Rasmussen: Obama Approval Index Drops to Minus 16

Rasmussen reports that Obama’s Presidential approval index drops to −16. In the Rasmussen poll 25% strongly approve of Obama and 41% strongly disapprove. This is Obama’s lowest approval index ever. The approval index is calculated by subtracting the lower number from the higher, resulting in either a negative or positive approval index.

New Orleans Fundraiser Cancelled

Harry Reid’s New Orleans fundraiser, which I commented on here, has been cancelled. He was unable to get the Republicans to agree to forego debate on the amendments they offered to the monstrous Senate Health Care Bill, which a majority of the public now opposes and prefers Congress do nothing on health care than pass Obamacare in any form. A Fox News poll finds that 54% would prefer Congress do nothing on health care right now.

Of course, Obama has told us that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization. But CNN, Obama’s sweetheart, also has a CNN poll showing an even larger majority of 61% would prefer Congress do nothing rather than what they are threatening to do now. [If you go to the CNN Poll you’ll have to dig a little, they’ve buried it but it’s there]

What does this mean for his deal with Mary Landrieu to whom he has promised millions of taxpayer dollars in exchange for her vote to destroy American health care? James Taranto suggests that maybe by canceling the fundraiser Reid has sweetened the pot by not making her have lunch with him.

An Inconvenient Question

This sort of thing makes me think the reasons leftists such as Stanford Professor Steven Schneider love Fidel Castro [I don’t know that he does but I would bet dollars to doughnut holes that he does] is because they envy his power to deal with dissent by calling in an armed response to take the questioner away. At least in this country you get your microphone shut off and your camera taken away but you don’t get beaten up and thrown into a stinking 6×9 cell. Well, not yet.

If you’ve watched the video you must now go here and read more about this. It’s compelling.

UPDATE: The question was about the leaked CRU emails. Schneider said he would not comment on emails he had not seen and that might have been “edited.” But many of the emails are his own. He would know if they had been edited.

Barney Frank Up to Some Old Tricks

Barney Frank

Barney Frank is currently attempting to rewrite the rules for the US financial system in the form of The Financial Stability Improvement Bill of 2009.

Charles Rowley explains the significance of the Commercial Mortgage Backed Security (CMBS) market to the U.S. financial system. He states:

This is a very important market, because a significant collapse in the CMBS almost certainly would induce a secondary financial crisis in the United States and markedly accentuate the current economic contraction.

At issue is the level of interest, i.e., the amount of “skin in the game” the issuer/originator of these securities must retain when they are packaged and sold to investors. The initial draft set this at 10 percent, Barney Frank’s Financial Services Committee voted unanimously to reduce it to 5%, then after lobbying efforts which no doubt involved substantial campaign contribution to Barney Frank et al., the retention requirement was eliminated entirely.

Rowley says on his blog:

This ‘modification’ coupled with a renewed investor appetite for risk, will most likely prove to be the undoing of the CMBS market.

So, another financial crisis is the works, orchestrated by lots of private greed but with all the help of Barney Frank as the last one was. I wonder about the players who make deals with Barney Frank. Why don’t they understand that it is they who take the brunt of the blame and possibly be left holding the bag and not the ever protected Barney Frank.

Rowley’s conclusion is spot on the money:

Two lessons can be learned from this sorry spectacle. First, never trust the words that emanate from a politician’s mouth. Put your faith only in the actions of that politician. Second, always track the movement of money through the corridors of Congress. Congress is always completely bought out. There are no $100 bills lying unmolested on its sidewalks, to say nothing of bills of significantly larger dollar dimensions.

In a replay of the machinations of 2008, Chris Dodd is carrying the water in the Senate.

You really have to read all of Charles Rowley’s piece on this to get an understanding of it.

What Does “Common Sense Gun Control” Mean?

David Hardy hits the nail on the head. “Common Sense Gun Control” is not a precise term. It begs the question of what is actually meant when one says it. Hardy thinks he knows why the anti-gunners are now using that term. It protects them from having to face all the hard data that has been collected in the last thirty years that shows them to be wrong in everything they have ever thought or said. So, Hardy says, what they really mean when they say all they want is “Common sense gun control” is “We lost the battle over hard data, and we don’t want to talk about it.”

Read the whole thing.

Hockey Stick Trick In Context

I posted earlier on The Amazing Hockey Stick Trick to hide the decline in late 20th Century temperatures in order to make the hockey stick graph appear to show 1,000 years of slightly declining worldwide temperature data followed by a sharp upward trend in late 20th Century temperature data (which actually declined, hence “hide the decline”). This sudden increase in global temperatures thus supported the theory that unprecedented global warming was occurring and that it was likely the result of human activity. The email dump out of the archives of East Anglia University at the Climate Research Unit in the U.K. exposed this for the massive fraud that it is.

The culprits in this drama, the climate scientists such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others associated with the CRU and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) have claimed that Phil Jones’ email describing “Mike’s nature trick” was taken out of context and is being used to distort what actually took place in their secret meetings in the last years of the previous century.

Now Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit blows that one out of the water and shows that putting the emails into context might not be in the interest of the IPCC scientists because of what it reveals about meetings and correspondence that took place among them in September, 1999. At IPCC and The “Trick” he says this:

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

You can read the rest of Steve McIntyre’s article here.