In 2003 newspaper columnist Robert Novak wrote his now infamous "Mission to Niger" (published on July 14, 2003) in which he mentioned an allegedly failed attempt by Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium reported by the husband of a (not so) secret CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and mentioned her by name.
Mrs. Wilson's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, stated in a number of interviews and in subsequent writings (as listed in his 2004 memoir The Politics of Truth) that members of President George W. Bush's administration revealed Mrs. Wilson's covert status as retribution for his op-ed entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003. In addition, after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson wrote a series of other op-eds questioning the war's factual basis (See "Bibliography" in The Politics of Truth). In one of these op-eds published in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, Wilson says that, in the State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush misrepresented intelligence leading up to the invasion and thus misleadingly suggested that the Iraqi regime sought uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.
After the initial Novak column, fueled by Democrats, a sycophantic news media proceeded to make the matter a public spectacle for years. A special investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to lead an investigation (which eventually would cost $2.58 million) and he convened a grand jury. Despite revelation to the special investigator that the actual leaker of the name of this secret CIA “operative” (Richard Armitage) in only a few days, Fitzgerald managed to keep the investigation going thereby extending his 15 minutes of fame for years. The CIA leak grand jury investigation did not result in the indictment or conviction of anyone for any crime in connection with the leak itself; however, I. Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators on October 28, 2005( Libby resigned hours after the indictment).
The amazing thing about this incident, in addition to the obvious miscarriage of justice, is that at the root of the controversy was an erroneous report by Valerie Plame’s husband. Joseph Wilson, who parlayed his report into a public scandal with the help Democrats, the ever-investigative Fitzgerald and the Democrat Party house organs, has been proven to be totally wrong. Those who harped on the Bush administration and its members for both the “leak” and for going to war in Iraq despite a supposed lack of evidence of a nuclear program by Iraq’s monstrous dictator and his sons should by all rights be made to suffer the same indignities visited upon President Bush, Vice President Cheney, their aides and especially, Lewis Libby.
Today we know that Iraq did possess 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” – the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment. The effort to topple Hussein and cause regime change was indeed necessary to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. We know this because it has been revealed, albeit without the fanfare of the earlier “scandal”, that this huge stockpile of concentrated uranium, a remnant of Hussein’ nuclear program, was removed from Iraq and shipped to a buyer in Canada. It should be a great relief to the world to know that Hussein was not given enough time to further develop his nuclear program because President Bush defied his critics and took action to abort this threat.
To those unfamiliar with “yellowcake”, it is a concentrated form of uranium resulting from early stages of uranium ore processing. Although yellowcake is not considered potent enough for a nuclear bomb or for a so-called “dirty bomb” – “a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material” – it is a very dangerous material in the wrong hands. Yellowcake can be enriched for use in nuclear reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons.
Of course, as was the case with Caesar, “The evil that men do (in the eyes of their critics) live after them but the good is (“oft”) interred with their souls”. Bush continues to be maligned by his liberal and appeasement minded critics, and too many Americans as well, for taking preemptive action to cancel this threat. We can only wonder what critics and opponents would say if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to continue and developed a nuclear weapon of mass destruction and made it available to world terrorists; at least those of them who would still be alive following a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States?
(This article has been reprinted in the American Thinker, www.americanthinker.com)
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
It is our duty to inform everyone about the real Barack Hussein Obama
Not long ago liberal columnist Maureen Dowd learned not to criticize Barack Hussein Obama’s ears. This was just an early warning to news reporters, the entire news media and ultimately to politically correct opponents of Obama’s election as president, not to say anything negative about BHO. Sadly, the caution was observed so it is difficult to find any criticism of BHO anywhere other than on radio’s answer to the biased reporting by all three national TV networks and the tax-payer funded Public Broadcasting System. Worst of all, BHO’s opponent John McCain has also eschewed all comments by his campaign that call attention to the negative aspects of BHO himself, his judgment and his socialist political policies.
Without public criticism of his inexperience, poor judgment in choice of friends and advisors, and other negatives, the public is left only with carefully scripted campaign remarks and appealing words spoken from behind a teleprompter. The real BHO is a well kept secret so as to not reveal who BHO is and what he thinks lest the public get onto him before they cast their votes.
Although not made known very much by his opponent and certainly not by his supportive news media, here are some of the votes cast by BHO during his 123 days he was actually present in the senate chambers and available to act as an elected senator (as found on the web) and some other important facts:
"ABORTION
* He voted against banning partial birth abortion
* He supports abortion on demand
* He voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY
* He opposed the Patriot Act.
* He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and, worse, without preconditions
* He voted YES on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees
* He has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations
* He has publicly vowed to cut-and-run in Iraq. (Though he now says it may take a few more months)
* Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
SECOND AMENDMENT
* He voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
* He supports banning gun ownership.
TAXES, SOCIAL SECURITY, HEALTH-CARE AND MINIMUM SALARY
* He voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
* He voted NO on repealing the 'Death' Tax.
* He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
* He opposes any efforts to Privatize Social Security, which other countries -- e.g., such as Chile -- have successfully done (read about a simple plan for individual investment retirement accounts at www.RiseUpAmerica.net). He instead supports increasing the amount of the FICA tax, the money-tree of the Ponzi scheme called Social Security
* He supports socialized universal health care.
* He wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage."
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
* He supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants
* He supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants
* He voted YES on "comprehensive immigration reform," a codeword for amnesty
* He voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
DISCRIMINATION
* He supports reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
* He associates himself with prominent bigot racists such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
PARTISANSHIP
* He voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes
* He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing
* Whatever bill he signed was so radically leftist that the first one that was passed was campaign finance reform
ILLEGAL DRUG USE
* He questioned, in 2001, harsh penalties for drug dealing
* He says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum-wage issue
* He admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college."
Since BHO’s wife Michelle Obama has injected herself into the campaign; there is no reason to ignore what she says and advocates. She is a tough person, no shrinking violet, and deserves full public exposure too.
We must spread the word about BHO; John McCain won’t do it and the news media wants BHO to win; it is our responsibility, you and I, to make BHO known as he really is to all voters. McCain is no great shakes but BHO and a Democrat legislature will change America, as BHO promises, but into a socialistic government controlled country and the changes may not be reversible.
