Saturday, January 23, 2010

Obama-Biden, Clinton-Gore, Corrupt DOJ ...same difference!

The following article brings to mind the Clinton-Gore Administration's corruption of the Department of Justice...and lets not forget Janet Reno's role. Just in case you may have forgotten, here's a little reminder:

"The Clinton-Gore Administration's rampant corruption and trampling of the rule of law permeated the entire executive branch. Whether conscious conspirator or unwitting puppet, Janet Reno dedicated the awesome enforcement power of the Justice Department to protect and defend President Clinton's multiple crimes and abuses of power. She prostituted Justice into a base political arm of the administration.

In 1993, shortly after she was installed as attorney general, Janet Reno sent an unmistakable signal that her Justice Department would primarily serve the political ends of Bill Clinton rather than the ends of justice. At once, she fired all 93 of the country's United States attorneys. According to no less an authority than Ted Olson, President George Bush's chief post election attorney, Reno's move was extreme and unprecedented. "In order to maintain continuity in thousands of pending prosecutions, and as a statement to the public that elections do not influence routine law enforcement, the nation's top prosecutors are traditionally replaced only after their successors have been located, appointed, and confirmed by the Senate. On instructions from the White House (she claimed it was a 'joint' decision; no one believes that), Reno ordered all 93 to leave in ten days. There could not have been a clearer signal that the Clinton campaign war room had taken over law enforcement in America."

The firings were only the beginning. Throughout Clinton's two terms, the Clinton-Reno Justice Department, instead of dispassionately enforcing the law, waged war against the administration's political and legal enemies." Source: Human Events via Reference Publications

You should also note that Clinton had a role in the hiring of career personnel at the lower end of the Justice Department with ideologues that would contribute to his future needs...and the future is now. ~ Norman E. Hooben

The following from Maggie's Notebook

Black Panther DOJ Coverup: Civil Rights Commission Request Ignored: In Your Face DOJ Racism

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has, for months, sought an explanation from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) of how the dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case was handled. Finally, subpoenas were issued to DOJ attorneys and those subpoenaed have been instructed to not appear in court, and not to give over any subpoenaed documents. That's your Obama Justice Department at work folks.

New Black Panthers outside Philadelphia Polling Place November 4, 2008

The background on the story is that three New Black Panther thugs, garbed in para-military-looking garb, planted themselves outside a Philadelphia polling place during the November 2008 presidential election day - one wielding a nightstick. It was caught on tape. A voter intimidation lawsuit was filed. For five months the men refused to show up in court. A default judgement was leveled. Then DOJ civil rights attorneys got involved and completely dismissed the case. Now we know why.

From Jennifer Rubin writing for Commentary Magazine:

The Justice Department has ordered its career trial lawyers who have been subpoenaed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights not to appear to provide testimony or give documents in the investigation of DOJ’s dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case. The Washington Times explains:

Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, ordered the lawyers’ silence in a letter to the attorney for J. Christian Adams, the lead attorney for the department in the New Black Panther case. The letter said “well-established” and “lawful” Justice Department guidelines prohibited Mr. Adams’ cooperation in the commission probe.
Todd Gaziano, a member of the Civil Rights Commission says the guidelines cited do not apply...

Our job places a premium on our role as a watchdog of federal and state enforcement agencies, and to that end, Congress has instructed all agencies to comply fully with our requests,” he said. … [Gaziano] said the Justice Department “had it exactly backwards” when it suggested that there could be negative consequences for those who comply with the commission’s subpoenas. He said a lawyer cannot refuse to comply with a subpoena he knows to be lawful.
I say good luck to Mr. Gaziano. He should watch his back. The Walpinization of Gaziano is being planned as I type. You may remember Inspector General Gerald Walpin who was fired by the White House for doing his job and revealing millions of stolen funds by AmeriCorp. The White House illegally fired Walpin - but hey so what (thumbing of haughty noses). Gaziano will be next.

