A new Democracy Corps-Third Way survey provides a wake-up call for President Obama, his party, and progressives on national security.

The national mood continues to sour, with the share who see the country headed in the wrong direction moving up 4 points since mid-January, up to 62 percent, the highest mark in a year. The survey also shows concerns about the economy continuing to grow. And even though the Republican brand remains badly damaged, with no improvement in favorable ratings for their party, the GOP continues to gain ground in a named congressional ballot, with the Democratic House candidate now narrowly lagging by 47 to 44 percent. The movement away from Democrats is especially strong among independents, and independent women in particular.

Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the “prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects.”

[W]e see that the public once again has real and rising doubts about the Democrats’ handling of national security issues, as compared to their faith in Republicans. This security gap, which has roots stretching back to Vietnam, was as wide as 29 points earlier in the decade. The deficit began to close in 2006, with the Bush administration’s catastrophic mismanagement of Iraq and other national security challenges. As public hopes about the Obama presidency rose and peaked, the gap all but vanished. Last May, Democracy Corps found Democrats essentially tied with Republicans (41 to 43 percent) on the question of which party would do a better job on national security.

But now the gap shows signs of re-opening, with Democrats trailing by 17 points, 33 to 50 percent on which party likely voters think would do the better job on national security. The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin.

Hey, I hate to say this.  But we told you so.  Welcome back to reality, America.  Let’s hope our majority perception of Obama Democrats’ security weakness doesn’t translate into a real threat being ignored by Holder & Gestapo Janet.  The nation is truly run by September 10th’ers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

But it is time to say goodbye to the dinosaur.  As of today, The Charlotte Observer is not getting anymore of my money.

Why, you may ask?  Because of what is plaguing other local newspapers — editorial bias influencing their “news reporting”.

The past few days have been the last straw.  Part of the Observer’s problem is that they are a McClatchy Newspaper — a well-known liberal publisher.  And these two straws are mostly McClatchy-generated.  But nonetheless they are a symptom of the Observer’s cancer.  They do not report “news”, they advocate for their point of view.  That is fine on the Editorial Page.  But not Section A or the Local News Section.

First straw: Front Page Lies About The Iraq War in Sunday’s paper (posted on the Web last Friday)

When the Bush administration invaded Iraq seven years ago, it pledged to leave behind a democracy that would be a model for the entire Middle East. Instead, it now appears that the United States will leave behind a big question mark.

Sunday’s parliamentary elections in Iraq will start the clock on the withdrawal of U.S. troops, with 50,000 soldiers remaining in an advisory role after Aug. 31 and all of them gone by the end of 2011, if current plans hold.

The elections are, in a sense, the final act of a U.S.-led invasion that the George W. Bush White House sold on false pretenses - nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, an imaginary nuclear-weapons program and fictional al-Qaida ties – and that has cost nearly 4,400 American lives, at least 100,000 Iraqi ones, as much as $3 trillion and untold political capital.

The bolded part is not only editorializing — it is a lie.  ALL of the Western intelligence services concluded the same thing the CIA did: There were WMD, an active nuclear program, and ties to al-Qaida in Saddam’s Iraq.  The phrase “false pretenses” suggests (as most liberals do) that “Bush Lied.”  Was Iraq an intelligence failure?  Certainly.  But everyone who supported the Iraq war did so in a post-9/11 mindset and sincerely believing the intelligence they were given.  That includes Al Gore, Bill & Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

Second straw: A Biased Profile of the SC 2nd District Race (Joe Wilson)

You can read the story itself.  Every mention of Wilson is negative, every mention of his opponent is positive.

The Observer can print this drivel on their “news” pages and pretend they aren’t biased.  But I don’ t have to pay for it.

After all, thanks to Obama this economy is even worse than under Bush. THAT is a fact.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

He claims he was taken out of context when he said he hated Republicans and everything they stood for and called the partisan differences in America “a struggle between good and evil and we’re the good.” Only when he didn’t say jsut how his remarks had been taken out of context nor did he apologize.  He did say, “I don’t hate Republicans as individuals“, then added:

But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country.  I really do.  I hate deficits, as you know.  When I was governor, I really was very tough on fiscal responsibility.  Deficits in the long run aren’t good for the country, and they do lower our standard of living.  Every American family knows that you have to pay your bills.  I hate the dishonesty, you know, the idea that you’d put a program through Congress without telling people what it costs, I think that’s wrong.  

