Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: October 2009


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.

Dick Morris: Secret Poll Data Shows Obama Care Can Be Stopped

The Patriot Update <>

Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 18:54


To: “” <>

Dear Reader:

Congressional Democrats and Barack Obama are on the verge of passing the most radical takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy ever undertaken.

The Obamacare “reform” plan not only imperils our economy, it will wreak havoc on your health and well-being. Imagine a government bureaucrat deciding whether you or a loved one getting a life-saving medical procedure!

Dick Morris, the chief strategist of the League of American Voters, has discovered that a key reason polls show some support for the Obama program is that young voters are ignorant of its dangers and costs.

Dick has a plan for us to reach young voters. We need to implement this plan soon and we need your financial support and membership.

Remember, Dick and the League was outfront on the importance of exposing Obamacare to elderly voters. We have won that battle — as most Seniors strongly oppose Obamacare.

Now we must fight to educate our young people.

Please help us do this and donate — Go Here Now.

And please read Dick’s important column about this effort below.

Bob Adams
Executive Director



As the healthcare fight reaches the Senate floor, we took a new national survey to figure out how best to battle against this proposal that would so deform our nation’s vital healthcare system. We found out how to do it: Reach young people.

Our work, and that of the League of American Voters – with whom we are affiliated but have no financial relationship – have been aimed at the elderly in the past few months. As a result of these and other efforts, the elderly now oppose Obamacare by more than twenty points (31-54 in our poll). The survey shows that we have about gotten all the support from them we are going to get. Some of those over 65 are just masochists who will sit by and watch their Medicare and Medicare Advantage get shredding to bits.

But voters under 30 are a different story. The polling showed that they start off supporting Obamacare more than any other age group:

But, it turns out their strong 2:1 support for the program is based on an almost total ignorance of what it calls for.

After we read them (in the poll) a fair and unbiased description of the program, their support faded.

Here’s what we read to them:

The healthcare bill, pushed by President Obama and the Democrats, would require everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for failing to do so.

People could keep their current insurance if their employer provided it and agreed to continue it. Insurance companies would be required to insure all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions. People would be offered subsidies to buy insurance if their household incomes were below $70,000 a year and if their insurance cost more than 8% of their incomes ($5600 for a $70,000 a year family). The program will cost one trillion over ten years.

This plain vanilla rendition of what Obama proposes had a startling impact! Voters under 30, who had approved of the plan by 58-30 before they heard the description, now backed it by only 55-40, a loss of 13 points!

Then we read voters a list of all the arguments pro and con on the bill. We alternated the arguments to be sure that nobody could see any bias in the poll. After the arguments, the views of all other age groups were largely unchanged. But people under 30 now said they opposed the bill by 43-45 – a mega-shift of 30 points!

So…our strategy will be to replicate this process, only in reality.

We will run television and radio ads and Internet messages aimed at young voters to educate them about this bill.

Will the Congressional Democrats listen? Without the support of the young, polls will reflect the massive unpopularity of this bill. With each drop in its approval, you can hear the liberals groan. If the polling shows approval dropping into the 30s – and as young people switch it will – we can defeat this bill on the floor!

Based on the same polling techniques I use to win elections, we have discovered Obama’s vulnerable underbelly – his base of uninformed young voters. And we will hammer away — with your help.

This process won’t be inexpensive. It costs a lot to reach young people, but with your financial help, we can do it.

Please GO HERE NOW and give as generously as you can. The healthcare you save might very well be your own!

Note from the League: We need to prepare a new TV ad and internet campaign exposing the dangers of Obamacare to young Americans. Help Dick Morris complete this plan. Donate today — Go Here Now.

Paid for by the League of American Voters. Contributions to the League of American Voters are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from individuals and corporations are permitted by law and welcome.

League of American Voters    |    722 12th Street N.W.    |    Fourth Floor    |    Washington, D.C. 20005

For Information about Advertising, Click Here

Forward to a Friend
This email was sent to by

Update Profile/Email Address | SmartUnsubscribesm from this list | Privacy Policy



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

( – A report by U.N. Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin that is awaiting approval by the United Nations General Assembly says that security measures taken to detect terrorists “risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change.”

The report, which was issued August 3, places emphasis on “persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities” and recommends that counterterrorism operations be more sensitive to gender issues.

On page 19 the report says: “Enhanced immigration controls that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny make transgender persons susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion.”

Just a few sentences later, Scheinin writes that “counter-terrorism measures that involve increased travel document security, such as stricter procedures for issuing, changing and verifying identity documents, risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change.”

“This,” he claims, “jeopardizes the right of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities to recognition before the law”

Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, blasted the report in an interview with

“It strikes me as a parody of U.N. political correctness and sexual universality,” Gaffney said, “and it’s just hard for me to believe that anybody thinks that these notions actually should trump security concerns – as I think it’s only too clear that … the people who are trying to blow us up have absolutely no use for any of these sexual proclivities.”

Gaffney also pointed out that terrorists “would be only too delighted to take advantage – indeed we’ve seen them taking advantage – of burqas and other subterfuges to disguise their malign intents.”

The report also takes aim at perceived gender roles, suggesting that counter-terror practices involving both sexes be reevaluated due to their basis in traditional perceptions of gender.

One passage, beginning on page 13, says that “the United Kingdom anti-radicalization initiatives seeking to include Muslim women as counter-terrorism agents on the basis of their position ‘at the heart not only of their communities but also of their families,’ may reinforce stereotypical gender norms about roles of women within the family.”

“Instead,” Scheinin writes, “participation should be grounded on principles of gender equality, recognizing the unique gendered impacts of both terrorism and counter-terrorism measures.”

Scheinin also slams the use of women’s rights as a justification for counter-terror operations, writing on page 14 that “counter-terrorism measures that are characterized as being a fight for women’s rights (such as the United States portrayal of its “war on terror” in Afghanistan in 2001) should be closely scrutinized, to ensure that they are not misinformed by gender-cultural stereotypes and are actually responsive to the concerns of women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals in local contexts.”

The use of masculine gender roles in counterterrorism draws Scheinin’s ire on page 18, where he writes that “techniques that seek to evoke feelings of emasculation in detainees or suspected terrorists may hinder the fight against terrorism by provoking hyper-masculine responses that include acceptance or advocacy of violence.”

Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, expressed a lack of surprise at the report, saying that it was comparable with Scheinin’s past work for the UN and typical of the UN Human Rights Council.

“Instead of the Human Rights Council focusing how the human rights of people who are blown apart by terrorists impact people’s human rights,” Groves said, “they created a new office for someone to go and make sure that the terrorists’ human rights, and the human rights of almost everyone else – except for the victims of terrorism – are being protected, and so that is (Scheinin’s) mission.”

“That he would stray into some wrong-headed report about gender stereotypes as part of his mandate on counterterrorism isn’t a surprise to me,” Groves continued, “this is the way that the United Nations and the Human Rights Council work.”

Still, Frank Gaffney was flabbergasted by Scheinin’s report, saying, “I find this truly absurd and appalling.”

The report is currently pending approval by the U.N. General Assembly, and has reported that social conservatives are mounting a campaign against it due to its redefinition of gender.

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

The Bogus Death Statistic That Won’t Die
By Michelle Malkin
October 23, 2009

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 “” 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 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).



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.


Look who’s married to Obama’s media ‘controller’
Official attacking network, anti-‘birther’ lawyer a couple

Posted: October 20, 2009
9:01 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Anita Dunn

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 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.

// // //

Read More »