by: the Common Constitutionalist
The following are excerpts from an article in the British publication, The Economist, written Nov. 2008. That’s just 5 years ago. I know in seems a lot longer considering our current state of affairs in this country:
“The most important year for climate change since 2001, when the Kyoto protocol (which set targets for cutting carbon-dioxide emissions) was agreed, will be 2009… The first period of the protocol runs out in 2012. The deal to replace it is supposed to be done at the United Nations’ Climate Change conference in Copenhagen…”
“No deal means that mankind gives up on trying to save the planet.”
Wow, really? Is the planet in that much danger? It must be. These men of science wouldn’t overstate a problem, or create one, just to score political points and extract money from us?
“The rich world (especially America) needs to commit itself to legally enforceable carbon-emissions reductions… The rich world, which has been responsible for most emissions so far and recognises that it needs to pay up… The Clean Development Mechanism, which was set up under Kyoto to allow rich countries to buy carbon credits from poor countries that have cut their emission, does that already, but is probably not robust enough to do the job on the scale needed.”
I was shocked, and I’m sure you as well, to see America singled out. I was also surprised to read that carbon credit purchasing isn’t solving the problem. Huh.
They seemed to be quite pleased at the arrival of “The One”:
“What happens in Washington is most important. Progress on climate change is much likelier under the new administration than the old, for the new one is committed to introducing mandatory federal carbon-emissions cuts through a cap-and-trade scheme…”
So what’s the big deal? That was old news. Nothing has changed. The eco-weenies will never change, you say. No matter what happens they will never change their tune on climate change or man-caused global warming.
Well, not so fast. It seems that actual science may be catching up to the hysteria. I know, dare to dream, but in a March 30 article in the very same publication, the folks at The Economist seem to report honestly of the un-changing climate:
“OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar… And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
This must have killed Hansen to even utter these words, for he is dishonest climate change whore, and that’s being kind.
“Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise… If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.”
“The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.”
No, of course not. The only deluded people have been us man-caused climate change deniers. And it’s funny that they are always surprised when nothing happens. Kind of exactly as we’ve been predicting for years.
The article continues:
“…an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.”
Ruh Ro Reorge. The earth is cleaning itself?! The profound significance could be that as nothing continues to happen, it’s already getting harder to keep beating that same old world apocalypse drum.
The rest of the article is rather long and boring with explanations of new climate modelling, sprinkled with a lot of what-ifs, in an attempt to further the global warming cause.
Although we on the reasonable side of this argument can be slightly heartened by this quasi-admission, this battle is far from over. These folks will not go down without a fight. They have far too much to lose.
We may, in the long run, win this war against the climate weenies, and heh, as the world economy crumbles and we all go the way of Cyprus, no one will worry about man-made climate change.
In the first three months of the year, members of the first family have been on three vacations, averaging a vacation a month. And now it’s being reported that the first daughters are on a spring break vacation in the Bahamas.
The Obamas began the new year in Hawaii. “President Obama departed Hawaii this morning for Washington, after spending NINE days vacationing with family and friends in his native state. Here’s a quick look at how he spent his vacation,” ABC reported on January 6, 2013.
“Obama played FIVE rounds of golf with SEVEN different partners, spending roughly THIRTY hours on TWO different courses on Oahu. The president made FIVE early morning trips to the gym at the nearby Marine Base at Kaneohe Bay. The First Family spent TWO afternoons enjoying the beach on the base and went for ONE hike to a local waterfall. The president spent ONE father-daughter afternoon with Malia and Sasha, bowling and going out for shave ice, an annual tradition.”
by: the Common Constitutionalist
So, all the sudden the left in America is concerned with anti-Semitism. That’s a riot. Is this the same left that constantly sides with the Muslim Brotherhood and goes out of their way to support Islam? That left?
It just goes to show, when pundits on the left want to accomplish something – there is no end to which they will go.
I’m speaking, in this case, of gun control and the fascist mayor Michael Bloomberg’s one-man crusade for their confiscation. And don’t think for a moment that is not his endgame. As with everything Bloomberg involves himself in, it seems he always knows better than we, how to live our lives, for we cannot be trusted. Sounds a lot like the great progressive Teddy Roosevelt.
And now those with no moral center have branded us pro-second amendment advocates as anti-Semites.
For those who are unaware, Mayor Bloomberg with his personal fortune, north of $22 billion, started an organization called “Mayors against Illegal Guns”. What an apropos name, for of course, who could be for illegal guns? Naturally no one and that is why the word game. The left is great at innocuous names for things – abortion is reproductive or women’s health because who would oppose the health of a woman?
