Dumbass of the day –Video: Actor Danny Glover blames GLOBAL WARMING for Haitian Earthquake

Video: Actor Danny Glover blames GLOBAL WARMING for Haitian Earthquake

My prediction: this will get nowhere near the media coverage that was given to Pat Robertson (White House responds to Pat Roberts faster than to undiebomber that tried to blow up airplane over Detroit) when he blamed Haiti’s pact with the devil for its problems (from The Daily Telegraph via memeorandum):


GLOVER: When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?

Clintons’ Sludge Ruins Obamas’ Garden

Clintons’ Sludge Ruins Obamas’ Garden

We almost missed this howler, perhaps because it was discreetly buried in AOL’s Daily Finance site:


Michelle Obama’s toxic veggie nightmare: White House organic garden polluted with sludge

Alex Salkever
Jul 30th 2009

When First Lady Michelle Obama planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House lawn in March 2009, she hoped to both set an example of healthy eating and to grow tasty edibles for her daughters and husband. But Michelle’s organic dream has been dashed by a nasty toxic legacy lurking in the soils of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It turns out that a previous Presidential gardening team had used sewage sludge for fertilizer.

This is a fairly common practice with one huge problem. Sewage sludge tends to be laced with anything that people pour down the drain and often contains heavy metals. Not surprisingly, the National Park Service tested the dirt beneath Michelle’s garden and found the plot has highly elevated levels of lead averaging 93 parts per million. That’s below the 400 ppm that the Environmental Protection Agency says is a threat to human health. But I’d wager that Sasha, Malia and Barack won’t be getting arugula or tomatoes from this garden any time soon.

The likely source of the toxic sludge that has ruined Michelle’s garden? The Clinton White House apparently used a sludge-based product to fertilize the lawn during the 1990s! Aside from casting a shadow on the first White House vegetable garden since Eleanor Roosevelt resided there, the sludge ensures that Michelle’s garden will never attain organic status. Organic certification processes strictly prohibit the use of sludge as a fertilizer substitute.

The White House has sought to downplay the issue, and a number of experts have pointed out that 93 ppm of sludge in soil is somewhat normal for older urban locales. However, the EPA recommends not growing food in soil that has 100 ppm. Several major food producers, including H.J. Heinz and Del Monte, won’t accept produce grown in sludge. That’s despite decades of U.S. government efforts to encourage farmers to use solid sewage wastes in lieu of traditional fertilizer products.

What a surprise it is to see that it’s the Clintons who are to blame?

Did you ever think you would hear ‘the Clintons’ and ‘sludge’ mentioned in the same sentence

Everything’s staged: Michelle Obama’s garden food was fake

Everything’s staged: Michelle Obama’s garden food was fake

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 14, 2010 09:52 AM

They stage their health care town halls.

They hand out lab coats to make their doctor donors look authentic.

They treat soldiers as “pretty good photo ops.”

So, this Iron Chef revelation about Michelle Obama’s produce is entirely in keeping with Obama Theater:

For months, the Food Network ran ads about a forthcoming episode of “Iron Chef America,” its flagship chefs plus secret ingredient versus time competition. The show would take place at the White House garden, with Michelle Obama making a cameo and plugging her responsible-eating initiative. The network promised it would be its biggest episode ever.

The buildup matched the reality: The Jan. 3 “Iron Chef America” drew 7.6 million viewers, the highest-rated show in network history. In it, superstar chef Mario Batali teamed with Emeril Lagasse, and Bobby Flay with White House chef Cristeta Comerford to cook five dishes using the secret ingredient: produce from the White House garden.

Except for one thing: As first reported on AOL’s Politics Daily blog, the fruits and vegetables used on the show weren’t from the White House. They were stunt produce. Ringers.

At the beginning of the two-hour special, the chefs were shown picking sweet potatoes, broccoli, fennel and tomatillos from the White House garden. Then the chefs were seen walking into Kitchen Stadium, produce in hand. One problem: The show is filmed in New York City.

No doubt they’ll argue it was “Fake but accurate.”

“Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee” = The Cover Tim Geithner’s A** Tax

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 14, 2010 04:44 PM

Photoshop/CoC card set credit: Tennyson Hayes

It’s not quite the Mother of All Distractions, but it’s up there. Maybe the First Cousin of All Distractions.

The White House unveiled its ballyhooed $90 billion plan to punish banks with a “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee” this afternoon. It’s faker than the fake garden vegetables the First Lady served up on Iron Chef.

How does this fakery grow?

1. The bank tax will inevitably be passed on to consumers and the White House has no way of stopping them from doing the dumping.

