Climategate(redux): Second Verse, Same as the First

Climategate(redux): Second Verse, Same as the First

By T-Rav

Let’s face it, 2011 has been a rough year for the proponents of global warming ManBearPig climate change. First, they were still dealing with that embarrassing stack of emails showing climate data had been manipulated, better known as “ClimateGate.” Then there was the Solyndra fiasco and a bunch more “the science is settled” studies which turned out to be hogwash. Now we’re in the midst of “ClimateGate 2.0.”

As a refresher, the original “ClimateGate” scandal involved the exposure of a number of highly embarrassing emails from Phil Jones, head of climate research at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and Penn State professor Michael Mann, among others. These showed the deliberate misuse of data by Mann and others to create the infamous “hockey stick” chart venerated by Al Gore and other charlatans. In addition, the so-called scientists were shown to have conspired to silence any critics of their work, and to be refusing FOIA requests, so the rest of us won’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. (For a full recap, see Andrew’s initial article on the scandal.) Mann and his cohorts have been warning each other ever since to delete their communications, lest more damaging emails get out. Well, guess what. More damaging emails got out.

Over Thanksgiving week, FOIA.org kindly released about 5,000 more emails hacked from the accounts of these goons. (There are reportedly another 220,000 lying around encrypted.) They date from about the same time period as the first batch—from the mid-‘90s through November 2009—and are similar in substance as well. There are, however, a number of new gems worth noting:

● Remember how Al Gore claimed global warming was making the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro disappear? Yeah, apparently no one in a position to know believed him, but of course they lied and said publicly that they did. Multiple professors said in the emails the shrinkage of ice was probably being caused by sublimation, not melting. But they were simultaneously using this as support for their press releases, along the lines of “This is just more evidence of how climate change is impacting our world.” There was also considerably more controversy behind the scenes than we first knew about the truth of the hockey stick graph.

● The blacklisting of skeptics within academia is even worse than we thought. The corrupt climatologists attempted to have Chris de Freitas, professor at the University of Auckland and editor of the journal Climate Research, fired from both jobs. Because he had spoken out against climate change, you might ask? No, because he allowed an article to be published that expressed skepticism. Even worse, the emails make it clear they were planning to manufacture charges to get the man fired. Excerpt from one of the messages: “I hope the co-editors of ‘Climate Research’ can agree on some joint action. . . Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr – the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such.” {emphasis added} In other words, they were going to accuse him of being unprofessional when they were really upset at him allowing dissenting views. (Dr. de Freitas, I might add, has his defenders and is doing just fine in lovely New Zealand.)

● In 2007, the National Research Council was established by the U.S. government to review all prior climate studies. One email shows that Phil Jones was in contact with members of this council, discussing how to quash the questions raised by their skeptical colleagues. Not that there were many of these, to be sure: another email, this one from Mann and referring to the council’s review of his hockey stick shenanigans, assuredly states, “The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check.” {emphasis added}

● Even the peer-review process, in some ways the ultimate safety valve on bad science, got corrupted. As one example, the head of the American Meteorological Association asked Jones—hardly an impartial figure—to review some of the temperature research being presented. At Jones’ urging, the scientists presenting the research were told to tone down the language of their findings, which argued against a significant increase.

There’s much more, along with evidence of participation in the spin by government and media representatives and some highlighting of the flaws in the actual data, but the big takeaway from these new emails is the conspiratorial, collectivist, and even vindictive attitude of the AGW crowd in the face of criticism. Highly respected scientists have collaborated for years to make sure their version of the truth is the only one heard.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous weapon in the environmental activists’ arsenal. It’s easy to ignore or dismiss the ranting of Al Gore and other public figures like him; they can be easily identified as blowhards. But it’s not so easy when it comes to the guys with letters after their names. Not only do we put our trust in them, we can’t even comprehend that they might have ulterior motives. I decided a very long time ago that global warming was a bunch of crap, but I couldn’t understand why dedicated scientists would willingly take part in such a pack of lies. In fact, until more recently I didn’t believe it at all; I chalked their collusion up to not thinking about the data in the right way. It’s hard to accept as realistic interpretations like Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, which castigated the scientific community as conspiratorial and only pushing climate change to get research funding.