Rubin says a source told her that that J. Christian Adams was "not quite" threatened with the loss of his job, but plainly...

...he and his colleague, Christopher Coates, the voting rights section chief, are being strong-armed to disregard a lawful subpoena. This is abject lawlessness, the sort of executive imperiousness that, if practiced by a Republican administration, would bring howls of protest from Congress, the media, and liberal lawyers’ groups.

The Obama Justice Department doesn’t want to respond to a subpoena because they have a personnel rule? Next thing you know they’ll be claiming executive privilege for a social secretary. Oh yes, that’s right … [already done that!]
While the DOJ spokesperson continues to claim there never a case supporting voter intimidation, Rubin says DOJ lawyers object

But of course the lawyers disagree, claiming that their best legal judgment was overridden by political appointees without justification. They have a story to tell, with documents, firsthand accounts of meetings and conversations and e-mails with the political appointees’ own remarks, which they say will substantiate their position. But the Justice Department won’t let any of that out, nor will it say what specifically about the case lacked factual or legal support.
The options according to Rubin are for attorneys to appear before the Commission in defiance of Obama and Holder et al, and risk their jobs, or some kind of deal may be negotiated to help the DOJ cover their tracks or "Congress might wake up, fulfill its obligation to conduct some real oversight of the Obama administration, and actually hold a hearing on the matter."

The administration acted upon their own racial prejudice and said that voter intimidation is fine and dandy when the Black Panthers want to take control, complete with nightstick to protect their vote, but not yours or mine. Can you imagine, had any Republican ignored and then thwarted subpoenas from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission? The DOJ's actions are blatant, in-your-face racism. I encourage you to read Black Panthers Win: Voter Fraud Wins: Voter Rights Lose and hear Bartle Bull's account of that day in Philadelphia. Mr. Bull's civil rights activity goes back to Senator Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. As an American voter, you need to know what Bull had to say about Philadelphia. Thanks to the incredible news-sleuthing abilities of Larwyn.

Related background: and the rest of the story:

DOJ Dismisses Black Panthers: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Dropped

DOJ - Black Panther Voter Fraud Absolved

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Here, I want you to meet somebody...and then let's talk "values".

Army Master Sgt. Roy P. Benavidez (center) is flanked by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (left) and President Ronald Reagan at his Medal of Honor presentation ceremony in 1981. The Special Forces soldier was cited for heroism in Vietnam in 1968. Air Force photo by Ron Hall.

Channel Icon michael19591123
I did this as a way to honor all those who have struggled to come back from serving our country in times of war. The most interesting part for me was something I didn't find out until after I created this photoplay, was that this was Roy's second tour. He had been so gravely wounded, by stepping on a landmine, on his first tour that he was drummed out of the Army after returning. Roy built his body back up and returned to the service after proving himself fit and joined the elite Green Beret's and went back to Vietnam for a second tour for which he received the Medal of Honor. ~ Michael
Now let's talk a little about values...
The value, on a scale of 1 to 10, Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize would be less than zero, whereas Army Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez would be greater than 10. ~ Norman E. Hooben

The Congressional account in the awarding of the Medal of Honor to M. Sgt. Roy P. Benevidez (Now Deceased),
United States Army Special Forces (5th Special Forces Group), a Vietnam veteran.

“Master Sergeant (then Staff Sergeant) Roy P. Benavidez United States Army, who distinguished himself by a series of daring and extremely valorous actions on 2 May 1968 while assigned to Detachment B56, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 1st Special Forces, Republic of Vietnam. On the morning of 2 May 1968, a 12-man Special Forces Reconnaissance Team was inserted by helicopters in a dense jungle area west of Loc Ninh, Vietnam to gather intelligence information about confirmed large-scale enemy activity. This area was controlled and routinely patrolled by the North Vietnamese Army.

