- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Apolitical Phil
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 3:54PM
Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the epicenter of Climategate, now has a new explanation for the now famous "trick" to "hide the (temperature) decline:"
"The use of the term 'hiding the decline' was in an email written in haste," he said. "CRU has not sought to hide the decline."
He provided the comments in an interview with the alarmist-friendly Guardian, which also helpfully linked updated statements from Jones and vice chancellor for research Trevor Davies, where Jones elaborated:
My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.
So, "haste" and "heat" are to explain Jones's efforts to manipulate data. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell understands:
For people who don’t know any better, this looks like Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU, is saying that he has used a “trick” that he got from Professor Michael Mann in order to “hide the decline.” First of all, we know that Professor Jones is a man of high integrity (as well as high competence in his field), so he would never do anything dishonest, sneaky, or duplicitous. Second, “trick” is a technical term often employed by the cream of climate scientists. It simply means employing a clever (or “slick”) method to accomplish some technical goal (in this case, “to hide the decline”). Anyone can see that “trick” is a much shorter and more elegant way to say that. And you’ve got to admire the verbal facility of these tip-top scientists. They are as articulate and literate as they are scientifically tip-top.
What is the clever method that Professor Jones learned from Professor Mann? I think he is referring to the way Professor Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past thousand years, including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up rapidly in the past few decades. That’s what the surface temperature record compiled by Professor Jones at CRU shows. And everyone knows that Professor Jones’s temperature record is irreproachable, even though he destroyed the raw data. So what Professor Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature records onto his proxy record. Voila!–the hockey stick. Over nine centuries of flat temperatures and then rapid warming in the late twentieth century. What Professor Mann did was simply make sure that ordinary people weren’t misled by the proxy data.
As for the many Freedom of Information inquiries CRU has received, Jones explains:
We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.
We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.
That doesn't seem to comport with Jones's statement in this email:
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone....We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
And:
I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails...According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on...
Sound like they're really striving to "gain permission" to release data? Perhaps another FOI request would reveal how hard they are working at that. Meanwhile, I nearly spewed my afternoon Joe when I read this Jones comment to the Guardian:
But he stressed that he has never wished to get drawn into the political debate about climate change, saying: "I'm a very apolitical person, I don't want to get involved in the politics, I'm much happier doing the science and producing the papers. I'm a scientist, I let my science do the talking, along with all my scientific climate colleagues. It's up to governments to decide and climate science is just one thing they have to take into account with the decisions they have to make."
Mr. Dispassionate Scientist shows how much he doesn't care about political action in the updated UEA-CRU statement:
In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.
One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.
Poor Phil. Maybe one day, after he's somewhat rehabilitated his reputation, he can find work as a small-market TV weatherman utilizing his expertise in covering local meteorological myths and legends:
Being a Liberal Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 3:29PM
Law enforcement officials have concluded that the Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman's death was suicide, and Professor William Jacobson is naming names:
What I want are some apologies from all the left-wing blog ghouls who danced on Bill Sparkman's grave hoping to score points by blaming conservatives for the death . . .
Michelle Malkin asks, "When will the Left retract the Kentucky census worker case smear?" And Red State blogger Moe Lane points to Bill Sparkman as author of the smear:
For the record: when you try to set up your suicide to make it look like you've been murdered by your ideological opponents, you have officially abrogated any obligation for me to be upset at your plight.
Indeed, it appears that Sparkman wanted blame for his death to fall on "anti-government" local residents. Having traveled to Kentucky to investigate the story myself, my question is, "Where do to the people of Clay County go to get their reputation back?"
Wait...
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 2:56PM
...it's the Right that's unhinged and frothing at the mouth, yes?
War Taxes
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 2:47PM
I see that some Democratic lawmakers are contemplating a war tax ahead of the Obama administration's decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. Conceptually, do you think a war tax would make antitax Republicans more reluctant to start wars and antiwar Democrats less likely to impose taxes?
Probably not.