To get the continuing low down on BHO, visit these sites regularly:
www.AgainstObama.com and www.SlickBarry.com.
Without public criticism of his inexperience, poor judgment in choice of friends and advisors, and other negatives, the public is left only with carefully scripted campaign remarks and appealing words spoken from behind a teleprompter. The real BHO is a well kept secret so as to not reveal who BHO is and what he thinks lest the public get onto him before they cast their votes.
Although not made known very much by his opponent and certainly not by his supportive news media, here are some of the votes cast by BHO during his 123 days he was actually present in the senate chambers and available to act as an elected senator (as found on the web) and some other important facts:
"ABORTION
* He voted against banning partial birth abortion
* He supports abortion on demand
* He voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY
* He opposed the Patriot Act.
* He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and, worse, without preconditions
* He voted YES on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees
* He has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations
* He has publicly vowed to cut-and-run in Iraq. (Though he now says it may take a few more months)
* Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
SECOND AMENDMENT
* He voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
* He supports banning gun ownership.
TAXES, SOCIAL SECURITY, HEALTH-CARE AND MINIMUM SALARY
* He voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
* He voted NO on repealing the 'Death' Tax.
* He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
* He opposes any efforts to Privatize Social Security, which other countries -- e.g., such as Chile -- have successfully done (read about a simple plan for individual investment retirement accounts at www.RiseUpAmerica.net). He instead supports increasing the amount of the FICA tax, the money-tree of the Ponzi scheme called Social Security
* He supports socialized universal health care.
* He wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage."
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
* He supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants
* He supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants
* He voted YES on "comprehensive immigration reform," a codeword for amnesty
* He voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
DISCRIMINATION
* He supports reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
* He associates himself with prominent bigot racists such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
PARTISANSHIP
* He voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes
* He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing
* Whatever bill he signed was so radically leftist that the first one that was passed was campaign finance reform
ILLEGAL DRUG USE
* He questioned, in 2001, harsh penalties for drug dealing
* He says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum-wage issue
* He admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college."
Since BHO’s wife Michelle Obama has injected herself into the campaign; there is no reason to ignore what she says and advocates. She is a tough person, no shrinking violet, and deserves full public exposure too.
We must spread the word about BHO; John McCain won’t do it and the news media wants BHO to win; it is our responsibility, you and I, to make BHO known as he really is to all voters. McCain is no great shakes but BHO and a Democrat legislature will change America, as BHO promises, but into a socialistic government controlled country and the changes may not be reversible.
To get the continuing low down on BHO, visit these sites regularly:
www.AgainstObama.com and www.SlickBarry.com.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Independence Day
Today's national holiday is an opportunity for some mid-summer recreation but it is also an occasion to remember the origins of our nation. As Father Mathew Monnig said:
"While some modern historians reduce all history to power and economics, it is difficult to read the Declaration of Independence and not recognize its writers as men of principle and deep faith, who possessed the courage to act upon ideas they knew to be true. These men were not relativists, but knew that truth could be known because it comes from God, and that certain truths require action and sacrifice. They realized that the truth that man is created by God with certain inalienable rights actually had the power to protect him from the self-interested manipulations of power and economics."
Truth has consequences. It can spur action and sacrifice. It has the ability to protect the weak and establish freedom, justice, and peace. When the very possibility of truth is weakened, we imperil the foundations of our nation. On this national holiday, I hope we all remember that we owe our freedom and prosperity to the power of truth, and commit ourselves to the service of that truth in both our public and private lives.
On July 4, 1800, Daniel Webster delivered an address in Hanover, New Hampshire at the age of 18 while he was a student at Dartmouth College. As I contemplate the two men from whom we must select our next president I am reminded about what young Daniel Webster said on that day as he reflected on the leadership of our country:
"With hearts penetrated by unutterable grief, we are constrained to ask, where is our Washington? Where the hero, who led us to victory – where the man, who gave us freedom? Where is he, who headed our feeble army, when destruction threatened us, who came upon our enemies like storms of winter and scattered the m like leaves before the Borean blast? Where, O my country is thy political savior? Where, O humanity, thy favorite son?"
Webster was evidently worried that we would not have leaders of our country in the future who compared with George Washington and the few who followed him. If he were here today, Webster may well have at least the same level of concern for the future of the country; for me, I have even more concern because I believe our country is threatened as never before. Both Barack Obama and John McCain want us rushing head long down the path to socialism and government control of virtually all aspects of our lives. Obama is likely doing this intentionally and McCain’s direction is likely out of sheer ignorance; but, unfortunately the result will be the same.
McCain is clearly the lesser of the evils because his ignorance of what is good for the country does not extend to deliberate over taxation as Obama and McCain has a better understanding of the need to not lose the war in Iraq, but in respect of domestic policies leading toward greater government control, he is on the same page with the socialist.
How likely is it that these two candidates or any in public office today, would say as our founders did in the Declaration of Independence, and would mean it:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
- Concluding sentence of the Declaration of Independence, 1776
"While some modern historians reduce all history to power and economics, it is difficult to read the Declaration of Independence and not recognize its writers as men of principle and deep faith, who possessed the courage to act upon ideas they knew to be true. These men were not relativists, but knew that truth could be known because it comes from God, and that certain truths require action and sacrifice. They realized that the truth that man is created by God with certain inalienable rights actually had the power to protect him from the self-interested manipulations of power and economics."
Truth has consequences. It can spur action and sacrifice. It has the ability to protect the weak and establish freedom, justice, and peace. When the very possibility of truth is weakened, we imperil the foundations of our nation. On this national holiday, I hope we all remember that we owe our freedom and prosperity to the power of truth, and commit ourselves to the service of that truth in both our public and private lives.
On July 4, 1800, Daniel Webster delivered an address in Hanover, New Hampshire at the age of 18 while he was a student at Dartmouth College. As I contemplate the two men from whom we must select our next president I am reminded about what young Daniel Webster said on that day as he reflected on the leadership of our country:
"With hearts penetrated by unutterable grief, we are constrained to ask, where is our Washington? Where the hero, who led us to victory – where the man, who gave us freedom? Where is he, who headed our feeble army, when destruction threatened us, who came upon our enemies like storms of winter and scattered the m like leaves before the Borean blast? Where, O my country is thy political savior? Where, O humanity, thy favorite son?"