Anyway, Benito Bloomberg cobbled this organization together to “combat” the influence of the NRA and he’s announced a $12 million ad campaign to push for universal background checks, because we all know that this is how criminals acquire their guns. Criminals seek out legal sales and subject themselves to legal background checks. I’m sure that’s how MS13 acquired their weapons.
You see, Il Duce, or should I say Il Douche Bag, is Jewish. This past Monday on MSNBC, contributor Mike Barnicle said: “let’s get down to it, Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City; I mean, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing directed toward Bloomberg.” Al Sharpton chimed in agreement: “there’s no doubt about it”.
Their proof comes from comments made on the website “Stormfront”, your typical white supremacist site, calling out Bloomberg for being a “Jew” and various tweets claiming Bloomberg to be “King Heeb”. Real middle-of-the-road stuff that clearly represents the conservative point of view, don’t you think? MSNBC has finally outed us as the Jew haters we are. What a despicable bunch of hatemongers.
Yes, we are not lovers of liberty, but anti-semites. We don’t dislike Bloomberg due to his version of American fascism. No, that can’t be it. It’s that he is Jewish. If he were Protestant or Catholic we would be fine with his no salt, no trans-fats, no big gulp and now, gun control decrees.
We would be okay with his governing philosophy of: “You have to have the space, if you will, to lead from the front to make decisions to then convince people why it’s right, to do things,” said Bloomberg. “And if it doesn’t work perfectly, to fix it.”
Not that he should convince the public to support an idea, but to just explain to his subjects that he is right and you must support it after he has made the decision for you. That would be grand, if he were not a “Jew”.
As with anything the left attempts to foist on the American people, they know they can never win an honest debate. There must always be some devious angle to pull and tug at the hearts, but not the minds of the low information citizen.
If Bloomberg were honest about his real intent to confiscate our weapons, he would get nowhere, regardless of how much money he threw at his silly campaign, but he would still have the unwavering support of the idiots at MSNBC.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
However you feel regarding homosexual marriage, it is my contention that the United States Supreme Court has no business involving itself in such matters or in the state of Californias business.
Why does the Supreme Court feel the need to concern itself, or that the average american citizen believes it has that right? Answer: 4 liberal activist justices, which is coincidently the number needed to accept a case. States have their own rules, own constitution, their own courts and supreme courts as well as their own state judicial review.
The federal government, in my opinion, has absolutely no roll in or right to hear this case. This is a state issue. The U.S. supreme court should vacate the 9th circus court of appeals decision (as it does on a regular basis) as well as the federal district courts decision and declare that this is a matter for the state of California to decide, which it already has.
The state of California allows for popular referendum votes in order to amend the California constitution. The people of California overwhleming voted to amend their constitution via proposition 8, to state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Because the politicians in California refused to uphold the legally binding California constitutional amendment, the left saw an opportunity to usurp the state constitution. I’m not certain, but I would guess that the politicians in California took an oath to defend and protect the constitution of California. Frankly they should all be brought up on charges for failure to properly discharge their duties and removed from office. They have no right to pick and choose what they will and will not enforce.
Oh, by the way, a majority of blacks and hispanics voted in favor of proposition 8. Why are those in favor of overturning the amendment not called racists? Just asking.
What is the point in having states at all if they can’t run themselves? For that matter, why even have a state legislature, a governor, a congress, senate or president? If the United States Supreme Court is the end all and be all decision maker, why not just let them run the country? What is the point in Federalism; checks and balances.
These black robed gods are evidently infallible, except when they are. Throughout our history our supreme court has been comprised of human beings, not gods. Their have been drunks, womanizers, bigots, Klan members, etc., that sat on the bench. They are frankly as fallible as the rest of us and as Chief justice John Roberts recently demonstrated, they are just as prone to public (or some kind of) pressure as are we .
Here are just a few of the really poor decisions handed down by 9 black robed infallible gods:
Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857: All Americans of African descent were not citizens and would have no rights.
Plessy v. Ferguson 1896: It protected racial discrimination in state laws under the “separate but equal” doctrine. It expressly upheld the right of states to force segregation upon others.
Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell 1934: The Court created the Emergency Exceptions Doctrine, arguing that the Great Depression was so bad that government could interfere with private contracts.
