« Morning Briefs: Stuff You Probably Have Already Read Somewhere Else | Main | Elitist Disrespect toward Veterans and the American Flag (yet again) »

December 3, 2009

Petulant Democrats Demand Punishment for Whistleblowers

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at December 3, 2009 5:11 AM

Continuing a pattern that has become sadly familiar, the organized criminal enterprise known as the Democratic Party has responded to the exposure of the Global Warming Scam not by investigating "scientists" who embezzled millions of dollars by falsifying climate data, manipulating the peer review process, and destroying evidence of their fraud... but instead by going after the whistle-blower who exposed the scheme.

Socialist Dingbat Senator Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am, Soldier Boy" Boxer is leading the charge.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."

Right, because Americans don't care about trillions of our dollars being taken and our freedoms being curtailed in the name of what is clearly a hoax. What we really want is for those who exposed the hoax prosecuted.

What a dingbat. What a gang of dingbats. What an organized gang of criminal dingbats.



Don't be surprised at this. Here in Canada, in the public service, that already existed. It was our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper,(Conservative) who put an end to this practice. The liberals always want to punish those who expose their corruption!

Posted by: Keith at December 3, 2009 6:17 AM

OMG, funny graphic! Remember that annoying guy?

Posted by: Karin at December 3, 2009 6:19 AM

No uproar over Sara Pailin's stolen emails.

Posted by: CharlieC at December 3, 2009 6:26 AM

In ACORN (aka Operation Stinky Nut) libs want to prosecute the reporters, in ClimateGate libs want to nail the hacker. I believe the email hacker should be prosecuted as the ends do not justify the means (although a somewhat lighter sentence should be imposed IMHO). In both cases to libs, the major crime is the exposure of information or actions libs approve of. Yet in the Palin email hacking libs had no problem with that. I would be willing to lay off the libs in this if they would show consistency, all email hacking is wrong or none of it is.

Posted by: Frank W. at December 3, 2009 6:34 AM

Criminal enterprise known as the Democratic party, how perfectly said. Hopefully in a few years these criminal activities will be investigated, if an armed uprising doesn't have each of them hanging high.

Posted by: Jay B at December 3, 2009 6:34 AM

I can just hear Boxer now...
You call it "child molesting"; I call it "naughty kids taking advantages of adults weaknesses".

They are clueless beyond belief.

Posted by: Brent at December 3, 2009 6:38 AM

Doesn't this remind everyone of the ACORN scandal? Huge pile of crap uncovered, massive fraud, juvenile prostitution... yet the whistleblowers are not only racists but criminals in the liberal eyes.

Posted by: Jay B at December 3, 2009 6:46 AM

I guess they didn't care much about Sarah-Palin-Email-thiefgate. That was then, this is now. Now they are in charge and can do whatever the hell they want to with no opposition.

Posted by: Moonbat Skullcracker at December 3, 2009 6:47 AM

The emails popped up from Saudi Arabia - fancy them trying to once again causing a fuss over climate change....

Posted by: You've got oil at December 3, 2009 7:11 AM

The emails popped up from Saudi Arabia

Do you have any proof to back that up, Albionese troll?

Posted by: V the K at December 3, 2009 7:20 AM

Update: It has become fairly obvious this archive was not "hacked" or "stolen" but rather is a file assembled by CRU staff in preparation for complying with a freedom of information request. Whether it was carelessly left in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer system or was "leaked" by staff believing the FOIA request was improperly rejected may never be known but is not really that important. What is important is that:

There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files
The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

Posted by: Al Bore at December 3, 2009 7:39 AM

Why does everyone think this is a hacker? This looks more like an inside job (whistleblower). And the files were put on a Russian FTP mail archive server with anonymous access. If it's a whistler blower he/she is protected under British law from prosecution.

Posted by: FreeWillie at December 3, 2009 7:39 AM

BARBRA BOXER ive voted against that old bat in every election she is your typical liberal demacratic eletists snob

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at December 3, 2009 8:37 AM

Think there has been some mistake here, clearly the emails didnt surface from Saudi, they came from the UK mainly ( the CRU being there and all ), but it is fair to say that the Saudis are making the most fuss about this and its impact on Copenhagen - Mohammed Al-Sabban has been pretty vocal about it. Maybe no shock there mind so I agree with that.

