Al’s Journal: Blame it on Global Warming

As much of the country is buried beneath a record amount of ice and snow, Al Gore continues to cling to the notion that man-made global “warming” is responsible for the heavy snowfalls throughout the U.S. In jest, Bill O’Reilly told his viewers that  he was going to call Al Gore to find out why “southern New York turned into a tundra”. Apparently taking the bait, Al responded:

In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.

A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.

As a failed presidential candidate, Al is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts:

Michael Steketee, writing in The Australian in January 2011, echoed the BBC (whose journalists’ pension fund is heavily weighted towards “green” “investments”) and other climate-extremist vested interests in claiming that 2010 was the warmest year on record worldwide. Mr. Steketee’s short article makes two dozen questionable assertions, which either require heavy qualification or are downright false. His assertions will be printed in bold face: the truth will appear in Roman face.

1. BASED ON PRELIMINARY DATA TO NOVEMBER 30, SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES AROUND AUSTRALIA WERE THE WARMEST ON RECORD LAST YEAR, AS WERE THOSE FOR THE PAST DECADE.

The record only began ten decades ago. As for sea temperatures, they are less significant for analyzing “global warming” than estimated total ocean heat content. A recent paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of Rochester University, New York, has established that – contrary to various climate-extremist assertions – there has been no net accumulation of “missing energy” in the form of heat in the oceans worldwide in the six years since ocean heat content was first reliably measured by the 3000 automated ARGO bathythermographs in 2003. This finding implies that the amount of warming we can expect from even quite a large increase in CO2 concentration is far less than the IPCC and other climate-extremist groups maintain.

2. THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANISATION SAYS THE YEAR TO THE END OF OCTOBER WAS THE WARMEST SINCE INSTRUMENTAL CLIMATE RECORDS STARTED IN 1850 – 0.55 C° ABOVE THE 1961-90 AVERAGE OF 14 C°.

It is easy to cherry-pick periods of less than a calendar year and say they establish a new record. The cherry-picking of the first nine months of 2010 is particularly unacceptable, since that period was dominated by a substantial El Niño Southern Oscillation, a sudden alteration in the pattern of ocean currents worldwide that leads to warmer weather for several months all round the world. The last few months of the year, carefully excluded from Mr. Steketee’s statement, showed the beginnings of a La Niña event, which tends largely to reverse the effect of its preceding El Niño and make the world cooler. Indeed, the calendar year from January to December 2010, according to the reliable RSS and UAH satellite records, was not the warmest on record. Besides, what is important is how fast the world is warming. In fact, the rate of warming from 1975-2001, at 0.16 C° per decade, was the fastest rate to be sustained for more than a decade in the 160-year record, but exactly the same rate occurred from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, when we could not possibly have had anything to do with it. Since late 2001 there has been virtually no “global warming” at all.

3. THE LAST DECADE ALSO WAS THE WARMEST ON RECORD.

After 300 years of global warming, during nearly all of which we could not on any view have influenced the climate to a measurable degree, it is scarcely surprising that recent decades will be warmer than earlier decades. That is what one would expect. If one has been climbing up a steep hill for a long time, one should not be surprised to find oneself higher up at the end of the climb than at the beginning.

4. THE WORLD IS NOT COOLER COMPARED TO 1998.

Actually, it is cooler. There was a remarkable spike in global temperatures in 1998, caused not by manmade “global warming” but by a Great El Niño event – an alteration in the pattern of ocean currents that begins in the equatorial eastern Pacific and spreads around the globe, lasting a few months. In the first nine months of 2010 there was another substantial El Niño, but even at its peak it did not match the Great El Niño of 1998.

5. THE TRENDS HAPPEN TO FOLLOW CLOSELY THE PREDICTIONS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS OF TEMPERATURE RISES RESULTING FROM INCREASED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

In the 40 years since 1970, global temperatures have risen at a linear rate equivalent to around 1.3 C°/century. CO2 concentration is rising in a straight line at just 2 ppmv/year at present and, even if it were to accelerate to an exponential rate of increase, the corresponding temperature increase would be expected to rise merely in a straight line. On any view, 1.3 C° of further “global warming” this century would be harmless. The IPCC is predicting 3.4 C°, but since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001 global temperature has risen (taking the average of the two satellite datasets) at a rate equivalent to just 0.6 C°/century, rather less than the warming rate of the entire 20th century. In these numbers, there is nothing whatever to worry about – except the tendency of some journalists to conceal them.