But with the release of information like this, I can come up with no other explanation than that, for whatever reasons, the leading lights of the scientific community have decided climate change is something we all need to believe in, and to that end are deliberately screwing with the evidence and suppressing opposing views. This is inexcusable and disgraceful conduct.

So what’s come of these revelations so far? Not much, as far as the guilty parties are concerned. In Britain, Phil Jones and others at East Anglia are being covered thus far by the BBC and The Guardian, which seems to think the email hacking and smearing of the “scientists” reputations is the only scandal here. On our side of the pond, Penn State has been backing up Mann and his colleagues, and is even—with monumentally bad timing, in more ways than one—proceeding with a panel on “climate ethics.” The story is, on the other hand, receiving more attention than its predecessor from the mainstream media, at least in the U.K. And the information is out there. If the climatologists can’t stop these leaks, the public will get a growing sense that it cannot trust scientists, at least not in this case. That’s bad news for science but good news for the end of this hysteria (I hope).

By T-Rav

Let’s face it, 2011 has been a rough year for the proponents of global warming ManBearPig climate change. First, they were still dealing with that embarrassing stack of emails showing climate data had been manipulated, better known as “ClimateGate.” Then there was the Solyndra fiasco and a bunch more “the science is settled” studies which turned out to be hogwash. Now we’re in the midst of “ClimateGate 2.0.”

As a refresher, the original “ClimateGate” scandal involved the exposure of a number of highly embarrassing emails from Phil Jones, head of climate research at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and Penn State professor Michael Mann, among others. These showed the deliberate misuse of data by Mann and others to create the infamous “hockey stick” chart venerated by Al Gore and other charlatans. In addition, the so-called scientists were shown to have conspired to silence any critics of their work, and to be refusing FOIA requests, so the rest of us won’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. (For a full recap, see Andrew’s initial article on the scandal.) Mann and his cohorts have been warning each other ever since to delete their communications, lest more damaging emails get out. Well, guess what. More damaging emails got out.

Over Thanksgiving week, FOIA.org kindly released about 5,000 more emails hacked from the accounts of these goons. (There are reportedly another 220,000 lying around encrypted.) They date from about the same time period as the first batch—from the mid-‘90s through November 2009—and are similar in substance as well. There are, however, a number of new gems worth noting:

● Remember how Al Gore claimed global warming was making the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro disappear? Yeah, apparently no one in a position to know believed him, but of course they lied and said publicly that they did. Multiple professors said in the emails the shrinkage of ice was probably being caused by sublimation, not melting. But they were simultaneously using this as support for their press releases, along the lines of “This is just more evidence of how climate change is impacting our world.” There was also considerably more controversy behind the scenes than we first knew about the truth of the hockey stick graph.

● The blacklisting of skeptics within academia is even worse than we thought. The corrupt climatologists attempted to have Chris de Freitas, professor at the University of Auckland and editor of the journal Climate Research, fired from both jobs. Because he had spoken out against climate change, you might ask? No, because he allowed an article to be published that expressed skepticism. Even worse, the emails make it clear they were planning to manufacture charges to get the man fired. Excerpt from one of the messages: “I hope the co-editors of ‘Climate Research’ can agree on some joint action. . . Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr – the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such.” {emphasis added} In other words, they were going to accuse him of being unprofessional when they were really upset at him allowing dissenting views. (Dr. de Freitas, I might add, has his defenders and is doing just fine in lovely New Zealand.)

● In 2007, the National Research Council was established by the U.S. government to review all prior climate studies. One email shows that Phil Jones was in contact with members of this council, discussing how to quash the questions raised by their skeptical colleagues. Not that there were many of these, to be sure: another email, this one from Mann and referring to the council’s review of his hockey stick shenanigans, assuredly states, “The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check.” {emphasis added}

● Even the peer-review process, in some ways the ultimate safety valve on bad science, got corrupted. As one example, the head of the American Meteorological Association asked Jones—hardly an impartial figure—to review some of the temperature research being presented. At Jones’ urging, the scientists presenting the research were told to tone down the language of their findings, which argued against a significant increase.