2. The tax won’t apply to non-banks, black holes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the bailed-out auto companies.

3. This isn’t about getting “our money” back. It’s about redistributing it again under the guise of faux populism.

More to the point, this is what I call the Cover Tim Geithner’s A** Tax. Making banks the whipping boys takes the heat off Geithner for his incompetent, complicit, and transparency-subverting tenure as New York Federal Reserve chair.

Team Obama wants you to keep your eyes on its fatcat barbecue charade.

But don’t be distracted. Geithner will be on the hot seat next week in Congress. And that’s where the real scrutiny of “financial crisis responsibility” lies.

The WSJ weighs in on the secret backdoor bank bailout deals approved by the NYFed under Geithner:

Given the sweet deal and the fact that Mr. Geithner sought to keep secret the identities of the beneficiaries, logic would suggest that the AIG intervention was intended as a bailout for these counterparties. Supporting this conclusion is the fact that Mr. Geithner has sold his plan to regulate derivatives as a way to prevent such problems in the future. Yet when asked directly by the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program why he opted to buy out the counterparties at par, Mr. Geithner said “the financial condition of the counterparties was not a relevant factor.”

Then last November, he suggested that the systemic risk was in AIG’s traditional insurance business. “AIG was providing a range of insurance products to households across the country. And if AIG had defaulted, you would have seen a downgrade leading to the liquidation and failure of a set of insurance contracts that touched Americans across this country and, of course, savers around the world,” he said. So which was it?

Taxpayers also still haven’t been told why there couldn’t have been any sunshine on Mr. Geithner’s beloved AIG counterparties. If some of them really would have failed, with systemic consequences, why not announce that they were all getting a deal to bolster liquidity and allow them to resume lending? That is exactly what regulators had just done in October 2008 by naming recipients of TARP capital injections.

On the other hand, if the counterparties weren’t the systemic risk, then what’s the argument for regulating derivatives?

The evidence builds that AIG’s “systemic risk” wasn’t a mathematical answer to a rigorous and thoughtful review of data, but rather a seat-of-the-pants judgment by regulators in a panic. If that is the case, someone should ask Mr. Geithner why the American people should give him even more authority to make more such judgments from his hip pocket—with little public scrutiny.

Under the House regulatory reform, Mr. Geithner would chair a new Financial Services Oversight Council. The council could declare virtually any company in America a systemic risk, making them eligible for intervention on the taxpayer’s dime. The law firm Davis Polk reports that since this council is not an agency, it will not be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act or the Sunshine Act, among other laws intended to allow citizens to scrutinize government.

It’s difficult to learn and apply the lessons of AIG because the New York Fed has done so much to conceal them. Mr. Towns appears to be getting closer to the truth, deciding yesterday to issue subpoenas focused on the New York Fed’s decision-making, as opposed to whatever it told AIG to say in public. Let’s hope lawmakers explore what the “systemic risk” actually was—and why Mr. Geithner should get nearly open-ended power to define it again.

Remember: As commenter Flyoverman put it best, “The only ethics committee with any clout is an informed electorate.”


Tom Elia on the same wavelength:

Obama Administration officials estimate that losses from the TARP program are around $120 billion, and argue this new tax will pay for those losses.

However, much of the estimated loss from TARP comes from the auto industry bailout.

So what appears to happening here is that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats are attempting to levy a tax on financial institutions — some of which never received TARP funds, some which have already paid them back — in large part to pay for the bailout of the auto industry, a bailout which greatly favored the autoworkers’ unions, a Democratic Party constituency.

And they’ll use as political cover for this the populist anger — much of it deserved — over the financial bailout. However, make no mistake: much of this will in reality be a transfer of wealth from the financial industry to a Democratic Party voting bloc.

…Update: Here’s an ABC News interview with one of President Obama’s top advisors, Valerie Jarrett:

Note well Jarrett’s comment (at about 0:43), “…what I would say to them from a PR perspective is: How does it look to pass on those fees to your customers….”

Of course that’s exactly what the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party are doing to the US taxpayer in this obvious attempt to hide this payoff to its union constituency!

Who Will Tell Obama?

Who Will Tell Obama?

January 15th, 2010

By Carol Peracchio, American Thinker


My parents, like most of their generation, taught their children that an employee owes his employer a full day’s work, performed to the best of his ability. This includes the times when the employee pulls the boss’s irons out of the fire. For example, think of the assistant who tells the executive about the spinach on her teeth as she is hurrying to make that big presentation, or the nurse who reminds the physician that the patient is allergic to the medication he’s ordering.