6. MOST SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT DOUBLING THE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO WARMING OF 2-3 C°.

It is doubtful whether Mr. Steketee had consulted “most scientists”. Most scientists, not being climate scientists, rightly take no view on the climate debate. Most climate scientists have not studied the question of how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will cause: therefore, whatever opinion they may have is not much more valuable than that of a layman. Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling. The models predict warming in the range mentioned by Mr. Steketee, but at numerous crucial points the models are known to reflect the climate inaccurately. In particular, the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed in 50 years of measurement by balloon-mounted radiosondes, sondes dropped from high-flying aircraft, or satellites. Also, the models predict that every Celsius degree of warming should increase evaporation from the Earth’s surface by 1-3%, but the observed increase is more like 6%. From this it is simple to calculate that the IPCC has overestimated fourfold the amount of warming we can expect from adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Take away that prodigious exaggeration, demonstrated repeatedly in scientific papers but never reported by the likes of Mr. Steketee, and the climate “crisis” vanishes.

7. WARMING OF 2-3 C° RISKS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC DAMAGE.

Actually, the IPCC’s current thinking is that up to 2° of warming compared with the present would be harmless and even beneficial. Since far greater temperatures than this have been the rule on Earth for most of the past 600 million years, there is no sound scientific basis for the assumption that “significant environmental and economic damage” would result from so small an additional warming. However, significant economic damage is already resulting from the costly but pointlessly Canute-like attempts governments to try to make “global warming” go away.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS ROSE BY 27.5% FROM 1990-2009.

Since anthropogenic effects on the climate are net-zero except for CO2, we need only consider CO2 concentration, which was 353 parts per million by volume in 1990 and is 390 ppmv now, an increase not of 27.5% but of just 10.5%.

9. ARCTIC SEA ICE SHRANK TO ITS THIRD-LOWEST AREA IN THE SATELLITE RECORDS, OFFSET ONLY SLIGHTLY BY GROWTH IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE.

In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice. Indeed, when the summer extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high. The record low was widely reported; the corresponding record high was almost entirely unreported.

10. GLOBAL SNOW COVER IS FALLING, INFERENTIALLY BECAUSE OF MAN’S INFLUENCE.

In fact, a new record high for snow cover was set in the winter of 2008/2009, and there is some chance that a further record high will be set this year.

11. GLOBAL SEA LEVELS ARE RISING, INFERENTIALLY BECAUSE OF MAN’S INFLUENCE.

In fact, the rate of increase in sea level has not changed since satellites first began measuring it reliably in 1993. It is a dizzying 1 ft/century – not vastly greater than the 8 inches/century that had previously been inferred from tide-gauges. A recent paper has confirmed what marine biologists had long suspected: coral atolls simply grow to meet the light as the sea rises, and some of them have even gained land mass recently according to a just-published scientific paper. Professor Niklas Mörner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century. In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone.

12. MUNICH RE SAYS 2010 SAW THE SECOND-HIGHEST NUMBER OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES SINCE 1980, 90% OF THEM WEATHER-RELATED.

There are really only three categories of insurable natural catastrophe – meteorological, epidemiological, and seismic (volcanism, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). Except during years when major seismic disasters occur (such as the tsunami caused by an earthquake in 2000), or when major pandemics kill large numbers at an unexpected rate (and that did not happen in 2010), weather-related natural disasters always account for getting on for 90% of all such disasters. Because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object, the incidence of weather-related disasters is highly variable from year to year, and there is no good reason to attribute the major events of 2010 to manmade “global warming”.

13. THE TEMPERATURE OF 46.4 C° IN MELBOURNE ONE SATURDAY IN 2010 WAS MORE THAN 3 C° ABOVE THE PREVIOUS HIGHEST FOR FEBRUARY.

