As documented by the Investigative Project and by our publication The Muslim Students Association and the Muslim Brotherhood, and by our profile page in DiscovertheNetworks.org, the Muslim Students Association  is a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a sister organization of the terrorist group Hamas. It is conducting an on campus campaign whose goal is to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state so that Hamas can destroy it and push the Jews into the sea. But Act for America has decided to oppose the MSA not with arguments, not by exposing its monstrous lies and evil intentions, but by banning it as a campus group, by denying its members their First Amendment  rights to assembly and free speech. We at the David Horowitz Freedom Center are unequivocally and unalterably opposed to this petition and its demand.

There is no greater or more important bulwark against totalitarianism — and therefore against Shari’a and the Islamo-fascist jihad than our First Amendment freedoms. The chief agenda of the Islamists is to ban any criticism of their totalitarian agendas and terrorist methods by calling it blasphemy, hate speech, and offensive to Muslims. That is what the prosecution of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is about; that is what the UN resolution banning speech that is offensive to Muslims is about.

Right now we at the Center are attempting to combat the genocidal campus campaign of the Muslim Brotherhood to label Israel an “apartheid state” with a counter-campaign to put up the “Palestinian Wall of Lies.” The Palestinian Wall of Lies exposes their historical fabrications and present-day slanders. It is an argument not an appeal to authority to shut them down. On the contrary, it is they and their progressive allies who are attempting to shut us down. Through a campaign of intimidation by calling any student who challenges them “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the left is attempting to prevent students from supporting our campaign and thereby preventing us from having access to campus to put up our wall. We have submitted an ad to campus newspapers containing the wall of lies. Of the five school papers to whom we submitted the ad so far four rejected it on the grounds that it would “offend certain religious and ethnic groups.” No specifics were given except that we could not refer to a group like “Arabs” or “Palestinians” as a group even though the ad was about the war conducted against the Jews by Arabs and Palestinians and even though one hundred percent of Palestinians have voted for one of two terrorist groups — the PLO and Hamas). Even the fifth paper, which printed the ad — the UCLA Daily Bruin–  required us to reword passages to avoid the use of the terms”Arabs” and “Palestinianas” and said we could not refer to the goals of Hamas and the PLO as “genocidal” even though they are. Of course, no such injunction against offending religious and ethnic groups applies to Jews or Christians or Israelis or Americans.

The frontline battle against Islamic totalitarianism is the battle to defend First Amendment — the right of assembly and free speech. Yes, these rights are regularly abused by Islamic totalitarians and their “civil rights organizations” like CAIR (a creature of the Muslim Brotherhood and a sister organization to the MSA and Hamas) just as they were by Communist totalitarians during the Cold War. This is a vulnerability of free societies — that they give rights to those whose goal is to destroy those rights — but it is a vulnerability we must deal with by combatting them through vigorous argument and by exposing their lies. What we must not do is abandon the very rights that keep us free. I implore Brigitte Gabriel and Act for America to withdraw this petition to ban the MSA and give up this misguided campaign.

Anthony Maschek is an American war hero, wounded 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq. At  townhall meeting at Columbia University to discuss whether ROTC should be part of the university program, Maschek was greeted by boos and cries of “racist” when he said that whatever opponents of the war might think of it, there were people out there who wanted to kill them.  Maschek was being to generous to his attackers. What they think about the war is that we are the enemy. That’s why they don’t want the U.S. military on campus. On FoxNews reporting this disgrace, a properly horrified Megan Kelly said that Columbia’s leftists had a right to their opinion but should have respected a man who risked his life to protect them. Kelly is correct but also too generous. Since it is their opinion that America is the enemy, then Sgt. Maschek is a war criminal and deserves no respect. The unnamed culprits in this sordid display are Columbia’s president Lee Bollinger and the Columbia faculty who have encouraged these anti-American activists by taking their views seriously. Child rapists are also entitled to their opinions under our Constitution, but no decent person respects them. There is a domestic war going on this country and the problem we face is that only the hate America left is fighting it as though it were a war. It’s time for patriotic Americans — Americans who love their country despite its warts — to stand up for heroes like Sgt Maschek, and to confront Americans who have chosen to betray their country in the face of a mortal foe for what they are.

David Horowitz’s latest book, Reforming Our Universities, is above all a clarion call to action on the part of all who believe in the founding principles of the United States of America and wish to preserve it as founded.  That is to say that there are forces intent on transforming the U.S. into a European socialist-style nation, and that one of the most effective weapons in their arsenal is not just the domination of liberal arts faculties at American universities by leftist ideologues, but the way in which these professors often brazenly indoctrinate students into their belief systems without fear of reprisal by their administrators. Horowitz’s account of his seven-year campaign to have his Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) adopted by major universities and his very limited success in doing so to date is a cautionary one.  It is important for freedom-loving people to understand the sad state of affairs that exists at liberal arts colleges throughout the nation and the grave threat this poses to American exceptionalism. These institutions are training our future K-12 public and private school teachers, a fact that will, if academic freedom rights for university students remain unenforced, inculcate leftist principles into our nation’s youth and thereby ensure that our existing constitutional republic is radically altered, if not completely dismantled, in favor of the socialist model.

I would in fact argue (though I am by no means certain Horowitz would agree) that Barack Obama could not have been elected President, nor could the Democrat Party as currently constituted have achieved its recent dominance in Congress if it were not for the sorry state of American public education over the past 40 years and the increasing promotion of leftist ideas in our public schools.  These ideas, as Horowitz has demonstrated in The Professors and in One-Party Classroom,  are taught uncritically as accepted doctrine by many university professors, often in courses where such ideas are irrelevant to the subject matter at hand.  They are not settled facts, but highly controversial issues for which any responsible academic would expose students to opposing sides of the arguments and encourage students to evaluate the evidence and form their own opinions.  This is clearly not being done in far too many instances, and as Horowitz’s long battle illustrates, the situation is being perpetuated by the dominance of radical leftists on university faculties and teacher unions and their intimidation of administrators.