After a short period of time on the ground, the team met heavy enemy resistance, and requested emergency extraction. Three helicopters attempted extraction, but were unable to land due to intense enemy small arms and antiaircraft fire. Sergeant Benavidez was at the Forward Operating Base in Loc Ninh monitoring the operation by radio when these helicopters returned to off-load wounded crewmembers and to assess aircraft damage. Sergeant Benavidez voluntarily boarded a returning aircraft to assist in another extraction attempt. Realizing that all the team members were either dead or wounded and unable to move to the pickup zone, he directed the aircraft to a nearby clearing where he jumped from the hovering helicopter, and ran approximately 75 meters under withering small arms fire to the crippled team.

Prior to reaching the team's position he was wounded in his right leg, face, and head. Despite these painful injuries, he took charge, repositioning the team members and directing their fire to facilitate the landing of an extraction aircraft, and the loading of wounded and dead team members. He then threw smoke canisters to direct the aircraft to the team's position. Despite his severe wounds and under intense enemy fire, he carried and dragged half of the wounded team members to the awaiting aircraft. He then provided protective fire by running alongside the aircraft as it moved to pick up the remaining team members. As the enemy's fire intensified, he hurried to recover the body and classified documents on the dead team leader.

When he reached the leader's body, Sergeant Benavidez was severely wounded by small arms fire in the abdomen and grenade fragments in his back. At nearly the same moment, the aircraft pilot was mortally wounded, and his helicopter crashed. Although in extremely critical condition due to his multiple wounds, Sergeant Benavidez secured the classified documents and made his way back to the wreckage, where he aided the wounded out of the overturned aircraft, and gathered the stunned survivors into a defensive perimeter. Under increasing enemy automatic weapons and grenade fire, he moved around the perimeter distributing water and ammunition to his weary men, reinstilling in them a will to live and fight.

Facing a buildup of enemy opposition with a beleaguered team, Sergeant Benavidez mustered his strength, began calling in tactical air strikes and directed the fire from supporting gunships to suppress the enemy's fire and so permit another extraction attempt. He was wounded again in his thigh by small arms fire while administering first aid to a wounded team member just before another extraction helicopter was able to land. His indomitable spirit kept him going as he began to ferry his comrades to the craft. On his second trip with the wounded, he was clubbed from additional wounds to his head and arms before killing his adversary. He then continued under devastating fire to carry the wounded to the helicopter.

Upon reaching the aircraft, he spotted and killed two enemy soldiers who were rushing the craft from an angle that prevented the aircraft door gunner from firing upon them. With little strength remaining, he made one last trip to the perimeter to ensure that all classified material had been collected or destroyed, and to bring in the remaining wounded. Only then, in extremely serious condition from numerous wounds and loss of blood, did he allow himself to be pulled into the extraction aircraft.

Sergeant Benavidez' gallant choice to join voluntarily his comrades who were in critical straits, to expose himself constantly to withering enemy fire, and his refusal to be stopped despite numerous severe wounds, saved the lives of at least eight men. His fearless personal leadership, tenacious devotion to duty, and extremely valorous actions in the face of overwhelming odds were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflect the utmost credit on him and the United States Army.”

May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.

Whatever version of the Bible you's in there! Could the reference be to Obama? It all depends how fervent a believer you are...

New International Version (©1984)
May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Let his years be few; let someone else take his position.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Let his days be few; Let another take his office.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Let his days be few [in number]. Let someone else take his position.

King James Bible
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

American King James Version
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

American Standard Version
Let his days be few; And let another take his office.

Bible in Basic English
Let his life be short; let another take his position of authority.

Douay-Rheims Bible
May his days be few: and his bishopric let another take.

Darby Bible Translation
Let his days be few, let another take his office;

English Revised Version
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Webster's Bible Translation
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

World English Bible
Let his days be few. Let another take his office.

Young's Literal Translation
His days are few, his oversight another taketh,


I kind of like this one also, (from the King James version): "For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue." Sounds just like Obama doesn't it?

Meet My Friend Stephen Kruiser...ready for prime time!