February is the height of summer in Melbourne. Since the planet has been warming for 300 years, it is not surprising to find high-temperature records being broken from time to time. However, some very spectacular cold-weather records were also broken both in early 2010, when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow for the first time since satellite monitoring began 30 years ago, and in December, which was the coldest final month of the year in central England since records began 352 years ago. However, neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”; like the heatwave of 2003 in Europe that is said to have killed 35,000 people, they are known to have been caused by an unusual pattern of what meteorologists call “blocking highs” – comparatively rare areas of stable high pressure that dislodge the jet-streams from their usual path and lock weather systems in place for days or sometimes even months at a time. No link has been established between the frequency, intensity, or duration of blocking highs and manmade “global warming”.

14. IN MOSCOW, JULY 2010 WAS MORE THAN 2 C° ABOVE THE PREVIOUS TEMPERATURE RECORD, AND TEMPERATURE ON 29 JULY WAS 38.2 C°.

And the lowest-ever temperatures have been measured in several British and US locations in the past 12 months. Cherry-picking individual extreme-weather events that point in one direction only, when there are thousands of such events that also point in another direction, is neither sound science nor sound journalism.

15. THE HEATWAVE AND FOREST FIRES IN CENTRAL RUSSIA KILLED AT LEAST 56,000, MAKING IT THE WORST NATURAL DISASTER IN RUSSIA’S HISTORY.

More cherry-picking, and the notion that the forest fires were the worst natural disaster in Russia’s history is questionable. Intense cold – such as when General January and General February defeated Corporal Hitler at the gates of Stalingrad in 1941 – has many times killed hundreds of thousands in Russia.

16. IN PAKISTAN, 1769 WERE KILLED IN THE COUNTRY’S WORST-EVER FLOODS.

In fact, the floods were not the worst ever: merely the worst since 1980. The region has long been prone to flooding, and has flooded catastrophically at infrequent intervals when a blocking high combined with unusually strong runoff of snow from the Himalayas swells the numerous rivers of the region (Punjab, or panj-aub, means “five rivers”). The flooding was not caused by manmade “global warming” but by a blocking high.

17. THE HURRICANE SEASON IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC WAS ONE OF THE MOST SEVERE IN THE LAST CENTURY.

In fact, Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University, who maintains the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, a 24-month running sum of the frequency, intensity and duration of all tropical cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes round the world, says that the index is at its least value in the past 30 years, and close to its least value in 50 years. For 150 years the number of landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has shown no trend at all: this is a long and reliable record, because one does not require complex instrumentation to know that one has been struck by a hurricane.

18. EVEN CAUTIOUS SCIENTISTS TEND TO SAY WE CAN BLAME MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.

Cautious scientists say no such thing. Even the excitable and exaggeration-prone IPCC has repeatedly stated that individual extreme-weather events cannot be attributed to manmade “global warming”, and it would be particularly incautious of any scientist to blame the blocking highs that caused nearly all of the weather-related damage in 2010 on us when these are long-established, naturally-occurring phenomena.

19. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE 20% DECLINE IN RAINFALL IN PARTS OF SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS.

Climate change began 4,567 million years ago, on that Thursday when the Earth first formed (as Prof. Plimer puts it). The question is whether manmade climate change has contributed to the drought. Interestingly, there has been very heavy rainfall in previously drought-ridden parts of southern Australia in each of the last two years. Australia has a desert climate: it is no surprise, therefore, that periods of drought – sometimes prolonged – will occur. One of the longest records of drought and flood we have is the Nilometer, dating back 5000 years. Periods of drought far more savage than anything seen in modern times were frequent occurrences, and entire regions of Egypt became uninhabitable as a result. A 20% decline in rainfall in a single region, therefore, cannot be safely attributed to anything other than the natural variability of the climate.

20. THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT “GLOBAL WARMING” MADE THE BUSH-FIRES AROUND MELBOURNE WORSE.

There is no such evidence. As the IPCC has repeatedly said, ascribing individual, local extreme-weather events to “global warming” is impermissible.