Guess he must really hate this Administration, but then, he can’t because, well, he’s a Democrat and right now, only Republicans do the hating.  Yet, given what Howard Dean said back in ‘05, you’d kind of understand it, you know by his standards, if Republicans did start pushing the hate button, I mean, with those big deficits we’re getting from team Obama.  

He is, however, not praising them when he alleges they have the same attitudes toward a spendthrift Administration that he once did:

He also said that the Republican Party holds “untenable positions based on emotion and anger,” and that the GOP won’t be effective until they “stop pushing the hate button.”

To show just how out of touch is this former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he spouts some nonsense about the Tea Party’s views on social issues.  Guess he has a one-size-fits-all approach to conservatives.  If they oppose a Democratic Administration, then they must be like the imaginary conservative inside his head, harboring hateful views of homosexuals.

Hate to break it to you, Howard, but those Tea Party folks are pretty concerned about the things that got you hating the Republicans lo these five years ago.  Guess you just hate anyone who doesn’t have a (D) after his name and support your wayward left-wing ways.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  This is the crusty old pot which once boasted about its thick coat of soot calling black the kettle just back on the stove after a long scrubbing with multiple Brillo Pads.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Monday that domestic violence by men has increased due to U.S. joblessness.

Reid, speaking in the midst of a Senate debate over whether to pass a $15 billion package meant to spur job creation, appeared to argue that joblessness would lead to more domestic violence.

“I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “Why? Men don’t have jobs.”

Reid said that the effects of joblessness on domestic violence were especially pronounced among men, because, Reid said, women tend to be less abusive.

“Women don’t have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time,” he said.

Photo courtesy of GP Reader StrayMRG:

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming.  A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration.  He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

I’d like nothing more than to see Al Gore charged with fraud by an international tribunal…. or economic crimes against humanity.  Either one that lands him in jail the quickest.  Maybe a Saudi jail??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): So, where are the global warmists left to be discredited? They’ve been hiding the decline (in temperatures), exaggerating the melting of Himalayan glaciers and the devastation of the Amazon rain forest and now they’ve been doctoring data about hurricanes. Wonder if they made any predictions about tornadoes.

But think about this one:  Scott Brown may have saved New York City from having the 9/11 KSM Show Trial held in their backyard.  Why?  Well, before Brown’s election, there were only scant peeps — mostly Republicans — opposing the Obama-Holder plan to showcase KSM & Co. in Manhattan.

SINCE Scott Brown’s election, the roar of disapproval about the 9/11 trials has become so loud that Obama himself has capped Holder at the knees.  Media reports now say a military trial is likely, perhaps even held at GITMO.

Elections have consequences, my friends.  Sen. Scott Brown’s is the gift that keeps on giving back to America every single day.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The answer, which Dan repeatedly reminds me, is that in order to know there IS a cancer — you must see it first.  Tano in her comments, for example, perfectly illustrates and reinforces our points here at GayPatriot.  She doesn’t listen, she doesn’t debate, she doesn’t have facts on her side, and she doesn’t express any of the elements of patriotism that were part of the founding of this great Republic.

She is a liberal lickspittle for re-spewing the talking points generated from the elitist copy machines at MoveOn.org and the DNC.  The Powers-That-Be, one might say.  She is just a goose-stepping foot soldier.  One can only feel sympathy for such a creature.  I’m sure there are many others like her in Michigan and across the USA.  Our job is to combat these lies and historic revisionism at every opportunity.

So we will continue to show our cancer for all to see because in this great democracy, we need to know where the ignorance is in order to combat it with the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Seems increasingly like that was his M.O. with Project Landreiu.

From Patterico: Looks like law enforcement and James O’Keefe’s supporters agree: he did not intend to wiretap Mary Landrieu:

A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.

Even the Washington Post is now walking back their hysterionic reporting. Again from Patterico:

Earlier versions of this story incorrectly reported that James O’Keefe faced charges in an alleged plot to bug the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu. The charges were related to an alleged plot to tamper with a phone system. The headline incorrectly referred to a plot to bug the phone and a caption incorrectly referred to an alleged wiretap scheme.

Patterico continues:  So there was no intent to wiretap. Let’s dispel that idea now. Nobody is claiming he was trying to bug Landrieu. Everyone who compared this to Watergate was wrong, wrong, wrong — and should be embarrassed. Period.  The only question now is what he and 3 other men did intend to do.