Herein lies another important lesson of Horowitz’s campaign for ABOR and the massive resistance and campaign of misinformation waged against it everywhere he has attempted to encourage its adoption:  leftists will relentlessly attack and misrepresent what has been essentially a basic tenet of liberal education since 1915, when it was officially promulgated by the American Association of University Professors.  That basic principle is simply a commitment to professional standards based upon the scientific method, without regard to religious or political orthodoxies.  One might well ask why institutions which ostensibly support this principle would fight so hard against the adoption of Horowitz’s ABOR, which simply codifies this idea and explicitly secures academic freedom rights to students.  The answer is an unpleasant but obvious one:  the leftists who now dominate the vast majority of university liberal arts faculties have no interest in dispassionate inquiry into these controversial matters.  Rather, they seek to break away from the model of the modern research university and return to a secular version of the American university as it existed prior to the second half of the nineteenth century – as a means to instill religious doctrine.  Their religious doctrine is their radical leftist orthodoxy, in which the United States is a racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist force of evil in the world.

Horowitz recounts in the introduction the depressing fact that no major conservative policy organization supported his campaign, and further, that it was ignored by such notable conservative intellectual journals as National Review and the Weekly Standard.  He attributes this to a general discomfort among conservatives regarding organized movements and in particular, institutional reform campaigns.  Further, he notes a general aversion among conservatives for arousing the ire of the intellectual establishment and inviting ad hominem attacks.  I’d add to this that the Republican Party leadership has exhibited this same aversion over the last 20 years, allowing the abuses of the political left to remain unchecked, and to in fact intensify.  Hence we find ourself at this critical juncture in American history.

Reforming Our Universities does provide, however, in its account of Horowitz’s hard-won ABOR campaign successes, a blueprint for continued progress.  Conservatives in general and the Republican Party in particular must make the enforcement of student academic freedom rights on university campuses a priority.  Without grass-roots support along the lines of the Tea Party, and continued pressure upon Republican Party leaders to support the adoption of ABOR-supportive resolutions within state legislatures, the effort to have our universities re-embrace the modern research university model will fail.  To be clear – Horowitz explicitly rejects the idea of legislative control of curricula – what he is suggesting is that pressure be brought to bear on the many good people within university administrations to adopt and enforce a set of academic freedom rights for students.  The story of Horowitz’s noble campaign and his detailed accounting of the obstacles he has faced and overcome in its course suggests that with wide public support for these reforms and subsequent pressure on university trustees and administrators, much greater success can in fact be achieved.  If we wish to preserve this nation as founded, conservatives must get involved and aggressively advocate for this reform.  It is a battle we must fight and win.

By Carl Cameron

Published July 07, 2010

Some Democrats, even in Arizona, are fearing an election backlash over immigration, as President Obama sues Arizona over its new immigration enforcement law and pushes Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul.

“My concern is that the federal government is suing the state of Arizona, ironically, over the ability to enforce immigration laws — where if the federal government had been doing its job over the years, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place,” Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the Democratic nominee for governor, urged the Obama administration to back off Arizona’s new law, which allows state and local authorities to ask people for immigration documents during unrelated enforcement encounters – such as traffic stops.

The president appears to be out of step with public opinion on immigration. The latest Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll shows 2-to-1 support nationwide for Arizona’s law, including 73 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of independents and one out of three Democrats.

via FOXNews.com – Some Democrats Fear Backlash Over Obama’s Handling of Immigration.

With their imported Marxist-based ideas, progressives set about trying to destroy the American experiment in limited government a century ago, Glenn Beck said on his TV program.

Progressives set a ”100-year time bomb” in the early 1900s “and only the real elite recognized it,” Beck said.

After progressive policy initiatives such as Prohibition and the federal income tax became immensely unpopular, progressives learned to use manipulation and subterfuge to advance their freedom-hating, un-American policies. Led by Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, progressives learned how to use the media, centers of higher education and law schools to transform America slowly.

Progressives prefer not to have open debates with the American public because when such discussions take place, progressives usually lose the argument. They would rather impose their agenda by fiat, whether through the courts or the executive branch.

The progressive approach hasn’t varied a lot since the so-called Progressive Era, Beck said:

The progressive tactics haven’t changed much since then either: Build a structure; make it so complex that the people don’t understand it; avoid debate and most importantly, silence dissent. And, if that doesn’t work, bribe them, indoctrinate them. But if that still doesn’t work: Destroy them.

We see this at work in the tactics of Saul Alinsky, who said: “The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

Beck reflects, correctly, “They know they can’t bribe me, silence me or indoctrinate me, so they know they have to destroy me.” 

Sometimes the left doesn’t even try to hide its plans for America. Marxist university professors Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who deserve special recognition for their contribution to the nation’s ongoing decline, devised the Cloward-Piven Strategy of orchestrated crisis, which they spelled out in “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” published in the Nation magazine in 1966. The strategy called for aggressively recruiting poor Americans onto the nation’s welfare rolls in an effort to overwhelm governments. The theory was that imposing such impossible burdens would force radical change upon society.

Sometimes the left goofs up, leaving valuable strategic information in public places. A document titled “National Progressive and Party Infrastructure,” which purports to be based on a presentation by Rob Stein, founder of the George Soros-led Democracy Alliance and Maren Hesla, the director of WOMEN VOTE!, at abortion group EMILY’s List, offers new information on how the left is trying to create a permanent left-wing political infrastructure throughout the nation.

The left is starting to believe President Obama is a “poser,” Glenn Beck said on his TV show.

In their view, he has failed to achieve many of his campaign promises. He dropped the so-called public option from his healthcare legislation which is “the progressives’ ultimate prize.” Said Beck: 

As the concessions are being made and this bill gets stripped down, the only thing left is a mandate to buy insurance, a giant boon, they’ll say, to those evil big insurance companies. That’s not exactly what the left had in mind, not Democrats — the left, and they are coming out in force against it. Arianna Huffington daily calls Howard Dean — Howard Dean I just told you said the whole bill should be killed entirely, so what’s happening here?

