada.” But the White House deal not only doesn’t do that, it bans the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada.

    What does this deal do? It forces Americans to buy the products of large corporations, then the IRS penalizes them if they refuse.

    The Senate’s triggered public option is a failure of Barack Obama. Let him know. Click here to sign our petition:

    action.firedoglake.com/obamafail

    Obama is the only one who can save the public option and make these statements more than mere campaign promises. The fight isn’t over, and we need to let Obama know that a failed public option will be his fault. Thanks for all you do.Best,

    Jane Hamsher
    Firedoglake

    ********************************
    comments are interesting…

    *********************************

    btw…MO chosen by Barbara Walters as most fascinating person of the year…oh god, please…now MO has her version of O’s Nobel Peace Prize…just what the hell has MO done to be fascinating besides expose her arms…

    …at least one designer isn’t afraid to speak the truth

    huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/designer-douglas-hannant_n_385485.html

  23. fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/09/obama-fail/

    By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday December 9, 2009 10:16 am

    We just sent this email out:

    Obama FAIL
    The Senate is cutting a deal to kill the public option by giving the President the “trigger” that his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been fighting for since he took office.

    Shoveling taxpayer dollars into “too big to fail” insurance companies is not the change I voted for. The failure to establish a public option to control medical costs and increase competition is President Obama’s failure alone.

    Sign our petition to President Obama: the triggered public option is your failure, and it’s up to you to fix it. Click here to sign:

    http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/obamafail

    When Barack Obama announced his health care plan in 2007, he said insurance premiums for a family of 4 would be cut by $2500. This plan will see premiums increase $1000 each year.

    Obama said “coverage without cost containment will only shift our burdens, not relieve them.” This plan does nothing to meaningfully contain spiraling health care costs.

    Obama said “it’s time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they’ll get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair.” This plan includes a deal between the White House and PhRMA that guarantees there will be no negotiation for Medicare prescription drug prices.

    Obama said he’d go after the drug companies who “sell the same exact drugs here in America for double the price of what they charge in Europe and Canada.” But the White House deal not only doesn’t do that, it bans the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada.

    What does this deal do? It forces Americans to buy the products of large corporations, then the IRS penalizes them if they refuse.

    The Senate’s triggered public option is a failure of Barack Obama. Let him know. Click here to sign our petition:

    action.firedoglake.com/obamafail

    Obama is the only one who can save the public option and make these statements more than mere campaign promises. The fight isn’t over, and we need to let Obama know that a failed public option will be his fault. Thanks for all you do.Best,

    Jane Hamsher
    Firedoglake

    **************************

    comments are interesting

    **********************************

    MO gets her version of ‘nobel peace prize – chosen most fascinating person of the year by Barbara Walters – for her arms…

    *************************************************************8

    oh, oh…

    Not everyone thinks Michelle Obama is the epitome of style. “Everyone compares her to Jackie O — she is not the next Jackie O,” sniped designer Douglas Hannant, who has dressed Charlize Theron, Beyoncé and Sarah Jessica Parker. Hannant took the potshot while being interviewed Monday by Tobi Rubinstein Schneier during her House of Faith & Fashion discussion at The Plaza’s Caudalie Spa. A spy said, “There were some gasps in the room.”

    Read more:

    nypost.com/p/pagesix/dissing_michelle_tPp4D6LDmCVLl8GDIriW2H#ixzz0ZGDSL5Nk

    *************

    poor guy – he was badgered to ‘amend’ his honest comments and state how he admired her and voted for her husband…how dare he suggest she is not a fashion icon of the nth degree

  24. Did anyone else have the misfortune of watching Barbara Walters 10 most fascinating people of 2009 ending with MO??? Like a car wreck, I could not help but watch as Walters, a one time pioneer in journalism, talk about her arms.

  25. MICHAEL GOODWIN: Obama’s Whoppers
    By Michael Goodwin
    – FOXNews.com

    The president’s still whining about the problems he inherited when he took office and he’s still blaming Republicans. And the American people are tuning him out at a stunning pace.

    print email share recommend (6)
    The other day, I wrote that President Obama has “run out of both charm and ideas.” I was too kind.

    To judge from the string of whoppers in his dreary jobs speech yesterday, he’s also run out of facts. And he’s still whining about the problems he inherited and blaming Republicans.

    He might as well be barking at the moon. That’s sort of what he is doing, because the American people are tuning him out at a stunning pace.

    The latest Gallup Poll gives him a record low 47 percent approval. Only 26 percent in another poll say he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Naturally, his press secretary attacks the pollsters, likening them to children with crayons.

    And Obama plunges on with his blame-game act. It’s tired, unpresidential and ineffective, all the more so because he’s banking on a bill of goods to prop himself up.

    The most egregious example came when Obama said yesterday the $700 billion bank-bailout fund, or TARP, was “launched hastily under the last administration” and was “flawed.”

    Here are the facts. George Bush was in the White House, but Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Obama himself, as a senator, voted for the bailout in October 2008.

    No one claims the bill was perfect, but there is no record –zero — of Obama trying to fix it. Remember, it was John McCain who rushed back to Washington after the first version failed and tried to get involved to reshape it.

    McCain flubbed the effort, but Obama made none. He only reluctantly joined a White House conference with McCain and Bush on the bailout after urging Congress “to step up to the plate and get this done.”

    He went on the Senate floor and said there wasn’t time to fiddle with the bill before leaving the details to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said at the time, “No one knows what to do.”

