Danny Glover is “Stuck on STUPID!”

Really, Danny?  Are you REALLY that stupid?  Or do you think we are that stupid?

Do you expect us to believe that the earthquake in Haiti happened because we didn’t sign some freedom and human rights robbing treaty in Copenhagen?  Do you really expect us to believe that the Chicken Little global warming/global cooling/climate change THAT ISN’T HAPPENING caused the earthquake in Haiti?

As Lt Gen Russel Honore said following hurricane Rita, “You are stuck on stupid!”

---

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pact_with_gaia/

Pact with Gaia

Tim Blair
Friday, January 15, 2010 at 04:59am

Actor Danny Glover believes that the Haitian earthquake was caused by climate change and global warming:

Says Glover: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?” His obscene opinion would be bigger news if Glover had – in the manner of others – idiotically blamed a less-fashionable deity.

---

Son of Climategate! Scientist says feds manipulated data

Our government wants to tax you for the carbon you produce and give that money to other countries that produce nothing, literally.  The government led by Obama, following the Dunce of Democracy, Al Gore, tell us that if we don’t pass some absurd climate treaty which destroys our economy, takes our wealth, destroys our standard of living, and suborns us to foreign governments and entities, we are all going to die, the planet “has a fever,” polar bears are dying (there are more now than ever. In fact they are terrorizing arctic cities and villages), cow and moose farts are eating away the atmosphere which will cause all of us to burn to a crisp as temperatures rise, but now global temperatures are falling and we’re headed for an ice-age, check that, global temperatures are rising and world is going to flood, no, wait, they are cooling again and we’re all going to freeze, it doesn’t matter, the climate is CHANGING, and it’s bad, and man caused it by driving our SUV’s, and our SUV’s are so bad that it actually caused the temperature on Mars to rise at the same time the temperature on Earth was rising, before it was cooling again, and the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature on Earth…

Does your head hurt yet?

Here’s the Cliff’s notes:

• Global warming/man-caused climate change is a HOAX
• The only purposes of the global warming/climate change movement is to redistribute wealth and consolidate power
• If the government passes some ridiculous climate legislation,
  • our standard of living will go down drastically,
  • the cost of energy will “necessarily skyrocket” as Obama promised,
  • we will lose 2-3 jobs for every “green” job created,
  • our sovereignty will be given away to foreign powers,
  • our money will be taken from us and shipped overseas (what’s new?),
  • and the ENVIRONMENT WILL NOT CHANGE.
• Antarctica isn’t melting
• Polar bears aren’t dying because of global warming
• The earth has actually been cooling for the last decade
  

Elections have consequences.  We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of dumbing down by liberals.  The now uneducated masses believed anything they were told, and voted based on purely emotional arguments that had no facts to back them up.  We are being indoctrinated with a very slick propaganda machine that models itself after the National Socialists Party of WWII Germany, which modeled itself after the propaganda machine of our very own progressive socialist, Woodrow Wilson.  Only now it is much more effective in America because of the intentional destruction of our educational system, and the suppression of religion and morals.

Stupid people with no moral values are easy to manipulate.

The few “educated” people who voted for Rope and Chains are beginning to have voters remorse.  Sadly, the majority are far too stupid to know anything except they were promised something for “free.”  They are the societal inertia we must overcome to get the American train back on the tracks and rolling again.  Those that have grown up in the culture of laziness and dependence built for them by liberals are going to squeal like stuck pigs when they have to actually provide for themselves.  Here are some of those people:

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122109

HEAT OF THE MOMENT

Reporting points in coldest regions simply eliminated by U.S. agencies

---

Posted: January 16, 2010
12:20 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

In a one-two series of Climategate aftershocks that assuredly will further rattle the global warming community, a report has been issued by U.S. researchers accusing government agencies of cherry-picking temperature readings used to assess global temperatures, and a series of embarrassing e-mails were released revealing what happened when a blogger dared to point out a mistake by NASA climate scientists.

The new report is from scientist Joseph D’Aleo and was highlighted in a report on global warming on KUSI television in San Diego.

It comes only weeks after the tumultuous climategate e-mail scandal in Britain erupted, proving top global warming scientists manipulated data there.

The report from D’Aleo, a retired climatologist who has been skeptical of global warming, contends climate data has been corrupted and skewed by “urbanization and other local factors such as land-use-land-cover changes and improper siting.”

He blamed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which he described as “seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud.”

The East Anglia e-mail leak focused on the work at the Climate Research Unit there, but the director there has confirmed “almost all the data” in the archive “is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center,” D’Aleo said.

But he noted that an analysis by San Jose computer programmer E.M. Smith of the data “found they systematically eliminated 75 percent of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations.”

“The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs,” he said.

For example, the report said the number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35 with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations plummeted.

Further, a vast majority of the climate stations reporting in the U.S. were either poorly or very poorly sited, taking temperature readings from paved driveways, in a waste treatment facility, on rooftops or near the exhaust from idling jet engines, rather than in open areas.

Stations in such locations as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning that temperatures for those areas now are “determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon.”

“Think of it this way,” D’Aleo told the television station, “if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis’ temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?”

D’Aleo said that the coolest stations in a particular reporting period sometimes disappeared in the next.

“This would indicate a deliberate attempt to create a warm bias on the part of NOAA because in calculating the average temperatures in this way it would ensure that the global average temperature for each month and year would now show a positive temperature anomaly,” the report said.

