Clinton Rejects Democrats Call To Quite Race

While I am not a Hillary fan, I think this is the right decision and those that called for her to drop out should apologize to all Americans.

By calling her to drop out of the race, goes against the whole point of the race, letting the people decide. It is not like Obama is so far ahead that she does not have any chance what so ever. He is leading by a couple of hundred votes, but he is still far from obtaining the necessary delegates to guarentee a win.

If the problem is the war between the candidates, then the Democrates should be working to stop it, however it just shows that the Democratic Party is not united, but another divided entity. How in the world is Obama going to unite the country if his own party is so divided?

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday rejected calls by supporters of rival candidate Barack Obama to quit the Democratic presidential race, and Obama said Clinton should remain in race “as long as she wants.”

 

art.hclinton.ap.jpg 

Some of Sen. Barack Obama’s best-known backers are urging Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race.

var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger(‘cnnImgChngr’,’/2008/POLITICS/03/29/clinton.obama/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html’,1,1); //CNN.imageChanger.load(‘cnnImgChngr’,’imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html’);

“The more people get a chance to vote, the better it is for our democracy,” the New York senator and former first lady told supporters at a rally in Indiana, which holds a May 6 primary.

“There are some folks saying we ought to stop these elections,” she said.

“I didn’t think we believed that in America. I thought we of all people knew how important it was to give everyone a chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted.”

Clinton has won primaries in the biggest states so far, but Obama has won more total contests and leads her in the race for delegates to the party’s August convention in Denver — where the Democratic nominee will be formally ratified.

Two of Obama’s leading supporters, Sens. Christopher Dodd and Patrick Leahy, said Friday that Clinton should rethink her chances of overcoming that deficit and consider folding her campaign.

Leahy, of Vermont, said Clinton “has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to.”

Speaking in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Obama said he did not discuss Leahy’s call for Clinton to drop out with the Vermont senator, who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“My attitude is that Sen. Clinton can run as long as she wants,” the Illinois senator said.

“She is a fierce and formidable competitor, and she obviously believes that she would make the best nominee and the best president. I think that she should be able to compete, and her supporters should be able to support her for as long as they are willing or able.”

Pennsylvania is the scene of the next Democratic primary, on April 22, and is the largest state that hasn’t weighed in on the party’s presidential race.

Obama called fears that the Democratic Party would be damaged by a long campaign “somewhat overstated.” But he added that both he and Clinton should avoid campaign attacks “that could be used as ammunition for the Republicans” in November.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Thursday suggests that the bickering between Clinton and Obama could affect Democratic turnout in November.

One in six Clinton supporters said they would not be likely to vote in November if Obama gets the nomination; an equal number of Obama’s supporters said the same about Clinton.

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Friday that he would like the fight wrapped up before the Denver convention, and said party leaders have had “extensive discussions” with the Clinton and Obama campaigns about cooling down their rhetoric.

“I don’t think the party is going to implode,” he said. But he added that personal attacks “demoralize the base” and that campaigns should focus on issues like the economy and Iraq

Advertisements

Clinton Campaing Manager Was Board Member Of Sub-Prime Mortgage Lenders

Well it turns out that long time associate Maggie Willams, Campaign Manager for Hillary Clinton, earned $175,000 for being on the board of directors for Delta Financial Corporation. Delta was the 9th largest Sup-Prime lender until it went bankrupt last year.

Look at the numbers below for detailed information on what this country did to the poor people trying to buy homes. In summary, an average 14.9% interest rates…

No I can see why Hillary has been so gungho about bailing out the mortgage companies…

WASHINGTON – While Hillary Clinton campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination in neighborhoods where many have lost their homes in unscrupulous lending schemes, her campaign manager, Margaret “Maggie” Williams, sits on the board of one of the nation’s once-largest and now-bankrupt sub-prime mortgage lenders.

Williams joined the board of directors at New York-based Delta Financial Corporation in 2000, one month after a federal settlement was reached with Delta Financial over discriminatory lending practices.

As of September 2007, Williams owned 12,500 shares of Delta’s common stock, and by 2007 had earned at least $175,000 for her board obligations, according to company filings available in the Securities & Exchange Commission online database.

