Green Oath Takers: Climate Scientists Pledge Allegiance to GloBULL Warming

“I pledge allegiance to global warming and the corruption for which it stands.  One scam; incomprehensible, with tyranny and poverty for all.” 

The London Times reports:

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

Funny, I think I might feel uncomfortable signing an oath to not speak ill of data I’m trying to research and prove as fact.  This is not a settled science as much as anybody would like to claim it is.  Theories exist and until they are proven as fact, they merely remain as theories – which is why science seems to take forever.  The idea that man can play such a huge role in something as large as our globe and the climate is sheer arrogance and egoism.  Climate change is a naturally occurring event that has ebbed and flowed for decades if not eons.  The more emails, the more proof, the more information that comes out on this hoax, the better for everybody.  That’s not to say that people who disagree do not believe in taking care of their environment, it just means that the skeptics have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of any type of man-made climate change.  I’d like to know how liberals can rail against big oil but seem to have no problem when their own side of the aisle is in the tank for Green Corporations and have much to gain from cap and tax – how is that any different?

Signing a pledge such as the one above seems to worsen the credibility and cause conflict of interest among people who became scientists to prove and disprove based on factual evidence.  What if, at some point, global warming is proven to be a hoax? Scientists should not be held down by some oath that forces them to hide significant information from the public.  There are other times in history when people had to pledge their allegiance to a cause, and that usually didn’t end very well…

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

IMHO, any scientist who signs this petition has lost all credibility to be fair, reasonable, balanced, and able to report fact – not some fiction in which they signed onto.

Cass Sunstein Is Certifiable; Absolutism, First Amendment New Deal & More Executive Power

Cass Sunstein is one of the scarier of Obama’s czars and the fact that he was confirmed by the Senate makes it 10x worse!  Sunstein may be a very nice man, but when it comes to ideology, theory, ideas, and his views on the constitution, it makes me want to pull my hair out and scream.  I’m not sure what it is about the world of academia and the absolute detachment from reality that many hold, but it’s time for America to get past the status  of holding ivy league degrees; the superficial, and vote for people with real world experience.  Teachers do live in the real world, but my question would be whether not they have actually worked in a job or a place where they have implemented these ideas first to see if they actually work and help people, not hurt.

Besides, Cass Sunstein’s idea of Internet regulation, whereby a panel or individual of some sort would decide what is inaccurate or false and ban content via their own opinion (more detail on this can be found in his book entitled On Rumors), he has also argued that animals should be able to have a lawyer and sue humans, and guns and hunting should be banned.  There is much more to Cass Sunstein and his regulatory ideas in Nudge, another book penned by the newly approved czar.

More information about Sunstein is slowly but surely beginning to trickle out as time passes.  Cass Sunstein is a proponent of absolutism which really is a sick, twisted theory of “no liberty without dependency”:

You owe your life — and everything else — to the sovereign. The rights of subjects are not natural rights, but merely grants from the sovereign. There is no right even to complain about the actions of the sovereign, except insofar as the sovereign allows the subject to complain. These are the principles of unlimited, arbitrary, and absolute power, the principles of such rulers as Louis XIV. Intellectuals have assiduously promoted them; think of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes.

A new intellectual champion of absolutism has now emerged. Mild-mannered University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein has been advancing the radical notion that all rights — including rights usually held to be “against” the state, such as the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned or tortured — are grants from the state. In a book co-authored with Stephen Holmes, The Cost of Rights, he argued that “all legal rights are, or aspire to be, welfare rights,” that is, positive grants from the state. There is no difference in kind between the right not to be tortured and the right to taxpayer-subsidized dental care.
In his new book, The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein seeks to give constitutional status to welfare rights. The title comes from Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, in which he proclaimed that “necessitous men are not free men” and proposed a “second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all.” Among the rights FDR proposed were the rights to “a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home,” “adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” “adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment,” and “a good education.”

To further understand the radical nature of Sunstein’s theories, it’s imperative that we also take a look at his proposed First Amendment New Deal which would act as a new Fairness Doctrine, following the same lines of his Internet regulation ideas.

President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a “First Amendment New Deal,” a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Until now, Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

In the book – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “fairness doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

It appears that Sunstein and Lloyd are two peas in a pod.  Both of these men believe that commercial broadcasting companies should fund strictly public broadcasting.  He also proposes more “democratic” means of control like “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

Believe it or not, that’s not the worst to come out of Sunstein’s mouth or from his pen lately.  Sunstein actually believes that Obama and those working as part of his administration should interpret federal laws, not the federal courts.

