The previous record for Washington D.C. was set in the 1860′s winter of 1898-99, which prompts a question. Does the New York Times also believe that the previous record snowfall was caused by global warming?

If not, then their story falls apart, because if global warming did not directly cause heavier precipitation in 1860, then it cannot be said to have directly caused it in 2010. If we look at the history, global warming cannot be the culprit because of the cooler temperatures commonly seen in the historic record for that period of time.

The New York Times attempts to justify it’s position by saying that heavy snowfall and global warming are “compatible.” But heavy snowfall is also compatible with the cooler temperatures extant during the 1860′s, nullifying the Times’ argument.

Simply put, the recent record snowfall in the eastern states is not evidence of global warming.

'Missing Link' Fossil

News reports blared that the find would finally settle the debate between Darwinism and Religion, which was odd because I kept hearing that there was no debate; Evolution is accepted Law. So why we needed actual physical evidence was unclear to me.

The Press, in their efforts to outdo each other in the Best Supporting Journalist – Evolution category, described the fossil as “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.” I even read one article claiming we would finally be able to do away with Religion once and for all.

When Liberals start talking like this, I know all I have to do is wait. Disappointment has a way of souring hastily-made celebrations, and I knew it would eventually catch up with the Darwinist cheerleaders, too.

Well, the waiting is over. To borrow a line from a popular song from the 70′s, “another one bites the dust.”

Scientific American Magazine has published an article that summarizes recent criticisms of the earlier claims of Ida’s place in the line of human evolution. The critics’ arguments are quite convincing, as well. For one, Ida is too old to be the missing link. She is 47 million years old, while the earliest possible human ancestors are only 7 million years old. Ida also has features that do not appear in the line which allegedly became modern humans.

Robert Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago charges that some of the traits used to align Ida with the anthropoids do not in fact support such a relationship. Fusion of the lower jaw, for instance, is not present in the earliest unequivocal anthropoids, suggesting that it was not an ancestral feature of this group. Moreover, the trait has arisen independently in several lineages of mammals—including some lemurs—through convergent evolution. Martin further notes that Ida also lacks a defining feature of the anthropoids: a bony wall at the back of the eye socket. “I am utterly convinced that Darwinius has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of higher primates,” he declares.

We are still waiting for Darwinism to produce the “missing link.” In the meantime, I would recommend not holding one’s breath.

H/T to Post-Darwinist.

Matthew is right about Paul Krugman’s column; it is full of lies and distortions about the now-discredited Homeland Security report. But it is also full of lies about conservative Talk show host Glenn Beck.

Krugman describes Glenn as “a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s ‘totalitarian’ agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).”

This is utterly false. In fact, Glenn Beck completely debunked the conspiracy theories regarding the FEMA camps (part 1, part 2). He proved that not only are they non-existent, but that the images being sent around since Obama’s election are being recycled from the 1990′s.

Paul Krugman didn’t tell you that.

The nut who shot and killed Dr. Tiller was not connected with any credible anti-abortion group anywhere in America.

Paul Krugman didn’t tell you that, either.

The racist lunatic who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum is a registered Democrat, believes in evolution, and has expressed hatred of Christianity.

But Paul Krugman wants you to believe that he’s an example of “right-wing extremism,” and that Glenn Beck and others like him are fomenting this kind of hate. It’s a lie. And not an innocent lie caused by misinterpreting the facts, etiher.

As I was listening to the show, Glenn’s producer Stu pointed out that a link from Krugman’s column actually lead to Glenn’s debunking of the FEMA camps story. Now, strangely enough, the link no longer exists on Krugman’s column, but the content has not changed. That means one thing, and one thing only: the NY Times editorial staff is deliberately misleading it’s readers.

It would be bad enough if Paul Krugman were merely wrong about the source of extremism in America, or that he were simply misunderstanding Glenn Beck’s position in order to cast him in unfriendly light–he’s entitled to his own opinions. But it is inexcusable that he, with help from the NY Times editorial staff, is willfully engaging in continuing a deception when they know the truth.

The newspaper of record is on the verge of financial collapse, and this episode is an example of the reasons why. People generally know whom they can trust to keep them informed, or they eventually find out. Most Americans are not fond of paying for being lied to.

Contact the NY Times and voice your concerns. Tell them Paul Krugman cannot continue to lie to America.

Do these people really get paid for this crap?!

She writes,

“At either extreme, slightly more people now believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (23%) than legal under all circumstances (22%).

So what’s changed? Gallup attributes the new numbers to Republicans purifying their views: 70% now call themselves pro-life, up 10 points in a year. But that’s to be expected; when fewer people call themselves Republican, the party condenses into a pool of true believers.”

In other words, the purification of the Republican Party increases the percentage of pro-life individuals within the party, and that somehow translates to a 100% increase in strict pro-lifers (those who think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances) across the board since the mid 90′s.

Come on, Nancy. We’re not that stupid.