<…>

Precisely.  And the other question that I want to know is this:  What does James O’Keefe know about the Senator or her staff that resulted in Mary Landrieu wanting to call in the Federal thugs to stop that information from getting out to the public?

I predict that pretty soon MSNBC will no longer report on this story.  Why?  Because it will become a DEMOCRAT scandal.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Aren’t you people just stupid?  ROFL.

You are the same people who think that Al Gore is a man of principle who truly wants to save the planet.   (Normal human beings already know that Al Gore is a snake oil salesman who is making hundreds of millions of dollars off the Global Warming Ponzi Scheme).

Once again, liberals’ love for Edwards show that they see the world as they wish it was — not as it truly is.

Oh and by the way — John Edwards is the most disgusting, slimeball of a politician in my lifetime.  He wins the Nobel Prize for Manwhoreness.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Not just that, Brown leaves the seat up after he pees and wears army boots.  Oh, and he doesn’t tip well either.  And he has bad breath.  And he blow dries his hair.  And he doesn’t inflate his tires.  And doesn’t recycle.  And he hates puppies.  And he doesn’t wash his hands as often as he should.  And he once forgot his wife’s birthday.  And he covered up his manhood in his nude picture.  And he was late for dinner forty-seven times when he was growing up, even on his father’s 37th birthday.  When he didn’t get him a present.  And he’s sexually attracted to women.

As Randy Haddock puts it:

MSNBC has completely lost it, not that they had it together to begin with. The stuff coming out of that network in regards to the senatorial election in Massachussets is downright disgusting and atrocious. . . . Their desperation has pushed them to a very dark, ugly place.

Well, not everyone at MSNBC has lost it.  Joe Scarborough called the bespectacled bozo “reckless” and “sad.”

Guess Olbermann realized the O’Reilly schtick was getting old and he needed someone else to kick around.

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls for a special election to replace U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D). Recent polling shows Republican State Senator Scott Brown in a virtual tie with Democrat Martha Coakley. As the polls get closer and closer, Democrats and their allies on the left get more and more desperate. Democrats are unable to defend their record on taxes, spending, the economy, job creation, healthcare or the global war on terror, so instead they predictably turn to smears, distortions and name-calling.

The gay left, always willing to do the bidding of the DNC, is attempting to characterize Scott Brown as ‘anti-gay’. This paper ran a headline that blared “Could an anti-gay Republican win Kennedy’s Seat?” The Edge, a New England gay paper, had a similar headline in December, “Anti-gay Mass. Pol Seeks to Succeed Kennedy.”

Unfortunately there are far too many folks in this country who deserve the label anti-gay, and some of those folks are politicians. Indeed some people in this country make a living demonizing gay people and our families. However, attaching the label “anti-gay” to every single politician or person who is not 100 percent aligned with the political agenda of the gay left is not only unfair but wildly counter-productive. In the case of Scott Brown, the gay left is guilty of being little more than the partisan boy who cried wolf.

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

Despite Brown being in favor of civil unions, opposing a federal marriage amendment and having the same federalist approach to marriage that President Obama has, the gay left would have us believe that the future of gay rights hangs on the Democrat winning this special election. Indeed, Michael Mitchell, executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, said helping Coakley win the special election “couldn’t be more important” for LGBT people because a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate is needed to advance LGBT rights in Congress.

What has 60 Democratic Senators delivered for gay families so far? Unemployment over 10 percent, spending spiraling out of control, an expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, and an administration unwilling to confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam.

For gay Democrats, what has your unquestioning loyalty to the Democratic Party brought? More than three years after Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress, and more than a year after a Democrat captured the White House, gay Democrats have almost nothing to show for their fealty to their party. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” remains in place, the employment non-discrimination bill hasn’t been passed, neither has the domestic partner benefits bill, and instead of a repeal of DOMA you have a White House that has defended DOMA in court — going as far as to compare same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.

No one party deserves blind loyalty and not all Republicans deserve the votes of gays, lesbians and those who care about us and our families. If you care about stopping the expansion of discriminatory government-run healthcare, if you want to stop the growth and influence of the federal government in every aspect of our lives, if you believe that we should confront the spread of radical anti-gay Islam, then Scott Brown, while not perfect, is a Republican who deserves your support.