Obama has also failed to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military. He hasn’t shut down the prison for Islamist terrorists in Guantanamo Bay. He is continuing a crackdown on illegal immigrants and he hasn’t pushed for a windfall profit tax on oil companies, Beck said. 

Even far-left writer and conspiracy theorist Naomi Klein has turned on Obama, calling him more or less a corporate stooge.

Obama has got to get things done for the left or they will turn on him ferociously, Beck said.

Meanwhile, violent leftists in Europe are causing civil unrest, Beck noted. He played a segment from Neil Cavuto’s show in which global warming skeptic and filmmaker Phelim McAleer was being interviewed live from the climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. While McAleer spoke he was pelted with rotten vegetables thrown by eco-leftists.

In Europe, Beck said, “they have been trying to achieve their socialist utopia for decades. How is that working out for them?” Beck noted that rioters are burning cars in France and there have been hundreds of arrests in Greece. Italy’s prime minister just got put in the hospital after a man threw a heavy object at his face.

Leftists may start causing civil unrest in America too, Beck suggested noting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned in September that the heated political climate in the country could lead to political violence. “I saw,” she said, choking up, “I saw this myself in the late seventies in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave–it created a climate in which violence took place.”

Of course, Pelosi left out the fact that the violence of which she spoke was caused by her comrades.

Liberals have long viewed the Constitution as a quaint anachronism to be overcome. Now that they’re in power in Washington, they’re trying to do an end run around it.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, says the left-wing Big Government crowd in Washington doesn’t recognize the limitations on the government’s powers that are provided for in the Constitution.

They view this as a grant of the ability of the government to act not as government but rather as king and that’s not the way our constitutional republic is set up. The way it works in the United States is it’s a limited federal government. That’s what the Constitution outlines, very clearly.  And this idea that the federal government can come in and mandate acquisition of insurance or frankly this entire program violates a number of constitutional provisions, but, judge, it points to something else…[ObamaCare supporters in Congress] don’t care what the Constitution says in this regard. What they think is they’re the government and they know best.

When pressed, ObamaCare supporters on Capitol Hill can’t explain what part of the Constitution of the United States of America authorizes the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance.

Glenn Beck’s substitute host Judge Andrew Napolitano played an audio recording of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ridiculing the questioner. When asked, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” she replied, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

A requirement to purchase health insurance is plainly unconstitutional.

Legal thinkers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey have also argued that “The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.”

Such a requirement, which would give the IRS the power to go after people who refuse to purchase insurance, is also massively unpopular among the American people. Lawmakers know this. That’s one of the reasons they’ve been insisting on huge home state bribes in order to vote for it. They hope that the pork and special legislative favors they bring home to their states will help the public forgive them for supporting this monstrosity.

Horse-trading away America’s future, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), whose support for this measure could lead to his electoral defeat in his conservative home state in 2012, insisted on $100 million extra for Medicaid for Nebraska. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) cut a deal to exempt 800,000 seniors in Florida from possible benefit cuts by private Medicare Advantage plans.

In the dead of night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who seems unaware that he is currently enjoying his final term in the U.S. Senate, mustered the 60 votes he needed to ram ObamaCare through his chamber. Approval of the cloture motion allows the legislation to move forward for a final debate and vote later this week.

The current iteration of ObamaCare is classic Mussolini-style Fascism (i.e. corporatism). It forces Americans at gunpoint to purchase health insurance, a requirement never before imposed on the American people. The big insurance companies and the federal government have combined to subject the public to this tyrannical mandate that Americans overwhelmingly oppose. This is the economic essence of Fascism.

Shame on them on all.

Nonetheless, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard offers some words of encouragement to the patriotic Americans who still believe in limited government.

Keep fighting on health care. Fight for the next few days in the Senate. Fight the conference report in January in the Senate and the House. Start trying to repeal the worst parts of the bill the moment it passes, if it does.

After all, never before has so unpopular a piece of major legislation been jammed through on a party-line vote. This week, Rasmussen showed 57% of voters nationwide saying that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress, with only 34% favoring passing that bill. 54% of Americans now believe they will be worse off if reform passes, while just 25% believe they’ll be better off. Making the 2010 elections a referendum on health care should work–if Republicans don’t let up in the debate over the next year.

Indeed ObamaCare may be the Democrats’ undoing. They are betting everything on their healthcare plan, which won’t kick in for years to come. A public backlash before then could halt the program in its tracks and kill it, leading to a Bastille Day-like slaughter at the polls for the Democratic powers that be. Keep your fingers crossed.

Of course, it would be better to abort this statist monstrosity while in the womb, but the beauty of politics is that the fight is never really over. There will be more battles to come.

As Kristol writes, “Fight on with respect to health care. Fight on other fronts. And recruit new fighters. In a word: Fight. ”

Meanwhile, Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-Ore.), a socialist lawmaker who belongs to the radical Congressional Progressive Caucus, explained why he hates wealthy people.

From a report in The Hill:

He gives partial credit for his special brand of liberalism to having worked at a country club as a teenager. Each summer, his father ran a camp for troubled inner-city kids on Cape Cod, where they caddied for golfers at a country club. DeFazio would work alongside the kids.

“They were servants for the rich, as was I,” he said. “I shagged golf balls for rich people. I carried golf clubs for rich people, and I learned very early on, when I was pretty young, that this was a group of people that had nothing special to offer to me or to society.”

With DeFazio, it’s personal. It’s pure Marxist, class consciousness-based hatred.

Does this mean his values and personality are so malleable that if he’d a different job growing up he’d be a free market-loving libertarian?

Howard Zinn (left) with the very serious-looking actor Viggo Mortensen

The small-screen version of Marxist historian Howard Zinn‘s leftward-slanted history of America, The People Speak, aired Sunday night on the History Channel.