Clinton’s Tough Stand on Housing Crunch

Intently focused on the nation’s housing crisis in recent appearances, Clinton has been clear that sub-prime mortgage lenders, particularly in poor, working class urban neighborhoods shoulder much of the blame for the credit crunch.

“I am reminded every day as I meet with families and listen to their stories that the effective functioning of our financial markets isn’t just about Wall Street. It’s about Main Street,” she said recently.

In a proposal last week, Clinton suggested giving “a $30 billion lifeline to avoid a crisis for Wall Street banks” by providing assistance to at-risk communities and families facing foreclosure. In a speech earlier this week, the New York senator suggested protecting lenders from lawsuits by investors who bought mortgages expecting big profits off high interest rates.

“Many mortgage companies are reluctant to help families restructure their mortgages because they’re afraid of being sued by the investment banks, the private equity firms and others who actually own the mortgage papers,” Clinton said.

“This is the case even though writing down the value of a mortgage is often more profitable than foreclosing,” she said, offering legislation “to provide mortgage companies with protection against the threat of such lawsuits.”

Delta’s Sub-Prime Lending

But as it turns out, Clinton’s top aide is on the board of what had been — until its bankruptcy — the ninth-leading sub-prime lender in the nation, handling almost $800 million worth of sub-prime lending in the third quarter of 2007 alone, according to National Mortgage News.

Delta Financing — and subsidiary Delta Funding — made much of its money by turning around and selling its loans at a profit — either through securitization or straight sale. Financial statements and federal filings indicate that Delta made huge profits between 2004 and 2007 mostly by refinancing loans to homeowners with moderate and middle incomes, in urban neighborhoods.

In 2006, it reported a net income of $28.8 million compared to $18 million a year earlier. It also originated a record $4 billion in loans that year, a 5 percent increase over 2005. In 2006, it had increased its line of credit by $500 million to a total of $1.75 billion.

Te average interest rate on a 30-year mortgage is 6.25 percent. Financial sources and the company’s public records show that in the last decade Delta brokered thousands of fixed-rate refinancing loans with rates of anywhere from 11.3 to 13.6 percent.

Reports provided by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), an inter-agency body that proscribes standards for U.S. financial institutions, found that in 2006 the vast majority of Delta’s refinancing loans had rates of around 13.3 percent. The average rate on home mortgages was 14.9 percent.

“They were basically trying to extract whatever blood they could get away with and then sell their loans on the secondary market,” said Irv Ackelsberg, a Philadelphia attorney who assists homeowners in complaints against lenders and brokers.

Industry experts say the company’s demise did not come from its struggle against various lawsuits or foreclosures, but its being a victim of the credit market. The value of its loan-backed securities plummeted at the same time its investors stopped buying new loans. Delta’s creditors soon came calling and the company couldn’t keep up with its own financing agreements.

Delta’s status is in the hands of a federal bankruptcy judge. All operations out of its Woodbury, N.Y., headquarters have ceased.

The Williams Difference

Williams joined Delta’s board less less than a month after one federal official said Delta’s practices were “turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare.”

At the time, Delta had a 5 percent foreclosure rate nationwide — double the industry standard — and was in the midst of settling several state and federal lawsuits that alleged predatory and discriminatory lending practices.

Williams, now 53, was between jobs with the Clintons when she got the overture to join the board at Delta. She had worked as the former first lady’s chief of staff from 1993 to 1997, and had just become president of Fenton Communications, one of the largest public relations shops in the country in 2000. It made her the highest-ranking African-American woman in a top 50 public relations firm in the country. Williams joined Bill Clinton’s Harlem office in 2001. She later became a partner in management consulting firm Griffin Williams.

The Clinton campaign did not return requests for comment from FOXNews.com, but according to a June 2000 article in Directors and Boards magazine, Williams spent the six months prior to her decision to join the board asking a lot of questions and making a flurry of calls to Hugh Miller, president and CEO of Delta Financial Corp.

It was the period of time when Delta was embroiled in the state and federal lawsuits. According to the magazine, Williams said she was convinced that the company was enabling individuals who would otherwise not qualify for mortgages to get loans.