There’s much more, along with evidence of participation in the spin by government and media representatives and some highlighting of the flaws in the actual data, but the big takeaway from these new emails is the conspiratorial, collectivist, and even vindictive attitude of the AGW crowd in the face of criticism. Highly respected scientists have collaborated for years to make sure their version of the truth is the only one heard.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous weapon in the environmental activists’ arsenal. It’s easy to ignore or dismiss the ranting of Al Gore and other public figures like him; they can be easily identified as blowhards. But it’s not so easy when it comes to the guys with letters after their names. Not only do we put our trust in them, we can’t even comprehend that they might have ulterior motives. I decided a very long time ago that global warming was a bunch of crap, but I couldn’t understand why dedicated scientists would willingly take part in such a pack of lies. In fact, until more recently I didn’t believe it at all; I chalked their collusion up to not thinking about the data in the right way. It’s hard to accept as realistic interpretations like Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, which castigated the scientific community as conspiratorial and only pushing climate change to get research funding.

But with the release of information like this, I can come up with no other explanation than that, for whatever reasons, the leading lights of the scientific community have decided climate change is something we all need to believe in, and to that end are deliberately screwing with the evidence and suppressing opposing views. This is inexcusable and disgraceful conduct.

So what’s come of these revelations so far? Not much, as far as the guilty parties are concerned. In Britain, Phil Jones and others at East Anglia are being covered thus far by the BBC and The Guardian, which seems to think the email hacking and smearing of the “scientists” reputations is the only scandal here. On our side of the pond, Penn State has been backing up Mann and his colleagues, and is even—with monumentally bad timing, in more ways than one—proceeding with a panel on “climate ethics.” The story is, on the other hand, receiving more attention than its predecessor from the mainstream media, at least in the U.K. And the information is out there. If the climatologists can’t stop these leaks, the public will get a growing sense that it cannot trust scientists, at least not in this case. That’s bad news for science but good news for the end of this hysteria (I hope).

Climategate(redux): Second Verse, Same as the First

View Detail

Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

A picture is emerging of Cain’s newest harasser Sharon Bailek. It’s an ugly picture of a liar and “a gold digger” with serious financial problems who is seeking celebrity.

Would you hug your rapist?

Let’s start with the most obvious. At the presser, Bailek broke down in tears about the harassment she claims. What she describes is actually felony sexual assault. Yet, last month, Bailek went to see Cain speak at a Tea Party function in Chicago. Bailek first claims she didn’t know he would be there. Then she said she confronted him: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

Yet, radio host Amy Jacobson said that everyone knew Cain would be there. And it’s inconceivable Bailek could go to a Tea Party conference where the front-running candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency was scheduled to speak and somehow not know he was coming.

Jacobson also said Bailek told her at the time she was anxious to meet Cain again and “had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago.” Jacobson also confirmed that Bailek “never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.” As for the encounter itself, Jacobson said: “It looked sort of flirtatious. I mean they were hugging.” That’s confirmed by the photo where Bailek poses with her supposed attempted-rapist (see update below).

Her story makes no sense.

Now let’s look at her story. It’s nonsense. Bailek claims she called Cain to see if he would rehire her after she had been laid off. Her boyfriend got her a hotel room. Cain upgraded the room to a huge suite. She went to dinner with Cain. He asked her why she was there. She told him to get rehired. They left dinner and got into the car, where Cain put his hand on her skirt and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She refused. Cain said, “you want a job, don't you?” She refused. The end.

Now let me ask some questions.

1. How did Cain know where she was staying to upgrade her?

2. Assume you are a businesswoman who has just been laid off and you want to beg the boss for your job back. The boss says “ok, get a hotel room and we’ll meet over dinner.” Does this sound like something a businesswoman would agree to? No.

3. Why does Cain ask her at dinner why they are there? Presumably, he would know before he agreed to the dinner? (Reason: this is poorly written fiction.)