Such anomalies, it added, make climate reports based on those figures simply unreliable.

“You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming the around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated,” the report said.

Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog Judicial Watch has released several hundred pages of e-mails from U.S. government scientists reacting – sometimes with disdain and arrogance – when an independent investigator pointed out an error in their global warming statistics.

When the mistake ultimately was corrected, the tables reflected slightly lower temperatures for years following 2000, and the reshuffled rankings revealed that several years from the 1930s were, in fact, warmer than during the last decade.

That, of course, undercut arguments that the life of modern man is generating emissions that would, if left unchecked, eventually threaten life on earth because of melting ice caps, rising seas and climates too hot to support food production.

In the British scandal prior to Christmas, purloined e-mails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, one of the world’s premier global warming investigative organizations, included references to a “trick” to “hide the decline.”

The NASA issue developed around 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 at its Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The issue was that temperature readings apparently weren’t handled in a consistent fashion, leaving them open for challenge. Sometimes “raw” data was used, while other times it was adjusted for “time of observation.”

The mistake noted by McIntyre prompted the government agency to “re-process” data to eliminate an “artificial step” in the charts.

“Obviously, combining the uncorrected [data] with the [corrected] records for earlier years caused jumps in the records at those stations,” a government e-mail responded. “The net effect averaged over the U.S. was an error of about 0.15C or less in the post-2000 years.”

However, 0.15 degrees Centigrade is one-third of a degree Fahrenheit, which could be considered a significant change in an overall climate average.

The e-mails show the impact was that while 1998 previously had a deviation of 1.24 degrees Centrigrade, that should have been 1.23 – bringing it below 1934. The lists for the highest deviations, the e-mails show, had listed 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921, 1931, 1999, 1953, 2001, 1990 and 1938.

The new list was changed to: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

Instead of simply correcting the errors, however, government scientist Jim Hansen responded by labeling McIntyre a “pest,” and suggested that those who disagree with global warming “should be ready to crawl under a rock by now.”

“This e-mail traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA,” said Tom Fitton, chief of Judicial Watch, which obtained the documents under a Freedom of Information Act request. “Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data.”

“Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest matter,” he said.

The hundreds of pages of documents concern what the government described as a “glitch” in official assessments of temperatures.

Judicial Watch noted that a Bloomberg reporter had e-mailed to Hansen, “The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…”

Hansen responded, “We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934.”

To which NASA scientist Makiko Sato told Hansen, “I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page…”

Fitton told WND the e-mails reveal at “unflattering portrait of NASA scientists who, rather than deal forthrightly with their error, attacked those who called them on it.”

He said he would leave to scientific experts the exact analysis of the impact of the flaw. But he said the dispute – and the government’s response – “calls into question other data that is being presented by NASA [and others] in the global warming community.”

“One has to wonder whether or not it would have been caught but for a diligent researcher,” he said. “These are not everyday scientists in the private sector who can do whatever they want to do. These are government scientists trashing citizens and bloggers.”

He said the e-mails make it appear the government didn’t even want to engage in a discussion over the mistake – but for political, not scientific reasons.

One of the newly revealed e-mails documents a government scientist writing about those who were questioning the government’s mistake: “This seems to be a tempest inside somebody’s teapot dome… It is unclear why anyone would try to make something out of this, perhaps a light not on upstairs? Or perhaps this is coming from one of the old contrarians? They can’t seem to get over the fact that the real world has proven them to be full of malarkey! You would think that they would be ready to crawl under a rock by now!”

McIntyre’s website comment on the e-mail revelation today was that, “If anyone is wondering whether e-mails by U.S. government employees are ‘private’ and ‘personal’ – an assertion sometimes made in respect to emails at CRU, an institution subject to UK FOI – the answer in respect to NASA GISS appears to be no.”

The previous e-mails from East Anglia, posted online after a hacker found them, said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Suggestions to suppress information also were documented at East Anglia, “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.”

They also suggest how “warmists,” as critics label those who believe in global warming, conspired to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer-review process.

Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where “cooler heads prevail,” had described the East Anglia e-mails as “shocking.”

“It’s kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community,” he said.

The documents, he said, “raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.

“What I’ve seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It’s very improper,” he said. “One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate.”

There also is an effort called the Petition Project which was launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. The effort, assembled by Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and cofounder of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in 1973, now lists tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse this:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

WND also reported recently on the United Nation’s summit in Copenhagen, which failed to produce a global carbon emissions agreement as advocates had sought.

That meeting, instead, was simply about American money, according to Steve Stockman, a former Texas congressman who was in the Danish capital for the two-week event before Christmas.

“It was about transferring the wealth of taxpayers,” he said. “This has nothing to do with science.”

Further, a Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as “the World’s Most Famous Hurricane Expert” said the East Anglia e-mails “are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well-organized international climate-warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years.”

The comment came from Colorado State University’s William Gray, whose annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.

He had forecast that U.S. researchers eventually would be caught by their own e-mails, too.

“This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publicly funded climate-research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public,” he said at the time.

---

Copenhagen: Travelgate part Deux

So this was the real reason for Copenhagen, at least as far as the liberal/progressives were concerned.  They just wanted to go party on our dime to celebrate their destruction of capitalism, liberty, and the American way of life.  Notice I said liberal/progressive, and not just democrat.  There were a few RINO’s on the trip as well.

