In This Issue:

• Obama’s Inaugural Address Falls Flat?
• Change We Can Believe In? Looks Like the Usual Suspects!
• Obama’s First Actions Not Making America Safer
• Geithner’s Tax Problems
• Obama-Blagojevich Report Contradicts Public Record
• Political Panetta at CIA?
• Pelosi’s Power Grab
• Bill Richardson Out As Commerce Secretary
• Citizens United Productions Presents: Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny Documentary
• Final Thoughts from Citizens United President David N. Bossie

Stay tuned for more updates as we will be updating this site frequently.

Copyright 2009 by Citizens United

ANOTHER IGNORANT DAMNACRAT

And those dammed Democrats think they know more than the rest of us.  That they are smarter than we are.  That they know and understand the Constitution better than we do.

BULL CRAP

The Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers for a new country and its CITIZENS.

CITIZENS, not for foreign terrorists or illegal aliens.  Those terrorists currently set to be brought to New York for trial in civil courts. These are enemy combatants, they have no civil rights as applied to citizens and legal, foreign, residents.

CNSNews.com

Rep. Kucinich Says Everyone, Including Osama Bin Laden, Should Get the Same ‘Basic Rights’
Monday, November 23, 2009
By Nick Ballasy

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

(CNSNews.com) – When asked whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden should have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told CNSNews.com that everyone who is accused of a crime should have the same “basic rights” afforded by the U.S. Constitution..

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Kucinich, “If and when the U.S. captures Osama Bin Laden, should he have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer–told he can get a lawyer?”

Kucinich said: “I think that America does best when the values that we want other nations to share that we profess and stand by, and I think that every one who is accused of a crime should have the basic rights that are afforded. I mean, that’s what America’s about.”

“We can’t have one set of rules there and another set of rules there,” said Kucinich. “America is one set of rules. We abide by the Constitution, and I think that Constitution is our protection now and in the future.”

When asked the same question by CNSNews.com on Nov. 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

During a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder several questions about how the capture and legal handling of Osama Bin Laden might be handled and warned that, in his opinion, the United States is “making bad history” by trying 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court.

When Graham asked whether the U.S. would try Bin Laden in a civilian court or military commission, Holder said he “didn’t know” and that the U.S. would have to “go through our protocol” before deciding what to do with the Islamic terrorist.

“If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?” Graham asked Holder. Holder’s response was “that all depends,” and Graham warned that the Obama administration’s new legal policy would confuse the military and the justice system.

“Well, it does not ‘depend,’” the senator said. “The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over—to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence—for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is the subject to criminal court in the United States.

“And you’re confusing the people fighting this war,” Graham charged. Later, the senator added, “The only point I’m making (is) that if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court.”

Holder announced last Friday that he had chosen to try Mohammed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, where the attacks on the World Trade Center occurred in 2001.

CNSNews.com

Rep. Kucinich Says Everyone, Including Osama Bin Laden, Should Get the Same ‘Basic Rights’
Monday, November 23, 2009
By Nick Ballasy

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

(CNSNews.com) – When asked whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden should have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told CNSNews.com that everyone who is accused of a crime should have the same “basic rights” afforded by the U.S. Constitution..

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Kucinich, “If and when the U.S. captures Osama Bin Laden, should he have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer–told he can get a lawyer?”

Kucinich said: “I think that America does best when the values that we want other nations to share that we profess and stand by, and I think that every one who is accused of a crime should have the basic rights that are afforded. I mean, that’s what America’s about.”

“We can’t have one set of rules there and another set of rules there,” said Kucinich. “America is one set of rules. We abide by the Constitution, and I think that Constitution is our protection now and in the future.”

When asked the same question by CNSNews.com on Nov. 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

During a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder several questions about how the capture and legal handling

The Great Global Warming Swindle, Part 1

By Bob Ellis on July 20th, 2009

The Global Warming Swindle is a devastating rebuttal of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda.

It was produced in 2007 by WAG TV, one of Great Britain’s top production companies, and provides testimony from many respected scientists which reveals the lack of foundation for global warming hysteria.

