"The release of thousands of emails and other data, now believed to be the work of a conscious-stricken CRU insider, will as they are examined in detail reveal what has long been known to those actively opposing the 'global warming' fraud. As Christopher Horner, the author of 'Red Hot Lies', recently noted, the CRU and its lead scientists refused for years to release the data which they alleged proved that 'global warming' was happening.
"This data and the periodic reports of the IPCC are the basis for the existence of the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the 'cap-and-trade' legislation awaiting a vote in the U.S. Congress. Horner observed 'After running out of excuses, in September CRU’s Phil Jones simply claimed that he had lost the data so, sorry, no one can check it.' Horner called it 'implausible beyond comprehension.'
"And yet the United States and the representatives of many other nations will gather in Copenhagen in December for yet another UN conference on climate change, the now preferred synonym for 'global warming.' Basing any international treaty on climate change or global warming is an utterly deceitful act."
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wake Up America: Obama Has Lost Unaffiliated Voters
"51 percent of unaffilated voters, those not affiliated with either party, strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance compared to just 16 percent strongly approve.
"Among all voters, 54 percent disapprove while 45 percent approve."
"Among all voters, 54 percent disapprove while 45 percent approve."
Roger Hedgecock: The great 'global warming' hoax
"Some 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit at the U.K.'s University of East Anglia (where the 'world's leading climate scientists work') have been leaked. The blogosphere is on fire – cover-up, falsified studies, intimidation of skeptics. It's all there."
Barbara Simpson: Spell it, R-A-T-I-O-N-I-N-G
"The bottom line of any government health-care proposal is loss of individual rights and privacy with government bureaucracy taking over and having the final word.
"That's not good.
It's begun, and we must pay attention.
"First, several weeks ago, there were news reports of changes in how men should be screened for prostate cancer. Everything we'd been told was being changed or eliminated.
"Change the test, don't do it so often, and be more concerned with the state of mind of the man rather than whether his body might be harboring the seeds of the cancer that could kill him.
"The American Cancer Society press release stressed 'potential harm' from the tests and the reality there are some false positives, which could lead to 'unnecessary' biopsies.
"Note: an 'unnecessary' biopsy is one which turns out to show that the patient doesn't have cancer.
"Silly me! I thought that was good news – but I'm not a bureaucrat looking to cut costs.
"It's interesting they define 'potential harm' as being the state of mind of a man who suspects he has cancer but it turns out not to be true.
"Of course, they didn't delve heavily into the state of mind of a man who didn't have the early screening test and who then is diagnosed so late that the disease is fatal.
"It seems to me, a little early concern that turns out OK is what we want. According to the 'experts,' that's not the case.
"And then there was last week.
"What a week! Their attention turned to women, and we got a good dose
of what the future holds.
"First, the rug was pulled out from under the routine protocols for breast cancer screening. Then, a few days later, the same thing was done to the recommendations for routine Pap tests for cervical cancer.
"It's mind-boggling that tests that were groundbreaking in their impact when developed and introduced as ways to help women be diagnosed early and survive cancer were being downplayed, delayed and demeaned by people supposedly in the 'healing professions.'
"But remember those 'healing professionals' were joined and led by bureaucrats watching the bottom line.
"Every test avoided is money not spent.
"When the announcement was made concerning the changes, the media went nuts and so did women across the country. The echoes of their anger, screams and lamentations reverberated across the country, especially in broadcast media – most especially, in talk radio.
"The story got front-page coverage and lead story positions in newscasts – and deservedly so. When changes are made in what has been regarded as proper and routine screening for a disease that maims and kills millions every year, it's not surprising there's an angry uproar.
"What's odd is that while the breast cancer story was front-page news, the changes for use of the Pap smear barely made a short mention in much media. One local paper made only slight mention; another ignored it.
"A shrink would have a field day with that!
"The 16-member 'U.S. Preventative Services Task Force' announced the mammography report.
"The what?
"Those recommendations, published in the annals of Internal Medicine, revamp the guidelines for breast cancer screening. This is the first re-evaluation since 2002.
"For the task force, the rationale for the changes is the same as for men and prostate cancer screening. The words are the same: false positives, unnecessary biopsies and unwarranted mental anguish.
"The task force can coat the report with any justification it wants – and it does – but the reality is that it turns routine breast cancer screening upside down and ignores the fact that the 'unnecessary' biopsy is good news because it means the woman does not have cancer! What's wrong with that!
"The proposed changes are dramatic: Stop routine annual mammograms for women in their 40s. Do a baseline screening after 50 and only alternate years after that. "Stop annual mammograms for older women. Stop all mammograms for women over 74.
"From someone whose mother was diagnosed at age 87, the elimination of testing for seniors is outrageous.
"Needless to say, the changed guidelines don't sit well with the millions of women under 50 who've survived breast cancer because of early detection.
"As if those changes weren't drastic enough, the panel says women of all ages not be taught breast self-exams and be urged not to do them.
"To many, the recommendation report was viewed as a vendetta against women. It's not. It's simply the beginning of what's in store for everyone if government takes control of health care.