If CBS is actually reporting this story, you know it has to be much worse than they are letting on.  They don’t exactly have a strong track record of being unbiased when it comes to reporting on liberals.

We all have to sacrifice, pay penance, do our fair share, and all the other crap the liberals are saying we have to do.  Only they aren’t doing THEIR fair share.  They are more than willing to TAKE OUR fair share for their own benefit.  They view themselves as royalty.  They are just trying on the oligarchy that they are trying to build on for size.

I guess the $5,000 per year pay raise they got this year to add to their already large 6-figure salaries just wasn’t enough to buy their own plane tickets.  Oh, the poor, poor politicians.  Their lives are so hard.

---

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/11/cbsnews_investigates/main6084364.shtml

Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket?

Exclusive: At Least 20 Members of Congress Made the Trip to Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Last Month

By Sharyl Attkisson

(CBS)

Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.

CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.

They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.

That’s not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn’t agree to an interview. Her office said it “will comply with disclosure requirements” but wouldn’t give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an “opposing view.”

“They’re going because it’s the biggest party of the year,” Sen. Inhofe said. “The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar.”

Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737’s and a Gulfstream Five — up to 64 passengers — traveling in luxurious comfort.

Add senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal.

As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an open seat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was there with her husband. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) was also there with her husband. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took his wife, as did Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Congressman Barton — a climate change skeptic — even brought along his daughter.

(CBS)

Until required filings are made in the coming weeks, we can only figure bits and pieces of the cost to you.

Three military jets at $9,900 per hour – $168,000 just in flight time.

Dozens flew commercial at up to $2,000 each.

321 hotel nights booked – the bulk at Copenhagen’s five-star Marriott.

Meals add tens of thousands more.

Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, wasn’t against a U.S. presence. But he said, “Every penny counts. Congress should be shaking the couch cushions looking for change, rather than spending cash for everybody to go to Copenhagen.”

Nobody we asked would defend the super-sized Congressional presence on camera. One Democrat said it showed the world the U.S. is serious about climate change.

And all those attendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up by teleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Which means even if Congress didn’t get a global agreement – they left an indelible footprint all the same.

+
+

---

Obama One Step Closer to Dictatorship

The EPA, at the behest of one Barack “Barry” “Don’t call me Hussein” Obama, is about to usurp the constitutional authority of the congress of the United States.

Did we elect the EPA?  I don’t think so.  They are crossing the line to begin cap-and-trade by fiat without the consent of congress.

Congress, did you think you were going to keep your jobs EVEN IF you were successful in screwing America?  If he’s able to pull this off, Obama will be finished with you.  You will be unemployed and relegated to the trash heap of history.

Keep pushing, Obama.  You and your liberals are dangerously close to lighting the fuse on the powder keg of American dissent.  We won’t tolerate your disregard for us and for our constitution much longer.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120701645_pf.html

EPA is preparing to regulate emissions in Congress’s stead

By Steven Mufson and David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The Obama administration moved closer Monday to issuing regulations on greenhouse gases, a step that would enable it to limit emissions across the economy even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation.

The move, which coincided with the first day of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, seemed timed to reassure delegates there that the United States is committed to reducing its emissions even if domestic legislation remains bogged down. But it provoked condemnation from key Republicans and from U.S. business groups, which vowed to tie up any regulations in litigation.

In Monday’s much-anticipated announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency said that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and health of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to reduce those emissions.

“These are reasonable, common-sense steps,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, adding that they would protect the environment “without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.” At the same time, however, EPA regulation is no one’s preferred outcome — not even the EPA’s. Jackson said her agency and other administration officials would still prefer if Congress acted before they did.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a leading proponent of a Senate climate bill, issued a statement after the EPA’s announcement saying, “The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving.”

The EPA’s “endangerment finding” — a key bureaucratic step in the regulatory process — was seen as a message to Congress and Copenhagen, but it was also a belated response to an order from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in April 2007 that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the court said, the EPA had not only the power but the obligation to regulate the gas. (In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Bush administration was fighting against regulating carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes.)

Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power, a utility that is the nation’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, said Monday that “we have been a proponent . . . to a congressional approach to this undertaking. This is the most awkward way we could go about it.” The EPA had to comply with direction from the courts, Morris said, but “there are better approaches, more cost-effective approaches and more productive approaches.”

It remains unclear whether the EPA’s regulatory cudgel will spur Congress to take faster action on the climate legislation that is now mired in the Senate or whether it will provoke a backlash.

“The stick approach isn’t going to work. In fact, Congress may retaliate,” said Mark Helmke, a senior adviser to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). “They could stop the funding, and they could change the law.”

Anticipating EPA action, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) tried unsuccessfully in September to prevent the agency from spending money to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants or factories, for one year. Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement Monday that the endangerment finding was “a blunt instrument that will severely hamper our attempts to bolster the economy and get Americans back to work.”

Some senators who environmental groups hope might vote for a climate bill also said they were unhappy. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) called the move “regrettable.” And Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that she was concerned the move “will create burdens on American industry without providing any significant environmental benefits.”

“I strongly urge EPA to wait for Congress to find a solution,” Lincoln said.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration took the first step toward complying with the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling by requiring automakers to increase the fuel economy — and therefore decrease the carbon emissions — of new cars and trucks by 2016. The ailing automakers supported the accord.