Meet my friend Stephen Kruiser, he's on my blog list. What do you think? Is he ready for prime time? ~ NH

Source: Stephen Kruiser

Kruiser On Last Friday’s “Red Eye”

I prefer post titles that refer to me in the third person. I look particularly goofy in this one but I still had fun.

Again, thanks to Paul Croteau from for getting this online!


News Of Least Importance To Obama's MSM

I don't for a minute believe that Obama and his mainstream media (MSM) could give a hoot for the IDF or ZAKA but heroes do what they do irregardless OSM (Obama Small Minds). These videos depict real heroism above and beyond the call... just thought you should know. ~ NEH

Source: fousesquawk

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Rescues in Haiti-Guess by Whom

Watch these rescues in Haiti. Who are these heroes and from where do they come?

The answer is Israel.

IDF stands for the Israeli Defense Force-yes, the same ones who fight for Israel against the terrorist forces that constantly attack her. ZAKA is an Israeli volunteer rescue force that responds to emergencies-like terrorist attacks and disasters such as has occurred in Haiti.

You didn't know that, did you?

Did you know that Israel has already established a portable hospital in Haiti with doctors and other medical personnel?

I hope you will keep this in mind when the mindless Israel-bashers show up at some university campus and start telling you how bad the state of Israel is. You might ask them how much aid Israel's enemies have contributed to Haiti.

Scott Brown Analysis... - and let me add this, "Harry Reid, you're next!"

Update (2012): There's been a noticeable increase in the number of visitors to this post...obviously due to the current election cycle.  This post was as a result of the 2010 election that looked for a replacement to fill the vacancy left by the worst Senator Massachusetts ever produced, Ted Kennedy. (On a personal note I was very sorry to see the SOB die...I would have much rather seen him serve out his remaining days behind bars. - anybody who disagrees with this assessment does not have a clue who Ted Kennedy was.)  Meanwhile, Scott Brown is certainly the better of two evils in the current election cycle.  If Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown's opponent, gets the senate seat you can be assured that any attempts to destroy the make-up of the Supreme Court will be hastened by Warren's position.  Scott Brown's biggest problem is that he knows little to nothing about the goals of the United Nations and he presents a danger to American independence with his previously identified affinity to pending UN treaties.  Warren has been noticeably quiet about the UN but she is expected to hold the party line concerning UN treaties which will be the death to America. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source: Politics Alabama
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Analysis: Lessons Learned From Brown Win
Scott Brown did it, he turned the world upside down and won his race for the Massachusetts Senate by a margin of 109,425 votes... 52% to 47%.

So far, EVERYBODY is analyzing the election and drawing this or that conclusion as to what it means. I will be doing the same today, looking at this or that aspect of the race.

The first thing I want to cover is what this election showed us, what lessons we should learn from this.

There are those who believe that Coakley was simply a bad candidate and Democrats simply have to pick better candidates. Wrong lesson.

No, Coakley wasn't the best candidate, and no, she didn't run the best campaign in the world. However, exit polling clearly shows that the most important issue on the voters minds was health care reform.
Scott Brown's opposition to congressional health care legislation was the most important issue that fueled his U.S. Senate victory in Massachusetts, according to exit poll data collected following the Tuesday special election.

Fifty-two percent of Bay State voters who were surveyed as the polls closed said they opposed the federal health care reform measure and 42 percent said they cast their ballot to help stop President Obama from passing his chief domestic initiative.

"A plurality of voters said their vote was to stop the president's health care plan — more than those saying it was a vote against his policies in general," Fabrizio wrote in a memo that accompanied his exit polling.

According to Fabrizio's findings, 48 percent of Massachusetts voters said that health care was the single issue driving their vote and 39 percent said they voted for Brown specifically because of his vocal opposition to the measure.

Brown promised to be the 41st vote against healthcare and the voters elected him primarily to do that.

Add to that the fact that Obama flew in on Sunday to campaign for Coakley, and it's clear that her defeat wasn't a "local issue" because she ran a bad campaign.