21. THERE HAS BEEN A SUCCESSION OF EXTRAORDINARY HEATWAVES, WITH BIG JUMPS IN RECORD TEMPERATURES, STARTING IN EUROPE IN 2003 AND CONTINUING ALL AROUND THE WORLD, CULMINATING IN RUSSIA LAST YEAR. MORE THAN 17 COUNTRIES BROKE THEIR MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE RECORDS IN 2010, AND “YOU REALLY HAVE TO STRAIN CREDIBILITY TO SAY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.”

The heatwave in Europe in 2003 is known to have been caused by a blocking high similar to those which gave Russia its record high temperatures in 2010 and kept the monsoon fixed over Pakistan for long enough to cause catastrophic flooding. You really have to stretch credibility to say it has anything to do with manmade “global warming”. Though that heatwave may have killed 35,000 right across Europe, a three-day cold snap in Britain the previous year had killed 21,000 just in one country. The net effect of warmer worldwide weather, therefore, is to reduce deaths, not to increase them. That is why periods such as the Holocene Climate Optimum, when temperatures were 3 C° warmer than the present for most of the time between 6000 and 8000 years ago, are called “optima”: warmer weather is better for most Earth species – including Man – than colder weather.

22. FOR 20 YEARS MORE HOT-WEATHER THAN COLD-WEATHER TEMPERATURE RECORDS HAVE BEEN SET.

This is merely another way of saying that temperatures today are generally higher than they were 20 years ago. Since there has been some warming, more hot-weather than cold-weather records have been set. Not exactly surprising, and not exactly alarming either: for the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming, particularly when the rate of warming in recent decades has been no greater than what has been seen in two previous quarter-century periods over the past 160 years.

23. EVEN IF GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS WERE TO STABILIZE AT LITTLE MORE THAN TODAY’S LEVELS, 2 C° OF FURTHER WARMING WILL OCCUR – FOUR TIMES THE INCREASE OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS.

This value of 2 C° – like too many others in this regrettably fictitious article – appears to have been plucked out of thin air. Let us do the math. We can ignore all Man’s influences on the climate except CO2 because, up to now, they have been self-canceling, as the table of “radiative forcings” in the IPCC’s most recent quinquennial Assessment Report shows. In 1750, before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 was 278 ppmv. Now it is 390 ppmv. Taking the multi-model mean central estimate from Box 10.2 on p.798 of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, plus or minus one standard deviation, we can derive the following simple equation for the total amount of warming to be expected in 1000 years’ time, when the climate has fully settled to equilibrium after the perturbation that our carbon emissions to date are thought to have caused:

ΔTequ = (4.7 ± 1) ln(390/278) F°

Let us generously go one standard deviation above the central estimate: thus, a high-end estimate of the total equilibrium warming the IPCC would expect as a result of our CO2 emissions since 1750 is 5.7 times the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration in the 260-year period: i.e. 1.9 C°. Even this total since 1750 to the present is below the 2 C° Mr. Setekee says is lurking in the pipeline.

Now, to pretend that manmade “global warming” is a problem as big as the IPCC says it is, and that there will be more warming in the pipeline even if we freeze our emissions at today’s levels, we have to pretend that all of the observed warming since 1750 – i.e. about 1.2 C° – was our fault. So we deduct that 1.2 C° from the 1.9 C° equilibrium warming. Just 0.7 C° of warmer weather is still to come, at equilibrium.

However, various climate extremists have published papers saying that equilibrium warming will not occur for 1000 years (or even, in a particularly fatuous recent paper, 3000 years). The IPCC itself only expects about 57% of equilibrium warming to occur by 2100: the rest will take so long to arrive that even our children’s children will not be around to notice, and the residual warming will happen so gradually that everyone and everything will have plenty of time to adjust.

Bottom line, then: by 2100 we can expect not 2 C° of further “global warming” as a result of our emissions so far, but 0.4 C° at most. The truth, as ever in the climate debate, is a great deal less thrilling than the lie.

24. ADAPTATION TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF “GLOBAL WARMING” WILL GET MORE DIFFICULT THE LONGER WE DELAY.