4. What happened in the gap between him asking why they are at dinner and them getting in the car? Presumably, there was a lengthy discussion about her job and Cain must have said something like “sure” or “no way”? Or did he just twirl his moustache and say, “I’ll tell you in the car, sexy.” Again, this is poorly written fiction with a poorly thought-through timeline.

5. If Cain is the sexual predator they claim, and he did reach up her skirt and push her head toward his crotch against her will, why would he suddenly stop when she told him no?

This is fiction. Moreover, what she is describing is a date, not a business meeting. It sounds like she was trying to sleep her way back into the job.

But I think there’s something else going on her. This sounds like a set up. The boyfriend getting her the room, the plan to meet Cain for a sexy dinner at an Italian restaurant.... it all sounds like Bailek and her boyfriend planned to blackmail Cain or the NRA. Don’t forget, its likely she knew about the rumors of the first settlement, so it’s hardly a stretch to see someone like Bailek trying to get her own settlement. What do I mean “someone like Bailek”? Read on.

But she’s a respectable woman, right?

According to her celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Sharon Bailek is a respectable single-mother from Chicago who has spent her life working in marketing. Here are some facts she forgot to mention. Specifically, Bailek is a deadbeat.

A friend described Bailek thusly to the New York Post: “the reality of her situation is she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about money.” The friend continues:

“This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.”

The friend added that she is running from bill collectors, even as she lives in a posh suburb, and that she’s been fired from most of her jobs. Is there any support for this? Yes.

● She’s had 9 jobs in 17 years.
● She filed bankruptcy in 1991.
● She filed bankruptcy in 2001, claiming only $5,000 in assets.
● She has a long history of tax evasion and missed credit card payments.
● In 2009, the IRS filed a tax lien against her for $5,200.
● In August 2011, the Illinois Dept. of Revenue placed a lien against her for $4,300 going all the way back to 2004.
● Other creditors have taken legal action against her including one suit in Cook County, where a $3,000 judgment was gotten against her.
● She has also brought a paternity suit against the father of her child.

I’ve had many sleazeball and malingering clients, but even they rarely have this much financial carnage in wake. And I have no doubt her claims are about obtaining celebrity and getting a book deal or a film deal or a television show to get rich.

Serial Harasser or Serial Harassment Claimer?

One of problem with the allegations against Cain is that they paint the picture of Cain as a serial harasser. If you believe the unsupported and undetailed MSM version, then you will believe that Cain “harassed” four women, with each one increasing in intensity until you get to the point of the sexual assault Bailek describes. Yet, strangely, there are no allegations from other jobs or other people in Cain’s life. These allegations make Cain out as a sexual predator for a period of a couple months and then he suddenly never does it again. That’s nonsense -- especially given the Snidely Whiplash way they’ve described Cain.

But here’s something interesting about Bailek. She accused a former boyfriend of harassing her when he demanded back $4,500 she loaned him. Thus, she has a history of making harassment allegations when it suits her financial interests.

But she said this before she had a motive, right?

Allred claims she has affidavits from two friends who claim Bailek told them about this harassment at the time. Thus, we’re supposed to believe her allegations are real because she apparently mentioned them before she had a motive. But. . .

First, never trust evidence from friends or family that supports a witness. People lie for their friends. That’s why no sane jury believes those people.

Secondly, if this was true, then why didn’t she tell her father or her fiancé of several years until this week? Maybe she only shared this “hurtful” incident with her closest girlfriends? Well, no. The first “friend” is her boyfriend at the time, i.e. her co-conspirator. The second friend is a “businessman friend.”

Moreover, why didn’t she tell her father or fiancé when Cain first ran for president or any time over the last year? And why didn’t she tell them before, during or after the Chicago meeting. . . where she hugged and flirted with Cain? She claims now that she went to confront him to see if he was man enough to admit what he’d done. Yet, we’re supposed to believe she didn’t tell her fiancé what she did? That’s bullsh*t.

Finally, let’s dispel this idea that she had no motive at the time. If it was a set up against Cain or the NRA, then she had plenty of motive to tell people at the time -- particularly her co-conspirator boyfriend. And if it was a date rebuffed, then she still had a motive to tell the boyfriend, to keep him from getting upset at her trying to jump ship to Cain. And even if truly was a business meeting, then she has a motive to save face.