Monday’s finding is another step toward complying. “There are no more excuses for delay,” Jackson said. “This administration will not ignore science and the law any longer.”

Supporters of regulation note that the Clean Air Act has led to some of the great U.S. environmental success stories, producing significant drops in smog and soot. But greenhouse gases could prove far more difficult to fight. They don’t just come from smokestacks, but from millions of auto tailpipes, airplanes, ships, home furnaces and even the digestive tracts of cattle. And there is no simple piece of hardware that emitters can buy to keep the gases out of the air.

“There’s no catalytic converter. There’s no scrubber. There’s nothing,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who headed the EPA’s air-pollution programs during the Bush administration and now works with the lobbying firm Bracewell & Giuliani. Instead, solutions would likely include switching the fuels burned in power plants and, in the future, using machinery to capture emissions and store them underground.

The Clean Air Act set a low threshold for regulation that opponents argue would require rules for everything from laundries to office buildings, from cow farms to coal plants. But the EPA said it would impose new rules only on large factories, refineries, power plants and other facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons a year of carbon dioxide.

When these plants upgrade their facilities, or when new ones like them are built, they would be required to install the “best available control technology” for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, while “taking into account costs.” In October, the EPA said there were 13,661 facilities that size; it estimated that every year about 128 new facilities and 273 existing facilities seeking modifications would require new permits.

“What EPA can require is controls that are technically feasible and cost-effective,” said David Donziger, policy director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “With CO2 there is the chance to save money, which is rarer for other pollutants.”

Together, these large sources account for about half of all U.S. emissions, the EPA said. But it’s still unclear what, exactly, the “best available” technology should be. Jackson said the EPA was still working on that.

Although many business leaders have urged Congress to adopt climate legislation, some remain staunchly opposed. Those groups also condemned the EPA for moving forward with regulations.

“This action poses a threat to every American family and business if it leads to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, whose members have big oil refineries and petrochemical plants. “It is a decision that is clearly politically motivated to coincide with the start of the Copenhagen climate summit.”

---

Al Gore: The Milli Vanilli of the Scientific Community

Do any of you remember the music act Milli Vanilli from the late 80’s and early 90’s?  Remember how they won a Grammy for their music but then had it revoked because they were found to lip-syncing?  They were phonies garnering recognition for something they didn’t do.

Now we have a modern parallel.  We have a person who claims to be an expert on climate science who has no actual education or experience in the field.  This person has been internationally recognized for his work in propagating what has been proven to be a lie.  Now that man-made climate change has been proven to be a hoax, the elitists on the left want their awards back.  Who is this hoaxter?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Milli Vanilli of the scientific world, Al Gore.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/president/ci.Hollywood+Conservatives+Say+Gore+Should+Lose+Oscar+Over+Climate-Gate.opinionPrint

– FOXNews.com
– December 04, 2009

Hollywood Conservatives Say Gore Should Lose Oscar Over Climate-Gate

Two conservative screenwriters say Al Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.

//

Just days ahead of an international climate change conference, global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore has been hit by an inconvenient scandal — one that’s reverberated all the way back to Hollywood.

Two conservative screenwriters say Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.  (Amen.)

The former vice president earned the Oscar in 2007 for his climate change manifesto “An Inconvenient Truth.” He later went on to earn a Nobel Peace Prize and become one of the world’s leading authorities on global warming. (Let’s take back his “Peace” Prize, and also get Jimmy Carter’s while we’re at it.)

But Roger Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, put out a statement Thursday calling for the Academy to take it all back in light of the controversy skeptics have dubbed Climate-Gate.

“I personally call for the Academy to rescind this Oscar,” Simon said. “In the history of the Academy … not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. … I think they should rescind this one.”

Though their demand will almost certainly not be met, it marks the latest effort by conservatives to draw attention to the controversy in the run-up to an international climate change conference next week in Copenhagen — where Gore just canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are demanding hearings on the topic, after leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit showed scientists appearing to discuss manipulating climate change data.

Simon is the founder of Pajamas Media, whose Web site posted the Gore criticism Thursday. Chetwynd is a screenwriter.

The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group. The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.  (Yeah.  Right.)

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of “all the events going on with the summit.” Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that’s when the ministerial segment starts.

Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it’s a “great disappointment” that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded.

---

Jon Stewart Talks Climate-Gate (while the rest of the media sleeps)

When liberal hack Jon Stewart acknowledges Climate-Gate, there has to be something to it.  Too bad ABC, CBS, NBC, and the others refuse to even acknowledge the story.  Any wonder they are losing market share at about the same rate as Obama’s ratings are dropping?  People see those networks as the enabling liars of the liar they helped put in office, and the people are tired of the lies.

How do Obama and that idiot press secretary of his, Robert Gibbs, honestly and with a straight face sit there and deny that there is a problem with the whole “global warming” theory?  If he were being intellectually honest, wouldn’t he say that in light of the new evidence there needs to be a new and “transparent” investigation into the possibility of global warming?  Obama STILL intends to go to Copenhagen and sell us out.  The revolution will likely start shortly after he returns if he signs that treaty.

It’s not exactly “settled science” anymore.  Who are the deniers NOW?