Wickard v. Filburn 1942: Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat to feed to his livestock. The Court determined that Filburn’s self-sufficiency caused him to buy less wheat from outside suppliers. They decided this marginal impact was enough to subject him to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause
Korematsu v. U.S. 1944: Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court that the government’s need to protect itself from spies outweighed the civil rights of Fred Korematsu and other innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry allowing the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
Bennis v. Michigan 1996: Tina Bennis and her husband owned a car, in which Tina’s husband engaged the services of a prostitute. The State of Michigan seized the car as a public nuisance. The Supreme Court determined that the government could take Tina Bennis’ property, without due process or appeal, even though she didn’t know that her property was being used this way.
Kelo v. New London 2005: the High Court extended the governments ability to seize private property under eminent domain, even when the only public purpose was to enrich the city’s treasury.This decision afforded a government the right to take anyone’s private property if it feels that someone else can make better use of it.
As I said; this is not a case for the U.S. Supreme Court and is not a 14th Amendment issue if you know anything about the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 specifically to demand that freed blacks, post Civil War, are citizens, period, and as such are afforded the same constitutional rights as whites. It has nothing at all to do with homosexual marriage or any other kind of marriage.
The Court should just say that this is a 10th Amendment issue and be done with it.
Does the 10th amendment, states rights, mean nothing anymore? I thought the left was all about diversity. Does not the 10th amendment tippify diversity?
As many in California have done for a number of reasons, those who do not accept California law are welcome to vote with their feet and move to a more amenable state. But, of course that is not the lefts way, is it.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I was watching Fox News Sunday morning and saw that John Kerry is over in the Middle East, working on the Syria problem. It seems the Iraqis are allowing aircraft from Iran to fly over Iraqi airspace uninspected and unimpeded. It’s as if the Iraqis are helping the Iranians support Assad’s effort to maintain power in Syria.
Evidently the American government knew of this problem when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The Iraqis had evidently been warned privately of the Obama administration’s distaste for this. Wow! You mean the Iraqis had the nerve to disregard Hillary’s warnings?
It seems that Iran, most likely with the help of Russia, has been ferrying arms, money, supplies and personnel over Iraq and into Syria for some time.
It’s not that this is unexpected, at least by us that live in realville, as Rush calls it. These Dictators understand they must prop one another up, lest they all fall.
Yet our progressive geniuses in both the Bush and Obama administrations think they can just go in and “nation build”. As if a Jeffersonian democracy will just spring up in a land of centuries old warring tribes and religious fanatics. We are not wanted or liked over in that part of the world. We should’ve accepted that long ago and just gotten out. But no, it’s not good enough to just win a war, not that we know how to do that anymore. Progressives have that burning need to nation build.
Well… Nothing. This is not our fight. For decades progressives on both sides of the aisle in this country have envisioned some sort of odd grand world democracy. A grand collective, as it were. They refuse to see the reality that that will never be possible.
All the talking and negotiating by our pinhead politicians will amount to spit in the end. There has never been a single instance in history where talking or negotiation has ended in a lasting peace. Never has and never will.
So John Kerry has been dispatched to do what? To threaten Iraq? To publicly humiliate them? Do these morons in Washington actually think that will work? I guess they must. What would we threaten them with, talking them to death? What the hell do they care whether they’re humiliated in the eyes of the world, not that they would be. I have an idea. Mr. Kerry could threaten them with a strongly worded letter from the UN or maybe even a resolution. Ooh, scary! Talk is cheap and the United States, since Reagan left, has done virtually nothing but.
For a long time, I have thought the American State Department is the most useless entity in our government, and that’s saying something. I personally can’t name a single accomplishment of the State Department. Not one. They fly all over the world, negotiating deals, giving our money away and getting hosed in the process, repeatedly. Yet they keep coming back for more. Insane!
Maybe Secretary Kerry will throw money at the Iraqis. That always works well for us. Would they accept the bribe, with the promise that they will no longer allow it to happen? Heck I would, and they probably will too, if it is offered. Of course they won’t change anything, but they’ll be happy to take our money, which we borrowed from China or just printed at the local Bernanke Kinko’s.
I don’t know how this is going to turn out. My gut tells me that Assad, unless he is assassinated, will remain in power with the help of his despot friends and allies, Russia, Iran and who knows who else. I don’t know what will happen to the “Rebel Alliance” in Syria, made up of not freedom fighters but several different terrorist organizations. Maybe they’ll move on to attempt to overtake Jordan.
I do know, that given the Obama administrations record for backing terrorist governments like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, no matter how it turns out, America will be on the losing end.
If you want to pity anyone in this whole Syria debacle, pity the Syrian people, as you should the Egyptian people. No matter who wins, they lose.