The film, based on Zinn’s influential book, A People’s History of the United States,  is chock full of useful idiot celebrities including Matt Damon, Marisa Tomei, Morgan Freeman, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Penn, Bruce Springsteen, and its executive producer Josh Brolin, all parroting the radical platitudes written for them.

One scene in the shlockumentary tells the story of an organizer-agitator who rallied tenants against landlords during the Great Depression. In the current recession, “We’ve seen examples of people rebelling,” said Zinn. “We’ve seen tenants rebelling against foreclosures. This is the kind of thing that happened in a much larger scale in the 1930s.”

Added Zinn, “If this spreads — the idea of fighting foreclosures, the idea of workers going on strike — it’s possible this can lead into a larger movement for economic justice.”

This is what the radical community organizers of ACORN do. ACORN is about causing upheaval that will ignite social change. The group cares little about abstractions about justice: it is focused on revolution.

Through its support for the financial affirmative action program known as the Community Reinvestment Act, ACORN has played a major role in the subprime mortgage mess that has undermined Americans’ support for free market problem-solving and set off a worldwide chain of financial troubles. It is also implicated in vote fraud schemes from coast to coast. ACORN aims to give America change that socialists can believe in – by any means necessary.

And now Congress is poised to begin funding the advocacy group-cum-organized crime syndicate again.

Last week the House Appropriations Committee rejected on a party line vote an amendment that would have blocked federal funding of the radical advocacy group. The amendment was needed because the Obama administration thumbed its nose at a provision in spending legislation that banned ACORN funding until Dec. 18.

In a ruling revealed late last month by the Justice Department the Obama administration invented a loophole allowing the government to continue funding the president’s friends at ACORN. Through the magic of legal interpretation, the language forbidding funding the group was transformed into a requirement not “to refuse payment on binding contractual obligations that predate” the original funding ban. U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon, a Bill Clinton appointee, helped ACORN out by offering the Obama administration political cover by issuing a temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN.

The bottom line is that the ACORN funding language –rendered useless by the Justice Department– remains in the massive fiscal 2010 spending measure now on its way to President Obama for his signature.

The Obama administration’s bailout of ACORN may help keep the financially distressed group that had been considering filing bankruptcy before Christmas open for business.

The bailout should be music to the ears of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a huge fan of ACORN who has given thousands of dollars over the years to the ACORN network. Nadler urged ACORN’s lawyer to sue the government, arguing that a ban on funding constituted a “bill of attainder.” Within weeks, ACORN took his advice.

After Copenhagen, polar bears won't be the only ones on thin ice

In spite of Climate-gate that has, at the very least, brought reasonable doubt to the validity and motives behind the theory of global warming, more has been reported about Tiger Wood’s sex life than the impact the “success” of Copenhagen will have on the economy.

In an op-ed piece in The Washing Post written by Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska, made the point:

“The agenda–driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worst.”

Chris Matthews host of MSNBC’s Hardball told his guests Chrystia Freeland, Financial Times and Eugene Robinson, of The Washington Post Palin’s concern for the economic impact was nothing more than a “cheap shot” and continued to ignore the facts.

Claiming the “Palin piece is a mess” Robinson explained, because she “trumpeted” the fact that she set up a panel when she was governor.

Robinson:

“Her whole state was thawing…but then she says, you know, these are just natural and cyclical changes, with no evidence to back that up.”

While Matthews wanted to take the giant leap backward from the “radical” idea that the earth has cyclical changes, to the Monkey Trials of the 1920s.  Chrystia Freeland, Financial Times brought  Matthews back to conciousness (for at least a few seconds).

Freeland:

“I do think that the smart political point that Sarah Palin did make in that op-ed, and I think Gene has written a column about this as well, is we are starting to get to the point where the discussion about the environment is going to be about real economic cost. And real winners and losers.”

While both Matthews and Robinson stayed in the background humming in agreement, they seemed incapable of discussing what it would mean in terms of who would be those winners and losers. Instead, the conversation digressed.

Freeland:

“And that’s where I think she thinks she can score some real political points, by reminding some people, its going to cost a lot of money…”

Matthews:

“…That’s the cheapest shot in the world. Everybody knows that. That’s so obvious that she’s playing to the crowd.”

The king of cheap shots believes that concern for the economy is now playing to the crowd.

The Left loves to belittle and dismiss Palin, rather than engage her on what she actually says, or writes.

Palin wrote, “I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled…This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.”

“Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda…President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign).”

“What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move.”

When it all is said and done, that is exactly what the President’s trip to Copenhagen will achieve. They are not going to debate the validity of Climate-gate, whether polar bears are increasing or decreasing and certainly not who will bear the consequences of their actions. Those are such inconvenient truths.

As the Climategate scandal continues to unfold, it appears the final chapter is being written in the great anthropogenic global warming swindle pushed so vigorously and for so long by the world’s leading climate change hoax-perpetrator, former Vice President Al Gore. The scandal is a case of “scientists cooking the books, changing the research, changing the numbers, changing the actual temperatures, discrediting people in e-mails, saying how do we discredit them, how do we make them go away, et cetera, et cetera,” said Glenn Beck.

The so-called scientific consensus that Gore and a generation of true believers promoted has been gradually disintegrating for years but news that the key scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been falsifying data has accelerated the process. Yet some in the media, even some of those journalists supposedly on the right, still don’t get it and continue to cling to their faith in the anthropogenic global warming religion. Shame on them.

The high water mark for Gore’s fantasy must have been 2007 when he and the now-disgraced IPCC were jointly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for their commitment to saving the human race from itself. The award came on the heels of Gore’s surprise hit of a movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

“For years, anyone who criticized global warming was accused of being bought and paid for by the polluting industry and whatnot, while these enlightened, objective scientists, you know, were beyond reproach,” author Jonah Goldberg said on Glenn Beck’s TV show.