    Fortunately, there were people who knew what to do. Timothy Geithner, then chairman of the New York Federal Reserve and now Obama’s treasury secretary, was deeply involved with Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, in shaping the legislation that helped to avert a financial crash.

    That 2008 vote released half the TARP money, with a second vote coming in January 2009, a week before Obama was inaugurated. He wanted the second installment of $350 billion, and most Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, voted to give it to him.

    The record is clear: The $700 billion bailout was crafted on a bipartisan basis, with Obama’s support and encouragement, and he has controlled most of the money. For him to now claim otherwise is disgraceful.

    Of course, no Obama speech is complete without straw men bearing false choices, and yesterday’s was no exception, as this passage shows:

    “There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other. But this is a false choice.”

    It’s not a false choice, given the context of Obama’s plan to use $200 billion of the TARP money as a slush fund to help small businesses. That’s not the deal he made in January.

    Angry over how Paulson and Geithner used the first half, Congress set tighter restrictions on the money because it was borrowed and thus added to the deficit. The intent was to repay it as soon as possible, not to turn it into a revolving pot of discretionary spending for the White House.

    Still, Obama was just getting warmed up. The earlier misleading claims were mere prelude to his Whopper of the Day: “One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility.”

    Does a single American believe that? Does he?

  26. So, then, doing the math here…

    Who owns Golf Digest? And why was Obama on the front of that? I mean, has a president ever done a cover like Golf Digest before? It seems pretty odd….

  27. Hillary Clinton wins, Kennedy family loses in Massachusetts primary

    Is this end of Kennedy family dominance of state politics?

    By NIALL O”DOWD

    Hillary Clinton is the big winner in Massachusetts, and the Kennedy family has lost out.

    That’s the lesson of the state’s Democratic primary to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, which was won by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

    Remarkably, after a half-century of being at the very center of Massachusetts politics, the Kennedys could not even hand the Democratic nomination for Teddy’s United States Senate seat to someone they supported.

    Well-placed political sources say the public shouldn’t be fooled by the “fake” endorsements by the Kennedys of Coakley in coming days. “They can’t stand her,” said one.

    Coakley began running for the seat when Kennedy was still in the early stages of his fight against brain cancer. “That went down like a fart in an elevator with the Kennedy family,” said the source.

    Coakley also supported Clinton for President even when Kennedy and his family swung behind Obama in the 2008 race — something the Kennedys will never forgive her for.

    The Kennedys wanted Rep. Michael Capuano to win — he was by far their preferred candidate and had waited before declaring his candidacy. Coakley trounced him, and she will easily win the seat. Her Republican opponent is considered an opponent in name only.

    Did the magic “Kennedy name” in Massachusetts politics end just like that? And perhaps forever?

    “Somewhere, the Clintons are smiling,” said another IrishCentral source.

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Hillary-Clinton-wins-Kennedy-family-loses-in-Massachusetts-primary-78917517.html

  28. December 09, 2009

    Republicans Accuse White House of Sitting on Fort Hood Review

    By Judson Berger

    The White House has been sitting on a preliminary review of the Fort Hood shooting since the end of November and refuses to share its contents with Congress, House Republicans say.

    Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have been pressing the Obama administration to either provide a copy of the review or brief them on it, arguing that it’s important for relevant members to be in the loop as the review goes forward.

    “They’re stonewalling us. They won’t give us anything,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, told FoxNews.com. “They have just refused to brief Congress any further on this whole matter. … It doesn’t make sense to me.”

    The National Security Council last month took control over informational briefings on the Nov. 5 shooting rampage, which left 13 dead and dozens wounded at the Texas base. The preliminary report from intelligence agencies was due at the end of November.

    A White House spokesman said in an e-mail Wednesday that the reason members of Congress have not been briefed on the report is because, “We’re reviewing it.”

    But Thornberry said the White House is obligated to share the information it has. He cited the National Security Act of 1947. He said he doesn’t know whether the contents of the report have had any bearing on the administration’s reluctance to part with it.

    “I don’t know if they don’t like the information, (if it’s) inconsistent with some sort of agenda or they’re just trying to keep a real tight hold and control it completely,” he said.

    Debate has raged in Washington over whether law enforcement and intelligence circles missed obvious warning signs from Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and over whether the attack should be considered an act of Islamic terrorism. A task force overseen by the FBI learned last year of Hasan’s repeated contact with a radical cleric in Yemen.

    Amid the furor, the White House has urged Congress to hold off on its own investigations until the proper authorities complete their reviews. President Obama in November asked lawmakers resist the urge to turn a “tragic event” into “political theater.”

    But Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., ranking Republican on the intelligence committee, has led the charge to make sure lawmakers are at least in the loop. In a Dec. 3 letter, he wrote Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair complaining that he has not yet received a briefing even though the report has been handed in.

    Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware said Blair has indicated his willingness to cooperate, but that the White House seems to be “blocking” the report.

    “We don’t know why,” Ware said. “The goal here ultimately has to be preventing a recurrence of this.”

    Hasan was charged in the killings last month.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/republicans-accuse-white-house-sitting-fort-hood-review/

  29. Tiger Woods And Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate And Climategate And Faith Based Science And Hillary Clinton’s Victory in New Hampshire Part 1.
    —–
    What an incredible tease!!!
    And Part 1 does not disappoint….

  30. Yes, I saw the Barbar Walters stuff start, and ran to turn off the TV. I felt the same, what has she done. There are plenty of people out there that have done SOMETHING.

    AOL is commenting on the bad polls, but never ceasing to put in, when the GOP is in bad shape also. It reminds me of how some people cannot handle criticism without saying that everyone else is in the same shape. It is call the inability to admit trouble and failure. Those people then never think they have to change. After all it could not be them.