As Part 1 points out, the religion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become the “new morality” of a politically correct age. No dissent will be tolerated, and is even viewed as dangerous by its acolytes.

This video pulls no punches when it says that despite the fact that “experts” like Al Gore tell us AGW is “settled science,”

You are being told lies.

In this video, you’ll hear from Professor Tim Ball of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Professor Nir Shaviv of the Institute of Physics at the University of Jerusalem, Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby, Professor Ian Clark of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottowa, climate forecaster Dr Piers Corbyn, Professor John Christy of the IPCC, Professor Philip Stott of the Department of Biogeography at the University of London, Professor Paul Reiter of the IPCC and the Pasteur Institute in France, Professor Richard Lindzen from the IPCC and MIT, Professor Patrick Michaels of the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, economist and author James Shikwati, former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder, NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader Dr. Roy Spencer and even Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore.

The video points out how we have been force-fed a diet of AGW pap for years, and it’s a wonder that a solid majority of the public doesn’t believe this farce. As one scene from the BBC shows, we see the area in London near Parliament flooded from the Thames River, along with Trafalgar Square, and as someone who once lived in England and walked these areas a number of times, I can testify that it can be a little disconcerting to see places you know appearing to be flooded, even though you know it’s just special effects.

As you see in this video, even members of the IPCC point out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a UN group) is a political organization, that the number of people in the group is inflated, and that a number of members do not agree with the hysterical findings published by the leaders of the group.

Professor Shaviv points out that evidence indicates the earth once had three times as much or more CO2 in the atmosphere as we see today, yet these could not be blamed on human activity. Indeed, as the film points out, the earth has been considerably warmer in the last 1,000 years or so, and has been coming out of a “Little Ice Age” a few hundred years ago–all of this prior to SUVs, power plants or any industrial human activity.

Why does NASA perpetuate this bunk, especially when a great deal of their own data points to natural causes of climate change? As Dr. Spencer points out, “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding.”

True believers in AGW like to claim that those of us who realize the theory doesn’t pass the smell test are simply minions of a powerful profit-driven oil industry. But the inconvenient truth they ignore is that there is even more money–free, easy, taxpayer money–flowing to the green movement based on the perpetuation of this fantasy. Their motives aren’t nearly so squeaky-clean as they would have you think.

As the narrator summarizes so well of the film, “This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political ideology.”

Over the next several days, I will post a new part of this important film at Dakota Voice. I hope you will come back for all the parts, if you have the courage to face the truth about this massive swindle.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, Part 2

By Bob Ellis on July 21st, 2009

Yesterday I shared Part 1 of The Global Warming Swindle, a devastating rebuttal of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda.

he Global Warming Swindle was produced in 2007 by WAG TV, a top production company in Great Britain.  It features a host of expert scientific testimony from many respected scientists which shows the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is full of hot air.

Part 2 begins by examining the “Little Ice Age” felt in the northern hemisphere about 200 years ago. The Thames River in London froze up so hard that people held “ice fairs” and other activities right on the frozen river.

Prior to that, temperatures during the Middle Ages were even warmer than they are today. It was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize Greenland and grow vineyards there.

The film also indicates that vineyards had been common in England. Having lived in England for three years during the late 1980s, I have seen first hand that England is really neither very warm nor very cold, so both the freezing of the Thames and warmth to grow vineyards are extremely out of the ordinary for modern times. Apparently climate can vary widely…and has done so…without the aid of human industrial activity.

Scientists say the earth was even warmer still–and for a longer period–during the Holocene age.

With regard to Twentieth Century warming, we see that the latest warming trend began before cars and modern industrial contributions came along, and most of the warming occurred before the post-World War II industrial boom.

CO2 production just doesn’t line up well with global temperature change.  Inconvenient, huh?

Professor Tim Ball of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg points out that greenhouse gases only make a up a small portion of the atmosphere, and CO2 is only a small portion of those greenhouse gasses.  And natural sources contribute far more CO2 than do human sources.

