Those On the Left Deny the Science of Climate Change

Progressives the world over have been denying the science of climate change. But why?

It is scientifically well established that planet Earth’s climate has been in a state of constant change, evolving if you will, for billions of years … billions! Here’s the shocker — it’s going to continue. We humans can and must be good stewards of our natural environment; that is not at issue. The point of contention stems from the suggestion that human beings can now, in the virtual blink of an eye, prevent climate change from happening or, at the very least, control the manner in which it unfolds. That is a form of denial. For if science tells us one thing about climate change, it is that mankind isn’t in control. Such is the domain of a higher power.

The deeper design of left-wing climate change deniers is, in fact, less about our planet than it is about our money. They hope to frighten, and thereby motivate, enough of the well-meaning, malleable masses to bring about a new world economic regime; to effectuate a massive reallocation of wealth and economic resources from nation states with more to nations states with less. Governed not by sound economic principle, but by redistributionist motives, theirs is a recipe for global catastrophe – economic and political.

The climate will take care of itself.

Advertisements

Coffee and Criminal Markings

So, I’m at my Brentwood, California coffee joint, chatting with one of my few friends who qualify as ‘hard-core lefties.’ Make no mistake, in West L.A. such characters exist in abundance. I simply spend less time with them than I used to, fascinating though they are as specimens for study.

One example, we’ll call her Gloria, is not receptive when I suggest that Hillary Clinton is most certainly a criminal. Gloria doesn’t waste time denying the obvious, well reported facts of Hillary’s email shenanigans, and the oft-repeated defense that her emails, many of which contained classified information, were not ‘marked’ classified when she received them. Gloria gets to the rub and states with a confident smirk, “In this country people are innocent until proven guilty.” And that makes me laugh.

“By your logic,” I reply, “There’s no such thing as organized crime in America. After all, there are thousands of people who have, over the years, engaged in what we call ‘organized crime.’ The vast majority of these people have never been formally charged with crimes, never brought to trial and certainly never convicted of anything. Does that mean they’re not criminals?”

At this point, Gloria can’t seem to sit still in her chair, as I continue, “Someone who commits a crime is, by definition, a criminal. A conviction merely serves to formalize their status. Kind of like giving an advanced degree to someone who’s already done all the paperwork.” Gloria, who coincidentally has a Ph.D., is now sorely tempted to look past me to see if she knows anyone standing in the ordering queue, as I garner one last sliver of her dwindling attention span. “Let me put it this way. Imagine some guy runs a crime syndicate distributing heroin, for sale in predominantly minority neighborhoods. Now, what if this crime boss gets caught by the police with a bunch of his own product in his possession? And what if he claims, ‘None of the white powder I received was ‘marked’ heroin when I received it.’ Do you think that guy would be taken seriously by anyone outside the Democrat party?”

I leave Gloria, her eyes glazed over, to order another latte.

 

Scalia’s Legacy and the Danger of Politicization

The untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls to mind his immense intellect and landmark legal opinions, as well as a great humanity appreciated by those who knew him. His life and career will impact American culture for many years to come.

From the time of his appointment by President Ronald Reagan up until now, he deftly utilized his position on the U.S. Supreme Court to establish and maintain roadblocks to progressivism’s politicization of the American judiciary. He emerged, and remained, a savior of our constitutional republic’s founding document. The significance of that legacy is already observable.

One need merely consider how liberals seek to politicize all aspects of contemporary life, even the weather — ‘global warming’ anyone? President Obama (in the fashion of a true Marxist, for whom ‘revolution’ is perpetual) has politicized the very machinations of the federal bureaucracy, such as the IRS, the EPA and the U.S. Justice Department. These institutions must function apart from political considerations for the phrase ‘Rule of Law’ to have meaning. The Obama Administration has discarded such meaning. If the rest of American society follows suit, the end of our republic is nigh.

In the hours after Justice Scalia’s death, Mr. Obama displayed his arrogance and disrespect by announcing his intent to appoint a replacement. Thus, he injected politics into the matter, before Antonin Scalia’s dead body had even been returned to Washington, DC.

Standing in stark contrast is Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence, at its heart a desire to rid the courts of political activism, and return our judiciary to the role our nation’s founders intended it to have. His successor must be one who carries the torch forward — another savior.

Is It Time to Dump Trump?

Bill Kristol makes a good point. At some point, Republican voters must come to recognize Donald Trump for the destructive blowhard that he is. Perhaps this is the moment.