    Fine articles on the blog about how OO is now trying to blame actions he was involved in on the Bush administration. Of course it validates the above.

    Reward for nothing and never accepting the blame for your actions results in FAILURE. Unfortunately for us this is what our nation is facing, as this person leads the nation.

  31. Megan McArdle over on hotair (yeah, I know, uber-conservative) expresses well my concerns on the whole Cimategate thing:

    Megan McArdle

    Climategate: What if the data wasn’t faked — but ended up wrong anyway?

    That is the actual worrying question about CRU, and GISS, and the other scientists working on paleoclimate reconstruction: that they may all be calibrating their findings to each other. That when you get a number that looks like CRU, you don’t look so hard to figure out whether it’s incorrect as you do when you get a number that doesn’t look like CRU–and maybe you adjust the numbers you have to look more like the other “known” datasets. There is always a way to find what you’re expecting to find if you look hard enough.

    There are other issues: selection bias in the grant process, papers with large results being much more likely to be published than papers with equivocal results, professors preferring students who agree with them, and so forth. I doubt that could amount to faking the entire thing. But it could amplify the magnitude.

    That’s why this sort of thing is so worrying…

    That’s the problem. It’s not that I think that EVERY scientist working on AGW is dishonest and has an agenda. That’s silly. It’s that if significant data was corrupted, and then these later scientists USED that data in all good faith, then how many study results have been corrupted? Some of them? Many of them? Almost all of them?

    And from a commenter there:

    It seems pretty clear by now that the statistical practice in paleoclimate reconstruction in particular hasn’t been up to snuff.

    Time to trace every data set and every parameter value back to original sources (code and raw data, not value-added data). I do federally funded research and I have to do that, why don’t climate researchers?

    All of this should have been transparent from the beginning.

    DrSteve on December 10, 2009 at 8:11 AM

    I agree with this DrSteve. Rather than shovel over and poo-poo this, everyone needs to back it up all the way to the original data sets, and start weeding out the false, then re-do all the studies with uncorrupted data.

  32. Another comment from DrSteve:

    I had to justify seasonal adjustments in econometrics papers when I was 19. I had to comment all my code. I got used to it pretty quickly. I always assumed I would have to explain everything. I’ve kept every dataset for every study I ever published or sold to a client.

    The day the Lancet body count study came out a couple of years ago, I asked the corresponding author for the data and code. He refused to even give me his “do” files (so I could check to see he’d used all the right option settings in his function calls). How’d that turn out?

    And I can’t believe the AGW people (the Lancet people did this, too) saying “we don’t want to give our data to people with the wrong politics, they’re just trying to tear our results down” — I’ve got news for you Skippy, the scientific method is trying to tear your results down. Good statistical practice is trying to tear your results down — the null is that you’re wrong, remember? That’s the way the damned process works.

    If you’re a scientist and you aren’t willing to show everything to all comers, people are entitled to strong suspicions.

    DrSteve on December 10, 2009 at 8:55 AM

  33. Dream on…

    —————–
    Obama says success may silence Nobel critics

    By Ross Colvin and Wojciech Moskwa, Reuters
    December 10, 2009

    OSLO – U.S. President Barack Obama acknowledged criticism of his Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday but said he hoped it would subside if he succeeded in his goals, including cutting nuclear weapons and tackling climate change. Speaking in Norway before collecting the prize, Obama also reaffirmed U.S. troops would begin transferring responsibility for Afghan security to local forces in July 2011 but said there would be no “precipitous drawdown”.

    Obama will accept the prize just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to break the momentum of the Taliban. The escalation of the war effort there, and Obama’s failure to achieve breakthroughs on other key priorities such as Middle East peace, have fuelled criticism that the award is premature. “I have no doubt that there are others that may be more deserving. My task here is to continue on the path that I believe is not only important for America but important for lasting peace in the world,” Obama said in response to a journalist’s question on how he planned to use the accolade to advance his goals.

    He said that meant pursuing a world free of nuclear weapons and countering proliferation; addressing climate change; stabilizing countries like Afghanistan; “mobilizing an international effort to deal with terrorism that is consistent with our values and ideals”; and addressing development issues. Some of these initiatives were beginning to bear fruit, Obama told a joint news conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.

    “FORCE FOR GOOD”

    “The goal is not to win a popularity contest or to win an award . . . The goal has been to advance American interests, to strengthen our economy at home and to make ourselves a continuing force for good in the world,” he said. “If I am successful in those tasks, then hopefully some of the criticism will subside, but that is not really my concern. If I am not successful, than all the praise and awards in the world will not disguise that.”

    Responding to another question, Obama said July 2011 would signal a shift in the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, when “we are beginning to transfer responsibility to the Afghan people”. But he said the pace of the transfer of authority and “the slope of the drawdown” of troops would depend on conditions. “It is very important to understand we are not going to see some sharp cliff, some precipitous drawdown,” Obama said.

    “NOW EARN IT”

    Stoltenberg told journalists the prize was well deserved and “can contribute in itself to strengthening the efforts of the president to work for peace”.

    On a rainy day with temperatures just above freezing, thousands lined heavily guarded Oslo streets to greet Obama, the first U.S. president to visit Norway since Bill Clinton in 1999. Only handfuls of protesters were visible, with one group holding a sign reading: “Obama you won it, now earn it.” Environmentalists in the crowd called on the U.S. leader to sign an ambitious deal to fight global warming when he visits nearby Copenhagen next week for the climax of a UN climate conference involving nearly 200 countries.