Checklist Conservatism
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 2:23PM
I started using the term "checklist conservatism" during the candidacy of Mitt Romney, who ran a presidential campaign geared toward methodically checking off the favored conservative position on any given issue, without regard to his record or prior positions. I'm reminded about the phenomenon when reading about this absurd proposed resolution to institute a "purity test" that would require the RNC to only send contributions to candidates who agree with eight out of 10 items. Practically, many of the principles are too subjective. For instance, one principle is "Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" and another one is "Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat." How would either of these be judged? Even most Democrats would say they oppose amnesty, but the devil is in the details. Some people would say that making illegal immigrants legal is not amnesty if there are enough fines and hoops to jump through to become legalized, while others believe that anything short of deportation is amnesty. Same thing on nuclear weapons. Even liberals say they want to contain Iran and North Korea, but the debate is what constitutes "effective action."
But beyond the practical aspect, this sort of thing is exactly the wrong message for conservatives to send to possible candidates. Candidates who merely regurgitate a set of pre-selected ideas to conform with the diktats of the national party will not do anything to advance conservatism. What conservatism needs is more thoughtful candidates who have a grounding in policy, are competent, have genuine accomplishments, and are able to persuade undecided voters that conservative ideas are superior. The RNC doesn't need to support more trained seals who can talk a big game to conservative audiences and check all the right boxes, without having the ability to deliver the goods even if they managed to get elected.
We Need to Talk About Your TPS Reports...
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 1:15PM
Ahhh, we have sort of a problem here.
I'm sure this alleged email is just out of context, nothing to see here, there's really an implausible meaning that's more reasonable than the plain reading and all the rest of what we're told about the ClimateGate emails, but, well, I'm just saying (and, yes, you caught me trumping this up, emphases are indeed added):
From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick
____________________________________________
Kentucky Officials Say They've Solved Census Worker's Death; UPDATE: Suicide
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 12:58PM
UPDATE: The official conclusion:
It is the conclusion of the Kentucky State Police, the FBI, the U.S. Forest Service, the State Medical Examiner's Office, and the Clay County Coroner's Office that Mr. Sparkman died in an intentional, self-inflicted act that was staged to appear as a homicide.
PREVIOUSLY: Morgan Bowling of the Manchester (Ky.) Enterprise just forwarded me this e-mail from the Kenctucky State Police:
KSP MEDIA ADVISORY
Kentucky State Police To Hold News Conference Regarding Death Investigation Of Census Worker
Advisory for: Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2009WHAT: Kentucky State Police News Conference
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2:00 pm EST WHERE: KSP Central Forensic Laboratory, 100 Sower Blvd., Frankfort, Ky.
WHO: KSP Capt. Lisa Rudzinski, commander of KSP Post 11 in London, Lt. David Jude, commander of the KSP Media Relations Branch and representatives of the FBI and the state Medical Examiner’s Office.
WHY: Announcement of official results of death investigation of census worker Bill Sparkman in Clay County.
Despite early assertions that "anti-government sentiment" was implicated in Sparkman's death, it is widely believed that KSP will announce that Sparkman committed suicide, staging the scene to look like a murder, perhaps in an insurance-fraud attempt.
I traveled to Kentucky to report on this crime for the American Spectator.
UCC Calls Me a "Lying Liar"
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 11:36AM
And a Happy Thanksgiving to you?
Well, there he goes again. The United Church of Christ's Reverend Chuck Currie has zipped out a blog post -- he is the Blogger-in-Chief for the UCC, my denomination -- in which he calls me a, well, "lying liar." Ahhh, the subtlety. This is, of course, in response to the series of columns done on the So We Might See effort to censor free speech under the guise of labeling speech not liked as "hate speech."