Next Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts have an opportunity to send a message to the current crop of elected leaders in Washington. Nothing would send a clearer message about the unhappiness about the direction of our country than a win by Scott Brown.
Christopher R. Barron is Chairman of the Board of GOProud
www.goproud.org

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID (DEMOCRAT-NV) in 2008:

Obama had an advantage because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect” — until he wanted to use it.

Recall what brought down then-Senate Majority Leader (REPUBLICAN-MS) Trent Lott:

Trent Lott resigned his post as Majority Leader in 2002 after praising Strom Thurmond’s 1948 presidential candidacy during a birthday celebration for the 100-year-old South Carolinian.

That was it.  Lott was praising an old man, who yes, was a racist about the same time that a majority of Americans were.  But Lott was kicked to the curb, because he is a Republican.  Democrats, meanwhile, have fostered racism throughout the past 30 years and their Senate Leadership (at least) is chock full of ‘em.

And of course Obama accepted Reid’s apology — he is a Democrat.  But recall what Obama said after the Don Imus racism controversy:

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

To be a Republican racist is a mortal sin, to be a Democrat racist means you are the leaders and statesmen of the Party.  Disgusting.

HARRY REID SHOULD GO NOW.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

STILL. From Gallup today:

PRINCETON, NJ — The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup’s initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

More broadly, the percentage of Americans calling themselves either conservative or liberal has increased over the last decade, while the percentage of moderates has declined.  [GP Ed. Note: So much for Obama being "post-partisan" and a "uniter", eh?]

<..>

Thus far in 2009, Gallup has found an average of 36% of Americans considering themselves Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. When independents are pressed to say which party they lean toward, 51% of Americans identify as Democrats, 39% as Republicans, and only 9% as pure independents.

Ideological tendencies by leaned party affiliation are very similar to those of straight partisan groups.  However, it is worth noting the views of pure independents — a group usually too small to analyze in individual surveys but potentially important in deciding elections. Exactly half of pure independents describe their views as moderate, 30% say they are conservative, and 17% liberal.

Conservative Republicans hold the mainstream views in America.  The governing coalition in the US has been, since 1980, Conservative Republicans, Conservative Democrats, Conservative-Leaning Independents.  That all adds up to the magic 40% Conservative.  Then all you need is two swing 11% moderate Independents and you have your governing coalition.

Liberals had their wad shot in 2008.  Now the Conservative Governing Coalition of America is coming back and uniting around our Founding Principles.  Obama had better wake up and realize he ain’t the Premier of the United Soviet States of America anymore.

The problem of course is that liberals have infested the academic and media worlds and they whine, shriek and holler louder than the other 79% of America.  We need to change that.  NOW.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war.  He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”

Ouch… that had to have left a mark.  What gives Cheney such power in his argument is that he stands with a moral conviction to protect this nation.  What lacks in Obama is any passion whatsoever to comprehend this existential threat to our Republic in an age where nuclear weapons can go rogue.

Again, I think by 2012 — a majority of Americans will wish Cheney was back in government in some capacity.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This graph has now been proven to be a complete lie and utter fiction.

As Megan McArdle at The Atlantic put it quite concisely a couple days ago…

Bearing this in mind, I think most people–including me–missed the biggest part of the climate emails story.  Sexing up a graph is at best a misdemeanor.  But a Declan McCullough story suggests a more disturbing possibility:  the CRU’s main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.

The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly “tweaked” with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data.  These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.

You see, folks.  According to the emails from the CRU scientists themselves, the post-1960 data (the beginning of the “hockey stick”) was constantly “fiddled with” to the point that the entire model is a complete lie.  They were tampering with science from the start.  THAT is the story of the “Climategate” emails.  The CRU scientists were, in effect, ruining the modeling from the beginning and at many points along the way.

Those who deny the science behind the manipulation of the computer models are, in fact, denying the truth from the words of the CRU scientists themselves.

RELATED: Climategate: It’s the Totalitarianism, Stupid – James Lewis, PajamasMedia

RELATED: There Was Proof Of Fraud All Along – Vincent Gray, IPCC expert

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Here’s another great summary from Robert Tracinski at RealClearPolitics:

For more than a decade, we’ve been told that there is a scientific “consensus” that humans are causing global warming, that “the debate is over” and all “legitimate” scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this “consensus” really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

As I stated on Twitter earlier today… “Can we at least all agree now that Global Warming is a political philosophy and not a scientific enterprise?”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A U.S. Census worker found dead in a secluded Clay County cemetery killed himself but tried to make the death look like a homicide, authorities have concluded.