    Obama was due to deliver his acceptance speech at 1200 GMT.
    He is the third sitting U.S. president, after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, to win the prize. Jimmy Carter was honoured two decades after he left office. Other prominent Nobel peace laureates include Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Teresa.

    Some polls show that while many Americans are proud Obama is receiving the award, a majority feel it is undeserved. Americans remain anxious about the economy, nudging Obama’s approval ratings down to 50 per cent or below and potentially hurting his Democratic Party in congressional elections next year. Many people were stunned, including some in the White House, when the Nobel committee announced in October it was awarding the peace prize to Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Obama+says+success+silence+Nobel+critics/2323042/story.html

  34. H4T:

    If you read the article published by The National Review, it has the most comprehensive up to date data of the scandal. The article is posted at:

    Mrs. Smith
    December 9th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Also, the most damning information is in the video posted at 4:01 am today. The point is, Big Media has not been calling for an investigation of the climate report when it was first announced long before the Climate Summit was to take place. They pretty much have given the Climate report a free pass promoting their scientific results as a given.

    Just about every article posted today and over the past few days points to the scientists recalibrating or omitting results unfavorable to their predetermined conclusions. Apparently, they were commissioned to prove humans are the cause of Global Warming and thereby obligated to fix it.

    The larger issue coming after the treaty agreement was to be signed in Copenhagen is the levying of a Carbon Tax on US citizens, draining our Treasury, sending billions of US dollars to Third World Countries for years to come, the Cap and Trade Agreement on polluters which is a windfall to brokers (enriching only themselves) who will be buying Carbon Credits at auction and reselling them to polluters, and the fact the US government will be giving Free Carbon Credits to the biggest polluters on the planet.

    Since the Climategate scandal broke on or about Nov 29 information has been pouring out of the woodwork from all corners of the world. The Treaty agreement Obama was scheduled to sign in Copenhagen includes turning over our sovereignty as an independent nation to a newly formed NWO government where we are subject to their rules and regulations rendering our Constitution toothless and irrelevant. Experts have just recently gotten their hands on the final draft of the Treaty Obama is/was to sign in Copenhagen. When a link becomes available, I will post it here.

    You can also go here for a thumbnail explanation extrapolating how the “Cap and Trade” scam works. The Cap and Trade scam was devised by the same people that gave us the Sub-prime/Mortgage Crisis.

    http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

  35. I’m suggesting reading The National Review article because it contains a good overview of what is in the 181 page framework of the Climate agreement here if you want to slog through it page by page…

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

    “The draft Copenhagen Framework Convention on Climate Change establishes an international oversight body simply called “the government.” As the Convention draft states: “The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference of the Parties],” which will execute “public policies . . . to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate.”

    “Like most big-government schemes, the Copenhagen Convention unleashes new agencies, panels, and other bureaucracies bearing such acronyms as EBFTA, TPRDA, TPRDM, and UNFCCC. The treaty even invokes “the NAMAs and the NAPAs” — sadly, not a reference to a nearly homonymous ’60s pop group. The Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Mitigation (EBFTM) pursues this riveting mission: “To organize, coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the implementation of the comprehensive framework for mitigation, including the enabling means of financing, technology, and capacity-building.”

  36. This may be in the ‘must read’ category for those interested in Climategate

    A fascinating article on natural cycles in climate change.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/#more-13939

    Don’t be tricked by the title. The article illustrates long term fluctuations in temperature and puts today’s ‘hockey stick’ into fascinating perspective. The bottom line: we are living in the latest of a long string of interglacial periods and the fluctuations both over tiny, short, medium, and long to very long term are part of a ‘natural’ cycle that has occured numerous times before.

    It reads like a breath off cool ice in the current hysteria

  37. Hillary Clinton: Obama’s foreign-policy hawk

    Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe in engagement with foreign adversaries, but Secretary Clinton believes in engaging from a position of strength.

    By John Hughes

    She’s smart. She speaks her mind. A lot of people love her and think she should be president. Sarah Palin? No, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Secretary of State Clinton, Washington’s No. 1 diplomatic salesperson, is fast becoming the foreign-policy hawk in a Democratic administration, while President Obama seems to be slow moving. Both believe in engagement with foreign adversaries, but Clinton believes in engaging from a position of strength. By contrast, Mr. Obama is now being faulted for engaging from a platform of weakness, if not appeasement.

    Clinton seems to be replicating as secretary of State the technique she employed when she became a senator. During her first months in the Senate, she maintained a low profile, taking the measure of her colleagues and learning the ways of that historic chamber before becoming a major player. Similarly at State, she has spent quiet months learning the contents of her briefing books and summing up the foreign players before asserting herself as a cabinet heavy.

    The 3 a.m. crisis call

    This was the woman who during the presidential campaign dismissed Obama as being too inexperienced to take a 3 a.m. crisis call. Yet as a cabinet member she has projected loyalty to the president and his declared policies, while exuding firmness in their support and application. Thus on her first Asian foray, she sharply warned North Korea to mend its nuclear ways, publicly confronted Pakistani officials for harboring terrorists, and publicly endorsed Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, while privately cautioning him to shape up.

    Unkind critics declared the Chinese set piece of Obama’s Asian trip a near diplomatic disaster. The hallowed wisdom of summitry is that you do not let the president embark upon such an odyssey without the final decisions agreed upon, the protocol set, the farewell communiqués written well in advance. But on the Obama trip there were no breakthroughs to trumpet, the Chinese orchestrated press conferences without questions, obliged the US president to tiptoe around human rights issues like Tibet, and rigged a public “town hall” meeting not with ordinary folk, but selected young communists.