As usual, confusing his personal politics with his church, the Reverend Chuck perfectly illustrates yet again the problem when a church official views the church as a private club for political ward heeling or a subsidiary of the Daily Kos as opposed to a, well, United Church of Christ. It is a sad thing to see, actually, the "Reverend" in his title indicating that he would know better. As I noted in my response to him, I would never question his -- or anyone's -- religious faith. That's between Chuck and his God. So too would I never question his right to say what he wants -- in this corner we are strong believers in free speech.
But his politics? When he uses the church to do politics, that should never get a free pass. The Reverend Chuck --let's remove the "Reverend" here since he's doing the political thing -- worships in the political temple of progressivism. Which is to say he has signed on hook, line and sinker to the political faith that supported slavery, segregation, lynching and racial quotas and the idea that people are "minorities" and not people living Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society. He supports a philosophy that signed on for torture (or "partial birth-abortion," as sticking a needle in the head of baby is called) and the economics of envy. All topped off by a totalitarian passion for suppressing the free speech of those -- like Lou Dobbs -- with whom Chuck disagrees.
All in all, progressive politics -- as evidenced by every one from the federal government -- segregating Woodrow Wilson to the pro-lynching supporters of Social Security to the greed and envy economics of the Obama era has constructed quite the politics to proudly oppose. For those of us who believe in human freedom, a colorblind society in which people are judged by the content of their character instead of by their race, gender or sexual preference, the right of a free press, the right to free speech, to not have the government ration your health care etc. etc. -- this places us well on the other side of the extremist/race-based/totalitarian style politics favored by the quaintly named "progressive" philosophy.
But so be it. The debate will continue. But in terms of the United Church of Christ, confusing Christ with progressive politics is something that doesn't happen in this corner -- and for that matter in lots of corners of the UCC. With good reason. There are conservatives aplenty in the UCC - and as much as we love, say, Ronald Reagan, we have no intention of substituting our politics where our faith resides.
Be that as it may: Happy Thanksgiving to the Reverend Chuck. We have linked to his posting so that others may see precisely the way some in the UCC hierarchy treat members whose differences are political -- not theological.
"Lying liars." Makes you want to run out and join the UCC, right? Not to worry. We don't do this kind of thing in my local church -- and its safe to say the individual churches of the UCC -- who manage to run themselves without this kind of "guidance" from the top -- don't do it either.
We are what is known as a "Welcoming" church -- where people of all political beliefs are welcome -- because their political beliefs are not relevant to the reason they come to church.
For some in the UCC leadership, this is a difficult message. But we wish them a Happy Thanksgiving anyway. After all, that story next door about William Bradford? He was one of ours!
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 10:39AM
- Zelaya not on ballot in Honduran election, a conservative is ahead in the polls (Washington Times)
- Charlie Crist: "It's hard to be more conservative than I am on issues -- there's different ways stylistically to communicate that - I'm pro-life, I'm pro-gun, I'm pro-family, and I'm anti-tax. I don't know what else you're supposed to be, except maybe angry too," (St. Petersburg Times)
- European Commission in Brussels tells the British that they cannot ban homosexuals from working in churches (Guardian)
- Georgia is sitting on an $80 million earmark for a grand central terminal that has never been built (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Andy Did Something Good Last Night
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 9:47AM
The Amazing Revkin of the New York Times, that is, who at about 5:00 yesterday posted a reader response to the whining of University of Chicago climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert, who also contributes to the alarmist RealClimate blog. The responder is Geoff Smith, who is mentioned a few times in the Climategate emails. Smith challenges Pierrehumbert to overlook the "cyberterrorism" (Waaah!) and instead question: the deletion of emails to avoid Freedom of Information requests; the exclusion of research that CRU scientists and their colleagues disagree with; the "tricks" of playing with data to fit the scientists' assumptions; and the desire to oust scientific journal editor who published the works of their enemies.
So, good for Andy for posting those succinct thoughts by Mr. Smith. But here are points deducted for Mr. Amazing:
1. He provides "balance" in his blog post by repeating verbatim the latest defense attempt on the scandal by the University of East Anglia. The spin includes, besides "out of context," blah, blah:
CRU’s published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. CRU is one of a number of independent centers working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community.