No wonder Al Gore’s been terrified of publicly debating the science of global warming and climate change. He’s got billions of dollars in potential personal worth on the line. Surely he knew long ago that the science wasn’t there.

Dr. Ramin Pourandarjani, murdered for speaking out against Iranian government brutality

When spontaneous street demonstrations broke out following the fraudulent Iranian presidential election last June, the Mullahs lost no time in unleashing the security forces and their allied militias upon the protesters. Scores were killed, and images of the carnage made the rounds of YouTube and other outlets.

The demonstrations were crushed. Hundreds of protesters and opposition activists were taken into custody in the brutal crackdown that followed, and the Western media soon lost interest in the story. For those (mostly young people) now in custody, however, their nightmare was just about to begin.

Most of the demonstrators were taken to a prison on the outskirts of Tehran called Kahrizak, where they were subjected to widespread abuse, including rape and torture.

Savage torture.

Ramin Pourandarjani was a 26-year-old doctor working at the prison. He witnessed the abuse of those taken there, and it sickened him. One day, a young protester was brought to him after one such torture session. “He was brought to me in a dreadful state after being subjected to extreme physical torture. He was in a critical state” There was nothing Dr. Pourandarjani could do. The young man died. Security officials forced Dr. Pourandarjani to list meningitis as the cause of death. This was the last straw.

Dr. Pourandarjani could no longer be a pawn of the Mullahs, and began to talk about what he saw. He ultimately ended up testifying before a parliamentary committee as to the abuses he witnessed at Kahrizak, describing how people were being tortured to death there.

Although he didn’t know it at the time, Dr. Pourandarjani had just signed his own death warrant.

One day, a deliveryman dropped off a take-out meal. Dr. Pourandarjani took it to his room, ate it, went into convulsions and died. The salad was poisoned.

Now all the Iranians had to do was cover it up.

Dr. Pourandarjai, they explained, had died in a car accident. Later, they changed the cause of death to cardiac arrest. When his parents and others began to ask questions, the Iranians changed the story yet again: Dr. Pourandarjai, it was announced, had killed himself.

A week after Dr. Pourandarjai’s death, Iran’s top police commander, Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, officially announced the cause of death as being a suicide. He said the doctor was facing criminal charges over “failure to fulfill his duties to treat the detainees” and had killed himself in despair in a courthouse lounge. The commander said a note was found with the body. As far as the government is concerned, that is the end of the matter.

Although they have been beaten down, pro-reform demonstrators have not given up. A major anti-government protest is scheduled for Monday, December 7, and Dr. Pourandarjai’s mysterious death has acted as a catalyst by providing one more example of the regime’s brutality.

“I understand now,” said one student planning on attending Monday’s protest, “that we are in a state of war.”

In response, the regime has mobilized its secret police, guards and militias, announcing that it will be looking for “troublemakers” at the protest

Let’s hope they find them. Millions of them.

What is your favorite annual Christmas tradition?  I think Bill O’Reilly’s is battling it out with supposed Christmas haters in the secular battle ground of the holiday season. It’s that time of year again: War on Christmas time.

“Why believe in a god?  Just be good for goodness sake.” That is the message of the American Humanist Association’s (AHA) ad campaign on buses in some cities in America.  And those two questions really bother O’Reilly.

O’Reilly has always billed himself as a “culture warrior.” He believes he must stand up against secularists who fight against the Judeo-Christian roots of American culture. I have no problem with O’Reilly fighting that battle, but sometimes I have a problem with how he does it. His most recent skirmish with the AHA doesn’t do Christians any favor, in fact, I believe he demeans us.

“Why do they loathe the baby Jesus?  He’s just a baby…How do you sell atheism by running down a baby?  It’s just a baby.” – Bill O’Reilly

O’Reilly goes on to say that atheists attack Christmas because they are jealous of the fun Christians and Jews (with Hannukah) have this time of year. They are so jealous that they must attack a little baby Jesus.

Well, Bill, here’s a little tip for your culture war: don’t defend Christianity by calling its Savior God “just a baby”.  Let me give you a quote from a classic American comedy:

Ricky Bobby: Dear tiny infant Jesus…
Carley Bobby: Hey, um… you know sweetie, Jesus did grow up. You don’t always have to call him baby. It’s a bit odd and off puttin’ to pray to a baby.

Do I think the AHA is attacking Jesus, because they are jealous of Christians during Christmas time? Of course not. The AHA wants everyone to believe you can be good without God. Do I believe the AHA is attacking Christianity with their ad? Of course. The AHA wants to remove the Judeo-Christian worldview from our society.  That’s obvious in everything from their ads, their public statements, and annual selections for Humanist of the Year. Recent winners include an anti-intelligent design activist (PZ Myers), Congressman Pete Stark (seemingly anti-Israel), and Richard Dawkins (whose career goal may just be to defeat Christian thought).  O’Reilly is right in seeing these ads as part of the culture war, but wrong and unhelpful in his response to them.

Christians do not want to convince people to our side so they can have more fun on Christmas. And we do not think of Jesus as simply some helpless, cute little baby.  During Christmas, we do remember God coming in the flesh as a baby.  But we believe so much more than that.  The Prophet Isaiah said it well:

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7

We celebrate the Almighty God when we celebrate the birth of Jesus.  He is the One who is ruler and creator of the world.  That is the opposite worldview of the humanist and atheist.  It deserves real discussion and not watered down antagonistic ads by AHA or silly statements by O’Reilly.

If Allah is the maker of life, as Mohammed Atta believed, could He desire the destruction of what he had created? What is suicide but rage at the living, and contempt for the life left behind? Mohammed Atta offered his deed of destruction as a gift to God. In his eyes, his martyrdom was unselfish and the strangers he killed were not innocent. His mission was to purge the world of wasteful pleasures, to vanquish the guilty and to implement God’s grace.But if God wanted to cleanse His creation, why would He need Mohammed Atta to accomplish His will?