Her “analysis” assumes that the people leaving the Republican Party are more Pro-choice than those remaining. But my gut tells me (yes, that is entirely unscientific, so sue me) more people are leaving the Republican Party because it has shifted farther to the Left and, among other compaints I have heard, taken a more Pro-choice position.

Thanks for the “explanation,” Ms. Gibbs. I think I’ll� stick with the facts.

You’d think that the Move-on Media would have figured out the dynamics of the American political landscape by now. And you’d be wrong. Despite years of reporting on current events and the critical issues of the day, the Liberal Media has yet to fully comprehend the American People. This come from inhabiting the places they do–vast echo chambers that reflect only their own worldview.

Arlen Specter’s announcement this morning triggered an analysis of the state of the GOP by Charles Babington of the AP. I suppose Charles is really trying to be helpful, but his analysis is so far off-base as to be laughable. “The GOP is a shrinking tent,” he exclaims. His conclusion as to why it is shrinking? It has moved too far to the right.

Charles writes,

Specter’s departure follows recent Republican losses in once-reliable states. While Barack Obama was cruising to the White House last fall, Republicans were losing long-held Senate seats in Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia. A moderate Republican lost his seat in Oregon, and the same seems likely to happen when Minnesota’s long recount is settled.

Alaska is an excellent point for a closer look. Who lost the seat in Alaska? Ted Stevens. Remember Ted Stevens? He lost his seat because four weeks prior to the general election, he was convicted on charges of corruption. The news was devastating to the Republicans. But even with the conviction hanging like a dark cloud over him, Stevens lost by only a thin margin. So, were the voters voting out Stevens because he was too far right? Or were they voting him out because they were tired of the corruption in Government. The answer is clear to anyone aware of the recent Tea Party Movement. Everytime a Republican is at the center of even the smallest scandal during an election cycle, it is almost assured the seat will go to the Democrat.

If there is one thing the Democrats have learned about the Republicans, it is that Republican voters don’t readily tolerate monkey business on the part of their elected representatives. We like to keep things clean–to a fault. And they have used this to their advantage.

If the Republican tent is shrinking, it is because the regular Americans who make up the Republican Party are fed up with their elected leadership governing like Democrats, and abandonning Conservative principles. Arlen Specter is an example of the kind of Republican that is causing voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. He jumped ship to maintain his own power, not so he can continue serving the American People. He couldn’t care less about the People. (Of couse, the Move-on Media label Specter a “Pragmatist,” while Conservatives think of him as a political opportunist–or worse.)

Ironically, the Stevens case illustrates just how low the Democrats will go to secure a seat for themselves in the Halls of Power. Stevens conviction was dismissed by a federal judge last month, because of corruption on the part of the prosecutors who were all but sleeping with key witnesses. They withheld evidence from the defense during the course of Discovery, and acted so improperly that the investigation into Stevens has now become an investigation into the Justice Department’s prosecutors. The judge literally yelled at them in open court.

The Democrats have their own scandals that crop up as often as any in the GOP; it’s just that the Media are less apt to report it. Besides, America has come to expect immoral behavior from the Democrats. But it seems the message has got through, and the Republicans are starting to clean house. And though we may lose a few now, in the long run, as the GOP becomes more Conservative, its power and influence can potentially exceed anything it has experienced thus far.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are too preoccupied with Republican problems to be troubled with their own issues. If the Democrats continue with the status quo, they will see soon enough that worrying about the GOP’s tent was a case of looking beyond the mark. They should be shoring up their own house.

There has been a lot of criticism of the Media for ignoring the Tax Day Tea Parties, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people attended tea parties in their area. Attendance numbers run from the hundreds in smaller towns, to thousands in places like Cincinnati and Sacramento.

I wanted to see first-hand whether or not the criticism was merited. I went to AP.org, the website for the Associated Press. They have a search feature on the site where you can use a keyword search to look up stories within the last 7 days. The keyword “tea party” returned 38 entries, only 4 of which occur on April 15th. Of those four results, only two had some connection to the tea parties; one referred to protesters throwing tea bags at the White House, the other covered a tax counter-protest in Vermont where about “two dozen people” demanded higher taxes. The story did not cover whether or not those people were later referred to competent mental health professionals.

None of the stories dealt specifically with any of the tea parties.

So, I tried “tea parties” as the keyword. The results were just as bad. Of 18 results, only one was returned for April 15th, a story about Next Gingrich’s possible bid for the presidency in 2012.

How can I conclude anything other than, at least as far as the AP is concerned, the tea parties never happened? We expected to be treated unfairly by the Media. After all, we all know how they operate. But I don’t think we were prepared to be completely ignored.

The very point of a protest is to get the attention of the Media, who will then relay that information, via news coverage, to government officials. At least, that’s the theory. But in this case, a small handful of environmental protesters dressed up as polar bears and sea turtles appearing at a city council meeting in Sacramento got more coverage by the AP than more than 6,000 tea party goers in the same city a day earlier.