Democrats, in most cases it won't matter which candidate you pick. As Scott Brown said in his victory speech:
"When there's trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured , there's trouble everywhere."
If the national liberal agenda can lose in ultra-liberal Massachusetts, then it can lose anywhere. The concept of a "safe seat" will be limited to those Senate seats not up for reelection this year. You can rest assured that moderate Democrats are now realizing, with a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach, that THEIR state is more conservative than Massachusetts (not hard to do) and so THEY are in serious danger of losing their reelection bids. Some may try to fool themselves, but most are being realistic. Look for a few more retirements to be announced.

The lesson to be learned from Brown's win is that independent voters are fleeing the liberal agenda of the national Democrats. And if they continue pursuing that liberal agenda, they become increasingly vulnerable to huge losses this November.

The American people DO NOT WANT the healthcare reform that national Democrats are selling. Massachusetts voters said this loud and clear yesterday, and Democrats would be wise to listen. Passing the legislation as it is right now will make things worse for you than if you passed nothing at all.

And THAT is one major lesson to be learned from Scott Brown's "historic" win.
See also "This isn't an election, this is a movement!"

"This isn’t an election, it’s a movement." - Ya got that right Howie!

One of my favorite radio personalities Howie Carr also writes for the Boston Herald...

Truck-driving Scott Brown hits brakes on Dem
By Howie Carr Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Photo by Ted Fitzgerald

The snow is brown - Scott Brown. Guys in pickup trucks don’t let a few flurries bother them.

The lesson is clear. The people are mad as hell, and they aren’t going to take it anymore.

This isn’t an election, it’s a movement. We reversed the curse - the Kennedy curse.

Over the past week or so, we’ve seen listening as people from out of state were saying something most of us have never heard before: “Oh Good, I wish I lived in Massachusetts.”

At least for a day or so they wished they did, so they could vote for Scott Brown, to let these smug moonbats and the Beautiful People and Obama’s tax cheats and the freeloading illegal aliens know that they don’t own this country - not yet anyway.

Health-care “reform” dead for a generation? Let’s keep our fingers crossed. Two generations would be even better. As several callers to my radio show said yesterday, paraphrasing Michelle Obama:

“For the first time in my adult life, I feel proud to be a Massachusetts resident.”

That’s “Massachusetts,” not “Massachusettes” - the way Marsha - er, Martha spells it. Sorry about that, all you post-middle-aged sob sisters. How sexist it was of Scott Brown to continue campaigning over Christmas. Why, why, it’s practically a hate crime.

Martha Coakley. She is woman, hear her squeak.

Here’s the thing about Martha Coakley: She was trying to sell a product nobody wanted. A quote from Gore Vidal sums her up perfectly: “No talent is not enough.”

You want to know what the fastest selling T-shirt in Massachusetts is going to be? “Don’t blame me, I voted for Mike Capuano.”

It turns out Martha Coakley wasn’t Shannon O’Brien. She was worse, much worse. She was the female Tom Dewey, an empty pantsuit. Hey, Martha, good move running those TV spots quoting Brown as saying he’d be the 41st vote against the Obama rationing scheme when more people in Massachusetts are against the more taxes-fewer services plan than are for it.

Keep on truckin’, Martha.

And how about that Boston Globe - running its phony-baloney poll a week ago Sunday in a pathetically lame attempt to stop the Brown surge.

They had Coakley ahead by 15 percentage points - these trust-funded Kool-Aid drinkers should be lugged for common nightwalking. Another proud moment for the bow-tied bumkissers of Morrissey Boulevard, which will certainly be mentioned when the obituary for the moonbats’ Bible is written a few months from now.

Speaking of obituaries, coming up next, tomorrow night, Gov. Deval Patrick’s annual State of the State address. Hey Deval, first they came for Marsha, and you did nothing. Then they came for . . .