---

---

TRUE Global Warming Agenda Revealed

Those who would take our liberty from us are growing impatient.  They have seen a door opened to them with the election of the mOssiah, Chairman Maobama, and they are emboldened by America’s forced dash towards socialism.  Yet you, the American people, still stand in their way.

It is you, the American people, who can stop and unseat our corrupt elected representatives.

It is you, the American people, who can stop Barack Hussein Obama from pushing us off the cliff of socialism.

It is you, the American people, though it may be difficult, who can recover from the near destruction of our economy.

It is you, the American people, the people of the greatest nation the earth has ever known, the people who made America the shining beacon of freedom around the globe, who stand in the way of an unelected global government who will strip your freedom and wealth from you.

The true agenda behind the global warming/climate change agenda has been revealed by its own proponents.  Global governance is their aim.  On the surface that can only mean lowering your standard of living, taking your wealth, taking your freedom, and giving it to those who have not earned it.  Those pushing for global governance have told us they want to do this.  But what aren’t they telling us?  As is always the case with any liberal proposal, what they tell you and what they really mean are two entirely different things.  The chances that what they steal from us will ever make it into the hands of the African tribesmen or Pygmies in the outback of Australia is remote at best.  They will never see any benefit from wealth stolen from us.  That wealth will only be used to line the pockets and consolidate the power of those who form this global government.

What can we do to aid the less fortunate around the world?  Can it be done without a one-world government?  How can it be done?  The answer is simple.

American exceptionalism and capitalism.

America has ALWAYS been the most generous nation on earth.  We have ALWAYS given more than all other nations combined to those less fortunate nations.  We have ALWAYS been the first on the scene providing aid when there is a natural disaster somewhere in the world.  How have we been able to do this?  Because our American ingenuity, and capitalist free market system have always produced more than we need.  When that system is destroyed, there will be nothing left to give.  When you destroy the wealthy and those who produce wealth, you are left with nothing a-la “Atlas Shrugged.”  Obama and the rest of the liberal elites are using class warfare to justify their increased taxation of the wealthy and middle class.  I will leave you with this short story that explains quite well what is happening.

How Taxes Work . . .(not an original work, author unknown)

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers?  How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

---

http://www.examiner.com/x-27580-St-Louis-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-EU-President-claims-2009-first-year-of-global-governance

 

EU President claims 2009 first year of global governance

November 25, 9:38 AM
St. Louis Conservative Examiner
Andrea Simoncic

According to recent statements by the EU’s President, Herman van Rompuy, the year 2009 will mark the first year of global governance. The EU President, a former Belgian Prime Minister, mentioned this in a recent speech upon confirmation of his presidency. Said the newly confirmed EU President, “2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” This claim has given rise to fears of a possible coup of the American government if the proposed Copenhagen Climate Treaty is signed by President Obama in December.

The climate treaty, it is theorized, would mandate that wealthier nations redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in reparation for so-called “climate debt.” In other words, it mandates a handout from richer nations to poorer nations, based on the spurious scientific evidence of global warming. Evidence which has recently proven to be falsified, according to the leak of information from Hadley CRU.

The foundation for these fears that U.S. Sovereignty will be usurped result from a section on governance in the treaty, beginning on page 22 of the proposal. Some believe it would create an unelected world government with direct control over all financial and trading markets, plus the direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of the nations which sign the Treaty. It is on this basis that some fear the U.S. may lose its sovereignty if President Obama signs this treaty, and Congress ratifies it into law. Among those who warn against the treaty is British Lord Monckton, the former science advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Whether or not these fears and suspicions are well-founded, however, the new EU President nonetheless has displayed a worrying presumption in regards to other nations. Certainly Americans would do well to be vigilant regarding this matter, particularly concerning the devaluation of the dollar, and China’s past urgings to accept a global currency. Yet America has not surrendered her sovereignty, despite the EU President’s implied assumptions that America, along with other nations, will indeed bow to the authority of a one world government in the future. Indeed, many recent reports have sounded the death knell for this treaty. Regardless, America must stand firm against those who would seize or coerce unrightful power; American must not and cannot cede its sovereignty to any person or entity. That means you, too, President van Rompuy.

For more information, please visit:

UN Framework for Convention for Climate Change (Most recent version of the proposal)

Obama says ‘step closer’ to climate deal

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say

APEC Concedes Copenhagen Climate Treaty Out of Reach

Instrument of Repudiation Petition Opposing Treaty of Copenhagen
+

---

Obama Betraying Military, Causes Troops to Die in Afghanistan

From one of the mouths on one of his faces, Obama NOW says that his worries about military spending are delaying his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan.  That’s funny.  He wasn’t worried about too much spending when he signed the $787 Billion (which we didn’t have) porkulus package into law.  He doesn’t seem too worried about spending TRILLIONS more dollars we don’t have on a freedom destroying takeover of the American health care system.  He doesn’t seem too worried about spending TRILLIONS more dollars we don’t have, and completing the destruction of our economy by pushing his cap-and-charade climate change agenda, and vowing to sign the Copenhagen Treaty.  He doesn’t seem too worried about the BILLIONS of dollars that are being funneled to his cronies and union buddies in the form of political payoffs.

The amount of fraud, waste, and abuse of the Medicare system last year would fund the 40,000 troops that General McChrystal is requesting for an entire year.