“There are people who miss payments and have bad credit for all kinds of reasons,” she told the magazine. “It is a very middle-American kind of problem, although I believe it does affect poor people disproportionately.”

Miller told the magazine he was most attracted to Williams’ skill at anticipating “issues and problems before they come up and then develop(ing) a battle plan. It’s something that we’ve previously been remiss in doing.”

Delta company officials would not elaborate on Williams’ role other than to say that “like other board members, Ms. Williams served in an advisory and oversight role and did not have a role in the day-to-day operations and management of the company.” A 2002 annual report, the only one found with this figure, shows Williams attended at least 70 percent of the company’s board meetings.

Predatory Practices

Delta, which declared bankruptcy in December 2007, settled lawsuits with both federal and state regulators in 2000, before Williams’ era, but has maintained dubious lending practices, allege consumer advocates in New York and Philadelphia.

“They were one of the worst and most abusive sub-prime lenders in New York City,” said Josh Zinner, co-director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP).

Zinner helped bring a 1999 lawsuit against Delta Funding through the New York State Banking Department and then-state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office. The case was settled with an agreement that included $12 million in payouts to borrowers. It has been caught up in court ever since over the price tag.

A separate class action suit against Delta by some 67,000 New York borrowers in 1998 is also ongoing, according to attorneys for Lopez v. Delta Funding Corp. In that case, the company agreed to settle on claims that Delta violated federal and state statutes governing fair lending practices. The plaintiffs are appealing for additional restitution.

In March 2000, the federal government charged Delta with violating consumer protection and fair lending laws by approving and funding loans regardless of the borrowers’ ability to pay, paying unearned fees and kickbacks to brokers and disproportionately charging African-American females higher rates and fees than “similarly situated” white males.

The immediate settlement of the suit filed jointly by the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Housing and Urban Development did not result in restitution to anyone but an agreement by the company to adhere to stricter, fairer lending standards and to submit to greater governmental oversight.

Delta never admitted any wrongdoing in the New York or federal cases, and not everyone believes the company was as nefarious as the headlines made it out to be. Jonathan Pinard, a lending expert and president of the Empire State Mortgage Bankers Association, said Delta “stayed in the agreement” set out in the federal settlement and kept its nose clean. Later, when the sub-prime lending market went sour, Delta was “painted with a broad brush” as one of the bad guys, he said.
But since Williams joined the board, Ackelsburg has assisted clients embroiled in predatory lending schemes that involve Delta.

“(Delta) didn’t have as big a market share as they did in New York,” Ackelsberg said. “But the most unscrupulous brokers tended to work with Delta.”

He pointed to a near million-dollar settlement presided over by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission in 2002, in which an African-American brokerage firm linked to Delta was found guilty of predatory lending and discriminatory practices in predominantly black Philadelphia neighborhoods.

In six of the cases named in the Taylor, Poindexter v. McGlawn & McGlawn and Reginald McGlawn lawsuit, the loans were signed with Delta Funding. At least four of the 10 loans had originated in 2000 or afterward.

Each of the individuals who received Delta loans through McGlawn & McGlawn also filed complaints with the PHRC against Delta Funding, according to commission sources. Those cases were all settled, but terms of the agreements are confidential. Delta officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment by FOXNews.com.

“I would say Delta Funding, in the ’90s in particular, sort of epitomized predatory lending,” said Zinner, who worked for the Foreclosure Prevention Project at South Brooklyn Legal Services at the time of the New York suit. After the 2000 settlement, Zinner said his group “didn’t get the high volume of calls (about Delta loans) … but we definitely got quite a few complaints.”

Live Leak Folds To Muslim Threats And Takes Down Fitna

Due to threats from Muslim Terrorists, Liveleaks has removed Dutch Lawmaker Geert Wilders film Fitna. For your viewing pleasure and a protest against the Islamification of the Internet I have posted the YouTube video below.

The Dutch lawmaker who made a controversial film that criticizes Islam and the Koran, defended his work after protestors in Pakistan and Europe condemned the movie.