Webster was evidently worried that we would not have leaders of our country in the future who compared with George Washington and the few who followed him. If he were here today, Webster may well have at least the same level of concern for the future of the country; for me, I have even more concern because I believe our country is threatened as never before. Both Barack Obama and John McCain want us rushing head long down the path to socialism and government control of virtually all aspects of our lives. Obama is likely doing this intentionally and McCain’s direction is likely out of sheer ignorance; but, unfortunately the result will be the same.
McCain is clearly the lesser of the evils because his ignorance of what is good for the country does not extend to deliberate over taxation as Obama and McCain has a better understanding of the need to not lose the war in Iraq, but in respect of domestic policies leading toward greater government control, he is on the same page with the socialist.
How likely is it that these two candidates or any in public office today, would say as our founders did in the Declaration of Independence, and would mean it:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
- Concluding sentence of the Declaration of Independence, 1776
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
“Because we have too much …”
If there is ever an example of the saying “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up”, it is global warming – and the belief our behavior causes it.
Real world scientific evidence shows that the temperature on earth is actually about the same now as in 1988, despite the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from developing nations and the rest of the world. I wish I could include an illustration in this blog of a graph that demonstrates this dramatically; however the graph is on the Daily Tech website for those who want to see it.
The graph and accompanying report show that not only is current world temperature essentially the same as in 1988, but after peaking in 1998, the temperature decreased abruptly and significantly between January 2007 and January 2008 – a decrease of 6.2%. Imagine, in one year alone the average temperature declined over 6% and dropped still more from the 1998 peak – about 10% - yet global warming acolytes want us to believe that we are causing climate change.
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time; it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
In some respects it would be good if we have global warming rather than global cooling; historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling periods such as the Little Ice Age were always bad news.
Evidence is mounting that climate change on earth is due to the sun and the presence or absence of sun spots. Historically the number of sun spots increase and decrease in cycles from many to none. However we are now in a prolonged period without any spots and as a result scientists believe we are going through a period of global cooling. Global cooling is what eventually led to the “little ice age” and very likely to longer significant ice ages of the past.
In fact some scientists are very concerned about this possibility. Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. “Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a ‘Maunder Minimum,’ along with the start of what we now call the ‘Little Ice Age.’”
Dr. Tapping has impressive credentials; he is a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council and oversees a giant radio telescope; he says “if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.”
During the Little Ice Age, after temperatures fell remarkably, New York harbor froze solid and hard enough to permit people to walk from borough to borough – Manhattan to Staten Island. In Norway glaciers grew 100 meters a year and destroyed farms and villages.
Russians who experience mighty cold winters pay close attention to possibilities of global cooling. Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted in 2005 the sun would soon peak and would initiate a rapid decline in world temperatures. Recently Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, also said much the same thing and advised the world “to stock up on fur coats.” Sorokhtin, says man's contribution to climate change is "a drop in the bucket," and predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting untill 2100 or beyond – so much for global warming.
Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, is also concerned about global cooling. Patterson says he found "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations; a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet.”
A belief that the sun is mainly responsible for climate changes on earth goes back to 1991, at least. At that time the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. The prestigious Max Planck Institute released a study in 2004 which reported finding a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes. Nonetheless, what they considered “too small” is the same amount of change alleged by global warming proponents to conclude climate change caused by human behavior is producing “global warming.”
Continued work at DMI discovered what they believe to be the link between temperature change and the sun. They say "... a key factor is change in the sun's magnetosphere - a stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as 'seeds' for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off." The sun’s magnetosphere is driven by sun spots; the presence and number of which affect cosmic ray intensity.
This correlation has been additionally reported by Henrik Svensmark, lead researcher at the Danish National Space Center who confirms the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation by experiments in a cloud chamber called "SKY" at the Center.
Even the evangelical preacher of global warming, Drew Shindell, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space, has expressed some concern that the theories used to support the human involvement with global warming may be doubted; Swindell says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.
Of course to those global warming proponents the facts do not interfere with their sermons; which leads one to believe that a concern for the planet is not the basis for insistence on changing the United States and how Americans live. They have a different and more ominous agenda; taking down our country to the level of less successful societies because “we have too much.”
Real world scientific evidence shows that the temperature on earth is actually about the same now as in 1988, despite the increase in carbon dioxide emissions from developing nations and the rest of the world. I wish I could include an illustration in this blog of a graph that demonstrates this dramatically; however the graph is on the Daily Tech website for those who want to see it.
The graph and accompanying report show that not only is current world temperature essentially the same as in 1988, but after peaking in 1998, the temperature decreased abruptly and significantly between January 2007 and January 2008 – a decrease of 6.2%. Imagine, in one year alone the average temperature declined over 6% and dropped still more from the 1998 peak – about 10% - yet global warming acolytes want us to believe that we are causing climate change.
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time; it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
In some respects it would be good if we have global warming rather than global cooling; historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling periods such as the Little Ice Age were always bad news.
Evidence is mounting that climate change on earth is due to the sun and the presence or absence of sun spots. Historically the number of sun spots increase and decrease in cycles from many to none. However we are now in a prolonged period without any spots and as a result scientists believe we are going through a period of global cooling. Global cooling is what eventually led to the “little ice age” and very likely to longer significant ice ages of the past.
In fact some scientists are very concerned about this possibility. Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. “Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a ‘Maunder Minimum,’ along with the start of what we now call the ‘Little Ice Age.’”
Dr. Tapping has impressive credentials; he is a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council and oversees a giant radio telescope; he says “if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.”
During the Little Ice Age, after temperatures fell remarkably, New York harbor froze solid and hard enough to permit people to walk from borough to borough – Manhattan to Staten Island. In Norway glaciers grew 100 meters a year and destroyed farms and villages.
Russians who experience mighty cold winters pay close attention to possibilities of global cooling. Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted in 2005 the sun would soon peak and would initiate a rapid decline in world temperatures. Recently Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, also said much the same thing and advised the world “to stock up on fur coats.” Sorokhtin, says man's contribution to climate change is "a drop in the bucket," and predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting untill 2100 or beyond – so much for global warming.
Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, is also concerned about global cooling. Patterson says he found "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations; a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet.”