Here’s a Nancy Pelosi, “Are you kidding me?” moment if I ever saw one.  During his current Asian “Apologize for America” tour, Comrade Obama stopped at Eielson AFB in Alaska.  There he told the 1,000 some-odd troops in attendance the following:

“I want you guys to understand that I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people and our vital interests,” Obama told the troops. “But I also make you this promise: I will not risk your lives unless it is necessary to America’s vital interests.”

“And if it is necessary,” Obama added, “the United States of America will have your back. We’ll give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We’ll give you the equipment and support you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home.”

I wonder if he includes the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in this statement, because he is using military force, and he is risking American military lives in those places.  Does he consider Afghanistan and Iraq to be “America’s vital interests?”  If he did, he would give them a “strategy and the clear mission” they deserve, and he would indeed “have their back,” and would be giving them “the equipment and support” they “need to get the job done.”

He has delayed for 3 months giving the General THAT HE APPOINTED the men and material that he has requested, so what does that say about Obama’s attitude toward Afghanistan?  What does it say about his attitude toward the military in general when looked at in the larger context of his military spending plans?

It appears to me that Chairman Maobama is attempting to destroy the military just as he appears to be intentionally trying to destroy the economy.  What will fill the void?  Remember that “civilian security force” Obama spoke of during his campaign?  The one that he said would be “just as well funded and equipped as the military?”  The current military swears to protect and defend the constitution.  Obama’s new “military” would swear allegiance to him.

Didn’t we learn ANYTHING from the second world war?  Brown Shirts, anyone?

---

 

Obama Will Cede US Soveriegnty and Destroy US Constitution by Signing Climate Treaty

Obama is hell bent for leather to destroy America.  If he can’t destroy our constitution directly (he’s doing a pretty good job of that), he will do it subversively.  He likely can’t pass his cap and trade scheme in our senate, so he plans to try to bypass them by signing a treaty to suborn us to a new “world government.”

If he succeeds in ramming this treaty through, we’re done.  Finished.  I’ve told you for a long time that healthcare, cap-and-tax, control of the media and gun control were the biggest threats to our liberty from Obama and his band of merry communists.  We are seeing three of the four being openly pursued.  Make no mistake, they are also pursuing gun control, but they are going about it more quietly.

What is so dangerous about this Copenhagen Treaty?  It trumps our constitution and suborns us to foreign government in which we have no vote. It redistributes the wealth in this country to countries that do not deserve, nor did they earn it.  It allows Obama to implement all of his Marxist agenda by fiat rather than by constitutional processes in line with the will of the American people.  It will also destroy millions of American jobs.

China and India, the two single biggest polluters in the world, have already said they will not go along with this.  It will destroy their economies just like it will ours.  We will be the only ones trying to live up to the carbon reduction mandates, we will be the only ones actually paying for these ridiculous carbon credits, and we will be the only economy flushing ourselves down the toilet as a result.  All of this will come at the hand of foreign governments who would like nothing better than to see our destruction anyway.

There is one other scary angle to this myth that we can affect the climate with our carbon production.  That is the EPA.  Yes, your beloved big government program gone wild, the Environmental “Protection” Agency.  Even if the Copenhagen Treaty is not signed, and even if there is no “global warming” or “climate change” legislation passed on Capitol Hill, the EPA will classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant and regulate it.  Many big companies, including many electric companies, are saying they support cap-and-tax, but only because they fear that “regulation” by the EPA will be even worse for them.  Mike Huckaby interviewed the CEO of one of the largest electric companies in the nation the other night.  That CEO said that under cap-and-tax he anticipated that electricity rates would likely double, and possibly go higher.  But he said he and his peers felt that EPA regulation would be even worse.  A lose/lose situation.

Everything you buy will increase in price, and possibly double in price as a result of this massive increase in the cost of energy.  Why?  At best, scientists aren’t sure what effect a carbon reduction would have on the climate.  A growing majority believe that we can have little to no effect on the climate.  Remember that only a few short years ago Al Gore and the politically motivated IPCC were screaming that the earth was going to burst into flames if we didn’t act immediately to reduce CO2 emissions.  Well, we didn’t act, and we didn’t reduce global emissions, we actually increased emissions world wide.  The result?  The earth has been cooling now for the last eight years.  Coincidentally, the solar activity over that same period was also lower than in warmer years.  But I’m sure there is no correlation.   One of the biggest holes in the global-warming/climate-change myth is that they are basing most of their junk science on meteorologists (i.e. weather forecasters) with a political agenda.  Do you want to trust your freedom, and the very future of our country to people who can’t even accurately tell you what the weather will be tomorrow 90% of the time?  The only result of cap-and-tax will be total government control of every aspect of our lives, since NOTHING you do, all the way down to breathing, can be done without involving the production of carbon.

Don’t let Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Reid, Pelosi, and the lot of these communists distract you.  They are doing all they can to divert our attention from what is really important.  They are trying to get us to focus on their attacks on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, on crazy parents trying to get us to believe their child got launched in a helium balloon so they could get on TV, and on any number of things that will distract us from the things that really matter.  You MUST keep the pressure on your senators and congressmen, as well as the president himself.  Not that he will care or listen, but knowing that we are not asleep at the wheel will give him at least a seconds pause.  Don’t quit!