Cancel the State of the State, Deval. Schedule visiting hours, 4-8.

Article URL:

Monday, January 18, 2010

Scott Brown/Martha Coakly Predicting a that was easy!

Predicting a winner is sometimes as simple as looking at a picture. Now take a close look at this picture...
Does it show confidence?You bet it does!
Now take a look at this picture...
Does it show desperation? You bet it does!
Now understand that each candidate has to approve of the photographs that are used in their campaigns... Why would anyone want to display themselves as antagonistic with clinched fists? Is it because they're desperate? I think so. What is she trying to prove? That she has that fighting man spirit?
Meanwhile I found this picture of Scott Brown....
Now there's a fighting man! The kind this country needs!
So we have a winner here (I think I may have been the first to predict this) but if you don't want to rely solely on pictures you can always use InTrade noted for making more accurate predictions than most. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Great News!!! This is got to hurt Coakley!!! Her husband's union endorses Scott Brown !

Source: Hub Politics

Coakley’s Husband’s Union Endorses Scott Brown

by Matt Margolis, January 15th, 2010

***Election coverage on Twiiter!***

Now this is awesome.

Martha Coakley’s latest setback in the Senate Special Election comes from her husbands union. The Cambridge Police Patrol Officers have voted overwhelmingly to back Senate Candidate Scott Brown.

Here’s the endorsement:

The 212 member Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association voted to endorse State Senator Scott Brown for United States Senator in next Tuesday’s election against Attorney General Martha Coakley. CPSOA’s President released the following letter today:
All Members,

Members of our Association have inquired and requested that we endorse Scott Brown in the upcoming election against Martha Coakley. Ms. Coakley along with some of her campaign workers have talked publicly about how her husband is a retired Cambridge Police Officer, giving appearances that she is being endorsed by the Cambridge Police. This may be an innocent insinuation but most do take this as our giving her our support and endorsement. Yesterday, the CPPOA Executive Board voted to endorse State Senator Scott Brown in the upcoming election for US Senate. In an 11 to 2 vote, the Executive Board voted overwhelmingly in favor of the endorsement. We do not endorse anyone who advocates changes in the health care that take away any bargaining rights or increases our cost along with our contributions. Senator Brown does not support the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Bill and promises to be the 41st vote to ensure its defeat. The current leadership at the state house, as we all know and have seen over the past two years, have an agenda to dismantle all of our hard earned bargained benefits and they will continue to dismantle these until there is a complete change from the top down. Martha Coakley is part of this Massachusetts leadership and she will continue with this agenda, only now it will be at the capital level and we need to stop it. So today, we the members of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association endorse Scott Brown for the senate seat vacated by Senator Kennedy.


Stephen Killion
President Cambridge Police

Patrol Officers Association.

The Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association is a founding member of the MMPC

Coakley’s husband is a retired Cambridge cop… This has to sting Martha’s campaign.

Follow us on Twitter for more coverage!

Donate to Scott Brown's campaign.

Volunteer for Scott Brown's campaign.

More local coverage of the special election at Save WRKO.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Is This Cool Or Is This Cool... best if viewed 'Full Screen'

You're New Department Of Defense...just another in a series of campaign promises!

Click on picture to enlarge.

New Black Panther Party Defense in Crackerville Tennessee

The New Black Panther Party is in Crackerville, Tennessee talking about the cracker-cowards in the area, and the armed maneuvers they are conducting. The New Black Panther Defense plans a new Black nation. You need to see this video.

Malik Zulu Shabazz, an attorney in Washington, D.C. heads this extremist group and is one of five involved in the New Black Panther voter intimidation in Pennsylvania, which AG Eric Holder eventually sanctioned. According to this profile, this group is influenced by, among others, the Nation of Islam. Remember that list of leftwing extremists that never surfaced from Napolitano's Homeland Security?

h/t to American and Proud

Having technical problems with photobucket video go here or here

Have you been manipulated by "The Heat Of The Moment" ?