This assertion, too, has no scientific basis whatsoever. The costs of adaptation are chiefly an economic rather than a climatological question. Every serious economic analysis (I exclude the discredited propaganda exercise of Stern, with its absurd near-zero discount rate and its rate of “global warming” well in excess of the IPCC’s most extreme projections) has demonstrated that the costs of waiting and adapting to any adverse consequences that may arise from “global warming”, even if per impossibile that warming were to occur at the rapid rate imagined by the IPCC but not yet seen in the instrumental temperature record, would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than any Canute-like attempt to prevent any further “global warming” by taxing and regulating CO2 emissions. It follows that adaptation to the consequences of “global warming” will get easier and cheaper the longer we wait: for then we will only have to adapt to the probably few and minor consequences that will eventually occur, and not until they occur, and only where and to the extent that they occur.

More  “global-warming” news Al forgot to mention:

Midwest blizzard could break snowfall records

Tulsa receives record 14 inches of snowfall

National Weather Service “Do Not Travel

Maxine Waters (Another Democrat) to Face Ethics Charges

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

It appears the “swamp” Shrieker Nancy Pelosi promised to drain is still producing ethically challenged democrats. Maxine (a/k/a MARXine for wanting to socialize the oil industry)Waters, a democrat from California, is the latest to face charges of ethics violations.

The House Ethics Committee is expected to announce today or tomorrow that it has formed an “adjudicatory subcommittee” to try Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters on charges of ethics violations.

The committee’s announcement will make Waters the second Democrat to face an ethics trial this fall, creating a distraction for the Democratic Party as it heads into the midterm elections.

The 10-term lawmaker from Los Angeles has been under investigation since 2009 for assisting a bank to which she had personal connections in getting federal bailout money.

In 2008, Waters organized a meeting between Treasury officials and executives from OneUnited Bank, where her husband was once a board member and had large investments. The bank received $12 million from the federal government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program. Waters, who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, has defended her request for the meeting as part of her efforts to advocate on behalf of minority-owned businesses. SOURCE.

Charlie Rangel’s Unlucky 13 Ethics Violations Released

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

COUNT 1: Conduct in Violation of the Solicitation and Gift Ban (page 26)
COUNT 2: Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl.5 (page 29)
COUNT 3: Conduct in Violation of the House Gift Rule (page 30)
COUNT 4: Conduct in Violation of Postal Service Laws and Franking Commission Regulations (page 30)
COUNT 5: Conduct in Violation of Franking Statute (page 31)
COUNT 6: Conduct in Violation of House Office Building Commission’s Regulations (page 32)
COUNT 7: Conduct in Violation of the Purpose and Law and the Member’s Congressional Handbook (page 32)
COUNT 8: Conduct in Violation of the Letterhead Rule (page 33)
COUNT 9: Conduct in Violation of the Ethics in Government Act and House Rule XXVI (page 34)
COUNT 10: Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl. 5 (page 36)
COUNT 11: Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl. 2 (page 37)
COUNT 12: Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Letter and Spirit of House Rules (page 38)
COUNT 13: Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Conduct Reflecting Discreditably on the House (page 38)

Read the entire 40 page document HERE.

DEMOCRAT Charlie Rangel Charged with Multiple Ethics Violations

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Charlie Rangel (D-NY)

The Democrats Culture of Corruption

Former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was charged with multiple ethics violations on Thursday. In an election year, the democrat from New York who spent the last 40 years in Congress representing the 15th District said he looks forward to fighting the charges.

The ethics committee won’t reveal the specific charges until next Thursday at a public meeting. However, several persons familiar with the allegations, who were not authorized to discuss them publicly, said some of the charges…were related to:

  • Rangel’s use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.
  • His use of four rent-subsidized apartment units in New York City. The city’s rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one’s primary residence. One had been used as a campaign office, raising a separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.
  • Rangel’s failure to report income as required on his annual financial disclosure forms. The committee had investigated his failure to report income from the lawmaker’s rental unit at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. Rangel also belatedly disclosed hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment assets.