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Lord Christopher Monckton: Obama Will Cede US Soveriegnty In Climate Treaty

October 19, 2009 | Posted by Shannon Bell

Warning of a Global Government meant to enforce the transfer of wealth from rich Nations like ours to third world Nations, Lord Christopher Monckton says that Barack Obama is poised to cede our sovereignty over to the United Nations in the name of saving the planet. This would be done he says by the signing of the Global Climate Treaty in Copenhagen in a few weeks.

Lord Christopher Monckton speaking at the Minnesota Free Market Institute 5 days ago said that within the climate treaty that Obama is so willing to sign, the ceding of our sovereignty awaits. A global government will be established that will be run of course by the U.N.; the scary part of all of this? Once Obama signs the climate treaty and if the Senate were to ratify that treaty, that treaty by virtue of Article 6 of the Constitution, would effectively trump the Constitution.

Essentially what would take place according to Lord Christopher Monckton is that rich countries like the United States would have its wealth transferred to poorer countries based on the fact that we screwed the planet’s climate up, while they (the poor countries) were just victims.

The big picture is this, once we enter into this treaty we will never be allowed to leave it. All member Nations of the treaty would have to “let you out”. We of course would never be let out because we would be forced to pay in the most since we “pollute” the most. Countries who are benefiting financially from our poor position of being in the Copenhagen Treaty would never allow us out.

What is the probability of this happening? We know that Barack Obama will sign just about any type of Climate Treaty placed in front of him. As much as the democrats harped about George Bush and the Kyoto Protocol, it’s a done deal. The key is the US Senate which would have to ratify by a 2/3 majority.

I should say the key to all of this is us. Continued pressure is what is needed. Tea parties, protests, whatever it takes within the confines of the law. Lord Christopher Monckton is pleading for our help, it is up to the American people once again to save the Nations sovereignty.

YOU MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO!  LISTEN CAREFULLY!

Here is another example of those fear-mongering around the world in a quest for a “new world order,”  and global governance.  Listen to Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister, as he tries to scare us into acting as he would like by repeating many of the already debunked, tired old lies, and then claiming that if we don’t act in 50 days the world will never recover.  Sound familiar?  Kind of like Al Gore telling us years ago that the world would be gone in three years if we didn’t “act now.”  Well, that was more than 5 years ago.

This “new world order”  and global governance sounds a lot like much of the prophecy from Revelations in the Bible.  I don’t know about you, but that scares me just a bit.  Has anyone checked Obama for strange birth marks?

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

More about Christopher Monckton

Speech by Christopher Monckton

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Full 96 minute speech

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics

I don’t understand.  Our economy is booming since Chairmain Maobama took over, isn’t it?  The national unemployment rate is only 9.8% even if it is as high as 40% in some localities.  That’s a positive sign, right?  We’re only losing 400,000 jobs per month while we wait to be “stimulated” by the porkulus bill.  That indicates a recovery, doesn’t it?  Obama’s takeover of the banking and auto industries was completely constitutional and good for business, right?

WAKE UP, AMERICA!

Obama is the Baby Huey of the political world.  He’s “clean and articulate” (so sayeth Joe Biden), or at least he is when guided by the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States).  He’s cute and cuddly in an emasculated, metrosexual sort of way.  Beyond that he has no qualifications to run ANYTHING.  He has demonstrated that he is either stupid, misguided, or malicious.  I believe he is misguided AND malicious.

America, how far down are we going to let him drag us?

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/print?guid=DC232431-879F-4907-B6B6-11997388705C

MarketWatch First Take
Oct. 12, 2009, 8:47 a.m. EDT

Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics

Commentary: Michael Moore, Timothy Geithner also passed over

<!– #var paragraph = content as Paragraph; #var textChunk = chunk as TextChunk; #// #// –>

By MarketWatch

LONDON (MarketWatch) — In a decision as shocking as Friday’s surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he’s been in office, the same clearly can’t be said for economics.

The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.

Obama reacts to Nobel

President Obama says he was surprised and humbled by the honor. Video courtesy of Fox Business News.

From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care “reform” act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.

Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure academics — Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson — one noted for her work on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction costs. See full story on the Nobel winners.

Other surprise losers include celebrity noneconomist and filmmaker Michael Moore; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council.

It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.

— Tom Bemis, assistant managing editor

The Noble ‘Sacrifice’ Of Michelle Obama

The “noble sacrifice” of the Obama’s continues.  How can we ever thank them for protecting us from million dollar airplane rides with inflight meals catered by world class chefs?  When will words be enough to thank them for shielding us from having to jet-set with royalty and dignitaries from around the world?  All hail the mOssiah and the first malady for taking one for the team.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2009/mm_1002p.shtml

The Noble ‘Sacrifice’ Of Michelle Obama
By Michelle Malkin
October 2, 2009

It’s hard out there for a first lady of the United States. Take it from travel-weary Michelle Obama. On Tuesday night, she boarded a luxury 757 for Copenhagen. Think of the stairs she had to climb. Oh, the agony of the feet!

Upon arrival, Mrs. O, her “chit-chat buddy,” Chicago-based talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, and Chicago powerbroker/interest-conflicted real estate mogul/senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett immediately embarked on a grueling, grip-and-grin campaign to secure the Olympics for their hometown. Our smile muscles ache in sympathy.

You will be comforted to know that the gracious FLOTUS feels your pain for her pain. “As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days,” the first lady told a group of fellow Chicago 2016 boosters, “so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.” Translation: Thank me, thank you, for all we do.

