Monday, June 23, 2008

Unglued Idiot of the Day – James Hansen of NASA

Unglued Idiot of the Day – James Hansen: Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

According to The Guardian, June 23, 2008:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Having just awarded Lou Dobbs an Unglued Idiot of the Day award for June 19, I now find James Hansen using similar language calling for placing oil company executives on trial as Mr. Dobbs did in calling for President Bush to be impeached for allowing the tomato salmonella outbreak.

As was the case with Mr. Dobbs, Mr. Hansen has not identified a law that was violated by the executives, since in fact none exist, but simply declares that they have committed “high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Mr. Dobbs alleged that President Bush had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the only grounds available to support impeachment (unless a salmonella outbreak falls under treason or bribery).

Once again, liberals show either monumental ignorance or disdain for the rule of law. Mr. Hansen, you cannot make up laws to punish legal acts after the fact.

In fact, Article One, Section 9, of our Constitution specifically prohibits our government to establish ex post facto laws.

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "After The Fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.

Mr. Hansen, not only are there no laws on the books that would provide for prosecution of oil company executives, there are no injuries to serve as a basis for prosecutions. Of course, the only way such laws could exist is if the First Amendment were suspended enabling laws to be passed making disagreement about man-caused global warming a punishable crime.

Mr. Hansen, why single out oil company executives for punishment when there are over 31,000 scientists who also are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming? Isn’t that selective prosecution?

Of course, if it’s being influential that counts, why not prosecute longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Ok.? He stated, "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it." Then Senator Inhofe cited a recent poll proving his point. (The British don't believe it either.)
Or how about Michael Crichton, whose novel “State of Fear” exposed the fallacies of blaming climate change on mankind’s activities?

Or the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman? He's "highly critical of global warming alarmism."

Or how about prosecuting me? Unlike many of the other skeptics, I and my blog would welcome the publicity.

Quick, before someone shows you a copy of the Constitution, swear out charges against me!

Pretty please.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Unglued Idiot of the Day Award to Lou Dobbs - Impeach President for Salmonella Outbreak

Impeachment for Salmonella Outbreaks?

The Unglued Idiot of the Day Award for June 19, 2008 is given to Lou Dobbs for his statement on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that President Bush should be impeached for the tomato salmonella outbreak.

Thanks to the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode, almost all Americans, with the apparent exception of Lou Dobbs, are familiar with our Constitutional grounds for impeachment.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

According to Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership is in a 'sorry condition' and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' is 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'

Since it does not seem Mr. Dobbs considers the salmonella outbreak to be a result of treason or bribery, that leaves him using the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor as the grounds for impeachment. With Bill Clinton it was very easy to see that laws – perjury and obstruction of justice – were violated, and that crimes were committed. Although Clinton confessed his perjury and obstruction of justice, he was not convicted. However, his violations of law resulted in Clinton ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state's bar officials and his Arkansas law license suspended for five years. In addition, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.

Mr. Dobbs, what laws did President Bush violate that resulted in the tomato salmonella outbreak?

Mr. Dobbs, if salmonella outbreaks were grounds for impeachment, there would not be one president spared. A bit of Googling shows that salmonella outbreaks have occurred in many forms for many years during all presidential administrations, and many were far more serious than this recent one.

The worst occurred in 1986 and involved low-fat milk in Chicago. I suppose this would inspire you to call for the impeachment of President Reagan, since 16,284 persons were known victims, and five died, compared to the 383 sickened by tomato-carried salmonella, and the cancer patient who died. However, the problem was the responsibility of the State of Illinois, not the Federal Government.

Contamination of chickens by salmonella was 20 percent during the latter years of the Clinton presidency, and has been reduced steadily since. Of course you know, Mr. Dobbs, that salmonella outbreaks have usually been blamed on chickens and eggs, and that a virulent strain of drug-resistant salmonella developed during the Clinton administration.

Apparently, Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership was in a 'sorry condition' then, too, and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' was 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'

You must agree that this should have been added to Clinton’s impeachment charges. Consistency would require it, don’t you think?

Thursday, June 19, 2008

John Murtha, Democrat Tool and Marine Disgrace

John Murtha, the closest thing the Democrats have to a military expert (I noted two years ago that as dumb as he is, Murtha's still the best Democrat military mind), once again makes me wonder how this fat, disloyal, politically opportunistic loudmouth can claim to be a Marine (or to even claim a military background). Marines who served with Murtha in Vietnam have questioned his Purple Heart awards for decades, and noted that his military record has improved over time.

He and Democrats don’t believe in giving military accused the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Apparently they reserve that for unlawful combatants and fugitives like Marc Rich (who donated lavishly to Democrats’ campaigns and the Clinton Library), but not for the men and women serving our country. (As I noted two years and one week ago, Haditha Marines are Innocent)

Democrats give unlawful combatants captured with weapons while attacking Americans the presumption of innocence and the right to protection under the Geneva Conventions (which unlawful combatants don’t subscribe to or follow), but don’t give the same to United States military members placed in harm's way and operating under lawful orders and rules of engagement.

Soon Murtha will be challenged by another Marine, Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani. Murtha said that Marines at Haditha, had killed civilians “in cold blood.” However, all charges against Lt. Col. Chessani have been dismissed, and the other Marines charged have been exonerated. Now Lt. Col. Chessani is preparing to sue Murtha for his intemperate words and rush to judgment.

It is also painfully obvious that the charges against the Marines at Haditha were politically motivated, and that the Main Stream Media were complicit in smearing the Marines. Fortunately for the Marines involved, a video recording had been made of the firefight at Haditha, and it clearly showed that the Marines had come under attack and were responding to insurgents (terrorists), who used civilians for cover (in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which mean diddley squat to terrorists because they are not, nor can they ever be, a party to the Geneva Conventions).

However, with Democrat tools like Murtha at their backs, Marines get ambushed in Iraq, and then in the halls of Congress.

When asked if he was going to apologize to the Marines, Murtha answered: "The trial's not over."

Yes it is, and if you had any sense of justice and honor, you would apologize, Congressman Murtha.

But if you had any sense of justice and honor, you would never have slandered these Marines before they had a chance to tell their side of the story.

John Murtha, you make a sad-sack Marine, but you're a perfect fit for a Democrat.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Weather Experts Challenge Al Gore

Here is the latest of many debunkings of man-caused global warming by emminent weather experts, in this case the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman. As he notes, he is not alone, since thousands of scientists (Thirty-one thousand, of which 9,000 are Ph.ds) have been listed who refute man-caused global warming.

I'm still on the road, so I'll do more on this later. However, I note desperation in the Al Gore acolytes, and Al has not accepted any of the many offers of debate on the issue.

Al, debate me, and I'll clean up on you. I will speak with no notes, no slides, and no assistants, and you will be toast.

I'll even tell you what my main points will be: previous periods of natural climate change, in particular the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the 400-foot rise in sea levels since the end of the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago. Vineyands in Merrie Olde England, and all like that.

Bring it on, Al!