A belief that the sun is mainly responsible for climate changes on earth goes back to 1991, at least. At that time the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. The prestigious Max Planck Institute released a study in 2004 which reported finding a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes. Nonetheless, what they considered “too small” is the same amount of change alleged by global warming proponents to conclude climate change caused by human behavior is producing “global warming.”
Continued work at DMI discovered what they believe to be the link between temperature change and the sun. They say "... a key factor is change in the sun's magnetosphere - a stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as 'seeds' for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off." The sun’s magnetosphere is driven by sun spots; the presence and number of which affect cosmic ray intensity.
This correlation has been additionally reported by Henrik Svensmark, lead researcher at the Danish National Space Center who confirms the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation by experiments in a cloud chamber called "SKY" at the Center.
Even the evangelical preacher of global warming, Drew Shindell, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space, has expressed some concern that the theories used to support the human involvement with global warming may be doubted; Swindell says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.
Of course to those global warming proponents the facts do not interfere with their sermons; which leads one to believe that a concern for the planet is not the basis for insistence on changing the United States and how Americans live. They have a different and more ominous agenda; taking down our country to the level of less successful societies because “we have too much.”
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Democrats create boogeyman to blame for raising oil prices
In the last ten years the price of oil has gone up tenfold but the price of gas is up from $1 a gallon to $4 and the cost of oil is the biggest part of the price of gas. Adjusted for inflation, the average price of unleaded gas had been relatively stable at around $2 a gallon for nearly twenty years and the price of oil adjusted for inflation also had been more or less stable at about $30 a barrel from 1986 to the run up during the last few years.
What is responsible for the present price; here is what makes up the price of gasoline at the pumps:
Oil - 75%
Refining - 10%, a necessary cost factor that can’t be eliminated
Distribution, etc. - 5%, to get the gas to the pumps
Taxes - 10%, about 40 cents of $4 gas is taxes
All businesses in the chain, refiners, distributors, convenience stores, etc. are being squeezed in the process of enabling consumers to buy gas (Exxon is actually getting out of the service station business!).
With oil prices skyrocketing Chevron and Exxon should be making outrageous profit margins, right? So Democrats want to tax those "windfall" profits. But lets look at the reality:
From March 2007 to March 2008, Exxon's profit margin was just 10%. Meanwhile, its income tax rate was about 43%.
But when compared with the profit Microsoft made, oil company profits are relatively modest – the Microsoft's profit margin was over 28% and Microsoft's tax rate was under 30%.
Microsoft makes a greater profit margin than Exxon and it's taxed considerably less. Perhaps if anyone deserves an "excess profits tax," it's Microsoft, not Exxon. Yet no one has suggested taxing the "windfall" profits of the software giant. Actually, considering the economic definition of "windfall profits" – that being reaping a profit with no participation in the business – it is the government that enjoys "windfall profits."
Unfortunately right now people just want to hear that the government is doing something to fix high gas prices. Many people naively believe the gas stations and Big Oil companies like Exxon are gouging them.
But as you can see, calling for a windfall tax on "Big Oil" is a pretty dumb idea.
Another villain in the oil story according to Democrats is the "speculator". But are speculators the reason oil prices go up?
When we bet on a sporting event we do it because we think one team will win over the other or at least beat the ‘spread’. When we buy stock on the market we do it because we think the stock price will go up. When people buy or sell short commodities on the futures market they are betting that the price will go up or down before they have to deliver the commodity. Do these people affect the price or are they simply trying to profit from their judgment of the outcome?
Why do we think it’s any different for oil speculators?
Politicians in government read the pulse of the public and right now the pulse is racing about gas prices. Can the Democrats say that they are responsible for higher fuel prices, of course not! So there has to be a boogeyman out there to be blamed. First they call the oil company executives to the carpet to justify their "windfall" profits, which by any definition are not "windfalls" anyway, and like spectators at gladiator matches the public is satisfied to know that big bad oil companies are to blame because their congressman and senators tell them so. It’s easy to agree because - "look at the huge profits they make."
As gas prices go up, and maybe some people start to believe oil companies may not be responsible (look at what makes up the price of gas at the pump), then attention must be turned to the mysterious "oil speculators", all the while knowing that it is really the Democrats who don’t want to increase our supply of oil who are the real villains in the story. But the reality is again that this is not the case anymore than those speculating that the price of wheat or corn will change in one direction or the other are responsible for the changing, i.e. increasing, the price of that commodity at the moment. If this were the case, then you would have to say that a while ago when Hillary Clinton made a 2,000% profit on futures trading, she was responsible for the price of beef or whatever it was she was speculating in.
If those representing us really did understand the oil markets, they would know that the true sign of a speculative influence is not increasing trading volumes but rising oil inventories. Speculators would be hoarding oil - building up inventories either in anticipation of higher prices or as part of a scheme to drive prices. Yet according to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil inventories are now at below-average levels. U.S. oil stocks stand at 309 million barrels, versus 330 million in June 2005. In reality it is the oil producer that affects the market more by increasing or decreasing the supply of oil available on the market.
Condemning futures traders is probably good politics, but it's an ignorant public policy. The only way to lower prices at the pump is by increasing the supply of oil; the law of supply and demand never fails if let alone.
Without speculators willing to take both sides of futures contracts, oil refiners and other end-users might be inclined to store more oil as a hedge against further price increases and this would further increase buying on the spot-market. Any increased demand when oil supplies are decreased by building inventories obviously leads to even higher oil and gasoline prices.
A basic misconception is that speculators are really buying. They're not buying oil, they're buying futures, and this is a very important distinction. A futures contract is an agreement between a buyer and a seller to deliver a certain amount of oil, usually 1,000 barrels, at a specific price on a specific date. The value of that contract rises and falls, depending upon market conditions, right up until the date of delivery.
Who buys these contracts - the pension funds, index funds, hedge funds and other so-called speculators who almost never take delivery of any oil? Energy markets expert Craig Pirrong says "For speculators to be propping up the price of oil, they somehow have to be taking physical oil off the market"; Pirrong is a finance professor at the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business.
An example Pirrong gives is when the federal government decided to support cheese prices in the 1970s, it did so by buying up warehouses full of cheese and keeping it off the market. "Well, where's the cheese now?" Pirrong asks. "Where's all the oil that the speculators have held off the market?"