    Meanwhile, the president has been snubbed by Israel, ignored by North Korea, charged with dithering on the length of time he took to decide on his commander’s request for more troops for Afghanistan, dallying on his overly optimistic promise to close down Guantánamo, and has been stiffed by Iran announcing a plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants. The Chinese seem surprised by the Iranian announcement, as do the Russians, but while Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has suggested in the past that he might go along with US-urged sanctions against Iran, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has suggested he would not. No doubt it will emerge in time who is really running Russia.

    By all accounts, Clinton was key, along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in urging the president to take a strong stand on more troops for Afghanistan. On the other side of the argument was Vice President Joe Biden, who in retrospect may be ruing the decision he took – according to his wife, and despite his recognized expertise in foreign affairs – to choose the vice-presidential, rather than the State Department slot in the Obama administration.

    The current take on the president seems to be that despite his soaring eloquence and charm lauded in many lands, he is perceived abroad to be lacking decisiveness, and lacking political traction at home on such issues as healthcare reform.

    What’s behind her smile?

    According to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, Obama, at a recent cabinet meeting, singled out Clinton for special gratitude among officials “who have been traveling around the globe for us day in and day out and don’t know what time zone they’re in.”

    The secretary of State, with a china cup and saucer in front of her, just smiled.

    She has been at the diplomacy business now long enough to know that successful diplomats are splendidly adept at concealing their reactions and emotions under all circumstances.

    I do wonder what emotion was concealed by that little smile.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1210/p09s02-coop.html

  38. hmmm…well I have tried to post this favorable Hillary article 3 times and it won’t save, so here is the title and link for anyone interested in reading…

    ————-
    Hillary Clinton: Obama’s foreign-policy hawk

    Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe in engagement with foreign adversaries, but Secretary Clinton believes in engaging from a position of strength.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1210/p09s02-coop.html

  39. What a difference Hillary would have made if she was accepting the N
    obel Prize instead of the “Bait and Switch Salami”.He is Teleprompter addicted and just can’t stop making excuses and blaming others for his lousy performances on every subject.When Soros and Axlerod think their irons are hot,BO will dumped and Soros will name a new leader for his new world order.The biggest threat they have to their evil coupe is Hillary Rodham Clinton.Her schedule for today includes a new Award for her from her favorite role model.Read the att. and be proud and thankful that she will be the next president of the United States.

    ====================================================================

    Daily Appointments Schedule for December 10, 2009

    Washington, DC

    December 10, 2009

    ——————————————————————————–

    SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON:

    10:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with His Excellency Gordan Jandrokovic, Foreign Minister of Croatia, at the Department of State.
    (PRESS AVAILIBILITY FOLLOWING BILATERAL MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 11:05 A.M.)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 10:15 a.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 10:45 a.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance.

    1:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton receives the Eleanor Roosevelt Lifetime Achievement Award in Human Rights for her Steadfast Leadership and Devotion To Women’s Rights as Human Rights, via Videoconference from the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE – A TRANSCRIPT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOLLOWING THE VIDEOCONFERENCE)

    2:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts the 2009 Department of State Retirement Ceremony, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    THE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 1:00 P.M.

    ###

  40. Kay, that was a good article, and the comments were interesting. I was talking with some teenagers the other day about the whole Greenland/Viking thing. Predictably, they are not being taught about this in schools in the last decade.

    Greenland was WARM. There are vikings buried in permafrost, which is impossible if the permafrost existed at the time of burial. They grew warm-weather crops, kept livestock, etc – again, ALL impossible if Greenland was not much, MUCH warmer than now.

    How does that jibe with the “we are warmer now than we have ever been” scenario?

  41. I just heard on Fox news that those lights over Norway was a ballistic missile that Russia fired over Copenhaugen while the “One” was there accepting his Nobel Prize for doing nothing except being black and speaking of peace.
    Apparently this missile was a failure, I personally think it was a success because it must of meant to those folks who feel they own the World that Russia was not going to play their game.

    I love it, Putin has some balls to fire that missile over Bambi’s head. LOL!!

  42. Thanks Kay for the link to an article reinforcing the notion humans are NOT responsible for Global Warming. This is just the first phase of what the Copenhagen summit is all about. The final lines in your article say this of which I wholeheartedly concur:

    “For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.”

    Then the question begs…. why were the climatoligists commissioned to blame CO2 emmissions from humans as the primary reason for Global Warming? What did they have to gain by lying to us?

  43. Mrs. Smith, I plan to read the National Review article. I’m in a place of skeptical doubt right now, which is IMO the correct place to be. I haven’t decided AGW does not exist, but I no longer believe it definitively does. How can I make a decision, if the data put forth upon which to make that decision is massaged and fudged and bent to a political agenda (whether that agenda is from the oil companies, or from those who stand to profit from Cap n Trade, etc)? There is BIG money involved on BOTH sides of this, and that sets off my bullshit detector every time.

    The science has been so compromised at this point that any sane person, no matter which way one leans, should be in favor of backing up the debate, getting some very TRANSPARENT research done, and seeing what the results are. I also think that ALL the evidence (i.e archaeological digs, etc) needs to be factored into the public discussion, not just temperature readings done by a very narrowly focused group called climatologists.