"Peer-review" and "reasoned debate" were two issues that were proven to be disregarded by Phil Jones and his henchmen. Why does CRU want to surge even deeper into laughingstock territory?
2. Still waiting for Andy to do some of his own original reporting, for actual stories in the newspaper rather than blog posts, after he said on Friday that repercussions "continue to unfold" and "there's much more to explore." Does his curiosity extend only to reader comments on his own blog posts?
3. He also posted yesterday a regurgitation of the Times' position on global warming, which is the same as the old position ("consensus!"). Perfect timing Andy!
"Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM
Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.
All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, "cap-and-trade" legislation and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA's failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
- internal discussions about NASA's quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);
- internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);
- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or "blog" RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked "Hockey Stick" that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used "in any way you think would be helpful" to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by "skeptics" attempting to comment on claims made on the website.
This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.
Lieberman Says He's "Stubborn" on Gov't Plan
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 8:51AM
Sen. Joe Lieberman reiterated in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that he would be prepared to filibuster a health care bill that included any sort of government plan.
"I'm going to be stubborn on this," Lieberman told the WSJ. In follow up questions, he said that he would not support any kind of a government plan, even the so-called "trigger" option that would create such a plan if insurers did not meet certain government targets.
Lieberman's position complicates Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's efforts to obtain the 60 votes necessary to pass health care legislation, though in and of itself it may not be enough to block the bill's passage. Sen. Olympia Snowe has been a proponent of a "trigger" option, and it's possible that Democrats could afford to lose Lieberman if they can get her on board. And in the interview, Lieberman still insists that they'll end up passing a bill.
Yet even if Reid can get some sort of agreement in principle on a compromise with Lieberman and other wobbly Democratic moderates, there's no guarantee that it will make it through the Senate. That's because now that the bill is on the floor, 60 votes are required to make any changes, and Democratic Senators will be under heavy pressure from liberal activists to not cave on the government plan.
And this doesn't even take into account the dispute over abortion language, and the fact that even after passing the Senate, the bill would still have to be reconciled with the House version, and then pass both chambers again.
The Day Ahead: November 24
Posted by on 11.24.09 @ 6:30AM
Today, on the main site:
- The Answerable Courage of William Bradford, by Jeffrey Lord
- Welcome Back, Carter, by Ken Blackwell
- The Big Pulaski, by Bill Croke
- More Cowbell, by F. Vincent Vernuccio and Jeremy Lott
- Getting Fooled, by Reid Collins
What to watch for:
Monday's Best:
Monday, November 23, 2009
IG-Gate: 'Hush Money' Charge in Sacramento Mayor's Sex Scandal Was Part of Probe
Posted by on 11.23.09 @ 8:31PM
Sexual abuse accusations by St. HOPE Academy students against Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson were apparently covered up, possibly with "hush money," according to a 61-page report issued by congressional investigators.
Failure of school officials to report sexual abuse of minors violates California state law, investigative staff of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) noted in their report on the June firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
The allegations investigated by Walpin's office were "very serious," Grassley said in a statement, saying that evidence indicates a political motive for the IG's firing. "It seems a lot of people might have been interested in protecting the AmeriCorps program and the Mayor of Sacramento from an IG who was discovering some unpleasant facts."
Byron York of the Washington Examiner reported today that Obama administration officials tried to mislead the public about the reasons for the firing of Walpin. The Grassley-Issa report details how Walpin's IG staffers investigated charges that Johnson's lawyer and officials of the federally-funded St. HOPE program suppressed sexual-misconduct charges against the former NBA star who was elected mayor of California's capital city last year.
Walpin pressed for criminal prosecution of Johnson, an Obama supporter. Instead, a deal that allowed the mayor to avoid prosecution and repay federal grant money was approved by Alan Solomont, a major Democratic fundraiser who is chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the federal agency that oversees the AmeriCorps volunteer program.