According to Professor John Christy of the IPCC, temperature in the upper atmosphere doesn’t match the expectations of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, either.  According to the theory, it should be much higher than it actually is. Satellites and weather balloon data both tell us this.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, Part 3

By Bob Ellis on July 22nd, 2009

The past few days I have been sharing parts of The Global Warming Swindle at Dakota Voice.  The Global Warming Swindle presents a clear look at the hysteria surrounding the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming and features testimony from many respected scientists.

In Part 3 we see a bit of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda film. Ice core data and the comparison of CO2 and temperature are a key component of Gore’s contention.

We didn’t really get the whole picture from Gore, though.

Dr. Ian Clark of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottowa is a leading arctic paleoclimatologist and he took a look at this ice core data and found that the link was the opposite of what Al Gore claimed.

In other words, the data shows that CO2 increases aren’t driving temperatures, but rather temperature increases are driving CO2 increases.

Several addition ice core studies have found the same thing: CO2 levels following–not driving–temperature changes.

How can this be?  After all, the “mainstream” media and pop culture have for years fed us a rich diet of pap which claims CO2 drives temperature.

Well, CO2 is a natural substance.  It is generated by you and me and animals and many other natural sources, including volcanoes which make human contributions pale in comparison.  Dying vegetation and the oceans release countless tons of it.  Even all life on earth is carbon-based.

Professor Carl Wunsch of the Department of Oceanography at MIT says the oceans both absorb large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. He says if the ocean is heated, it tends to release carbon dioxide (which might explain why CO2 rises follow temperature increases, which also tend to follow solar activity).  The ocean covers the vast majority of the earth, and so not only has a large influence on global conditions, but because of that immense size, changes often lag for hundreds of years.

Solar physicist Dr. Piers Corbyn decided to try monitoring solar activity to predict global climate patterns and found it remarkably accurate.  Historical data going back hundreds of years indicates a correlation between sunspot/solar activity and global temperatures.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, Part 4

By Bob Ellis on July 23rd, 2009

Four centuries of solar activity (Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

In our continuing look at The Great Global Warming Swindle, we move from Part 3 into Part 4 today.

At the end of Part 3, we began looking at solar physicist Dr. Piers Corbyn’s successful efforts to predict climate change based on solar activity.  Part 4 picks up with a look at the “Maunder Minimum” in the 1600s and 1700s when sunspots became very rare…and temperatures also dropped very low.

Corbyn said he gambled on the weather through the William Hill gaming organization, and won again and again.

Over the course of the Twentieth Century, solar activity and temperature tracked remarkably close together.

But Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center wanted to look even farther back to see if there was a long-standing pattern, so they looked at 400 years worth of observations.  Again, temperatures and solar activity tracked with one another.

Professor Nir Shaviv of the Institute of Physics at the University of Jerusalem took a look at information concerning cosmic rays and cloud formation (cosmic rays play an important role in cloud formation) along with temperature records.

They found that when cosmic rays went down, temperatures went up, and vice versa.  Which makes perfect sense, since increased solar activity tends to push cosmic rays away from earth, and with the (a) increase in solar activity, and (b) increase in temperatures, and (c) decrease in cosmic rays, we saw (d) less cloud formation.

CO2 and temperature do not correlate well, but solar activity and temperature are remarkably similar.

So why the hysteria over the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming the the religious belief that human industrial activity is causing the planet to warm dangerously?

The film turns to the origin of the theory to help answer this vexing question.  The examination begins in the 1970s with information like “The Weather Machine” which was shown on the BBC, predicting global cooling, a coming ice age, etc.

About the only person saying anything to the contrary was a Swedish scientist who predicted that industrial activity producing large amounts of carbon dioxide might warm the earth.  He was written off by most of the scientific community, since the “settled science” of that day was “global cooling”…until temperatures started to rise.

And a new religion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was born.