This woman is a fraud.

** Update: I've been told the women in the photo above might actually be Amy Jacobson. I can't say either way, but it actually changes nothing in the analysis. Jacobson (who supports Bailek) has confirmed that Bailek flirted with and hugged Cain. The lack of photographic evidence (if that's the case) doesn't change that.

** Update 2: For a fascinating take on the David Axelrod connection, check out this article by Ann Coulter: LINK.

A picture is emerging of Cain’s newest harasser Sharon Bailek. It’s an ugly picture of a liar and “a gold digger” with serious financial problems who is seeking celebrity.

Would you hug your rapist?

Let’s start with the most obvious. At the presser, Bailek broke down in tears about the harassment she claims. What she describes is actually felony sexual assault. Yet, last month, Bailek went to see Cain speak at a Tea Party function in Chicago. Bailek first claims she didn’t know he would be there. Then she said she confronted him: “I went up to him and asked him if he remembered me. I wanted to see if he would be man enough to own up to what he had done 14 years ago.”

Yet, radio host Amy Jacobson said that everyone knew Cain would be there. And it’s inconceivable Bailek could go to a Tea Party conference where the front-running candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency was scheduled to speak and somehow not know he was coming.

Jacobson also said Bailek told her at the time she was anxious to meet Cain again and “had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago.” Jacobson also confirmed that Bailek “never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.” As for the encounter itself, Jacobson said: “It looked sort of flirtatious. I mean they were hugging.” That’s confirmed by the photo where Bailek poses with her supposed attempted-rapist (see update below).

Her story makes no sense.

Now let’s look at her story. It’s nonsense. Bailek claims she called Cain to see if he would rehire her after she had been laid off. Her boyfriend got her a hotel room. Cain upgraded the room to a huge suite. She went to dinner with Cain. He asked her why she was there. She told him to get rehired. They left dinner and got into the car, where Cain put his hand on her skirt and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She refused. Cain said, “you want a job, don't you?” She refused. The end.

Now let me ask some questions.

1. How did Cain know where she was staying to upgrade her?

2. Assume you are a businesswoman who has just been laid off and you want to beg the boss for your job back. The boss says “ok, get a hotel room and we’ll meet over dinner.” Does this sound like something a businesswoman would agree to? No.

3. Why does Cain ask her at dinner why they are there? Presumably, he would know before he agreed to the dinner? (Reason: this is poorly written fiction.)

4. What happened in the gap between him asking why they are at dinner and them getting in the car? Presumably, there was a lengthy discussion about her job and Cain must have said something like “sure” or “no way”? Or did he just twirl his moustache and say, “I’ll tell you in the car, sexy.” Again, this is poorly written fiction with a poorly thought-through timeline.

5. If Cain is the sexual predator they claim, and he did reach up her skirt and push her head toward his crotch against her will, why would he suddenly stop when she told him no?

This is fiction. Moreover, what she is describing is a date, not a business meeting. It sounds like she was trying to sleep her way back into the job.

But I think there’s something else going on her. This sounds like a set up. The boyfriend getting her the room, the plan to meet Cain for a sexy dinner at an Italian restaurant.... it all sounds like Bailek and her boyfriend planned to blackmail Cain or the NRA. Don’t forget, its likely she knew about the rumors of the first settlement, so it’s hardly a stretch to see someone like Bailek trying to get her own settlement. What do I mean “someone like Bailek”? Read on.

But she’s a respectable woman, right?

According to her celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Sharon Bailek is a respectable single-mother from Chicago who has spent her life working in marketing. Here are some facts she forgot to mention. Specifically, Bailek is a deadbeat.

A friend described Bailek thusly to the New York Post: “the reality of her situation is she’s a complete gold digger. It’s all about money.” The friend continues:

“This is a lady who lives off the system. She is hellbent on finding a way of never having to work and living the lifestyle she wants to live, a very affluent lifestyle.”