  44. I completely agree with this from the NR article (emphasis mine):

    CRU still wants scientists to trust its conclusions — on which even more climatology is based — although it now admits that during an office move, it discarded computer tapes and paper records containing years of original weather-station observations. This is like telling an IRS auditor, “Just read my tax return; I chucked my receipts.” Proper science relies on generating reproducible results. Since these climate data now likely are locked in a landfill, CRU’s results are, by definition, irreproducible. This means, ipso facto, they are non-scientific.

  45. HillaryforTexas
    December 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    The Climate Warming Issue is a complex quasi-issue with many questions needing solid answers.

    1.) Are humans responsible for climate warming via CO2 emissions?

    2.) If it is warming or cooling is this due to cyclical patterns natural to the earth’s climatology?

    3.) Climate warming or cooling has not yet reached a point of reliable consensus. So why would data reflecting cooling temperatures be removed from the compiling of overall data for a final conclusion?

    This discussion is just for openers. Depending on which side of the argument you fall on.. then the larger issues can be discussed.

  46. HillaryforTexas
    December 10th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    I completely agree with this from the NR article (emphasis mine):

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I’ve been voraciously reading everything I can get my hands on sticking with reliable news sources having information contrary to the current scientific consensus. Like you, I was intrigued by the fact, why scientists would throw info away or recalibrate it if it can’t stand on it’s own in the final analysis?

    The NR article is by far the best assessment (imo) for the time being of the newest information available to us on the web.

  47. Mrs. Smith, there are times when doing statistical analysis, computer models, etc, that it is acceptable to tweak or “level out” or average or “remove noise” from data. This is the defense some are using for the “Nature trick” and “hide the decline” comments.

    Okay, that’s all fine and good. BUT, if one does that, you keep the original data, and you SHOW YOUR WORK, and give a cogent explanation why the “tweaking” was done, and how it was done, and what method or code was applied, and to what degree.

    They didn’t do that. They not only adamantly refused to do that, they destroyed the original data so that their altered data was the only data in existence. So now it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove whether what they did was a legitimate “cleaning up” of data, or something else.

    It’s like if someone (let’s say the FBI) “enhances” a photo, claiming they just wanted to make the resolution better, and then THROWS AWAY THE ORIGINAL. There is no way to go back and tell if they merely (and perhaps legitimately) “enhanced” it, or if they photo-shopped the hell out of it in a way that is a far cry from the original. You are never going to know. That photo would not be admissible in court as evidence of a damn thing. Not without the original to compare it to.

  48. asks, am I the only one who finds it very suspicious that Mark Penn received almost 6 million dollars in the stimulus package? I see a possible connection with Mark Penn sabotaging (with Solis’ help) Hillary’s campaign effort; and now he gets paid a ridiculous amount for making analog-to-digital ads that were unnecessary – and the payment is made by Hillary’s opponent. Am I crazy???

  49. ShortTermer, you are not crazy. The betrayers of the Clintons that crawled out of the woodwork in 2008 were numerous, and not easily explainable by mere politics. I firmly believe that much of it was planned FAR in advance – deals cut and orders given to continue to feign support for Hillary until they were called upon. They wanted to blindside Hill and Bill WITHOUT giving them time to prepare for or respond to it.

    And BTW, if you have read Palin’s book, as I have, you may come to believe that the same was done to her and McCain. Some very fishy and inexplicable actions were taken and decisions made by a few top advisors that reeked to high heaven of deliberate sabotage of the McCain campaign. Same with Hill.

    I said from the beginning that Obama was not the problem, the shadows behind Obama were the problem. And I firmly believe that those shadow players, whoever they may be, planned a LONG TIME AGO to tank Hillary, tank McCain if he won (and likely had plans in place for other GOP contenders), and get Obama in the White house no matter what. And they wanted him in there surrounded by the radical America-haters that THEY chose.

    I don’t believe that Obama is very smart (as opposed to educated), or has a grand radical plan. I think that he’s a useful fool, easily controlled by the strings of his ego and overweening self-interest. They needed someone with no moral underpinnings, no compass, Obama is not even aware of the master plan here – not in any concrete way. He’s just in it for Obama, for his own grandiose vision of himself, and that’s just the way the shadow players want it.

  50. H4T:

    Highly recommend this material for reading.

    wbb and confloyd did extensive research on Obama’s shadow puppetmaster. It was published here in case you missed it.

    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/blockbuster-obama%e2%80%99s-godfather/

    After reading the motives described in great analytical detail behind Obama’s stealing the nomination away from Hillary, the reasons behind the theft becomes crystal clear.

    There are 12 Chapters to the piece.. good reading..

  51. ShortTermer
    December 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    ———–
    So maybe the repubs asking for an audit of the stimulus isn’t such a bad idea. I bet bambi and his handlers are scared shitless. Then again they are so full of themselves they never think anyone is smart or brave enough to investigate their corruptions.

  52. Controversial EPA Ruling Linked to ‘Climategate’ E-mails

    Obama is trying to get legislation through that will basically ram through the recommended guidelines imposed at the Copenhagen Summit on “Cap and Trade” regulated here.

    Wednesday, December 9, 2009

    By: David A. Patten

    Republicans and conservative think tanks are calling for the Obama administration to revoke its declaration that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant subject to EPA regulation on the grounds that the EPA’s primary source of information for the finding was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    An important source of data for the IPCC was the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, the source of the highly controversial “climategate” e-mails. IPCC officials deny that their data on climate change is in any way biased.

    Newsmax has verified 34 references to IPCC information in the EPA’s 25-page “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases,” which was published in the April 24 edition of the Federal Register (pages 18886-18910).

    This is the document the EPA used to support its preliminary finding, which in turn provided the underpinning for the endangerment finding issued on Monday.

