Global Warming - part 1

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The idiocy of the political left and the assertions concerning the farce of ‘man-made climate change’ has reached perhaps its zenith in hyperbole and its nadir in reasoned intelligence on the issue.

While obviously not a constitutional issue, the debate has reached such a level of public policy that the Madison Conservative has decided to focus on the substance of the issue, and leave the histrionics to the ignorant media hacks and sycophants of the political left.

The focus of this discussion will be comments made by Secretary of State John Kerry in a speech on ‘global warming’ made recently in Jakarta. He made specific remarks that must be addressed, and should be of concern to the American people as a whole, for within his comments are the seeds of future power grabs, thus lessening freedom and democracy for all.

To wit:

Consider this bit of idiocy:

"We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact,”

coupled with this bit of political hatred 101:

sand."

"The science is unequivocal and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand”

What Mr. Kerry, the President, and the flacks at MSNBC do not seem to understand is that science is not a product of majority rules. Quality science is by definition a process in which data is examined and presented as just that – data. There is no such thing as consensus derived accepted conclusions.

As to those of us who Secretary Kerry labels as having our heads in the sand, he ignores this simple fact. The data shows that there has been an increase of approximately 1 degree Celsius in the past hundred years, and almost none in the last 15 years.

That is what the data shows. It does NOT offer any conclusions as to the cause.

The planet is roughly 4 BILLION years old, give or take a few millennia. Mr. Kerry and the administration are thus trying to extrapolate ‘man made climate change’ of a planet 4 billion years old based on a hundred years of data.

Who exactly is the ignorant one here?

Liberals attempt o paint those who maintain a scientific sensibility on the subject as ‘doubters’, and ‘flat earthers’, that we do not believe in climate change.

Actually, the opposite is true. We accept that there has been a change in the climate. That is where we stop. There is no evidence tying it to being a man made situation.

There are two questions that never seem to be asked on this subject.

#1 – How do we know that we are not merely in a thousand year, five hundred year, or three thousand year weather cycle? Again, the planet is 4 billion years old. Man has been keeping records for about a century.  There has been no proof provided that any of this is man made.

#2. If the supposedly enlightened class believes in climate change, what exactly is their goal? What exact climate are they hoping to attain? When will their job be done?

These questions are never answered, but instead we are given this taste of stupidity on how the administration views the issue of global warming:

"perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction".

Not the Iranian nuclear program, or North Korea, or the chemical weapons Syria has been stockpiling, or the worldwide campaign of terrorism.

It is incumbent on one to wonder how exactly this administration plans on controlling the ecosystem of the entire planet.

In truth, this is not about the planet, or even concern over the weather.

Next weeks’ blog will discuss what the debate over climate is truly about.

Ignorance

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

There were two unrelated news stories that came across the wires this past week that, were they not indicative of absolute ignorance on the parts of the individuals involved, would be fodder for comedians the world over.

The first article was a report on an address made by Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Here is the edited summation of her remarks, culled and confirmed from various news sources:

“We will be answering the call of all of America because people need work and we’re not doing right by them by creating work. And I believe this caucus will put us on the right path and we’ll give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength.

In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let’s write up these executive orders — draft them, of course — and ask the president to stand with us on full employment.”

Consider this for a moment. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Rep. Lee is a member of that body. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to create legislation. The Congress is the arm of government that the framers and founders bestowed with the power to write the laws under which the nation would live. The reasoning for doing so is extensive, but one pf the major reasons were to forbid power to be consolidated solely within the presidency. Rep. Lee, who has taken an oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution is gleefully expressing the hope that the president will act unilaterally, and that the Democratic caucus should help with such a Constitutional coup.

The breadth and scope of such petty political ignorance should be alarming to the American electorate.

Such stupidity must be called out before the American people.

The second article concerned a federal judge who ruled that Virginia’s law declaring that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. There has been an uproar over the decision, based upon the fact that the law was enacted after a legally held statewide ballot vote. There are many on the political right who believe that a federal judge should not be able to overturn the results of a fair ballot election.