Click on picture to enlarge.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Son of Climategate! Scientist says feds manipulated data
Reporting points in coldest regions simply eliminated by U.S. agencies

By Bob Unruh

In a one-two series of Climategate aftershocks that assuredly will further rattle the global warming community, a report has been issued by U.S. researchers accusing government agencies of cherry-picking temperature readings used to assess global temperatures, and a series of embarrassing e-mails were released revealing what happened when a blogger dared to point out a mistake by NASA climate scientists.

The new report is from scientist Joseph D'Aleo and was highlighted in a report on global warming on KUSI television in San Diego.

It comes only weeks after the tumultuous climategate e-mail scandal in Britain erupted, proving top global warming scientists manipulated data there.

The report from D'Aleo, a retired climatologist who has been skeptical of global warming, contends climate data has been corrupted and skewed by "urbanization and other local factors such as land-use-land-cover changes and improper siting."

He blamed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which he described as "seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud."

The East Anglia e-mail leak focused on the work at the Climate Research Unit there, but the director there has confirmed "almost all the data" in the archive "is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center," D'Aleo said.

But he noted that an analysis by San Jose computer programmer E.M. Smith of the data "found they systematically eliminated 75 percent of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations."

"The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the sea and to airport tarmacs," he said.

For example, the report said the number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35 with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations plummeted.

Further, a vast majority of the climate stations reporting in the U.S. were either poorly or very poorly sited, taking temperature readings from paved driveways, in a waste treatment facility, on rooftops or near the exhaust from idling jet engines, rather than in open areas.

Stations in such locations as the Andes and Bolivia have virtually vanished, meaning that temperatures for those areas now are "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon."

"Think of it this way," D'Aleo told the television station, "if Minneapolis and other northern cities suddenly disappeared but Kansas City and St. Louis were still available, would you think an average of Kansas City and St. Louis would provide an accurate replacement for Minneapolis and expect to use that to determine how Minneapolis' temperature has changed with any hope of accuracy?"

D'Aleo said that the coolest stations in a particular reporting period sometimes disappeared in the next.

"This would indicate a deliberate attempt to create a warm bias on the part of NOAA because in calculating the average temperatures in this way it would ensure that the global average temperature for each month and year would now show a positive temperature anomaly," the report said.

Such anomalies, it added, make climate reports based on those figures simply unreliable.

"You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming the around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated," the report said.

Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog Judicial Watch has released several hundred pages of e-mails from U.S. government scientists reacting – sometimes with disdain and arrogance – when an independent investigator pointed out an error in their global warming statistics.

When the mistake ultimately was corrected, the tables reflected slightly lower temperatures for years following 2000, and the reshuffled rankings revealed that several years from the 1930s were, in fact, warmer than during the last decade.

That, of course, undercut arguments that the life of modern man is generating emissions that would, if left unchecked, eventually threaten life on earth because of melting ice caps, rising seas and climates too hot to support food production.

In the British scandal prior to Christmas, purloined e-mails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, one of the world's premier global warming investigative organizations, included references to a "trick" to "hide the decline."

University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit

The NASA issue developed around 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA's handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 at its Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The issue was that temperature readings apparently weren't handled in a consistent fashion, leaving them open for challenge. Sometimes "raw" data was used, while other times it was adjusted for "time of observation."

The mistake noted by McIntyre prompted the government agency to "re-process" data to eliminate an "artificial step" in the charts.

"Obviously, combining the uncorrected [data] with the [corrected] records for earlier years caused jumps in the records at those stations," a government e-mail responded. "The net effect averaged over the U.S. was an error of about 0.15C or less in the post-2000 years."

However, 0.15 degrees Centigrade is one-third of a degree Fahrenheit, which could be considered a significant change in an overall climate average.

The e-mails show the impact was that while 1998 previously had a deviation of 1.24 degrees Centigrade, that should have been 1.23 – bringing it below 1934. The lists for the highest deviations, the e-mails show, had listed 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921, 1931, 1999, 1953, 2001, 1990 and 1938.