Bill Sparkman, 51, of London, might have tried to cover the manner of his death to preserve payments under life-insurance polices that he had taken out. The policies wouldn’t pay off if Sparkman committed suicide, state police Capt. Lisa Rudzinski said.

“We believe it was an intentional act on his part to take his own life,” said Rudzinski, who helped lead the investigation.

Bill Sparkman, the census worker found hanged Sept. 12 in a remote patch of Daniel Boone National Forest in Clay County. An autopsy report is pending. Photo courtesy of Corbin Times-Tribune. AP – FILE – In this undated 2008 photo, Bill Sparkman speaks to a 7th grade class during a lesson about sound waves. Authorities have released Sparkman’s body to his family nearly a month after he was found dead with a rope around his neck in rural eastern Kentucky. (AP Photo/The Times-Tribune, File)

Sparkman’s nude body was found Sept. 12 by people visiting the cemetery. There was a rope around his neck tied to a tree, and he had what appeared to be the word “fed” written on his chest in black marker.

You might remember the psychotic Andrew Sullivan’s screech when the death was first reported:

But the most worrying possibility – that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts – remains real. We’ll see.

Will Andrew admit he was wrong and maligned 40% of the USA who self-identifies as conservatives?

Don’t count on it any more than Algore admitting his culpability in the largest world wide hoax and conspiracy ever committed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I wanted to add my thoughts but then got my daily email from the Wall St. Journal Online.  James Taranto sums it up better than I:

What the [Washington] Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result.  This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong.  But it raises a glaring question:  If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It makes me think of the SEIU thugs at the Tea Parties this summer… and the Black Panthers in Philadelphia brandishing weapons and blocking voters in November 2008.

As the Joker might say, “Why the intimidation?”

UPDATE: Rand Simberg says this at PajamasMedia…

In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime. The theory being promoted by these men was being used to justify government actions that would result in greatly diminished future economic growth of the most powerful economy on earth (and the rest of the world as well). It would make it more difficult and less affordable to address any real problems that might be caused in the future by a change in climate, whether due to human activity or other causes. It could impoverish millions in the future, with little actual change in adverse climate effects. And when such a theory has the potential to do so much unjustified harm, and it has a fraudulent basis, who are the real criminals against humanity?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

So why is Holder (with Obama’s nod) doing all of this?  Not so much to put the 9/11 conspirators on trial, but to put the Bush-Cheney post-9/11 war effort on trial.

Anthony Dick at The Corner puts in words what my thoughts have been since Holder’s announcement on Friday:

They talk about due process and the rule of law, but the trials can’t possibly provide anything close to the level of objectivity that applies in an ordinary criminal-law setting.  There is no way the defendants will get an impartial jury in New York, and there is no way the government will actually release the terrorists if they are acquitted.  Thus the courtroom proceedings in Manhattan will be, in a very real sense, show trials.

They are designed purely for PR purposes, so that the Obama administration can pay lip service to the ideal of due process while implicitly rebuking the Bush administration for failing to respect the rule of law.

Meanwhile, it is the Obama administration that is truly making a sham out of the rule of law, by politicizing the trial process and pretending that these enemy combatants will be getting normal, neutral, dispassionate trials, as if the larger strategic context of the War on Terror will not affect the judge, the jury, or the actions of the government, which is sure to retain custody of the defendants in the off chance they are acquitted.

This reflects the fundamental unseriousness of the Obama administration in the face of terrorism.  We saw the same thing with the foolish announcement that Gitmo would be closed by January, which was the first iteration of the administration’s fantasy-land effort to sidestep one of the core dilemmas of the post-9/11 world:  We have a significant number of detainees whom we know with operational certainty to be dangerous terrorists, but, for various reasons, we can’t prosecute or convict them according to normal procedures.   This is another way of saying that there is no way we can prosecute the War on Terror while providing the full panoply of ordinary due-process protections to enemy combatants. And no amount of hope can change this reality.

I predict that nothing good will come to America as Holder moves forward to implement his ill-advised and shallowly political decision.

RELATED:  Obama must rethink rethinking Afghanistan – LA Times

-Bruce (GayPatriot)