That is a fair enough argument, but that is not what immediately concerns the Madison Conservative, although this issue will indeed be discussed at a later date.

What IS of concern, and should worry the people of this judges’ jurisdiction is to be found in her written decision. (you can read the entire opinion handed down today here.:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/edva-ssm-opinion.pdf)

Herein is the pertinent part of Judge Arenda Wright Allen’s decision:

"Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal. Surely this means all of us," Judge Allen wrote on the first page of her opinion.

A fine sentiment coming from a FEDERAL judge, invoking the words of the framers and founders in explaining her decision to vacate the will of the Virginia electorate.

The problem?

The Constitution doe NOT declare that all men are created equal, despite what the judge may believe.

The document that includes that phrase is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. The Declaration is to be treasured as an integral part of American democracy, but it DOES NOT have any weight in the context of delineating the protections of the people from the government.

A federal judge making such a mistake should not be sitting on the bench, and should absolutely not be deciding issues of such magnitude.

The American people must demand better, and accept nothing less than the best from our judiciary and our elected officials.

The Presidential Pen

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

It appears that President Obama was indeed serious about his using executive power to enact policies he has decided are what he wants to do, without all of the messy details of Congress and the United States Constitution.

What is troubling above and beyond that reality is what he has chosen as his first action on that promise.

You may read it, in its entirety from the Federal Register here.

In quick and cursory summation, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department now say that people considered to have provided "limited material support" to terrorists or terrorist groups are no longer automatically barred from the United States.

Here is the pertinent excerpt, with the emphasis that of the Madison Conservative:

Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that the grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided limited material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb),

There are many within the body politic, primarily on the republican right, who are hyperventilating on how the President, by taking this unilateral action, is somehow aiding and abetting the easy access to this nation by terrorists.

That could be understood as a valid interpretation, but it would be wrong.

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to consider the lessons of history.

To wit:

Almost 70 years ago, General George S. Paton employed former members of the Nazi party to aid in the management of Germany as it attempted to rebuild in the aftermath of the Second World War. His reasoning was that they understood their own country and its particular needs, and membership in the Nazi party was a requirement of the citizenry. He saw no difference between being a forced member of the Nazi party and an American being a registered Republican or Democrat. His reasoning cost him his command, and surely he had not fully thought out his remarks on the subject.

All that being duly noted, the issue here is an individuals personal history, and what the may or may not have done in their native land that could be properly interpreted as being the actions of one who is ‘Anti-American’, and part of an organization labeled by our government as a terrorist organization.

There is a fine line distinction here that must be addressed, but sadly the President, in his solipsistic arrogance, has chosen to ignore for whatever his intentions may be.

Each immigrant should be judged on their own merit within the framework of established norms and basic common sense

President Obama has actually made that option more difficult for all future immigrants by unilaterally taking this executive action.

The Congress will no doubt reflexively attempt to expand the lack of common sense in the immigration process and thus create more individuals here who linger in a grey legal state.

If this was to be his first action on using ‘his pen and his phone’, the nation would have been much better served if he had spoken of this issue at greater length and in depth during his State of the Union speech, making his case in such a way that the Congress would have passed appropriate language changing the law within the framework of the Constitution.

His heavy handed approach serves no ones best interest but his own political short sighted needs.

America and her citizenry deserve better and must demand it.

State of the Union Review

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

In the aftermath of President Obama’s State of the Union address this past Tuesday, there was wide agreement across all political lines that the speech fell flat, and was a mostly tired rehash of previously stated goals that have so far proven fruitless. He generally kept his concepts and ideas to a dull finish, choosing not to inspire the nation, but rather to bore them with what they have already heard, and rejected, before.

Those opinions being proffered notwithstanding, there were several passages that should concern the American electorate, and given the absence of their acknowledgement in the mass media, the Madison Conservative would ask your indulgence while those points are addressed herein.

Please note – all quoted passages come from the officially released transcript, authorized for release by the White House.