    Climate Research United Director Phil Jones has stated that he regrets sending some of the e-mails. He has stepped down pending an investigation.

    The e-mails, which were hacked and posted anonymously on the Internet, suggest that climate scientists may have presented data selectively to strengthen the case for global warming. One e-mail referred to a desire to “beat the crap” out of a climate-change skeptic. Another termed the lack of recent warming a “travesty.” And another discussed using a “trick” to “hide the decline.”

    Jones has said he wrote the e-mails hastily but did not manipulate data.

    The EPA’s ruling that it is authorized under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, a byproduct given off whenever a hydrocarbon fuel is burned, is based on a “technical support document,” or TSD.

    “The TSD therefore relies most heavily on the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program,” according to the EPA’s finding.

    An earlier version of the support document relied even more on IPCC data, according to the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding.

    That version was criticized, however, for not having enough recent U.S. data, so the EPA added in reports from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. There are 11 references to the that program in the proposed endangerment finding.

    The finding also states: “Even with more recent information available, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report remains a standard reference, essentially serving as the benchmark against which new findings over the next few years will be compared. Therefore it also serves as a robust and valuable reference for purposes of this proposal.”

    News that the EPA admittedly relied “most heavily” on “robust and valuable” information from an organization that may be caught up in climategate triggered calls Wednesday for the administration to withdraw the endangerment finding altogether.

    The Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank issued a news release Monday stating it is filing a lawsuit to block the finding because “EPA has ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal.”

    Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told Newsmax Wednesday afternoon that, considering the EPA’s heavy reliance on IPCC information, President Obama should reconsider it.

    “This revelation is precisely the reason that Congress should reassert its authority in this matter,” Blackburn stated in an e-mail to Newsmax. “The chief executive is using suspect findings to push forward job-killing regulations on American industry rather than waiting on Congress to assess the science and mitigate the extraordinary economic damage these regulations will do.

    “This is for the benefit of politicians in Copenhagen, not working men and women in the United States,” Blackburn said. “The president should revisit the EPA’s finding as well as his approach to climate change.”

    Blackburn is the sponsor of H.R. 391, a proposed bill that would prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act.

    Ben Lieberman, a Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst on energy and the environment, voiced similar concerns. “It makes eminently good sense to take a time out on the policy, and not agree to anything, until we get to the bottom of climategate, until we find out which science we can trust and which science we can’t trust,” he told Newsmax. “I think rushing ahead [with the EPA endangerment finding] is irresponsible.”

    The EPA declaration allows the administration to bypass Congress as it establishes environmental regulations that could raise consumer costs sharply — all without the normal checks and balances of congressional advice and consent.

    During President Obama’s visit to China last month, he stated that he seeks a climate-change accord in Copenhagen that would have “immediately operational effect.” The advice-and-consent process for major treaties in the Senate is notoriously drawn out.

    The president has stated that he would prefer to receive comprehensive emission-control legislation from Congress. One drawback to using the EPA rule-making authority granted by the Clean Air Act to restrict emissions is that it tends to be piecemeal. Each EPA ruling is likely to encounter legal challenges from well-heeled business groups fighting to remain competitive in a difficult economy.

    The administration has sent clear signals it is willing to act without congressional approval, however. In late September, it unilaterally announced proposed rules requiring about 400 power plants — those that are new or undergoing extensive renovation — to prove that they use the best available technology for reducing emissions. Plants that fail to comply would face significant penalties.

    “We are not going to continue with business as usual,” Jackson warned when the new rules were unveiled.

    During an interview Monday with NPR’s Gwen Ifill, Jackson portrayed the IPCC data as just one of many sources, rather than the primary source upon which the agency’s conclusions were based.

    “One thing I like to remind people is that the e-mails talk about one set of data and how it is interpreted out of dozens of sets of data,” Jackson told Ifill. “And those sets of data have been used by hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientists around the world to reach all kinds of conclusions.

    “So, there’s nothing in that — those particular e-mails that change the underlying data. That was the essential question that we constantly asked ourselves during the development of this finding, and not just about these e-mails, but all along,” she said.

    The administration has stated that its issuance of the endangerment finding, which it timed for release as the global conference on climate change was getting underway in Copenhagen, responds to a 2007 Supreme Court mandate requiring the federal government to determine whether greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

    Section 202 of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA administrator to impose standards on any emissions that ” may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

    Unlike the controversial Kyoto accords that stalled in the U.S. Senate, however, regulations the EPA hands down under the Clean Air Act are not subject to congressional advice-and-consent.

    When Jackson was asked during Monday’s news conference why she didn’t accede to GOP requests to put off the EPA finding until the climategate e-mails could be investigated, she replied: “I didn’t delay it because there is nothing in the hacked e-mails that undermine the science upon which this decision was made,” adding, “This issue has not raised new scientific questions that are not addressed already in this finding.”

    Jackson did not mention, however, that the leading source upon which its finding was based was the IPCC.

    The Heritage Foundation’s Lieberman said any EPA rulings could be tied up in court for years. But voters have good reason to be worried over the administration’s intentions, he said.

    “They will do as much as they can, however they can, until they’re stopped,” Lieberman told Newsmax of the administration’s emissions policies, which many conservatives view as essentially an indirect tax on energy consumption.

    The Heritage Foundation has estimated that achieving Obama’s goals would cost a household of four nearly $3,000 a year in overall costs, largely because businesses will pass along increased costs to consumers. Reaching Obama’s objectives would cost the nation 1 million jobs and a whopping $9.4 trillion in lost productivity by 2035, Lieberman estimates.