The 17-minute movie, posted on the Internet, shows terrorist attacks and quotes lines from the Koran, Islam’s holiest book. Among the quotes from the Koran used in the film are: “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks” and “Fight them until there is no dissension.”

“The Koran is not an old book somewhere on the shelves that no one is looking at,” the film’s maker, Geert Wilders, told ABC News. “But this is indeed the base of a lot of terrible things happening throughout the world.”

Wilders is the leader of a Dutch anti-immigration party that holds nine seats in the national parliament. He wants the Netherlands to ban all Muslim immigrants and more than that, he wants Muslims to change their ideology, which he likens to Nazism.

adsonar_placementId=1280600;adsonar_pid=59749;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=165;adsonar_zh=220;adsonar_jv=’ads.adsonar.com’;

“I believe that our culture is far better than the Islamic culture,” Wilders said. When pressed on what he meant by “better,” Wilders replied, “Well, we have a separation of church and state, we treat women equally.”

Friday night, the Web site hosting Wilders’ movie, “Fitna,” an Arabic word that means discord, said said it had decided to take down the film “following serious threats to our staff.”

In the Netherlands and across Europe there is anger. Many Muslims say they feel insulted, but there has been no violence so far.

There have been demonstrations in Pakistan and elsewhere. Anticipating trouble, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende condemned the movie.

“We believe it serves no purpose other than to cause offence,” Balkenende said.

In 2005 violent protests broke out around the world and more than 100 people were killed after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed.

“I think his message is even worse than those cartoons,” said Abdou Bouzerda, who heads the Dutch chapter of the Arab European League. “His political message is that Muslims do not belong here.”

For now Dutch Muslim leaders are urging debate and restraint.

Wilders says his film is about freedom of speech and says if it fans the flames of violence, it’s not his fault.

“If it unfortunately would happen, of course the people who use this violence, use these non-democratic means, can be the only ones held responsible,” he said.

More Gore Lies On Global Warming

Gore’s latest lashing out at the Climate Change Naysayers is nothing more than another advertisement for the companies he is invest in.

What is really starting to piss me off is that Gore, with degree in the field, is suppose to be taken at face value when he blames climate change on mankind. He latest assertation is that a very small number of people, including the scientific community do not believe that Global Warming is all man’s fault. Each day that goes by, more and more scientists are coming out disputing his evidence, however Gore is unwilling to debate with them about the subject. He has closed the door to any other possibility for the cause of Global Warming. The question is why? If he was truely concerned about the future of the planet, he would keep and open mind and explore all possible causes of Global Warming. The fact that he is not willing to do that, indicates to me that he is pushing his agenda for one single reason. Money.

The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman is considering a lawsuit against Al Gore and company, just so they have to disclose the evidence they have pointing to man being the main cause of Global Warming.

Read John Coleman’s Brief on Global Warming here.

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore to Expose Global Warming Fraud

 

By now most people are aware that the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is “the greatest scam in history” last November.On Monday, while speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change being held in New York City, Coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including Al Gore, should be sued “to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”As reported over at the Business & Media Institute by my colleague Jeff Poor (emphasis added throughout, h/t to many): 

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the [witness] stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

How delicious. Of course, for those that are interested, Nobel Laureate Gore was invited to speak at this conference — was even offered his normal fee to attend! — but refused. As reported Monday by Anthony Watts, one of the conference speakers (emphasis added):

I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined.

I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org a week or so ago.

They have declined the formal invitation sent, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University.

Since recent polls indicate that about 50% of Americans remain unconvinced that global warming is a serious issue, it would seem this would be a perfect place for Mr. Gore, Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt to bridge the crevasse.

Exactly, Anthony. Sadly, these folks don’t want to speak to the half of the nation not buying into their junk science, for it is so easily exposed as such, and that would bring an end to the fraud.

Of course, one has to wonder how all those that do believe in this myth feel about the fact that the leaders of their cause not only refuse to debate the issue, but won’t even attend a conference dealing with it.

Regardless, Coleman on Monday also pointed his finger at The Weather Channel:

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

We at NewsBusters share your hopes, John.—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Other experts, who have degrees in related to climate and atmosphere changes are also disputing Mr. Gore’s claims.