Never has self-congratulatory gratitude been raised to such an art form, but there was no time for loyal subjects to dwell. The selflessly indefatigable Michelle Obama had to rush off for an 800-meter wine-and-cheese dash with International Olympic Committee members, followed by a rigorous aerobic Heads of State luncheon hosted by Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and another high-heeled trek to the IOC Opening Ceremony at the Copenhagen Opera House.

Of course, it’s not entirely clear which “people” out there are saying that the Obamas’ jaunt to Denmark is a “sacrifice.”

Certainly not the families of the 43 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have died in Afghanistan since Gen. Stanley McChrystal called for more reinforcements.

Certainly not the families of the nearly 40 children and teens in Chicago who lost their lives on the out-of-control streets of the Windy City so far this year.

The first lady’s slip of self-absorption reminds me of a useful passage in Washington Post writer Liza Mundy’s biography of Mrs. Obama. After graduating from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, the bitterly oppressed Michelle Obama headed back to her native Chicago to join the high-powered law firm of Sidley Austin — the ninth largest in the world. There, Mundy’s book reported, the future first lady griped about having to do the duties of a second-year associate while she was a second-year associate — demonstrating the trademark attitude of entitlement and inflated ego that led the law partner who recruited her to later describe her as “perennially dissatisfied.”

Doing her first job was a burden then. Enjoying the perks of her current job is a “sacrifice” now.

Michelle Obama has a gift for selling special-interest business-as-usual as public-interest charity. Thus, the insatiable appetite of Chicago’s polite elite for a massive Olympics windfall to crony developers is redefined as a do-good campaign for the children. Said Mrs. Obama:

“We need all of our children to be exposed to the Olympic ideals that athletes from around the world represent, particularly this time in our nation’s history, where athletics is becoming more of a fleeting opportunity. … When we’re seeing rates of childhood obesity increase, it is so important for us to raise up the platform of fitness and competition and fair play; to teach kids to cheer on the victors and empathize with those in defeat, but most importantly, to recognize that all the hard work that is required to do something special.”

“Hard work,” you know, like jetting off with your gal pals to schmooze other world leaders, famous athletes and celebrities for a few days on the taxpayers’ dime.

In the Olympics of the aggrieved, Mrs. Obama gets a gold medal.

—

Michelle Malkin is the author of the recently released “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2009). COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

Copenhagen Fallout: “I can’t believe we didn’t…”

It was a million bucks JUST for Air Force 1.  The first malady went separately on an Air Force 757.  Why?  Then you have a couple of C-5’s or equivalent airlift to carry all the helicopters and limos, the support and security personnel, etc.  If this boondoggle cost a dime less than $10 million I would be shocked.  Oh, but he met with his top general in Afghanistan for a whopping 20 minutes.  Let’s see… In the 70 days since General McChrystal took over, Obama has talked to him twice, about 20 minutes each time.  So, Obama has met with the commander of what he said was the most important part of our war on man caused disasters when he was a candidate for an average of 35 seconds per day.  Does that say to you that he thinks winning (in Afghanistan) is important?  But I digress.

Instead of hearing how much Obama is traveling (more than Bush), how much it costs (not just for AF1), or how big his carbon footprint is, what we hear from the media formerly known as mainstream is simply silence.  Actually, let me correct myself.  When the votes in Copenhagen were tallied, the sound bite from one MFKAM anchor pretty much summed up the Obamabot response to this whole thing.  This reporter stammered through about 30 seconds of airtime in total disbelief that the mOssiah had been denied.  It went something like “Wha…, we didn’t…, I can’t believe this.  But president Obama and the first lady gave speeches.  I can’t believe Chicago didn’t win.  This is outrageous…”  And it went on from there.  No mention of any of the other topics concerning his travel.

In what has been yet another illustration of Obama’s narcissism, he disobeyed one of the unwritten rules of being a head of state.  You don’t personally go to things like this as a head of state unless it is already pretty much a done deal.  You can’t risk pissing away your limited supply of political capital on such things.  As Richard Cohen wrote in his September 29th article, it’s “Time to Act Like a President.”  American presidents don’t run around looking for a stage and a camera.  American presidents don’t act as if they are gods or dictators.  American presidents don’t run around the world apologizing for America being great.  American presidents don’t bow to foreign leaders (especially Arabs).  Maybe it is dangerous to assume that Obama IS an American.  He hasn’t proved it, and he sure doesn’t act like it.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Obama’s trip to Copenhagen cost $1 million or more

Associated Press

Last update: October 2, 2009 – 4:53 PM

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.

Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.

A 2006 congressional study pegged the cost of flying Air Force One at $56,518 an hour. The Pentagon recently said it cost $100,219 an hour to fly the huge, reconfigured Boeing 747 without Obama aboard. The Pentagon estimate included more costs for support needs, such as maintenance.

At those rates, the president’s 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 million.

However, presidential travel requires additional spending, especially for security personnel and equipment. Also, first lady Michelle Obama and some administration officials traveled to Copenhagen at public expense ahead of the president.

The Copenhagen trip was not devoted entirely to the Olympics bid. Obama spent 25 minutes conferring with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top Afghan war commander. McChrystal had been in London for a speech, and he made the relatively short trip to Denmark to meet with Obama.