It is one thing to argue that the Iraq War (an odd reference, since war was never declared, but anyhow…) has been a huge miscalculation and an awful mistake. It is quite something else for a Republican presidential candidate to state publicly and without equivocation, as has Mr. Trump, that President George W. Bush knowingly and deliberately lied about weapons of mass destruction so that he could launch an invasion of Iraq.

The public record does not support such an accusation. And Republicans who voted to elect and re-elect President Bush need to seriously vet the man currently embraced as their party’s presidential front-runner. There are, after all, ways to vent one’s frustration with the DC establishment that don’t involve clipping one’s self at the knees politically.

While Trump doesn’t approach the corruption and demagoguery of a Hillary Clinton, his caustic bombast on debate stages and his unpredictable, unfounded rhetoric on the campaign trail are negatively impacting the Republican Party. The full extent of this impact may not come to fruition for some time. But if left unchecked, the considerable damage will present itself eventually.

Republicans have better options at the ready. Trump’s candidacy, therefore, should be put to pasture. The sooner the better.

Clinton and Obama Need Each Other — An Update

The main thing standing between Hillary Clinton and a jail cell is Barack Obama.

If President Obama were to have a Special Prosecutor appointed – as well he should – to thoroughly investigate the scandals surrounding Mrs. Clinton’s State Department emails and the Clinton Foundation, that investigation would uncover more than monumentally bad judgment. It is a near certainty that criminal activity would be found as well.

The Democrat currently best positioned to protect Barack Obama’s political legacy is Hillary Clinton. If she were to become the 45th President of the United States, she would be not only inclined, but obligated – in exchange for Mr. Obama’s protection – to do all she could to continue the American decline that he has gotten so far under way.

These two Democrat power-mongers are not fond of each other. But for now, poised atop the liberal food chain, they need each other. Theirs is a decrepit alliance, born of a common lust for self-aggrandizement, a shared need for self-preservation, and a mutual disregard for the rule of law.

An FBI investigation moves forward, and a firestorm is on the verge of igniting, one that could devastate Democrats, who would in turn blame Mrs. Clinton for her monumentally, historically bad judgment and actions. The Obama Administration may no longer be looking for a way to protect Mrs. Clinton, but rather, for a way to protect the President. To shore up the firewall between him and a scandal set to consume those sucked into it.

What of the President to whom Secretary of State Clinton reported, and who stood by, perhaps knowingly, while she acted so as to compromise not only her political future, but America’s national security?

Three updates. First, there’s this, regarding Mr. Obama’s glaring conflict of interest in Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal. Second, there’s this, about a scandal ever-widening. And there’s this, regarding the cadre of Clinton colleagues whose lives and careers the former Secretary of State seems perfectly willing to have compromised.

(This column, originally published as two installments in August 2015, contains updates, noted above, to reference intervening events.) 

 

They Who Attack Republicans Forgive Obama And Hillary

A note from the largely forgotten challenge that presidential candidate Barack Obama faced, some eight years ago, regarding his spiritual mentor and pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright; the same reverend who, from his church’s pulpit, cast angry, racially charged aspersions on the United States of America.  When Rev. Wright’s comments were made public and rightly condemned, Mr. Obama spoke from Philadelphia in 2008 to defend himself and his mentor. He stated that he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the entire black community. Three weeks later, he disowned Rev. Wright, without skipping a beat, for pure political expediency.

What can be drawn from that chapter? First, if there were enough political expediency involved, Mr. Obama would disown the black community. Or second, he was not very sincere in his support of Jeremiah Wright. Either way, the speech Mr. Obama delivered from Philadelphia, the speech so lauded in 2008 by the liberal media (a.k.a. ‘mainstream media’) elite and so readily absorbed by the malleable masses, the speech credited with nothing less than saving Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign, was in fact a polished presentation of empty rhetoric, a cynical exercise in political skin-saving. Continue reading

Hillary’s Latest Excuse: I’m No Smarter Than an Eighth Grader

Hillary Clinton’s email imbroglio has gotten more serious, while her explanation has grown more preposterous. According to a new report from Fox News, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, when speaking of Clinton and the classified information found on her private email server, said that Mrs. Clinton had to have known she was dealing with classified information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such.

Rep. Pompeo stated, “There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not.” He continued, “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.” (emphasis added)

And Hillary keeps stating that none of the material on her server was marked classified, as though that were the only thing that mattered — when in fact, it is quite irrelevant. The fact that Mrs. Clinton’s security breaches placed the lives of American security personnel at risk, and necessitated changing America’s national security protocol, seems a bit more to the point.

And the New York Times has just endorsed Hillary to become the Democrat party’s nominee. I guess she’s not the only one who’s no smarter than an eighth grader.