While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.

Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you know…that’s why we have a word for them.

We make a big deal out of the “unprecedented” 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.

So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.

Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the “Infrared Iris” effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system.

What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.

The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.

And our evidence against a “sensitive” climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called “positive feedback,” which translates into high climate sensitivity.

But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.

The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.

Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.

It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.

I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.

Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.

According to statics provided by Gore, Global warming will benefit mankind, however he spins it that things will get worse as pointed out by Joe Bastardi from Accuweather.

UNBELIEVABLE: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat.

I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted… by anyone.

The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore’s premises grows by the day.

What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility.

When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the “orals,” at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU.

In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know.

You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat.

In fact, here is an excerpt : “…I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. “That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off,” he tells Stahl.
I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true.

However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on: http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to 50%. So I don’t need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with anyone that can confront him fact for fact.

Last night I read an interesting story. GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it could be a myriad of things, let’s say that is right. The article also says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000.

These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The Earth’s population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years. Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population. Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world’s population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it’s liable to be more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate, that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of feeding a greater percentage of people.

But you see what is done here. It’s the same thing that is done across the board. Games played, and unless you look, you’ll get taken.

It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid, for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is why all this is hard for me to understand).

It’s astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter arguments to this idea. Let’s remember, some of the major proponents with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the future, because of hard work and research it’s very tough to back away. There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a snowstorm, or that Omaha’s winter was colder than I thought. We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles.

Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the skeptic.

Muslim Hate Site In The US Run By Former Jew

Another POS website hosted and run in the US  by a terrorist supportor who uses his Freedom of Speech to spread hatred, bigotry and support for Terrorists. What is sad is this is a Jew turned Muslim. Someone needs to take him out and beat him for a few days, maybe send him to some terrorist training camp and see what they do to him there. Maybe he can get the Daniel Pearl treatment too… 

I have an idea Yousef, if you hate America so much, GET THE FUCK OUT.

NEW YORK, N.Y. —  On any given day, log on to RevolutionMuslim.com and a host of startling images appear:

— The Statue of Liberty, with an ax blade cutting through her side;

— Video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl, entitled “Daniel Pearl I am Happy Your Dead 🙂 “;

— Video of a puppet show lampooning U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq;

— The latest speech from Sheikh Abdullah Faisal, an extremist Muslim cleric convicted in the UK and later deported for soliciting the murder of non-Muslims.

Even more surprising is that RevolutionMuslim.com isn’t being maintained in some remote safe house in Pakistan. Instead, Yousef al-Khattab, the Web site creator, runs it from his home in the New York City Borough of Queens.

Click here to view photos.

Click here to view video mocking the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

And, because al-Khattab enjoys the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, all the authorities can do is watch.

Formerly known as Joseph Cohen, al-Khattab is an American-born Jew who converted to Islam after attending an Orthodox Rabbinical school, which he later described as a “racist cult.”

The 39-year-old New York taxi driver launched RevolutionMuslim.com with the mission of “preserving Islamic culture,” “calling people to the oneness of God” and asking them to “support the beloved Sheik Abdullah Faisal, who’s preaching the religion of Islam and serving as a spiritual guide.”

In 2003 Faisal was convicted in the U.K. for spreading messages of racial hatred and urging his followers to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners. In sermon recordings played at his trial, Faisal called on young, impressionable Muslims to use chemical weapons to “exterminate unbelievers” and “cut the throat of the Kaffars [nonbelievers] with [a] machete.”

Authorities believe Faisal’s sermons have influenced 2005 London transport bomber Germaine Lindsay and “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, who attended mosques where Faisal preached.

At times, al-Khattab’s postings are farcical, such as a picture of him holding the book “Nuclear Jihad” with a wry smile on his face. Other messages call for radical Muslim rule worldwide.

Al-Khattab claims the Sept. 11 terror attacks were an “inside job,” and he blames U.S. foreign policy for spawning the terrorism that carried out the attacks.

He calls Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and beheaded in 2002 by Islamic extremists in Pakistan, “a convicted spy.”