If you really believe that speculators are affecting oil prices, remember that affect can go in two directions. If speculators are driving up spot oil prices every time they buy futures, then the converse must be true too. There must be an equal and opposite downward push on spot prices every time that future is sold. In other words, critics of the futures market can’t have it both ways.
We should remember that futures trading require buyers and sellers. For every investor who is betting oil prices will go up, there also needs to be an investor willing to take the opposite side of that bet.
As New York Mercantile Exchange Chairman James Newsome explained to a congressional committee, speculators are evenly split between shorts and longs and the percentage of futures contracts held by speculators (as opposed to commercial traders) "actually decreased over the last year, even at the same time that [oil] prices were increasing."
We need to place the blame for our present oil situation where it belongs; on the Democrat congress, not on the artificial boogeyman created by the Democrats and their accomplices in the news media.
What is responsible for the present price; here is what makes up the price of gasoline at the pumps:
Oil - 75%
Refining - 10%, a necessary cost factor that can’t be eliminated
Distribution, etc. - 5%, to get the gas to the pumps
Taxes - 10%, about 40 cents of $4 gas is taxes
All businesses in the chain, refiners, distributors, convenience stores, etc. are being squeezed in the process of enabling consumers to buy gas (Exxon is actually getting out of the service station business!).
With oil prices skyrocketing Chevron and Exxon should be making outrageous profit margins, right? So Democrats want to tax those "windfall" profits. But lets look at the reality:
From March 2007 to March 2008, Exxon's profit margin was just 10%. Meanwhile, its income tax rate was about 43%.
But when compared with the profit Microsoft made, oil company profits are relatively modest – the Microsoft's profit margin was over 28% and Microsoft's tax rate was under 30%.
Microsoft makes a greater profit margin than Exxon and it's taxed considerably less. Perhaps if anyone deserves an "excess profits tax," it's Microsoft, not Exxon. Yet no one has suggested taxing the "windfall" profits of the software giant. Actually, considering the economic definition of "windfall profits" – that being reaping a profit with no participation in the business – it is the government that enjoys "windfall profits."
Unfortunately right now people just want to hear that the government is doing something to fix high gas prices. Many people naively believe the gas stations and Big Oil companies like Exxon are gouging them.
But as you can see, calling for a windfall tax on "Big Oil" is a pretty dumb idea.
Another villain in the oil story according to Democrats is the "speculator". But are speculators the reason oil prices go up?
When we bet on a sporting event we do it because we think one team will win over the other or at least beat the ‘spread’. When we buy stock on the market we do it because we think the stock price will go up. When people buy or sell short commodities on the futures market they are betting that the price will go up or down before they have to deliver the commodity. Do these people affect the price or are they simply trying to profit from their judgment of the outcome?
Why do we think it’s any different for oil speculators?
Politicians in government read the pulse of the public and right now the pulse is racing about gas prices. Can the Democrats say that they are responsible for higher fuel prices, of course not! So there has to be a boogeyman out there to be blamed. First they call the oil company executives to the carpet to justify their "windfall" profits, which by any definition are not "windfalls" anyway, and like spectators at gladiator matches the public is satisfied to know that big bad oil companies are to blame because their congressman and senators tell them so. It’s easy to agree because - "look at the huge profits they make."
As gas prices go up, and maybe some people start to believe oil companies may not be responsible (look at what makes up the price of gas at the pump), then attention must be turned to the mysterious "oil speculators", all the while knowing that it is really the Democrats who don’t want to increase our supply of oil who are the real villains in the story. But the reality is again that this is not the case anymore than those speculating that the price of wheat or corn will change in one direction or the other are responsible for the changing, i.e. increasing, the price of that commodity at the moment. If this were the case, then you would have to say that a while ago when Hillary Clinton made a 2,000% profit on futures trading, she was responsible for the price of beef or whatever it was she was speculating in.
If those representing us really did understand the oil markets, they would know that the true sign of a speculative influence is not increasing trading volumes but rising oil inventories. Speculators would be hoarding oil - building up inventories either in anticipation of higher prices or as part of a scheme to drive prices. Yet according to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil inventories are now at below-average levels. U.S. oil stocks stand at 309 million barrels, versus 330 million in June 2005. In reality it is the oil producer that affects the market more by increasing or decreasing the supply of oil available on the market.
Condemning futures traders is probably good politics, but it's an ignorant public policy. The only way to lower prices at the pump is by increasing the supply of oil; the law of supply and demand never fails if let alone.
Without speculators willing to take both sides of futures contracts, oil refiners and other end-users might be inclined to store more oil as a hedge against further price increases and this would further increase buying on the spot-market. Any increased demand when oil supplies are decreased by building inventories obviously leads to even higher oil and gasoline prices.
A basic misconception is that speculators are really buying. They're not buying oil, they're buying futures, and this is a very important distinction. A futures contract is an agreement between a buyer and a seller to deliver a certain amount of oil, usually 1,000 barrels, at a specific price on a specific date. The value of that contract rises and falls, depending upon market conditions, right up until the date of delivery.
Who buys these contracts - the pension funds, index funds, hedge funds and other so-called speculators who almost never take delivery of any oil? Energy markets expert Craig Pirrong says "For speculators to be propping up the price of oil, they somehow have to be taking physical oil off the market"; Pirrong is a finance professor at the University of Houston's Bauer College of Business.
An example Pirrong gives is when the federal government decided to support cheese prices in the 1970s, it did so by buying up warehouses full of cheese and keeping it off the market. "Well, where's the cheese now?" Pirrong asks. "Where's all the oil that the speculators have held off the market?"
If you really believe that speculators are affecting oil prices, remember that affect can go in two directions. If speculators are driving up spot oil prices every time they buy futures, then the converse must be true too. There must be an equal and opposite downward push on spot prices every time that future is sold. In other words, critics of the futures market can’t have it both ways.
We should remember that futures trading require buyers and sellers. For every investor who is betting oil prices will go up, there also needs to be an investor willing to take the opposite side of that bet.
As New York Mercantile Exchange Chairman James Newsome explained to a congressional committee, speculators are evenly split between shorts and longs and the percentage of futures contracts held by speculators (as opposed to commercial traders) "actually decreased over the last year, even at the same time that [oil] prices were increasing."