V the K - nice to see you encourage debate so well and politely though...

Now you all play nicely

Posted by: You had oil at December 3, 2009 8:39 AM

Let's just say that a person with a vested interest hacked into this file and posted it. How would that person's act or intentions have any bearing on how we should deal with the lying propagandists at CRU? Honestly, the people that are more concerned about the hacking (if that's what it was) than what was found probably would have had a problem with people sneaking information out of Nazi Germany about the extermination camps. "They weren't supposed to share that information, you know, so we should pay no attention to it!"

Posted by: Judith M. at December 3, 2009 8:43 AM

Forget wise and polite debate, how about intellectually honest debate? In an intellectually honest debate, one would not throw out a dishonest insinuation that Climategate is a Saudi conspiracy.

Posted by: V the K at December 3, 2009 8:43 AM

I'm certainly not suggesting its a conspiracy, I just pointed out that Mr Al-Sabban is the one making the most fuss about it and it's impact on Copenhagen - I suspect it is more likely files that were being got ready for a Freedom Of Information request or a whistleblower, almost certainly from inside either way- BBC reportes are claiming to have seen them 5 weeks before they were posted on the internet. Happy to say I've also only read a handful of them as I don't have time to sift through the lot.

Posted by: You had oil at December 3, 2009 8:51 AM

Why shouldn't Al-Sabban be protesting this perversion of the truth? Anyone who cares about the integrity of science should be protesting it.

Posted by: Judith M. at December 3, 2009 8:54 AM

Unfortunately, sometimes the truth is on the side of people you don't like; left-liberals have a tough time with this concept.

Posted by: V the K at December 3, 2009 9:18 AM

I'm skeptical, don't get me wrong, but the more extreme arguments both sides annoy me. Let's face it, it't not proven 100% beyond doubt either way. If anything the climate change bandwagon is winning and has more weight behind it. It's your OPINION, and that's important to remember - you can read scienctific studies until they come out your ears but you don't KNOW - no-one does or we would be 100% sure - simple really. So its pointless calling someone stupid or ignorant just because their opinion differs from yours - the world would be a dull place if we didn't have differing opinions.

Posted by: You had oil at December 3, 2009 9:29 AM

The "weight of scientific evidence" supporting the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has just been revealed to be a fraud.

Posted by: V the K at December 3, 2009 9:55 AM

Why is it, when the Pentagon Papers were stolen and printed in the Times, the clarion cry from the Left was: "It doesn't matter that the Papers were taken without permission, that they were stolen and that they were meant to be private information, not meant for public distribution... the importance of the data justified publishing it. Now, with ClimateGate, the Leftists shrill: "It doesn't matter about the importance of the data to the world... we won't print it because the emails were taken without permission, that they were stolen and that they were meant to be private information, not meant for public distribution." You got to love Liberal hypocrisy.

Posted by: FedralBI at December 3, 2009 10:14 AM

I don't care about scientific consensus, I care about the integrity of the scientific evidence, and that has been hopelessly compromised. To paraphrase Sargeant Schultz, "We know NOTHING! NOTHING!"

Posted by: Judith M. at December 3, 2009 12:14 PM

You've using the wrong comparison. It's not Sarah Palin's email thefts that you should be pointing to. Try Jim McDermott's publication of John Boehner's 1996 private phone call re: ethics charges against Newt. McDermott was just ordered to pay $1 million in legal fees to Boehner. McDermott's response: “We won because we protected the First Amendment,” he said. “We told the American people what was going on in Congress.”

So there you go. Use the First Amendment as your shield and you're bullet-proof!

Posted by: Doug at December 3, 2009 1:45 PM

Mark Twain said it best over a hundred years ago.

To paraphrase, "There is no native criminal class save Congress"

Posted by: ButchC at December 3, 2009 3:30 PM

Remember the three Memo-gates? In all three the (D)emocrats were exposed and were enabled by the MainStreamMedia in attacking the whistleblower.

Memo-Gate I, (D)emocrats admitting judicial obstruction

Memo-Gate II, (D)emocrats admitting politicizing intelligence committee endorsing Bush policies with the intent of leaking information to turn the public against the war.

Memo-Gate III, (D)emocrats racist smears against Bush's appointment of an Hispanic Judge

Posted by: DANEgerus at December 3, 2009 8:55 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)