"Prostate cancer. Breast cancer. Cervical cancer. What's next? The same panel will make those decisions, too.
"Cut the screening. Delay the testing. Eliminate it for some based on age. Old people are expendable.
"Voila! Look at the money saved.
"On the other hand, look at all those dead bodies. But government doesn't care and neither do bureaucrats.
"Be afraid. Be angry and don't be silent."
"That's not good.
It's begun, and we must pay attention.
"First, several weeks ago, there were news reports of changes in how men should be screened for prostate cancer. Everything we'd been told was being changed or eliminated.
"Change the test, don't do it so often, and be more concerned with the state of mind of the man rather than whether his body might be harboring the seeds of the cancer that could kill him.
"The American Cancer Society press release stressed 'potential harm' from the tests and the reality there are some false positives, which could lead to 'unnecessary' biopsies.
"Note: an 'unnecessary' biopsy is one which turns out to show that the patient doesn't have cancer.
"Silly me! I thought that was good news – but I'm not a bureaucrat looking to cut costs.
"It's interesting they define 'potential harm' as being the state of mind of a man who suspects he has cancer but it turns out not to be true.
"Of course, they didn't delve heavily into the state of mind of a man who didn't have the early screening test and who then is diagnosed so late that the disease is fatal.
"It seems to me, a little early concern that turns out OK is what we want. According to the 'experts,' that's not the case.
"And then there was last week.
"What a week! Their attention turned to women, and we got a good dose
of what the future holds.
"First, the rug was pulled out from under the routine protocols for breast cancer screening. Then, a few days later, the same thing was done to the recommendations for routine Pap tests for cervical cancer.
"It's mind-boggling that tests that were groundbreaking in their impact when developed and introduced as ways to help women be diagnosed early and survive cancer were being downplayed, delayed and demeaned by people supposedly in the 'healing professions.'
"But remember those 'healing professionals' were joined and led by bureaucrats watching the bottom line.
"Every test avoided is money not spent.
"When the announcement was made concerning the changes, the media went nuts and so did women across the country. The echoes of their anger, screams and lamentations reverberated across the country, especially in broadcast media – most especially, in talk radio.
"The story got front-page coverage and lead story positions in newscasts – and deservedly so. When changes are made in what has been regarded as proper and routine screening for a disease that maims and kills millions every year, it's not surprising there's an angry uproar.
"What's odd is that while the breast cancer story was front-page news, the changes for use of the Pap smear barely made a short mention in much media. One local paper made only slight mention; another ignored it.
"A shrink would have a field day with that!
"The 16-member 'U.S. Preventative Services Task Force' announced the mammography report.
"The what?
"Those recommendations, published in the annals of Internal Medicine, revamp the guidelines for breast cancer screening. This is the first re-evaluation since 2002.
"For the task force, the rationale for the changes is the same as for men and prostate cancer screening. The words are the same: false positives, unnecessary biopsies and unwarranted mental anguish.
"The task force can coat the report with any justification it wants – and it does – but the reality is that it turns routine breast cancer screening upside down and ignores the fact that the 'unnecessary' biopsy is good news because it means the woman does not have cancer! What's wrong with that!
"The proposed changes are dramatic: Stop routine annual mammograms for women in their 40s. Do a baseline screening after 50 and only alternate years after that. "Stop annual mammograms for older women. Stop all mammograms for women over 74.
"From someone whose mother was diagnosed at age 87, the elimination of testing for seniors is outrageous.
"Needless to say, the changed guidelines don't sit well with the millions of women under 50 who've survived breast cancer because of early detection.
"As if those changes weren't drastic enough, the panel says women of all ages not be taught breast self-exams and be urged not to do them.
"To many, the recommendation report was viewed as a vendetta against women. It's not. It's simply the beginning of what's in store for everyone if government takes control of health care.
"Prostate cancer. Breast cancer. Cervical cancer. What's next? The same panel will make those decisions, too.
"Cut the screening. Delay the testing. Eliminate it for some based on age. Old people are expendable.
"Voila! Look at the money saved.
"On the other hand, look at all those dead bodies. But government doesn't care and neither do bureaucrats.
"Be afraid. Be angry and don't be silent."
Howard Galganov: I Told You So – Yes I Did
"In all fairness, it wasn’t HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama’s Presidency, even in its first 6 months, so I’m going to make yet another prediction:
"OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a conventional way.
"He is such a political HORROR-SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out."
"OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a conventional way.
"He is such a political HORROR-SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out."
Ah, sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir...
"Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be 'Not released' or 'Not available.' I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are -- I -- I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you. Could you please help me find these things, Sir?
'1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
"Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir?
"Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . .
"What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote."
'1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
"Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir?
"Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . .
"What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote."
Derrick Roach: BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump Scandal
"Over the weeks and months ahead, BigGovernment.com will continue to release information from this shocking document dump by ACORN, slowly revealing the ugly truth of ACORN: the fact that their stated mission of helping the poor and downtrodden is just a ruse and a cover for an organization that is highly partisan and highly political, and thus rotten to the core."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)