We need to place the blame for our present oil situation where it belongs; on the Democrat congress, not on the artificial boogeyman created by the Democrats and their accomplices in the news media.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Medicare patients – if you want to keep doctors you have – read this
The New York Times, of all places, ran a headline a while ago – "THE COUNTRY SAFE AT LAST.; FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS"; I think the grey lady unwittingly expressed the sentiments of all conservatives.
Congress in session, whether dominated by Democrats or Republicans (as now constituted), are unable to restrain themselves. Whether they engage in outrageous spending or excessive regulation, the result is the same; freedom and our country suffer.
The latest fiasco we have escaped from (but probably only temporarily) has to do with congress’ intention to indirectly reduce healthcare for millions of Americans, especially those depending on Medicare for survival. In this case it’s not clear if congress alone is the culprit or whether they have help from the Bush administration.
The problem I am referring to is the plan to further reduce payments to doctors for services rendered to Medicare patients. The payments cuts to doctors are part of a 1997 balanced budget deal during the Clinton administration that cuts money going to Medicare.
Because congress left town, a reprieve was given to thousands of doctors expecting to get hit with an additional 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments (payments to doctors have been reduced several times in the past). The Department of Health and Human Services will essentially freeze the current pricing system because of the absence of congress for a midsummer break without approving a price change, according to Secretary Mike Leavitt. Congressional aides said the freeze could last 10 days so there is time for those on Medicare to complain to their Senators and congressmen and congresswomen but it must be done right away. Leave plenty of messages for them about this when they return.
The Department is already paying doctors less for services but the Department says that if the legislation is delayed further, retroactive payments to doctors will be made.
In the last session of the senate, Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning led a delay by calling for action delayed by the senate while waiting for Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to return to the chambers. Senator Robert Byrd already distinguished for senile performances, shouted in anger at the delay "Who are you?" and mockingly called Bunning a "great baseball man."
The only source of opposition has been the American Medical Association, and AARP; they have argued that reduced payments would prompt many doctors to drop out of the Medicare system. Even private insurance companies are affected and make a similar argument for Medicare Advantage plans which are a form of private fee-for-service plans. These programs, and HMOs, have been also targeted in the Democrats' bill.
Democrats’ general argument is that reductions in spending in some programs are needed to "pay for" others; in this case they seek reduced funding for Medicare as their means of "paying" for largesse they want to give to others. The legislation could result in $14 billion less for insurers over five years, though an estimate by a House Republican caucus put the reduction at $47.5 billion over 11 years. All this would come from income to doctors.
Democrats are childishly gleeful at their prospects; it has been reported that "At one point during Thursday's debate, (Democrat senate majority leader) Senator Reid literally hopped around the chamber, predicting Democrats would hold "at least" 59 Senate seats next year because Republicans toed Bush's line."
"I don't know how many people are up here for reelection, but I am watching a few of them pretty closely," Reid said, staring at the GOP side of the chamber. "I say to all those people who are up for reelection: If you think you can go home and say, 'I voted no because this weak president, the weakest political standing since they have done polling, I voted because I was afraid to override his veto' -- come on."
Some Republicans have tried to forestall cuts in Medicare payments but sentiment for reduced payments to doctors is so strong on the part of Democrats that it is likely all that can be done is to delay the cuts, especially since the House passed the bill by a veto-proof margin. However, after the senate reconvenes July 7 it will have only three days to pass a fix before the HHS freeze on payments to doctors is lifted; so to preserve your ability to continue to use doctors you have, it is imperative to contact your senators now.
Congress in session, whether dominated by Democrats or Republicans (as now constituted), are unable to restrain themselves. Whether they engage in outrageous spending or excessive regulation, the result is the same; freedom and our country suffer.
The latest fiasco we have escaped from (but probably only temporarily) has to do with congress’ intention to indirectly reduce healthcare for millions of Americans, especially those depending on Medicare for survival. In this case it’s not clear if congress alone is the culprit or whether they have help from the Bush administration.
The problem I am referring to is the plan to further reduce payments to doctors for services rendered to Medicare patients. The payments cuts to doctors are part of a 1997 balanced budget deal during the Clinton administration that cuts money going to Medicare.
Because congress left town, a reprieve was given to thousands of doctors expecting to get hit with an additional 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments (payments to doctors have been reduced several times in the past). The Department of Health and Human Services will essentially freeze the current pricing system because of the absence of congress for a midsummer break without approving a price change, according to Secretary Mike Leavitt. Congressional aides said the freeze could last 10 days so there is time for those on Medicare to complain to their Senators and congressmen and congresswomen but it must be done right away. Leave plenty of messages for them about this when they return.
The Department is already paying doctors less for services but the Department says that if the legislation is delayed further, retroactive payments to doctors will be made.
In the last session of the senate, Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning led a delay by calling for action delayed by the senate while waiting for Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to return to the chambers. Senator Robert Byrd already distinguished for senile performances, shouted in anger at the delay "Who are you?" and mockingly called Bunning a "great baseball man."
The only source of opposition has been the American Medical Association, and AARP; they have argued that reduced payments would prompt many doctors to drop out of the Medicare system. Even private insurance companies are affected and make a similar argument for Medicare Advantage plans which are a form of private fee-for-service plans. These programs, and HMOs, have been also targeted in the Democrats' bill.
Democrats’ general argument is that reductions in spending in some programs are needed to "pay for" others; in this case they seek reduced funding for Medicare as their means of "paying" for largesse they want to give to others. The legislation could result in $14 billion less for insurers over five years, though an estimate by a House Republican caucus put the reduction at $47.5 billion over 11 years. All this would come from income to doctors.
Democrats are childishly gleeful at their prospects; it has been reported that "At one point during Thursday's debate, (Democrat senate majority leader) Senator Reid literally hopped around the chamber, predicting Democrats would hold "at least" 59 Senate seats next year because Republicans toed Bush's line."
"I don't know how many people are up here for reelection, but I am watching a few of them pretty closely," Reid said, staring at the GOP side of the chamber. "I say to all those people who are up for reelection: If you think you can go home and say, 'I voted no because this weak president, the weakest political standing since they have done polling, I voted because I was afraid to override his veto' -- come on."
Some Republicans have tried to forestall cuts in Medicare payments but sentiment for reduced payments to doctors is so strong on the part of Democrats that it is likely all that can be done is to delay the cuts, especially since the House passed the bill by a veto-proof margin. However, after the senate reconvenes July 7 it will have only three days to pass a fix before the HHS freeze on payments to doctors is lifted; so to preserve your ability to continue to use doctors you have, it is imperative to contact your senators now.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Is American law now determined by one man as in a science fiction drama?