Sanctions can range from a damaging committee report to censure by the House and even expulsion, a punishment reserved for only the most egregious violations. SOURCE

In 2009, it was reported that the Congressman from New York failed to report as much as $1.3 million dollars in outside income, including $1 million dollars from the sale of a building in Harlem. After amending financial disclosure forms for the period of 2000-2006, it was determined that Rangel also conveniently failed to reveal an additional $3 million dollars of other business related income during the same period.

More information on the embattled Charlie Rangel:

Why is Eric Holder and the Department of Injustice Protecting Samir Shabazz?

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Eric Holder even received accolades  from the NewBlackPanther.com in the press release below:

The U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder, did its job and stopped the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department Civil Rights Division.

Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

No Saltines for this Thug

Under the leadership of the MAObama Administration, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to drop the voter-intimidation case against New Black Panther “King Samir Shabazz”:

Update from Fox News: Civil Rights Panel to Renew Subpoenas, Pursue Federal Probe in Black Panther Case

Former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams on Tuesday testified before the commission that his former employer not only abandoned the voter intimidation case for racial reasons, but had instructed attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.

The department abandoned the New Black Panther case last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a polling place dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.

The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012.

Democrat Robert KKK Byrd Dead at the Age of 92

Robert “KKK” Byrd’s family issued the following statement on the former Klan member’s passing:

STATEMENT ON THE PASSING OF
SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD
 
The family of U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., tearfully announces the passing of the longest serving member of Congress in U.S. history.  He was 92.
  
Byrd died peacefully at approximately 3 a.m. at Inova Fairfax Hospital.

 

 Further details will be made available as soon as possible.

 
The lame-stream media and Byrd’s family will undoubtedly forget to mention that the democrat from West Virginia was a former member of the racist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. In 1942 at the age of 24, Byrd joined the KKK and held the positions of Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops. Byrd was also instrumental in helping to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  
 
In 1944 Byrd wrote:

“I will never fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

As recent as  2001, he apologized for using a racial slur:

In an interview taped Friday for “Fox News Sunday,” Byrd, 83, was asked about race relations in the United States.

“They are much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime,” Byrd said, but added that he believed people talk about race too much.

“My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that. There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”

In apologizing, Byrd — the Senate’s senior Democrat — said the phrase dated back to his childhood. In the same interview, Byrd also talked about joining the Ku Klux Klan in his youth, describing it as a mistake.

I can’t wait to see how Communist News Network and MSLSD will spin the facts. 

Shortlink: http://wp.me/pjWTB-Q2

Does Rory Have a Last Name?

At first glance, it seems like a compelling campaign ad.  School children asking if a candidate “has the highest ethical standards” and “do they always put Nevada first”. Then I noticed something interesting about the ad. What is Rory’s last name? The ad indicated you can download Rory’s Education plan at Rory2010.com. The website also had a link to “Meet Rory“. While I learned that “Rory” was the Chairman of the Clark County Commission, I still did not know what his last name was. It seemed odd that a candidate for governor in the state of Nevada would have a web page designed without his last name included. Why would someone spend time and money campaigning for votes but not want the electorate to know their last name? Then I scrolled over the Facebook and Twitter links at the bottom of the page. Rory’s last name is “Reid”, as in Senator Dirty Harry Reid’s son.  That explained everything.  Having the “highest ethical standards” means not letting the people of Nevada know your father is Senator Harry Reid:

‘Today is a big day in America, only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.’

On Iraq: ‘This War is Lost’

‘You can smell the tourists’

‘Income taxes are VOLUNTARY’

SHORLTLINK: http://wp.me/pjWTB-Ps

Poll Shows Democrat Bob Etheridge (NC-2) Trailing

After the infamous video of democrat Bob Etheridge (NC-2)  attacking a student was posted on the web, he now finds himself  trailing his Republican challenger Renee Ellmers.

From http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7504235:

The conservative leaning Civitas Institute released a flash poll Thursday that shows Etheridge slightly trailing Republican challenger Renee Ellmers.

Civitas said the poll of 400 registered voters in the 2nd Congressional District shows Ellmers leads Etheridge 39 percent to 38 percent. Twelve percent said they would vote for Libertarian Tom Rose and 11 percent said they were undecided.

The margin of error was plus or minus 5 percent – putting the candidates in a statistical dead heat.