The Grassley-Issa report says that agents of the inspector's general office who investigated the St. HOPE sex-abuse charges "immediately recognized what appeared to be improper handling of this allegation . . . and unethical conduct by Mr. Johnson's attorney," Kevin Hiestand, who was also the mayor's business partner. The report also implicates D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee who one witness said acted as "fixer" for the St. HOPE program. From the Grassley-Issa report (PDF):
In response to allegations first reported by CNCS and the California State Commission, CNCS Inspector General Gerald Walpin deployed Agents Jeffrey Morales and Wendy Wingers to Sacramento to investigate the use of federal dollars in contravention of St. HOPE's funding agreement. The alleged misconduct included claims that AmeriCorps tutors assigned to St. HOPE were put to work washing Johnson's car, running personal errands, and engaging in partisan political activities. It was also alleged that St. HOPE converted its own employees to AmeriCorps members in order to use grant funds to pay them.
While in Sacramento, Agents Wingers and Morales became aware of allegations of inappropriate contact between Johnson and three female St. HOPE students. Mr. Johnson’s attorney, Kevin Hiestand, approached at least one of the students describing himself only as "a friend of Johnson's," and "basically asked me to keep quiet."
According to her interview with OIG investigators, about one week later, Kevin Johnson offered her $1,000 a month until the end of the program, which she refused to accept. Moreover, the OIG uncovered evidence of two other female St. HOPE students reporting Johnson for inappropriate sexual conduct towards them. . . .
Walpin included details about these allegations in his criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's office because they, "seriously impact … both the security of young [AmeriCorps] Members placed in the care of grantees and . . . the ability of AmeriCorps to continue to attract volunteers." The facts outlined in the referral give rise to reasonable suspicions about potential hush money payments and witness tampering at a federally funded entity. . . .
The OIG agents were alerted by a story in the Sacramento Bee describing an apparent violation of California state law. California state law classifies teachers and administrators as "mandated reporters," requiring them to report suspected child abuse to authorities. The Bee reported that contrary to California law, Johnson's lawyer and confidant, Kevin Hiestand, told school officials not to report the incidents because he was conducting his own internal investigation.
Hiestand conducted his investigation of the allegations under the guise of serving as the school's Title IX officer. . . . Hiestand interviewed the victims and witnesses, including a teacher who had heard of the allegations. According to the teacher, "Hiestand told me he had met with [one of the victims] and that she had told a different story and that I should change my story to fit the one they had been told." Erik Jones, the St. HOPE teacher who eventually reported one of the victim's allegations to the police, resigned in protest over the way the matter was handled by the school. In his resignation letter, Jones wrote "St. HOPE sought to intimidate the student through an illegal interrogation and even had the audacity to ask me to change my story." Another St. HOPE official, Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez, also left St. HOPE because of the way the allegations were handled.
Michelle Rhee, who is currently Chancellor of the District of Columbia Schools, was a St. HOPE board member at the time. According to Wong-Hernandez, Rhee learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing "damage control." . . . (Emphasis added.)
There is much, much more in the Grassley-Issa report. And the firing of Walpin is just one aspect of the larger scandal known as IG-Gate. For background, see my article "The War on Watchdogs" from the September issue of the American Spectator.
- Opinion Journal
- Drudge Report
- Breitbart
- Washington Times
- Michael Barone
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Hugh Hewitt
- PowerLine Blog
- Huffington Post
- Little Green Footballs
- Moral Accountability
- RedState
- The Corner
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- PoliPundit
- Amy Welborn
- Reform Club
- Lucianne
- Southern Appeal
- Confirm Them
- The Daily Gut
- Eric Peters - Automobiles
- JeremyLott.net
- Karnick on Culture
- Government Bytes
- Bluey Blog
- Shawn Macomber
- Jeff Emanuel
- Michael Yon
- Alarming News
- StateHouseCall
- Mickey Kaus