These are the questions of an agnostic, who has no business saying what God desires or does not. Nonetheless, an agnostic can appreciate believers like Pascal, whose humility is transparent and who are attempting to make sense of the incomprehensible through faith. Why are we born? Why are we here? Why do we die? An agnostic can respect the faith of a skeptic who confronts our misery and refuses to concede defeat. He can admire a faith that provides consolation for the inconsolable, and in a heartless world finds reason to live a moral life.

But murder is not moral and the desire to redeem the world requires it. Because redemption requires the damnation of those who do not want to be saved.

* * *

My father was an atheist who embraced the secular belief of the social redeemers. Along with all who think they have practical answers to the absurd cruelties of our human lot, my father felt superior to those who do not, especially those who take solace in a religious faith. In this prejudice, my father had impressive company. The psychologist Sigmund Freud regarded religion as an illusion without a future. But, like all revolutionaries Freud could not live without his own reservoir of belief, which was science. Progress was his human faith.

Whether they are secularists like my father and Freud, or religious zealots like Mohammed Atta, those who believe we can become masters of our fates think they know more than Pascal. But in their search for truth where do they imagine they have gone that he did not go before them? What do they think they know that Pascal did not? Their bravado is only a mask for the inevitable defeat that is our common lot, an inverse mirror of their human need.

– The End of Time

–

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

With ClimateGate broken wide open, you knew it was only a matter of time before Congress’ leading crusader against global-warming alarmism, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), entered the fray.  Last night on Fox, he and Sean Hannity had an interesting discussion about the scandal…but it could have been better if Hannity had let his guest make the point he was trying to make.

The Senator pointed out that it’s not just right-wing corporate shills who think ClimateGate is a real problem for the environmental Left, recounted his meetings with skeptical scientists who were being shunned from the discussion, and blasted the White House’s insistence on clinging bitterly to bad data.  Inhofe also said:

Barack Obama “is gonna go [to Copenhagen] with two messages that are really pretty scary.  One is, I think, that he’s gonna announce that the United States is going to reduce by, uh, I think they said 17 % by 2020.  Now, that’s not gonna happen, but a lot of people over there in other countries, they think that if a President says it, they don’t know that we have a Congress […] and the other one is, which I’m sure you’ve heard, he’s gonna commit $10 billion a year to, uh, developing nations, to help them, to do something about emissions in their countries.”

Inhofe was going to expand upon Obama’s second message, but Hannity cut him off, steering the conversation back to the East Anglia scientists’ misconduct.  Granted, hosts have the right to guide the course of their show to keep segments on topic, and ClimateGate’s inherent sleaziness is worth repeating, but we’ve heard it all before.  I, for one, would much rather have heard more about Obama’s latest policy schemes, about which even Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) warned the President:

“…the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming [conference],” but “As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”

And as for the rest of the world’s contribution to reducing global carbon emissions, National Review’s Greg Pollowitz reminds us that it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘cuts’ is:

“Government sources revealed [India] could curb the carbon emitted relative to the growth of its economy — its carbon intensity — by 24% by 2020.  The target would mean emissions would continue to rise as the government aims to lift millions out of poverty, but by less than currently predicted.”

Again, it’s all well and good to remind the American people of the Left’s propaganda tactics—repetition is an important part of getting a message across—but we can’t lose sight of why they cook the books: to advance their crackpot policy initiatives and all-encompassing vision of government authority.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

New Rule: Birthers are not allowed to condemn Andrew Sullivan and others for their obsession with whether Sarah Palin was really Trig's mom.

I just posted an update on my post defending Sarah Palin from the Left’s attack on her as a birther:

Update 12/5/09, 4:25 PM EST: This post was mentioned and linked at Progressive Alaska and then reprinted at Andrew Sullivan’s blog. The Progressive Alaska blog had two lies about this post and one pathetic typo which was correct in the Daily Dish reprint:

David Horowitx, excoriating Sullivan, fails to mention Palin’s lie.

First, Horowitz didn’t write this post, I did. My byline is at the top and anyone who has ever read a Horowitz article would not mistake my writing for his. Second, as can be seen clearly above, I in no way “excoriated” Sullivan by predicting what has in fact happened. Palin has clarified her poorly chosen words to demonstrate conclusively that she is not a birther. She does not believe Obama is ineligible to be president and does not support the Birther Movement’s efforts. Yet Sullivan shoulders on with the Palin-is-a-Birther meme because he detests her so much.

Sorry, Progressive Alaska, for not “mentioning Palin’s lie.” I’m not really concerned with refuting the crackpot “Trig Birtherism” conspiracy theories. Just as leftists hope that the Birther conspiracy continues to exist to dog the Right, I fully endorse Sullivan’s efforts to keep Trig Birtherism alive. By all means, please continue to pursue this, Andrew.

Nonie Darwish has now set a new record for the most intense reaction yet from those seeking to silence dissent on campus.

NewsReal has previously documented the attempts by the fascist campus Left to suppress free speech and disrupt those who dare to confront Islamic extremism. The attempt to silence Geert Wilders is only one of many examples.

David Horowitz has written in numerous books about the treatment he’s received on campus by activists trying to prevent him from speaking.

(Three years ago when David and I first met when he gave a speech at my alma mater, Ball State University, he was attacked with a pie, 50 pizzas were ordered in his name, and a huge “Horowitz not Welcome” sign was projected.)

This is really a new low, though.

Reports suggest that an arsonist attempted to disrupt Nonie Darwish’s speech at Boston University. Darwish forwarded out this email to her supporters which she received from one of the students who set up the event:

Dear Mrs. Darwish,

I just wanted to thank you for speaking at Boston University yesterday. I would like to apologize again for the confusion regarding the location of the event because of the fire. So far we know the fire was intentionally set in one of the bathrooms on the second floor of the building. It is still under investigation and I will let you know if any more updates come out. I was not the only person to think that the fire could have been set because you were scheduled to speak but I will inform you of any more developments. Once again thank you so much for coming to Boston University and I speak for everyone who attended the event when I say what you had to say was not only extremely important but a pleasure hearing.