 Full poll is HERE.

Democrat Bob Etheridge (NC-2) Gone Wild

In his 2008 campaign ad, Bob seems to suggest he’s a “fighter for us” and that a vote for him would be “steady leadership”!

Hey Bob, can we just have a crackdown on Congressmen gone wild?

You can contact Congressman Etheridge at one of his offices below –

Washington, DC
1533 Longworth House Office Bldg
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone:(202) 225-4531
Fax:(202) 225-5662

Raleigh District Office
333 Fayetteville Street, Suite 505
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone:(919) 829-9122
Toll Free Number:1-888-262-6202
Fax:(919) 829-9883

Lillington District Office
609 North First Street, P.O. Box 1059
Lillington, NC 27546
Phone:(910) 814-0335
Toll Free Number:1-866-384-3743
Fax:(910) 814-2264

Yes Ma’am! Barbara Boxer Fears CO2

Most Americans believe islamo-fascist terrorists are the greatest threat to this country’s national security. Not Barbara “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” Boxer. The dumbocRAT from California recently identified carbon dioxide (yes the same thing you and I exhale) as the greatest threat to national security -


Video Link.

Judge Denies Blagojevich’s Motion to Subpoena President Obama – May Reconsider

Rod Blagojevich

U.S. District Court Judge James B. Zagel denied former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s motion to subpoena President Obama.

From cbs2chicago:

In denying the motion, Zagel said the defense motion “falls very short” of presenting enough evidence that Obama’s testimony would be relevant to the charges against Blagojevich.

“The testimony of the president is not material to this case,” Zagel said.

But the judge said he would be willing to reconsider his decision later if evidence is presented that would make the president’s testimony relevant.

More information on the on-going Blago scandal can be found HERE.

Subpoena Suggests Obama Gave Blagojevich Advice on Senate Replacement

Read the defense motion HERE. As I speculated yesterday, will the Fed’s prosecution of Blago ultimately bring down the Obama administration?

1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

Blagojevich’s lawyers allege that Rezko admitted breaking the law by contributing “a large sum of cash” to a public official. Blagojevich’s attorneys say that public official is Obama. Obama said that Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser in favor of favorable legislative action. But the point may be moot: regardless of Obama talking/not talking to Rezko, Blagojevich’s attorneys say that Obama refused the request regardless.

Redacted portion: However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the
government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having
conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.

Redacted footnote: The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.

2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat
Blagojevich’s defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett’s candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as “Senate Candidate B”, is now a senior advisor to the president.

Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).

Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B] … [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment
Redacted portion: Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).

4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates
Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich. John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as Blagojevich’s press secretary. Obama agreed of Staff told Harris that Senate Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.”

5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson’s name for the Senate seat

Redacted portion: President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator.

[President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion.

6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich
Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.

BY Ward Room Staff // Friday, Apr 23, 2010 at 07:08 CDT

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Six-Secrets-You-Need-to-Know-From-the-Blagojevich-Filing-91848634.html#ixzz0lwxpB6c3

Hank Johnson (D-GA) – Guam could tip over and capsize!

 

Can we now designate April 1st as “Hank Johnson Fool Day”?

Democrat Hank Johnson, from Georgia’s 4th Congressional District, expressed concern that the island of Guam could “tip over and capsize” from being over populated. Hank is an absolute embarrassment to his district. Shocked? Don’t be. This is the same district that elected Cynthia McKinney to Congress.

Fortunately for the 4th District, he has a Republican opponent: Liz Carter. You can view Liz’  website here: http://www.lizcarterforcongress.com/

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

If you are a constituent in Hank’s District, please contact him regarding your concerns over his abject stupidity.

Washington, DC Office

1133 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1605
Fax: (202) 226-0691

Lithonia Office

5700 Hillandale Dr., Suite 110
Lithonia, GA  30058
Phone: (770) 987-2291
Fax : (770) 987-8721

Tucker Office

3469 Lawrenceville Highway, Suite 205
Tucker , GA  30084
Phone: (770) 939-2016
Fax : (770) 939-3753

SHORTLINK: http://wp.me/pjWTB-KU