Saudi female journalist gets 60 lashes RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

– A Saudi court on Saturday sentenced a female journalist to 60 lashes who had been charged with involvement in a TV show in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex. Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman journalist to be given such a punishment, but there were conflicting accounts about how the court issued its verdict. Al-Yami told The Associated Press it was her understanding that the judge at the court in the western city of Jiddah dropped the charges against her, which included involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the Internet. But she said he still handed down the lashing sentence “as a deterrence.” “I am too frustrated and upset to appeal the sentence,” said al-Yami, 22. Al-Yami worked as a coordinator for the program, but she has said she did not work on the sex-show episode. Al-Yami refused to provide contact details for her lawyer to ask about the legal proceedings, including the basis in Islamic law for the punishment and whether the charges were really dropped. Sulaiman al-Jumeii, the lawyer for the man who appeared in the TV show, said such “physical punishment is not an indication of innocence or a drop of charges.” “If the judge had dropped the charges, then why did he give her the 60 lashes?” he added. Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, the spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, told the AP he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it. In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, the man, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes. Al-Jumeii maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded. On Saturday, he told the AP that not trying al-Yami before a court specialized in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law. “It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job,” he said. The case has scandalized this ultraconservative country where such public talk about sex is taboo and the sexes are strictly segregated. The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC’s two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline. Three other men who appeared on the show, “Bold Red Line,” were also convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years imprisonment and 300 lashes each. Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

SECURITY FIRST LAST AND ALWAYS!!!

Pick a sex and stay with it.  Get your travel documents to match your chosen sex and stick with it or stay home.  Real simple….

U.N. Report Says Counterterrorism Measures ‘Risk Unduly Penalizing Transgender Persons’
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
By Adam Brickley

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly.” Next, he likened health insurance problems to a “holocaust in America.” Now, he’s unveiled a new website entitled “namesofthedead.com” in memory of the “more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance.”

Just one problem: The statistic is a phantom number. Grayson’s memorial, like the Democrats’ government health care takeover plan itself, is full of vapor. It comes from a study published this year in the American Journal of Public Health. But the science is infused with left-wing politics.

Two of the co-authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which bills itself as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.

Sounding more like a MoveOn.org organizer than a disinterested scientist, Woolhandler assailed the current health reform legislation in Congress for not going far enough: “Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives.”

How did these political doctors come up with the 44,000 figure? They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants whether they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Himmelstein, Woolhandler and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.

At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:

“Our study has several limitations,” the authors concede. The survey data they used “assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.” Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance — and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.

Another caveat you won’t see on Grayson’s memorial to the dubious dead: The single-payer advocate-authors also conceded in their study limitations section that “earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7 percent and 11 percent of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample.”

To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as “uninsured” may not have been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status. But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data and voila: More than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance.

Next, the political doctors cooked up scary-specific death tolls for all 50 states (California — 5,302, Texas — 4,675). Newspapers dutifully cited the fear-mongering factoids. The single-payer lobbying group co-founded by Himmelstein and Woolhandler took it from there. Last month, the group set up its own memorial on the National Mall for the phantom 44,000 casualties of uninsurance.

Himmelstein (who was also the driving force behind another flawed study tying medical debt to personal bankruptcies) eschewed scientific nuance and caveats to take to the airwaves and declare starkly that an American “dies every 12 minutes” because of lack of insurance. And now Grayson has taken the monumentally dishonest concept online to solicit sob stories and put flesh on the weak bones of these dubious death numbers.

Where’s the White House health care “reality check” squad when you need it?

—

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

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

——————–

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Attacking Fox News and defending President Obama is a family affair for Anita Dunn, the White House communications director who has blasted Fox as an arm of the Republican Party and talked about “controlling” the news media.

She’s married to Robert Bauer, the chief of the political law group at Perkins Coie, the Seattle law firm hired by the White House to defend Obama in court cases challenging his “natural born” citizenship status and thus, his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to be president.

Dunn is targeting Fox News with criticisms emanating from the administration that it isn’t even a news network, while Bauer has done his best to prevent the American public from seeing a wide range of Obama’s records that could prove, or disprove, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Documents concerning Obama that the White House has refused to release to the public include his long-form birth certificate and his passport records. Other records unreleased records that may be relevant include records regarding Obama’s possible adoption by his Indonesian stepfather and college application and tuition financial aid records that would reveal whether Obama was ever registered as a foreign student.