The Media has abandoned its once honored position as the watchman of the People, keeping us apprised of government misbehavior. The Media is supposed to report, not interfere. It has instead become an enabler of corruption and unchecked power. Barak Obama said he had not heard of the tea parties before they happened. There are two possible reasons for that. Either 1) he is kept intentionally in isolation by his handlers, which includes the Media, or 2) he is lying. Every other elected official in America knew about these events. How are we supposed to believe Obama didn’t? Either way, he is only adding more evidence to the case against him.

Take a look at the coverage of one of the tea parties by CNN (one of the rare events that was covered). Pay close attention to the questions this reporter asks the man she is interviewing. Ask yourself what her underlying assumptions are. What does she believe, that causes her to ask these questions?

Her belief is that these people should not be protesting, because of the benefits they can receive from the government. She is so completely steeped in Statism that no other alternative even registers in her mind. Individual liberty and independence are foreign concepts to people like her. She also fails to understand that the protests were not about taxes per se, but about Washington ignoring the voices of We, the People. 90% of the millions of contacts made to government officials in Washington DC at the time the stimulus bill was being considered, were opposed to it’s passage. They ignored us, and passed it anyway.

The Media is not to be trusted now, anymore than the government can be trusted. If we want our elected officials to stay in touch with us, we’re going to have to get the word out by our own methods, and circumvent the Media. They don’t want our voices to be heard. But we must not allow them to dictate either the terms in the debate or who has a voice in it.

It’s really kind of sad–their positions are so out of touch with Main Street, America that the people would not choose Liberalism if given a real choice.

So, the Liberals begin campaigns of disinformation about Conservatives in an attempt to demonize them, thinking that the people, left with no other choice, will choose Liberalism. They will hold up this most recent election as evidence of that.

The problem is that their efforts work on people who aren’t familiar with the real Conservative movement, those people who only know Conservatism by what the Media shows them on TV.

There are four major Liberal sites (The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Gawker) that are carrying an account of what is allegedly a Conservative advocating the burning of college text books at a 9/12 Project gathering. The truth is easily discovered with a little footwork.

There are also plans by Liberal groups to try to infiltrate the Tea Party events and disrupt them, or present themselves as Conservatives with outrageous signs or speech. Their aim is to discredit the Tea Party Movement. Don’t underestimate their cunning and subtlety; they have been doing this for decades.

These people love lying. They believe it gives them power. And, as long as the Move-On Media gives them air time, it will continue to seem that way. Their methods come straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky was a Marxist and a Community Organizer. Sound familiar? It should. Many of Obama’s campigns tactics were borrowed from Alinsky.

The best way to overcome their lies is with the irrefutable truth. So, bring your cameras to the Tea Party events. For every camera they bring to try to discredit us, we want 10 cameras showing the truth. We want to show the world where the truth is.

I have heard some conservatives criticizing the video as “derogatory” to those who were interviewed. I think maybe they have not really paid attention to the details behind the film. According the the website,

On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.

Zogby also conducted a telephone poll using these same questions, with similar results. The details on the Zogby poll are here.

I think this helps to put to rest the ongoing debates with friends over whether or not there is a liberal media bias. This may not conclusively prove it, but it certainly indicates that some topics were more heavily covered by the media, especially the negative messages about Sarah Palin, while the negative messages about Barak Obama were not given as much air time as evidenced by the lack of familiarity  with those issues by people who get their news primarily from the “establishment media,” i.e. CNN, the NY Times, MSNBC, etc.

I am proud to say that my support of Jason Chaffetz puts me squarely in line with the principles of the Caucus, which has also endorsed Jason.

If it is not yet apparent to you how bad things are in Washington, maybe you need to find another source of news and information. The MOM (Move-On Media) is not telling you even half the story, and the part they are telling you is not even half true.

The answer is to simply stop listening to them. Turn off the TV; there’s very little of value on TV and a lot of indoctrination going on, even in the everyday sitcoms and drama series. You want news and information? Try talk radio. Yes, they are biased to one side of the political spectrum, but they will be the first to tell you that up front, unlike the MOM which pretends to be unbiased but isn’t. The broadcasters of Talk radio aren’t hiding things from you and aren’t twisting events to suit their worldview.

Most people I know, that listen to talk radio, are the most informed people I have come across. They take the news events that are described by the radio talkers and distill out the basic principles on their own. The more time they listen to talk radio, the more apt they are to being open to discussion on a host of issues.

What is truly ironic is that the proxies of the MOM almost always criticize listeners of talk radio as being stupid, uneducated, or brainwashed. Of course, the people who listen exclusively to MOM sources are never described in such condecending and patronizing terms. That, of itself, is proof that what I’m telling you is true.

So back to the orginal point, I would encourage you to watch the presentation of the Independence Caucus on their website. Find out what the MOM has not been telling you about the current situation. And join us!