The friend added that she is running from bill collectors, even as she lives in a posh suburb, and that she’s been fired from most of her jobs. Is there any support for this? Yes.

● She’s had 9 jobs in 17 years.
● She filed bankruptcy in 1991.
● She filed bankruptcy in 2001, claiming only $5,000 in assets.
● She has a long history of tax evasion and missed credit card payments.
● In 2009, the IRS filed a tax lien against her for $5,200.
● In August 2011, the Illinois Dept. of Revenue placed a lien against her for $4,300 going all the way back to 2004.
● Other creditors have taken legal action against her including one suit in Cook County, where a $3,000 judgment was gotten against her.
● She has also brought a paternity suit against the father of her child.

I’ve had many sleazeball and malingering clients, but even they rarely have this much financial carnage in wake. And I have no doubt her claims are about obtaining celebrity and getting a book deal or a film deal or a television show to get rich.

Serial Harasser or Serial Harassment Claimer?

One of problem with the allegations against Cain is that they paint the picture of Cain as a serial harasser. If you believe the unsupported and undetailed MSM version, then you will believe that Cain “harassed” four women, with each one increasing in intensity until you get to the point of the sexual assault Bailek describes. Yet, strangely, there are no allegations from other jobs or other people in Cain’s life. These allegations make Cain out as a sexual predator for a period of a couple months and then he suddenly never does it again. That’s nonsense -- especially given the Snidely Whiplash way they’ve described Cain.

But here’s something interesting about Bailek. She accused a former boyfriend of harassing her when he demanded back $4,500 she loaned him. Thus, she has a history of making harassment allegations when it suits her financial interests.

But she said this before she had a motive, right?

Allred claims she has affidavits from two friends who claim Bailek told them about this harassment at the time. Thus, we’re supposed to believe her allegations are real because she apparently mentioned them before she had a motive. But. . .

First, never trust evidence from friends or family that supports a witness. People lie for their friends. That’s why no sane jury believes those people.

Secondly, if this was true, then why didn’t she tell her father or her fiancé of several years until this week? Maybe she only shared this “hurtful” incident with her closest girlfriends? Well, no. The first “friend” is her boyfriend at the time, i.e. her co-conspirator. The second friend is a “businessman friend.”

Moreover, why didn’t she tell her father or fiancé when Cain first ran for president or any time over the last year? And why didn’t she tell them before, during or after the Chicago meeting. . . where she hugged and flirted with Cain? She claims now that she went to confront him to see if he was man enough to admit what he’d done. Yet, we’re supposed to believe she didn’t tell her fiancé what she did? That’s bullsh*t.

Finally, let’s dispel this idea that she had no motive at the time. If it was a set up against Cain or the NRA, then she had plenty of motive to tell people at the time -- particularly her co-conspirator boyfriend. And if it was a date rebuffed, then she still had a motive to tell the boyfriend, to keep him from getting upset at her trying to jump ship to Cain. And even if truly was a business meeting, then she has a motive to save face.

This woman is a fraud.

** Update: I've been told the women in the photo above might actually be Amy Jacobson. I can't say either way, but it actually changes nothing in the analysis. Jacobson (who supports Bailek) has confirmed that Bailek flirted with and hugged Cain. The lack of photographic evidence (if that's the case) doesn't change that.

** Update 2: For a fascinating take on the David Axelrod connection, check out this article by Ann Coulter: LINK.

Cain Update: Meet The Accuser

View Detail

More Proof That Liberals Are Insane

More Proof That Liberals Are Insane

Liberalism truly is a mental condition. Time and again, liberal policies lead to disaster and yet liberals absolutely refuse to see that. If at first you don’t succeed, just keep doing the same thing over and over until you get a different result. . . and don’t you dare try to fix any problems that may arise. Consider these examples.



1. Food Stamps For Rich College Kids Liberals believe in food stamps as a way to help poor people who “don’t earn enough to survive.” So you would assume liberals would want to stop rich and middle class moochers from exploiting the food stamp program? Apparently not.