Thanks to the flappable Justice Anthony Kennedy the Second Amendment remains in the constitution but it is outrageous that four members of the court wanted to throw it out.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a precisely clear opinion upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms on an individual basis. But the ink wasn’t dry before leftists of all stripe "found" language in the opinion that will allow other judges to confirm all manner of restrictions on gun owners’ rights. Unfortunately Scalia probably had to include some of these loop holes in the opinion to placate Justice Kennedy so he would join the majority of five.
But how perilous is our freedom when a population of 300 million Americans is at the mercy of nine unelected people in black robes? This is reminiscent of some "sci fy" dramas where one or a small group governs a planet of sheep-like beings.
Recent history is replete with judicial action overturning the will of a majority of voters and citizens in our country. When the judiciary has the power to impose their social views on the public regarding how people should act and think, then the constitutional prescription of three equal branches of government is meaningless. The most tragic part of the story is that the brave men who created the United States of America gave everything to design a brilliant unique government with checks and balances so that no one branch could dominate the others and the country. Yet now we have judges around the country that put themselves above the law by making law on their terms.
Sadly the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter of what does and does not conform to the constitution, is a part of this coup d‘e tat. Justices who don’t respect the constitution as worded are determined to change our government by fiat and it only takes five of them to do that.
Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have now returned to a 5 to 4 divided court outcome with the unpredictable Anthony Kennedy holding the decisive vote between four liberal justices who regard the constitution merely as a "guide" rather than the law of the land by which legislated law is to be measured for constitutional compliance, and five justices who have read the constitution and believe it says what it says.
This nation’s founding document is not a "living" law, meaning its interpretation should change with the times; it is a carefully worded construction of fundamental rights designed for the ages limiting authority of a federal government while guaranteeing rights to its citizens. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy reserved for citizens in the event something goes horribly wrong with the execution of the constitutional grand design and the governed have to take action to correct a recalcitrant government. Fortunately in the Second Amendment case decided recently, Kennedy was persuaded to join the group of colleagues who actually understand and respect the constitution.
However, to demonstrate his meager understanding of the constitution, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision that said it was unconstitutional to apply the death penalty to a crime in which no one was killed. The crime was the brutal rape of an 8 year old girl and a court in the state of Louisiana sentenced the criminal to death in accordance with state law. Kennedy and the four liberal judges said the death penalty in this case was "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment; however what Kennedy and his gang of four failed to consider is that to be unconstitutional the punishment must be "cruel AND unusual" to be prohibited.
The death penalty for crimes involving no death has been applied for centuries; for example; in the old west cattle rustling was a capital offense and hanging was the penalty de jour. The death penalty is hardly unusual and though some may consider it cruel, putting someone to death for a crime not involving the death of another was considered an appropriate penalty. To say now that the heinous rape of a child, more serious to the victim than is loss of cows to their owner, is not worthy of a death penalty under the constitution when the citizens of a state think otherwise is making a mockery of the constitution. Justice Kennedy and the four liberals would rather consider the law of other countries rather than the clear wording of the constitution.
The subject of this constitutional failure of interpretation is the case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343 is an appeal by one of the two Louisiana inmates, Patrick Kennedy. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, whose injuries were severe enough to require emergency surgery. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kennedy’s conviction and rejected his challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence.
In the majority decision Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there was "a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons," even such "devastating" crimes as the rape of a child on the other. The court went beyond the question in the case and ruled out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to "offenses against the state," such as treason or espionage — "where the victim’s life was not taken."
Since this was the third high court decision in the last six years to place a categorical limitation on capital punishment; (In 2002, the court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. In 2005, it ruled that the Constitution bars the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18), the possibility exists that the four liberal judges are seeking to move the court toward the abolition of capital punishment, which Justice John Paul Stevens called for in an opinion two months ago.
Kennedy decision relied heavily on the question whether the death penalty was so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court’s modern precedents interpret the Eighth Amendment according to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Note that according to Kennedy clear language of the constitution must be reinterpreted "according to evolving standards" of society’s views of "decency."
So rather than using its actual words to govern the high courts decision making, according to Justice Kennedy and friends the constitution may be judicially rewritten by as few as five people in black robes who are supposed to be its guardian.
Justice Kennedy said there was a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime (for which no statistical basis was cited); as if the matter of constitutionality was to be judged according to national polls – how ridiculous it is to use assumed, or even real, public opinion polls as a basis for applying constitutional law to a matter before the court. If public opinion is for a change, the constitution provides the ground rules for its amendment and it does not say the U.S. Supreme Court is the remedy.
It is not for the court to, in Justice Kennedy’s own words, reach a judicial conclusion based on "our own independent judgment about the implications of extending the death penalty to child rape as well as on the fact that the great majority of states have declined to do so."
The Louisiana law extending the death penalty to the rape of children under the age of 12 in Louisiana was enacted in 1995. States that followed the Louisiana law are Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Because unlike Louisiana; those states all require that a defendant must have a previous rape conviction or some other aggravating factor in order to be subject to the death penalty, Justice Kennedy said there was thus a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. sharply disputed this conclusion. He said that because many judges and lawyers had interpreted a prior case (the 1977 Coker decision) as barring capital punishment for any rape, state legislatures "have operated under the ominous shadow" of that decision "and thus have not been free to express their own understanding of our society’s standards of decency."
The fact that six states in modern times have nonetheless enacted such laws, Justice Alito said, "might represent the beginning of a new evolutionary line" that "would not be out of step with changes in our society’s thinking since Coker was decided." He said there were abundant indications that society had become more aware of and concerned about sex crimes against children.
Those who voted with Justice Kennedy in the majority were Justice Stevens and Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the dissent, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Addressing the separate question of the court’s "own judgment," Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12.
"In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment," Justice Kennedy said, "we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be freakish."
He continued: "We cannot sanction this result when the harm to the victim, though grave, cannot be quantified in the same way as death of the victim."
Justice Kennedy also said capital punishment for child rape presented specific problems, including the "special risks of unreliable testimony" by children and the fact that the crime often occurs within families. Families might be inclined to "shield the perpetrator from discovery" when the penalty is death, he said, leading to an increase in the problem of under-reporting of these crimes.
Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, said these concerns were "policy arguments" that were "simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment." He said the Eighth Amendment "does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society."
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a precisely clear opinion upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms on an individual basis. But the ink wasn’t dry before leftists of all stripe "found" language in the opinion that will allow other judges to confirm all manner of restrictions on gun owners’ rights. Unfortunately Scalia probably had to include some of these loop holes in the opinion to placate Justice Kennedy so he would join the majority of five.
But how perilous is our freedom when a population of 300 million Americans is at the mercy of nine unelected people in black robes? This is reminiscent of some "sci fy" dramas where one or a small group governs a planet of sheep-like beings.
Recent history is replete with judicial action overturning the will of a majority of voters and citizens in our country. When the judiciary has the power to impose their social views on the public regarding how people should act and think, then the constitutional prescription of three equal branches of government is meaningless. The most tragic part of the story is that the brave men who created the United States of America gave everything to design a brilliant unique government with checks and balances so that no one branch could dominate the others and the country. Yet now we have judges around the country that put themselves above the law by making law on their terms.
Sadly the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter of what does and does not conform to the constitution, is a part of this coup d‘e tat. Justices who don’t respect the constitution as worded are determined to change our government by fiat and it only takes five of them to do that.
Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have now returned to a 5 to 4 divided court outcome with the unpredictable Anthony Kennedy holding the decisive vote between four liberal justices who regard the constitution merely as a "guide" rather than the law of the land by which legislated law is to be measured for constitutional compliance, and five justices who have read the constitution and believe it says what it says.
This nation’s founding document is not a "living" law, meaning its interpretation should change with the times; it is a carefully worded construction of fundamental rights designed for the ages limiting authority of a federal government while guaranteeing rights to its citizens. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy reserved for citizens in the event something goes horribly wrong with the execution of the constitutional grand design and the governed have to take action to correct a recalcitrant government. Fortunately in the Second Amendment case decided recently, Kennedy was persuaded to join the group of colleagues who actually understand and respect the constitution.
However, to demonstrate his meager understanding of the constitution, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision that said it was unconstitutional to apply the death penalty to a crime in which no one was killed. The crime was the brutal rape of an 8 year old girl and a court in the state of Louisiana sentenced the criminal to death in accordance with state law. Kennedy and the four liberal judges said the death penalty in this case was "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment; however what Kennedy and his gang of four failed to consider is that to be unconstitutional the punishment must be "cruel AND unusual" to be prohibited.
The death penalty for crimes involving no death has been applied for centuries; for example; in the old west cattle rustling was a capital offense and hanging was the penalty de jour. The death penalty is hardly unusual and though some may consider it cruel, putting someone to death for a crime not involving the death of another was considered an appropriate penalty. To say now that the heinous rape of a child, more serious to the victim than is loss of cows to their owner, is not worthy of a death penalty under the constitution when the citizens of a state think otherwise is making a mockery of the constitution. Justice Kennedy and the four liberals would rather consider the law of other countries rather than the clear wording of the constitution.
The subject of this constitutional failure of interpretation is the case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343 is an appeal by one of the two Louisiana inmates, Patrick Kennedy. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, whose injuries were severe enough to require emergency surgery. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kennedy’s conviction and rejected his challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence.
In the majority decision Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there was "a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons," even such "devastating" crimes as the rape of a child on the other. The court went beyond the question in the case and ruled out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to "offenses against the state," such as treason or espionage — "where the victim’s life was not taken."
Since this was the third high court decision in the last six years to place a categorical limitation on capital punishment; (In 2002, the court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. In 2005, it ruled that the Constitution bars the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18), the possibility exists that the four liberal judges are seeking to move the court toward the abolition of capital punishment, which Justice John Paul Stevens called for in an opinion two months ago.
Kennedy decision relied heavily on the question whether the death penalty was so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court’s modern precedents interpret the Eighth Amendment according to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Note that according to Kennedy clear language of the constitution must be reinterpreted "according to evolving standards" of society’s views of "decency."
So rather than using its actual words to govern the high courts decision making, according to Justice Kennedy and friends the constitution may be judicially rewritten by as few as five people in black robes who are supposed to be its guardian.
Justice Kennedy said there was a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime (for which no statistical basis was cited); as if the matter of constitutionality was to be judged according to national polls – how ridiculous it is to use assumed, or even real, public opinion polls as a basis for applying constitutional law to a matter before the court. If public opinion is for a change, the constitution provides the ground rules for its amendment and it does not say the U.S. Supreme Court is the remedy.
It is not for the court to, in Justice Kennedy’s own words, reach a judicial conclusion based on "our own independent judgment about the implications of extending the death penalty to child rape as well as on the fact that the great majority of states have declined to do so."
The Louisiana law extending the death penalty to the rape of children under the age of 12 in Louisiana was enacted in 1995. States that followed the Louisiana law are Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Because unlike Louisiana; those states all require that a defendant must have a previous rape conviction or some other aggravating factor in order to be subject to the death penalty, Justice Kennedy said there was thus a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. sharply disputed this conclusion. He said that because many judges and lawyers had interpreted a prior case (the 1977 Coker decision) as barring capital punishment for any rape, state legislatures "have operated under the ominous shadow" of that decision "and thus have not been free to express their own understanding of our society’s standards of decency."
The fact that six states in modern times have nonetheless enacted such laws, Justice Alito said, "might represent the beginning of a new evolutionary line" that "would not be out of step with changes in our society’s thinking since Coker was decided." He said there were abundant indications that society had become more aware of and concerned about sex crimes against children.
Those who voted with Justice Kennedy in the majority were Justice Stevens and Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the dissent, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Addressing the separate question of the court’s "own judgment," Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12.
"In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment," Justice Kennedy said, "we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be freakish."
He continued: "We cannot sanction this result when the harm to the victim, though grave, cannot be quantified in the same way as death of the victim."
Justice Kennedy also said capital punishment for child rape presented specific problems, including the "special risks of unreliable testimony" by children and the fact that the crime often occurs within families. Families might be inclined to "shield the perpetrator from discovery" when the penalty is death, he said, leading to an increase in the problem of under-reporting of these crimes.
Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, said these concerns were "policy arguments" that were "simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment." He said the Eighth Amendment "does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