The new list was changed to: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.

Instead of simply correcting the errors, however, government scientist Jim Hansen responded by labeling McIntyre a "pest," and suggested that those who disagree with global warming "should be ready to crawl under a rock by now."

"This e-mail traffic ought to be embarrassing for NASA," said Tom Fitton, chief of Judicial Watch, which obtained the documents under a Freedom of Information Act request. "Given the recent Climategate scandal, NASA has an obligation to be completely transparent with its handling of temperature data."

"Instead of insulting those who point out their mistakes, NASA scientists should engage the public in an open, professional and honest matter," he said.

The hundreds of pages of documents concern what the government described as a "glitch" in official assessments of temperatures.

Judicial Watch noted that a Bloomberg reporter had e-mailed to Hansen, "The U.S. figures showed 1998 as the warmest year. Nevertheless, NASA has indeed newly ranked 1934 as the warmest year…"

Hansen responded, "We have not changed ranking of warmest year in the U.S. As you will see in our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over 1998. We still find that result. The flaw affected temperatures only after 2000, not 1998 and 1934."

To which NASA scientist Makiko Sato told Hansen, "I am sure I had 1998 warmer at least once on my own temperature web page..."

Fitton told WND the e-mails reveal at "unflattering portrait of NASA scientists who, rather than deal forthrightly with their error, attacked those who called them on it."

He said he would leave to scientific experts the exact analysis of the impact of the flaw. But he said the dispute – and the government's response – "calls into question other data that is being presented by NASA [and others] in the global warming community."

"One has to wonder whether or not it would have been caught but for a diligent researcher," he said. "These are not everyday scientists in the private sector who can do whatever they want to do. These are government scientists trashing citizens and bloggers."

He said the e-mails make it appear the government didn't even want to engage in a discussion over the mistake – but for political, not scientific reasons.

One of the newly revealed e-mails documents a government scientist writing about those who were questioning the government's mistake: "This seems to be a tempest inside somebody's teapot dome… It is unclear why anyone would try to make something out of this, perhaps a light not on upstairs? Or perhaps this is coming from one of the old contrarians? They can't seem to get over the fact that the real world has proven them to be full of malarkey! You would think that they would be ready to crawl under a rock by now!"

McIntyre's website comment on the e-mail revelation today was that, "If anyone is wondering whether e-mails by U.S. government employees are 'private' and 'personal' – an assertion sometimes made in respect to emails at CRU, an institution subject to UK FOI – the answer in respect to NASA GISS appears to be no."

The previous e-mails from East Anglia, posted online after a hacker found them, said, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

Suggestions to suppress information also were documented at East Anglia, "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re (Assessment Report 4)? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."

They also suggest how "warmists," as critics label those who believe in global warming, conspired to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer-review process.

Myron Ebell, of the website where "cooler heads prevail," had described the East Anglia e-mails as "shocking."

"It's kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.

The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.

"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issue. It's very improper," he said. "One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientists, and policy can be handled in public debate."

There also is an effort called the Petition Project which was launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. The effort, assembled by Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and cofounder of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in 1973, now lists tens of thousands of qualified scientists who endorse this:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

WND also reported recently on the United Nation's summit in Copenhagen, which failed to produce a global carbon emissions agreement as advocates had sought.

That meeting, instead, was simply about American money, according to Steve Stockman, a former Texas congressman who was in the Danish capital for the two-week event before Christmas.

"It was about transferring the wealth of taxpayers," he said. "This has nothing to do with science."

Further, a Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" said the East Anglia e-mails "are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well-organized international climate-warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years."

The comment came from Colorado State University's William Gray, whose annual hurricane forecasts are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes, and he has served as weather forecaster for the U.S. Air Force. He is emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.

He had forecast that U.S. researchers eventually would be caught by their own e-mails, too.

"This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publicly funded climate-research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public," he said at the time.