Now, I’ve never heard of an executive opening the presentation by effusively thanking her assistant for spotting the spinach. And while I’m positive that the doctor will be grateful that a nurse reminded him of the patient’s allergies, I can guarantee that he won’t give the nurse a high-five in the cafeteria later. Some employees may consider the lack of recognition from a manager unfair. But a lot of us believe that doing a good day’s work occasionally includes looking out for the boss’s best interests.

President Obama and the Democrats have worked tirelessly to demonize bosses and business-owners in the eyes of workers. This might be smart politics as far as gaining the support of organized labor, but I’m afraid the “us vs. them” depiction of the employee/employer relationship has not done the nation, or the president himself, any good. This is illustrated by how poorly the president’s staff served him (and by extension, the country) during last month’s attempted terrorist attack.

On Christmas Day 2009, a Nigerian Islamic terrorist boarded a plane for Detroit with a bomb secluded in his underwear. Thanks to the grace of God, the bomb didn’t detonate. A brave Dutch passenger extinguished the flames and helped the crew secure the terrorist. The plane landed with no loss of life. Americans were glued to TVs, radios, and their computers.

No one told President Obama for three hours.

Read More:

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’

January 15th, 2010

By Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily

 Sunstein wants to shut up those who don’t toe the line

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”

Read More:

Voting Democrat Causes Cancer

Voting Democrat Causes Cancer

By Randall Hoven

Voting Democrat is associated with over 150,000 cancer deaths every year, according to the Hoven Institute for Studies Just as Valid as Studies Cited by Democrats.
To help visualize the data used in the study, consider the two maps below. In the first, high cancer rates are indicated by red and low ones by blue. In the second map, counties that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 are indicated by red, and those that voted for Al Gore are indicated by blue.

Source: USA Today.
The above maps appear to be roughly the inverse of each other. That is, locations that voted for Al Gore tended to suffer higher cancer rates.
To analyze this phenomenon more rigorously, the Hoven study looked at the cancer mortality rate and the percentage of 2000 presidential votes going to Al Gore for each of the fifty states. The result is shown in the figure below, which also includes the linear regression trend line. The slope of that line is 1.24 cancer deaths per 100,000 person-years for every percentage of vote going to Al Gore.
The correlation coefficient between cancer mortality and votes for Al Gore is 0.594. That is statistically significant from zero when taken over the fifty states. In fact, the 95% confidence interval on the slope of the trend line is 1.241 + 0.014, indicating that voting Democrat is associated with at least 1.22 cancer deaths per 100,000 person-years.
Also, the 0.594 correlation coefficient indicates that about 35% of cancer mortality is “explained” by voting Democrat. (The amount of explanation is the square of the correlation coefficient.) Thus, not all cancers are caused by voting Democrat.
The Hoven study concluded that “[v]oting Democrat is associated with cancer mortality.”  This is similar to the conclusion of the studyHealth Insurance and Mortality in US Adults,” cited by Democrats in support of their version of health care reform. That latter study concluded that “[u]ninsurance is associated with mortality.”
However, one of the co-authors of that latter study, Dr. David Himmelstein, went farther in an interview with CNN. He said that if a person is uninsured, “it means that you’re at mortal risk.” As CNN summed it up, “45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance.” The implication from both Dr. Himmelstein and CNN is that not only is there correlation between insurance and mortality, but also causation: Not having insurance causes you to die.
From the Hoven study, the mortality rate could be reduced by 1.24 deaths per 100,000 person-years for every percentage of the vote not going Democrat. Barack Obama won with 53% of the vote, which means the cancer mortality rate could be reduced by almost 66 — or from the current U.S. average of 209 to about 143 deaths per 100,000 person-years — if everyone refused to vote Democrat. That is a reduction of over 30% in cancer deaths. Given that there are over 500,000 cancer deaths in the U.S. every year, over 150,000 cancer deaths could be averted by not voting Democrat.
By applying the same logic in interpreting both studies, three times as many lives could be saved by no one voting Democrat as by providing universal health insurance.
Harry Reid said, “On average, an American dies from lack of health insurance every ten minutes.” If he can say that, then I can say, “On average, an American dies from voting Democrat every 3.5 minutes.” Both statements are equally valid.
(Unlike certain climate scientists, Hoven provides data sources and methods used in his study.)
Source of 2000 election results: Federal Election Commission.
Source of cancer mortality rates: National Cancer Institute.
Methods: correlation, hypothesis-testing, and confidence limit calculations found in most elementary probability and statistics textbooks. Hoven used Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, by Ronald E. Walpole and Raymond H. Myers (Macmillan Publishing Co., 1972).
Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his website, randallhoven.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/voting_democrat_causes_cancer.html at January 15, 2010 – 08:57:41 AM EST