Read “The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama’s War on American Values”

WND previously has reported that Federal Election Commission records show $1,352,378.95 in payments were made by Obama for America to Perkins Coie while the law firm was representing him in various court cases which have sought to obtain  his long-form birth certificate.

Obama for America, Obama’s 2008 political campaign, merged with the Democratic National Committee in January and is now known as Organizing

for America. The grassroots army that some refer to as “Obama 2.0″ continues to solicit financial contributions on the BarackObama.com website.

Bauer, a Democratic Party partisan, has a long history of defending Democratic Party presidential hopefuls.

A biography for Bauer posted on the Perkins Coie website indicates he was general counsel to the Democratic National Committee during the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry and that he served as counsel to Sen. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the impeachment trial proceedings of President Bill Clinton.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Bauer functioned as an “attack lawyer,” threatening with FEC complaints groups wanting to run anti-Obama television ads.

Also during the 2008 presidential campaign, Bauer as counsel for the Obama campaign wrote letters to television station managers and to Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General John Keeney arguing that airing an anti-Obama ad pointing to the known association between Obama and Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers would violate federal election rules.

Also during the 2008 campaign, Bauer intervened on behalf of Obama to block the California-based American Leadership Project from running a television ad campaign over support from unions, including the Service Employees International Union.

Again, Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that the union-funded television campaign the American Leadership Project planned to run in Indiana against Obama was illegal under federal election laws.

In addition to representing Obama on eligibility cases, Bauer also is hired as legal counsel to represent the president in the criminal probe going on into the activities of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Last year, Bauer was at the center of the controversy over Obama’s decision to reverse course on his promise to accept public financing for his presidential campaign after a meeting with Sen. John McCain’s attorney, Trevor Potter, when Bauer claimed McCain did not want to reach a compromise on the issue.

The McCain campaign sharply criticized Bauer’s characterization of the meeting.

In June 2007, Bauer authored a piece in Huffington Post regarding Vice President Dick Cheney’s aide, Scooter Libby, arguing that liberals should not oppose a White House pardon because a pardon would draw President George W. Bush directly into the case, with the potential the “presidential fingerprints” could become politically explosive.

WND previously reported Dunn’s statements that Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues by controlling messages through videos produced and distributed by David Plouffe.

A REALLY DANGEROUS MAN–NEEDS TO BE STOPPED

The Trentonian (trentonian.com), Serving Trenton, NJ Opinion ‘Czars’ tip off real agenda Thursday, October 1, 2009 By JAY AMBROSE President Obama is appointing so-called White House czars in profusion, and some of them are far-out ideologues. But the Left says ho hum, no big deal. Why, the Left points out, Bush had lots of czars too — as if he’s some sort of role model for the crew that pledged “Change You Can Believe In.” A czar, we should first understand, is someone who does something that would ordinarily be done within a federal department. But unlike cabinet secretaries, these people do not have to be confirmed by the Senate. The issue of czars is not so much their precise numbers as whether they’re likely to have an adverse impact on government. And I think the answer is yes when you start getting people like Van Jones. Obama made him czar of “green” jobs — until, that is, commentator Glenn Beck began making noises about him on Fox. The whole green jobs thing is something of a charade to begin with. Experts have noted that for every one created — usually through subsidies — you’ll likely lose a couple of other jobs. But during the campaign, Obama talked repeatedly about green jobs as the way to rejuvenate the economy. And his administration found someone who believes in green jobs as some believe in Holy Writ, namely the above-mentioned Van Jones. The guy is a self-professed communist who has never given up decrying the free-market while advocating extreme environmental measures to make it less free. Also, he takes the position that pollution is a racial issue involving the unjust treatment of minorities by white people. But what finally led to this crackpot’s resignation was the revelation of his involvement with a group trying to prove that Bush helped plan the 9/11 attack. Some say the Obama White House was probably ignorant of much of Jones’ background. Besides, they contend, the czar post wasn’t all that important anyway. But clearly, green jobs matter to this administration. This particular czar position did count. And there is no way the administration was uninformed of the basics of Van Jones’ anti-free-enterprise outlook, even if it was unaware of some of his more bizarre views and activities. There are other environmental extremists among the Obama czars, as well as people in other administration jobs who, though not technically czars, are of radical outlook. For example, Mark Lloyd, diversity chief at the Federal Communications Commission. He’s a big Hugo Chavez fan and, ominously, given the post he holds, has meager regard for free speech on radio. Some look at all this and then pounce on Glenn Beck. But Beck isn’t the issue. He’s largely been doing what all major news outlets ought to be doing — scrutinizing presidential appointments and analyzing what they say about the ideological tilt of the White House agenda. — Jay Ambrose is former director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers. URL: http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/10/01/opinion/doc4ac41aa2b7bf0182468886.prt © 2009 trentonian.com, a Journal Register Property