Unlike other states, Michigan allows college kids to get food stamps. Federal law forbids this, but Michigan liberals got around that by classifying college as an “employment training program.” They also check eligibility for food stamps on the basis of income only without regard to assets. Hence, someone with a ton of money but no actual income can qualify for food stamps. . . someone like Leroy Fick, who won the state lottery but remained on food stamps.



Michigan is now changing its rules. College kids can now only get food stamps if they are single mothers or if they work more than 20 hours per week and still fall within income restrictions (assets will be considered as well). This change will kick 30,000 college kids off the program and save the state $75 million per year in food stamps.



Liberals should be thrilled. These middle class to rich moochers living comfortably on parental support and federal student loans, most of whom have better job prospects upon graduation than 90% of taxpayers, were robbing taxpayers (including “the working poor”) and draining the system, which prevented the money from reaching people who really needed it. But liberals aren’t outraged at the moochers, they’re outraged at the conservative governor who has made the change. Their reasoning? A change in the law to prevent the rich from taking money meant for the poor “will be unfair to the poor.”



Stupidity or insanity?



2. Stimulus Failure (redux): The evidence is indisputable that government spending to boost an economy in the short term is a disaster. I do believe careful spending in certain types of infrastructure can lead to long term growth. For example, the creation of a highway or getting electricity to people can create a wealth of opportunities as consumers and businesses make use of those services to reach each other. But you can’t boost an economy just by hiring people to build something.



History has shown this over and over. In fact, the biggest ignored lesson of the Great Depression came from FDR’s own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, who wrote this in his diary about their efforts to stem the recession:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . [A]fter eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . and an enormous debt to boot!”

Sound familiar? Now the Democrats want to go for another stimulus bill. . . a fifth under Obama. The others all failed, yet they think this one will work. That’s Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: repeating the same action over and over, but expecting a different result. Hence, liberals are insane.



3. CAFE Standards Obama just introduced new fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) for trucks. Raising CAFE standards makes cars more expensive, driving down demand and keeping poor people in older, less-safe vehicles longer. What’s more, the one type of vehicle in which American car companies still dominate is the truck. This will hurt Detroit. I guess Obama’s slogan for 2012 will be, “The GM bailout was so successful, I want to repeat it in 2014!”



4. Obama Strong Warlord The last Democrat with any sense of how to win a war was Harry Truman, and he seemed to lose that by the time Korea came along. Since that time, the Democrats have become a party of pacifists, cowards and military incompetents. Obama looks to continue this ignoble tradition by tucking his tail in Afghanistan and Libya. But the Democrats want to portray him as a big tough killer. What to do? What to do?



Oh, I know. Let’s have Hollywood make a movie about Obama’s dithering over the killing of Osama bin Laden to prove his resolve of steal (hmm, is that spelled right?).



Here’s the catch. When Obama was thumping his chest after the military killed bin Laden, he got all of a three point bounce, which vanished again before the first shark took a bite out of bin Laden’s body. Obama got no bounce form running away in Iraq or cowering before Iran or Honduras. He got no bounce from the surge in Afghanistan. He got a negative bounce from bombing Libya. And Americans have stayed away in droves from every war film Hollywood has produced about the war on terror. Hmmm. So what makes liberals think this will help the man of steal? Insanity.



5. London Violence London police killed some gangbanger. According to liberals, it is outrageous that anyone should ever be killed and violence is unacceptable. So what do liberals do to protest? They start rioting in London, burning buses with people in them, beating people with baseball bats, etc. In other words, they have turned to massive, random violence to protest a single instance of probably justified violence. Nice.



As an "interesting" aside -- at least it will be interesting for most liberals (possibly even mind-boggling) -- the rioting stopped in London once the police threatened to use rubber bullets. The rioters moved on to other cities at that point. As a further aside, they don't riot in my neighborhood because we don't waste our time with rubber bullets.

Liberalism truly is a mental condition. Time and again, liberal policies lead to disaster and yet liberals absolutely refuse to see that. If at first you don’t succeed, just keep doing the same thing over and over until you get a different result. . . and don’t you dare try to fix any problems that may arise. Consider these examples.