“I could care less about Daniel Pearl,” al-Khattab said in an interview with FOXNews.com. “I’m happy to see that he’s gone.”

Click here to view RevolutionMuslim.com.

The content changes constantly. One reason is that the fast flow of information allows messages to spread through cyberspace quickly. Another, terrorism analysts say, is to make it difficult for law enforcement to monitor the site.

Despite his radical anti-Western views, al-Khattab says he does not support terrorism of any kind.

Yet, RevolutionMuslim.com claims to be the official site of “North American representatives” for Sheikh Faisal, and it appears dedicated to spreading his radical doctrine.

He says Faisal “never said to kill innocent people” and was unjustly imprisoned. He says the real terror organizations are the U.S. Army, the CIA, and the FBI — and the National Coast Guard, “to a lesser extent.”

According to RevolutionMuslim, Faisal — who was deported to his native Jamaica in 2007 — is now receiving donations solicited on the site, including money for a new laptop and DVD burner to spread his message.

It’s not illegal to post these messages or collect money for Faisal, but it would be if Faisal were designated a terrorist by the U.S. government. He currently is not listed on any government terror list; a Department of Justice spokesman could not confirm or deny if Faisal is being investigated for any terror related activity.

RevolutionMuslim may look amateurish when compared with other extremist Web sites, but it is no less of a threat, says Mia Bloom, political science professor at the University of Georgia’s School of Public and International Affairs.

“It may lead people who become radicalized by it to turn to other, more dangerous Web sites,” such as those run by terrorist organizations, she said.

Bloom characterized al-Khattab’s message as “narrow” and “misinformed” and said he is attempting to “proselytize or radicalize people who share some of these same ideas.”

“[He] has obviously been duped or is duping others because that’s not what Islam preaches,” she said.

On his site al-Khattab appears to condemn the very democracy that guarantees him the freedom to express himself — a freedom he cites in a disclaimer on his homepage:

“We hereby declare and make absolute public declaration that revolutionmuslim.com operates under the first amendment right to freedom of religion and expression and that in no way, shape, or form do we call for war against the U.S. government or adhere to the enemies of the United States elsewhere.”

Under the law FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said it is difficult to bring criminal charges against the operators of Web sites like RevolutionMuslim.com unless specific threats are made against an individual or individuals.

Kolko while not speaking directly about RevolutionMuslim said radical sites like these are not often prosecuted.

“It’s usually a First Amendment right if they don’t cross the threshold of making any threats,” said Kolko. “There’s nothing we should or could do.”

“Until the rhetoric reaches the point in which it’s no longer protected speech under the first amendment, it’s hard to stop it,” said security expert, Harvey Kushner.

Barack Back In Black

Another Lie by Barack Obama… I know, the liberals call it an imbelishment…

Barack, unable to come to terms with his mixed heritage, is trying so hard to be black, that he makes up stories about his struggles during his youth… Now he is claiming that his birth is the direct result of Martin Luther King’s marchs. I guess this is part of his claim that he can unify the country. I doubt this as he has done everything he can to erase his Whiteness… It’s sort of like Michael Jackson in reverse…

When will Americans wake up and realize that this man is nothing more than a liar. He has odd bed partners, Rezko and Wright, and stands by those friends until public opinion shifts the other way, then he comes out and say, well I didn’t know…

This is a grown man, still struggling with trying to be black enough, what is he going to do as President, if he does not know who he is now.

Now Barack Obama turns out to have rewritten his own life to prove he’s really black.

I’ve said before he made a mistake in choosing to be black – and so black that he sought out the most aggressively white-baiting church he could find. So black, in fact, that he’s since shopped his white grandmother to defend his racist black preacher.

As Shelby Steele, the African American author of Bound Man, a book on Obama, put it:

The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother… He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity.