In no particular order, let the evaluation and commentary begin.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better.  But average wages have barely budged.  Inequality has deepened.  Upward mobility has stalled.  The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by - let alone get ahead.  And too many still aren't working at all.

Our job is to reverse these trends.  It won't happen right away, and we won't agree on everything.  But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class.  Some require Congressional action, and I'm eager to work with all of you.  But America does not stand still - and neither will I.  So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do.

In effect, what President Obama has delineated here is that if the Congress does not do his bidding on his terms, he will deem them to be obstructionist and act on his own authority. This is in effect a coup on the United States Constitution. Of course, the reality is that any actions the President may undertake by executive order can be easily undone by any subsequent administration. It is troubling however that President Obama is making the case for dictatorial powers based upon his singular view of what is needed, and that his sole opinion is right and correct.

This concept is known as tyranny.

Tonight, I ask more of America's business leaders to follow John's lead and do what you can to raise your employees' wages.  To every mayor, governor, and state legislator in America, I say, you don't have to wait for Congress to act; Americans will support you if you take this on.  And as a chief executive, I intend to lead by example. Profitable corporations like Costco see higher wages as the smart way to boost productivity and reduce turnover. We should too.  In the coming weeks, I will issue an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour - because if you cook our troops' meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn't have to live in poverty.

Of course, to reach millions more, Congress needs to get on board. Today, the federal minimum wage is worth about twenty percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here.  Tom Harkin and George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10.  This will help families.  It will give businesses customers with more money to spend.  It doesn't involve any new bureaucratic program.  So join the rest of the country.  Say yes.  Give America a raise.

Following up on the previous statements, what President Obama and the political left are declaring here is an abandonment of the capitalist system. On one hand he professes to believe that every American should be given an fair opportunity to succeed, based upon their own merits. In this paragraph, he is attempting to convey to private industry and business to act as the government wishes, business realities and principles notwithstanding. The concern here is what third world dictators try all the time – to nationalize industry under governmental control, based upon the argument that it is in the national good. A President willing to discard the fundamental tenets of capitalism is a dangerous ploy to democracy.

These negotiations will be difficult.  They may not succeed.  We are clear-eyed about Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies; and the mistrust between our nations cannot be wished away.  But these negotiations do not rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb.  If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible.  But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it.  For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.  If Iran's leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.  But if Iran's leaders do seize the chance, then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war.

The naiveté demonstrated here is breathtaking and dangerous. The President is discussing the current negotiations with Iran. It is perplexing and causes one to wonder what policy he is pursuing when he chiders his government and announces his position in public so that Iran can easily digest his remarks and gauge his determination and political fortitude.

America has never come easy.  Our freedom, our democracy, has never been easy.  Sometimes we stumble; we make mistakes; we get frustrated or discouraged.  But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress - to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice, and fairness, and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen.  The America we want for our kids - a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us - none of it is easy.  But if we work together; if we summon what is best in us, with our feet planted firmly in today but our eyes cast towards tomorrow - I know it's within our reach.

Simply put, there is absolutely no quantification within the United States Constitution that delineates exactly what ‘fair’ is. The President continually expounds on ‘fairness’ as if it is an actual attainable goal. It is not – the equal opportunity to succeed to ones own choosing is what is guaranteed to us by the founders and their construct of our governing documents. The President needs to re=evaluate his comments on ‘fairness’ – they diminish the office and the nation.

.  That's why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.  The shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way.  But the debate is settled.  Climate change is a fact.  And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.

The ignorance exhibited by the President and the political left on what is euphemistically called ‘climate change’ is truly alarming. The liberal media sycophants continually make their case that there ‘is a consensus of scientists that agree there is global warming’.

For them and for the President, here is a Science 101 primer:

There is NEVER any such nonsense as a ‘consensus’ in science – there is either proven theory, or theory. Majority does not rule in science – empirical data does.

The America people deserve better that what was presented to them this past Tuesday.