    Much of the sturm and drang over the administration’s authority to impose stringent new emission regulations stems from the still-troubled economy. Washington Post columnist George F. Will wrote this week that Obama’s promise to cut emissions by 83 percent by 2050 would mean rolling levels back to circa 1910, “when there were 92 million Americans.”

    Will added: “But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.”

    http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/epa_ruling_climate_emails/2009/12/09/296740.html

  53. I have been reading the climate gate posts with dismay for several days. Apart from an important effect on any climate treaty, pollution is still ba for people, animals and the planet.

    Whatever the final outcome as to the science of how much of global warming is “natural” and how much caused by humans, polution must still be curtailed and eventually eliminated in order to keep our planet healthy and beautiful.

  54. Carol
    December 10th, 2009

    I believe we are all in agreement caring for our planet with the deepest respect and protecting our environment from pollution is of the utmost importance. However, there are people involved in the decision making process that are willing to pervert the process for not only their personal financial gain but relieving us of the protections afforded us of our Constitutional Rights and our country’s sovereignty in their drive for greed. This is the basic gripe all of us have who have been following this drama from day to day watching what is being done not only protecting our environmental concerns but seeing to it we are not hoodwinked into regulations, treatys and Taxes that will forever affect our way of life.

  55. asks, am I the only one who finds it very suspicious that Mark Penn received almost 6 million dollars in the stimulus package? I see a possible connection with Mark Penn sabotaging (with Solis’ help) Hillary’s campaign effort; and now he gets paid a ridiculous amount for making analog-to-digital ads that were unnecessary – and the payment is made by Hillary’s opponent. Am I crazy???
    ————————————————–
    You are not the only one. Here is what one writer opined:

    INSIDE THE PEOPLE POWER COUP: MARK PENN’S DIVIDED LOYALTIES
    The serious weakness of the Hillary Clinton campaign was its adoption of a rhetorical profile suitable at best to a presidential general election in calm times. Instead, in 2007-2008 Hillary was attempting to win over radicalized antiwar Democratic primary voters in the midst of a Big Change or party re-alignment election along the lines of 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968. On the surface it might have been argued that this was because no member of the Clinton inner circle had fought a contested primary since 1992, ages ago in political terms. But it appears increasingly that this confusion between general and primary voting was willful, the result of a hidden agenda on the part of Brzezinski’s man Mark Penn.

    On January 3, 2007 Robert Novak wrote in the Washington Post that Mark Penn had been guilty of “premature triangulation,” advising Mrs. Clinton to pose (in the Dick Morris tradition) as a third force halfway between the leftists and right-wingers long before it was the suitable time to do so. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly exposed the warmongering nature of her campaign, leaving little doubt that she would keep at least 75,000 US troops in Iraq during her entire presidency, as she told the New York Times last March, and that she would act as an eager cheerleader for an attack on Iran, which had almost occurred with the new staged Gulf of Tonkin incident near Hormuz on the Saturday night before the voting in New Hampshire. Before the caucuses, published Iowa polls were showing that Obama and Edwards were pulling ahead of Mrs. Clinton. Novak gloated that this was “white knuckle time” for the New York senator, and threatened her with the specter of Howard Dean’s debacle in Iowa in 2004.
    Mark Penn purported in public not to believe the last-minute polls which showed Mrs. Clinton losing. According to one blogger, “based on everything I’ve heard and read, Penn genuinely didn’t believe the Des Moines Register poll showing Obama up big prior to the caucuses.” (Noam Scheiber, “Can Someone Explain Mark Penn To Me?”) According to other sources, Mark Penn was telling Mrs. Clinton that his own private internal campaign polls were showing her on the way to victory. The guess here is that Penn knew better, but was stringing Hillary along, counting on the notorious tin ear that helped her to bungle her 1993-94 health care campaign. Penn’s argument was reportedly that the upbeat internal polls could not be wrong, and so the traingulation and trimming strategy that was producing them could not be wrong either. In reality, both polls and strategy were disastrous, and Zbigniew’s friend Mark Penn must have known it. Clinton lost to Obama in Iowa by 9 points, and to Edwards by 1 point. Did Penn give wretched political advice, and then cook his polls to hide the damage done to Mrs. Clinton by her right-wing posturing?
    A CYNICALLY ORCHESTRATED MEDIA SWOON FOR OBAMA

  56. wbboei, Are you telling me that Mark Penn was on the take from the Obama camp along with Solis, the traitor??? OMG, I hope they all lose asses financially or at the very least go to jail with the rest of the crooks that got Obama elected.

    Oh Barf, I am having listen to the boob get his bought and paid for nobel prize.

    Wbboei, did you get my email? I sent you two the first one I forgot to attach the article.

  57. No comments on the lights over Norway while the village idiot was there?? Beck doesn’t believe it was Russia at all. He is looking into it, maybe daddy Soros decided to side off a huge firecracker for his baby Obama.

  58. lol, Obama is running against Bush i see, 44% of the people would rather have Bush back, thats some indictment of Obama right there.

  59. I am so fed up with fox and its paid bloodhounds that are completely freezing out any awards and recognitions that are being given to her for her years of hard work for women’s rights.I sent them an e-mail that they were being unfair and unbalanced in their efforts to make her a non-person and also in manipulating our political system Chicago style.No response from the egomaniac o’realy.Hillary needs more light shown on her wonderful devotion to duties and her fight for human rights.Please all get behind her and voice your angers with
    these merchants of destructive intentios for our troubled country.

Comments are closed.