RAPID CITY SD

YouTube Cooking the Books on Obama Worship Video?

By Bob Ellis on September 24th, 2009

If you’ve been around the internet for long, you know that Google is like most major media organizations today: liberal to the core.  They ignore patriotic holidays with their rotating search engine logos, conservative websites seem to have an unusually hard time getting good coverage in search rankings, and so on.

Maybe you also heard about the video of schoolchildren being led in a worshipful song about Barack Obama that was reminiscent of “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”  That video disappeared from YouTube earlier this morning…only to be replaced by someone who had the foresight to download a copy of it before it disappeared.

Now comes word from Selwyn Duke at RenewAmerica of some funny business with the viewership stats on this video at YouTube.

Duke said he checked the video himself and saw only 363 hits at 1:04 pm…while it had 2,279 comments.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Even touchy-feely liberal self-esteem-friendly math can’t seem to account for this.

So he tracked it further…

I tracked the video a bit myself. Now, remember that it had 363 hits at 1:04 p.m. Here’s what I found.

• Approximately 1:25 p.m.: the video still supposedly had only 363 hits but had 2,500 comments.
• 1:39 p.m.: still only 363 hits but 2,668 comments.
• 2:16 p.m.: 363 hits but 3,018 comments.

You get the idea.

Yes, we do get the idea.

Is it just a glitch at YouTube? Or is it a clumsy but deliberate attempt by Leftist Google to keep the hit ranking of this video low so that it doesn’t make “Top Video” listings which would give it even more exposure?

Liberals feel a virtually irresistible compulsion to protect their Obamessiah from blasphemy or other negative comments, so it seems quite credible that Google doesn’t want the Obamessiah receiving any more negative exposure than he already is through this video.

It ain’t easy being a truth-teller in an age of liberal dominance…but it’s worth it all the same!

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Subscribe to this feed • Discuss on Newsvine • Add to Mixx! • Email this • Twit This! • CrossFeed This • Sphere: Related Content • Technorati Links • Save to del.icio.us • Digg This! (3 Diggs) • Share on Facebook • Stumble It! • 1 comment on this item • Add to Windows Live Favorites • Submit to Reddit • Google Bookmark This • Fark It • Add to Yahoo MyWeb2 • Buzz Up!

Related Posts

• The Source of the Children’s Obama Worship Song Video
• Banned SNL Skit on Financial Crisis Now Online
• America “No Longer a Christian Nation”
• Banned From YouTube
• New Video: Marxist Children Sing for the Obamessiah

WXRGina Today 05:58 PM

HA! Last night when I saw this video linked off of Drudge, I noticed the number of hits on it was very low, though I can’t remember the actual number, it was only a few hundred. I was thinking this video is on DRUDGE, and this hit-count can’t be right! I thought the same thing then that you and Selwyn are saying. I knew this would “hit the fan” today, and I’m not surprised You Tube tried to bury it. These evil maniacs on the left are unbridled in their fervor to protect Obamination’s image. But, it ain’t workin’! The horse is out of the barn!