And now comes the latest proof that Obama’s key flaw is not just his Leftism, but his fragile sense of racial identity that’s led him to assert his “blackness” in ways that aren’t just divisive but preposterous. Hot Air now reports:

In his speech commemorating the 42nd anniversary of the (black civil rights) march (led by Martin Luther King) on Selma, Alabama, he credited the march with his existence — even though he was almost 4 years old at the time:

What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, “You know, we’re battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we’re not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites.” So the Kennedy’s decided we’re going to do an air lift. We’re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.
This young man named Barack Obama [Obama’s father] got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

The first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965 (there were three of them). At the time, Barack Obama was three and a half years old. Now, Obama also mentions the Birmingham march as part of this speech — but that took place in May 1963. Obama would have been 20 months old when Dr. King led that demonstration.

There’s only one reason Obama falsely claimed to be almost literally a child born of Martin Luther King’s march. To prove his blackness.

New Black Panther Party Endorsement On Obama’s Site Authorized By Obama’s People

Obama’s camp has publically said they do not want the support of the New Black Panther Party and said they do not control who creates pages of support on Barack’s campaign website. However YellowLimes, has shown that the camp does control who has pages published on Barack’s site, therefore, his camp did authorize the creation of the supporting pages of hte NBPP. Caught in yet another lie…

Obama Supporters for Marijuana Law Reform; Updated: Site Admin Must Approve Groups Before They Appear; Updated-Other Interesting Groups

Just looking at Barrack Obama’s campaign website, specifically the my.barackobama.com section where individuals and groups can voice their support for the Illinois Senator’s Presidential bid, there appears to be more than 12,000 groups. Since there are so many groups currently, and I’m sure more join everyday, there is probably no real easy way to keep tabs on all of them nor what they claim to support or believe in.

However, I don’t see any disclaimer about not necessarily supporting all the groups that join or what they believe in on the Obama website. So that does make one wonder, perhaps the campaign does support all the groups on the site and what they believe in. Regardless, it doesn’t seem like the smartest thing for a campaign to do.

One of the groups I found on there earlier today was “Obama Supporters for Marijuana Law Reform”.

[click image to expand]
There is more troubling news concerning this topic. Yesterday, Fox News reported on an endorsement from the New Black Panther Party on Obama’s site.


What was the Obama campaign’s response? Well, to blame others of course, most notably Fox News for running the story.

Apparently, today was a slow news day.

So Fox News evidently decided to pore through our millions of user-created pages on My.BarackObama.com and put a screenshot of inflammatory content on the front page of FoxNews.com.

You see, more than 700,000 people have created accounts on the system. You can create one right now if you choose, in about a minute — anyone can.

Now, from time to time people get up to no good — creating fake profiles (like one for Sean Hannity created today), or posting profane or inappropriate content. When they do, the community reports the offending content and if it violates our terms of service it is removed (as the Sean Hannity profile was).

My.BarackObama.com has been at the core of our bottom-up organizing strategy. The tools available have been put to work by a community of supporters that is bigger and more powerful than anything presidential politics has ever seen.

Evidently, Fox News didn’t think it was a big deal that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans are participating in the democratic process creating groups and local events in communities all across the country.

But they did think it was a big deal that one random person on the Internet, [or one random statement by some pastor eh? -ed. mine] without the knowledge of the Obama campaign, posted a profile in the system with the image of the New Black Panther Party on it.

When we were alerted of the existence of this page, we pulled it down. Yet even after we pulled the page, Fox News continues to disingenuously and prominently feature this “story” on their homepage.

“When we were alerted”…kinda like when Obama was “alerted” to those statements by his “spiritual adviser”.

Update 1
Well, that’s funny, I just created my own group on the Obama site and never saw or had to read a “terms of use” page. Also, after I created my group, this is the page that I was directed to…

[click image to expand]
After creating my group it tells me that a site administrator must approve the group before it will appear on the site.

Question: Did this practice of approving groups before posting them to Obama’08 begin today or has it been this way all along?

10:46am ET

Update 2
Nearly 4 hours after I created my test group at the Obama campaign’s website, the group is still not published. Clicking here will take you to the url where the group will be but it still shows the same screen as shown above. I’m going to keep checking to see when the group finally does get published.

2:11pm ET

Update 3
Here is another interesting group I found on the Obama website, created on Feb. 23, 2007

Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama

[click image to expand]
The group has this statement on the home page:

The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed “Marxist States.” They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!

3:02pm ET