Here is the link to the article that was written about the event:

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/activist-arab-israeli-conflict-rooted-in-islamic-law-1.2111301

Thank you,

Adam Korn

What next?



Sanchez will stand by anyone who agrees with him on immigration - even this guy.

I can’t figure out if CNN’s Rick Sanchez repeatedly gets his facts wrong because of a biased agenda or because he’s just an inept journalist.  I really think it is both.  His Leftism sometimes leads Sanchez to ignore seeking facts (think fake racist Rush quotes,) but sometimes he simply hides the facts to promote his own views.

This past week former professional wrestler and former Minnesota Governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura made the media rounds to promote a new television show he is hosting.  The show is about conspiracy theories and Ventura, who is a 9-11 Truther, was an obvious choice for host. Ventura, in an attempt to gain viewers, has made  loony left conspiracy claims on Afghanistan, 9-11, and immigration to any show that would listen.

One of the programs Ventura went on was The Opie and Anthony Show, a shock jock XM radio show.  YouTube clips of the interview went viral, because Ventura walked off the show after sparring with host Jim Norton.  As Ventura walked off, Norton really viciously laid into Ventura. Here’s Sanchez’s take on the incident:

Sanchez (conveniently) only shows a clip of the interview after Ventura decides to leave the show.  He offers no context to why Norton responds so angrily to Ventura.  He portrays Ventura as an innocent victim who is attacked by jerks for no real reason except ratings.

“Ventura is all but assailed on the radio…Jesse Ventura was invited to that show.  It’s like a pit-bull being poked with a stick isn’t it…they were hoping (the show would go viral) and it did.”

If Sanchez would have shown video before Ventura walked out then his CNN global audience would have had some helpful information. For example, earlier in the show Ventura threatened to leave the show during debate about Afghanistan.  Ventura thinks the US should pull out and Norton disagreed, because we were attacked on 9-11.  Instead of debating the point, Ventura dismisses Norton’s view and repeatedly slams him for not being a real American, because Norton was never in military service.

That information gives the viewer some context to why Norton gets so mad when Ventura slaps Norton on the shoulder and sarcastically thanks him for his service.  Is that an excuse for Norton?  No, but it does show that Ventura wasn’t some blindsided victim.

The main thing Sanchez conveniently ignores is the topic of discussion leading up to the big walk out. The subject was on the tactics used by police and border patrol to arrest illegal immigrants. Norton and Ventura went head to head on that topic.  (Watch for yourself: Here).

Ventura, like Sanchez, is vehemently against arresting people for being in this country illegally. It is a hot button for Sanchez.  Why would Sanchez leave that bit of information out? Clearly he wanted to support Ventura’s views and back the guy, but hide why he was doing it.  That way, the world would simply stand by Ventura in the debate without knowing the issue.

Sanchez is using the airwaves of CNN to push his own agenda.  If the facts get in the way then they must be ignored or conveniently left out.  If CNN is really going to portray itself as the hard news network of the big three cable stations, then it’s time to get rid of Sanchez. I’m sure MsNBC would take him back where he’d fit in perfectly.

Liberal hand-wringing over the Muslim traitor Major Hasan and Islamo-fascists generally out of fear of alleged reprisals against law-abiding Muslims is the flip side of their tolerance for the genocidal crusade against the Jews emanating from the Muslim world and abetted by the American left:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html

FBI HATE CRIMES STATISTICS IN THE USA

HATE CRIMES BY RELIGIOUS BIAS

2008 US HATE CRIME STATS

* 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.

* 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.

2007 US HATE CRIME STATS

* 69.2 percent anti-Jewish

* 8.7 percent anti-Islamic

2006 US HATE CRIME STATS

· 64.3 percent were anti-Jewish.

· 12.0 percent were anti-Islamic.

2005 US HATE CRIME STATS

· 68.5 percent were anti-Jewish.

· 11.1 percent were anti-Islamic

2004 US HATE CRIME STATS

· 67.8 percent were anti-Jewish

· 13.0 percent were anti-Islamic.

Perhaps not the most trustworthy advocate?

Editor’s Note: Please read part 1 here which explains some of the scientific reasons which the author does not agree with the global warming theory. In this second part he explains the heuristic reasons for not embracing the idea.

The term “heuristic” is used here as an intuitive judgment based on experiences. It’s the kind of thinking that says “when I see x, y typically follows.” When a policy message and the messenger have a self interested and/or anti-free market, anti-capitalism, and anti-American underpinning, I immediately become a skeptic. Here are several reasons why I “heuristically” disagree with the global warming hypothesis.

The left warned against global cooling in the 60′s and 70′s using the same “apocalypse soon” rhetoric we have today. Paul Ehrlich was the James Hansen of his day. When one reads the (increasingly left wing) Wikipedia entry on Ehrlich, we see revisionist interpretations. You see, his position was never “really” considered scientifically sound. He famously bet free-markets philosopher Julian Simon that commodity prices would be higher in 20 years than in 1980. He believed mankind was pillaging the earth and we were “running out” of resources. He was famously wrong. He now believes in global warming.

If Al Gore is your primary promoter, Nobel Prize recipient, and Academy Award winner, then I am not going to believe you. Gore is a self evident fraud. He promotes policies that transfer tax dollars from your pocket to his. Many alarmists disassociate themselves from Gore because he is not a scientist. But they are the ones who effectively hired him as their chief spokesman and lobbyist. Last month, Gore went on television hyping a Geo-thermal idea and said, with his usual casual pompous certainty, that the earth’s core is several million degrees. That is about the temperature of the sun’s surface. The earth’s core is 5000-6000 degrees. Since he lost the election in 2000 this has been his full time job. If he is so wrong about simple things, then my bet is he is wrong about complex things.