1. Food Stamps For Rich College Kids Liberals believe in food stamps as a way to help poor people who “don’t earn enough to survive.” So you would assume liberals would want to stop rich and middle class moochers from exploiting the food stamp program? Apparently not.



Unlike other states, Michigan allows college kids to get food stamps. Federal law forbids this, but Michigan liberals got around that by classifying college as an “employment training program.” They also check eligibility for food stamps on the basis of income only without regard to assets. Hence, someone with a ton of money but no actual income can qualify for food stamps. . . someone like Leroy Fick, who won the state lottery but remained on food stamps.



Michigan is now changing its rules. College kids can now only get food stamps if they are single mothers or if they work more than 20 hours per week and still fall within income restrictions (assets will be considered as well). This change will kick 30,000 college kids off the program and save the state $75 million per year in food stamps.



Liberals should be thrilled. These middle class to rich moochers living comfortably on parental support and federal student loans, most of whom have better job prospects upon graduation than 90% of taxpayers, were robbing taxpayers (including “the working poor”) and draining the system, which prevented the money from reaching people who really needed it. But liberals aren’t outraged at the moochers, they’re outraged at the conservative governor who has made the change. Their reasoning? A change in the law to prevent the rich from taking money meant for the poor “will be unfair to the poor.”



Stupidity or insanity?



2. Stimulus Failure (redux): The evidence is indisputable that government spending to boost an economy in the short term is a disaster. I do believe careful spending in certain types of infrastructure can lead to long term growth. For example, the creation of a highway or getting electricity to people can create a wealth of opportunities as consumers and businesses make use of those services to reach each other. But you can’t boost an economy just by hiring people to build something.



History has shown this over and over. In fact, the biggest ignored lesson of the Great Depression came from FDR’s own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, who wrote this in his diary about their efforts to stem the recession:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . [A]fter eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . and an enormous debt to boot!”

Sound familiar? Now the Democrats want to go for another stimulus bill. . . a fifth under Obama. The others all failed, yet they think this one will work. That’s Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: repeating the same action over and over, but expecting a different result. Hence, liberals are insane.



3. CAFE Standards Obama just introduced new fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) for trucks. Raising CAFE standards makes cars more expensive, driving down demand and keeping poor people in older, less-safe vehicles longer. What’s more, the one type of vehicle in which American car companies still dominate is the truck. This will hurt Detroit. I guess Obama’s slogan for 2012 will be, “The GM bailout was so successful, I want to repeat it in 2014!”



4. Obama Strong Warlord The last Democrat with any sense of how to win a war was Harry Truman, and he seemed to lose that by the time Korea came along. Since that time, the Democrats have become a party of pacifists, cowards and military incompetents. Obama looks to continue this ignoble tradition by tucking his tail in Afghanistan and Libya. But the Democrats want to portray him as a big tough killer. What to do? What to do?



Oh, I know. Let’s have Hollywood make a movie about Obama’s dithering over the killing of Osama bin Laden to prove his resolve of steal (hmm, is that spelled right?).



Here’s the catch. When Obama was thumping his chest after the military killed bin Laden, he got all of a three point bounce, which vanished again before the first shark took a bite out of bin Laden’s body. Obama got no bounce form running away in Iraq or cowering before Iran or Honduras. He got no bounce from the surge in Afghanistan. He got a negative bounce from bombing Libya. And Americans have stayed away in droves from every war film Hollywood has produced about the war on terror. Hmmm. So what makes liberals think this will help the man of steal? Insanity.



5. London Violence London police killed some gangbanger. According to liberals, it is outrageous that anyone should ever be killed and violence is unacceptable. So what do liberals do to protest? They start rioting in London, burning buses with people in them, beating people with baseball bats, etc. In other words, they have turned to massive, random violence to protest a single instance of probably justified violence. Nice.



As an "interesting" aside -- at least it will be interesting for most liberals (possibly even mind-boggling) -- the rioting stopped in London once the police threatened to use rubber bullets. The rioters moved on to other cities at that point. As a further aside, they don't riot in my neighborhood because we don't waste our time with rubber bullets.

More Proof That Liberals Are Insane

View Detail