The hypothesis for global warming is pretty specific. Mankind is disturbing the delicate balance in nature and causing global temperatures to rise and eventually reach catastrophic levels. So why change the emphasis from “global warming” to “climate change”? There is no theory of “climate change”, only a theory of global warming. This was done because the earth stopped warming. Climate change is perfect, because one can cherry pick random weather events and say “this never happened here before.” Hurricane Katrina was the prototype. Why switch from a testable term like global warming to a non-testable term like climate change? People change the subject when they are nervous about the original one.

The researcher bias incentives are ridiculous. Governments are pushing grants on scientists to do ever more study on global warming. Phil Jones group in East Anglia had received almost $20 million in grants to study (i.e., promote) global warming. But grants will stop coming if there is no problem with global warming. When it is in one’s economic interest to come up with one answer versus another, then one needs to be skeptical. An enormous research and manufacturing “academia-industrial complex” is about to go up in smoke. They will do anything to stop this, including “lose data” and silence critics.

When they want to jail people who disagree with them, be skeptical. James Hansen, a senior NASA official and Columbia University professor, proposed just this in June 2008. Hansen is the father of the modern day global warming movement. He first advised Gore in 1988 in a now famous presentation before Congress. People like Hansen are desperate. Their entire life’s work is about to be exploded.

The proposed laws do not even lower future temperatures, by the standards of the fake global warming models themselves. The Pelosi-passed law is projected to cool the earth by a half a degree in 50 years. They make these faux precise predictions with no sense of embarrassment or irony. While such faux precision is ridiculous, these laws would transfer enormous amounts of income and wealth from average Americans to global plutocrats, corporations and deceitful professors. Yet, Lord Gore insisted this law needed to be passed to save the planet.

How can anyone believe this junk?

—-

—-

Visit Michael Rulle’s Blog Here. See his previous NewsReal commentaries here.

The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president are embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself.

This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats’ Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq war, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became “Bush’s War” rather than an American War — with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.

The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)

What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to five Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the four liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.

– Obama Derangement Syndrome: Shut Up About the Birth Certificate, National Review

Yesterday and Thursday leftists tried to paint Sarah Palin as a Birther.

–

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please email it to DavidSwindle {@} Gmail.com. Please include:

1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

As if the winter of 2008-09 wasn’t harsh enough (despite all that global warming we were promised when Bush was elected) an additional chill ran through the state of Michigan when we saw our Governor, Jennifer Granholm, in the background of nearly every camera shot as .  Barack Obama assembled his economic team.

It’s not news, that in the liberal mindset, failure gets you attention, and being the biggest failure makes you an expert, as long as you are doctrinaire.  This merits fawing statements from MSM reporters like, “Nobody knows better than you…” blah blah blah.

Case in point, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a train-wreck of an administrator whose main talent is emoting on camera.

No state in the nation has lost jobs at the rate Michigan has, and only California edges us out as a state government fiscal disaster.  But state government keeps growing in Michigan, creating jobs for government unions.

And therein lies Obama’s fascination with Granholm.   Jenny is at the “Jobs Summit,” SEIU is there, the Chamber and the NFIB are not.  Barack Obama has something he desperately wants to learn from Jennifer Granholm:

How do you raise taxes in a recession, add government union jobs while destroying the private sector economy—and still win elections for your Party?

And Andrea Mitchell of NBC News is a more than willing accomplice; asking not one tough or pointed question of the governor of the state with the nation’s worst-performing economy.   You’d never know Granholm is at the end of a disastrous 8 year two term tenure.  Mitchell gives not one indication that Granholm has ANYTHING to do with Michigan’s problems.

Mitchell Indentifies Michigan as “Ground Zero in the unemployment crisis” as Granholm’s qualification for appearing at the Summit and on her show.

At probably the puff-piece interview’s low moment, Granholm identifies tax incentives for business as something that should come out of the summit.

Tax incentives for investment?  This is the woman who not only insisted– at the threat of closing down the government– that Michigan’s unique tax on business be resurrected just as it was about to be phased out, she slapped a 22% “temporary premium” on that job killing tax to boot.

Then after putting the accelerator to the floor and setting the cruise control in driving jobs to neighboring states, she made the grand statement that Michigan was now “open for business.”

Michigan now has 20% more government employees than manufacturing jobs—approximately 500,000 vs. 600,000.    Government is far bigger than when Granholm took office, and every “cut” has been in the increase in school funding, or state jobs.

Ground Zero in the unemployment crisis, indeed.  But if you’re going to use this analogy, then Jennifer Granholm is not one of the firefighters…

Granholm emphasizes to an empathetic Mitchell that under her watch, “Michigan has lost ONE MILLION JOBS,” as though she’s reporting bad weather beyond her control.  No, wait, she thinks she can control the weather, too.  Michigan is going to lead the way in combating global warming—no matter how much we could use some.

Granholm’s regulatory agencies have delayed high tech mining efforts in the Upper Peninsula.  In one case the nickel mining company (a necessary ingredient for the battery operated cars she supposedly wants) opened with 100 jobs instead of the original plan of 400, and the thousands of spin-off jobs that could have been created during the 3 years of delay are now still in the theoretical future.

Two clean coal plants that would have generated $1 BILLION each in private sector construction and 250 very good paying permanent jobs each, have been regulated out of existence because a few over the hill hippies showed up with protest signs.  The company just announced they aren’t going to fight the Granholm Administration anymore and have given up their efforts here.

So, if manufacturing DID come back to Michigan, very soon we won’t have the energy requirements in a state where a warm summer is already leading to rolling brownouts in some areas when air conditioning use is at its peak.

In other venues, Granholm brags that the new “green economy” she is pushing for Michigan will produce 50,000 jobs over the next 10 years.  10 YEARS?  Under the liberal policies of Jennifer Granholm, Michigan has lost 50,000 jobs every 5 months!

In a world where Jennifer Granholm has a voice at a “Jobs Summit,” I suppose Matt Millen should cover the NFL draft for ESPN, Tiger Woods can start a marriage counseling show, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can be put in charge of financial regulation, Tim Geitner in charge of collecting taxes—oh wait…