“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.

This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws.

See why I’m pulling my hair out and screaming? This is sheer insanity and the man still argues that this is all constitutional!

King Obama To Head The UN Security Council; He’s Also Scrapping The Missile Shield

When you are an egomaniac, promote yourself.  I learned several years ago that EGO was just an acronym for Easing God Out.  There is no room for faith, spirituality, or another higher power when you believe you are God.  I believe Barack Obama is an egomaniacal narcissist, unfortunately.  His latest power grab comes not in domestic policy but foreign.  He plans on appointing himself the head of the United Nations Security Council, where he also set the agenda for Thursday, September 24.

The council, which next meets Sept. 24, deals with a host of global challenges, including nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The Obama administration hopes to use the month-long appointment to emphasize a departure from the Bush administration’s strategy of pursuing its own unilateral policies through the council.. 

The head of the council is usually assigned to a delegate or the UN Ambassador, not the president of the United States. Many are arguing that this is unprecedented and unconstitutional, however, it technically is only the former and not the latter.

There are valid arguments against heading up such a council, such as, how would this not be a conflict of interest, or cause a divided loyalty issue?  Will Obama side with America or with the UN?  This could also stretch him too thin.  Has anyone seen a manager or supervisor who couldn’t delegate work?  Usually the team and the manager struggle to reach their objectives.  At this juncture in America’s history, there is too much that needs to be focused on, rather than Obama’s apparent goal to run the world.

  

The narcissism is just so incredibly absurd that I can only imagine a larger drop in his approval rating once more of the public catches wind of this.  Could you imagine the outcry if Bush did something like this?

Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”

This seemingly innocuous language has two profoundly disturbing features. First, UN documents indicate that the Security Council is currently dealing with over 100 issues. While “non-proliferation” is mentioned, “disarmament” is not. Similarly, a UN Secretariat compilation “forecasting the Council’s program of work” for the month of September — based on prior activities and requests — lists non-proliferation specifically in relation to Iran and North Korea and does not list disarmament. But in light of Obama’s wishes, a tailor-made subheading will likely be adopted under the existing entry “maintenance of international peace and security.” The new item will insist on simultaneous consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and make no mention of particular states.

[…] 

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”  

To add insult to injury and almost clear up this administration’s intentions, which resemble those of Carter’s, Obama has decided to scrap the missile shield project originally set to be constructed in Poland and the Czech Republic. 

The most “transparent” and humble president in our nation’s history also left the Senate out of this major foreign policy decision.

McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, told The Hill the White House never notified his committee and that he was unaware of the decision until he was notified Thursday morning. 

“It was an unfortunate decision, and it was made without consultation with the Czech Republic and the Polish government, and Congress was not briefed,” McCain said. “I think it sends a message to the Russians that could encourage them, and I think it sends a message to our friends and allies not to count on our commitments.”

I don’t think hail to the chief will cut it anymore – time to redo a version of “God Save The Queen” for King Obama.

The Holy New York Empire

The State of New York was on the cutting edge several years ago when it became one of, if not the, first state to ban smoking from public places, i.e., bars and restaurants.  Many are satisfied with the fact that they no longer have to worry about coming home, smelling like an ashtray, however, one starts to encroach on some very basic civil liberties when deciding what somebody can ingest, inhale, or imbibe.  A basic human right is the freedom to eat, smoke and drink whatever it is a person chooses, even if it is harmful to that individual.  The essence of free will and free choice is being able to freely make those decisions and not be forced by a centralized entity to restrict them.  There will always be those who abuse substances, but America was never founded on utilitarian ideals where everything is for the greater good, or punished everyone due to a few. 

 New York is considering a ban on smoking outdoors now.  The outdoors, as is my understanding, is not regulated and never has been controlled by a government entity, at least when it was your own backyard and not some natural wildlife preserve.  New York has already banned indoor smoking and transfats from the state.  They have one of the highest taxes on alcohol, and to be honest, some of the highest taxes in general nationwide.  Back in early 2009, New York was also considering a tax on sodas and other sugary or “unhealthy” food items.  Rather than be a state it seems like New York is becoming its own dictatorship. 

Smokers in the “land of the free” are finding themselves increasingly less free to pursue their habit. 

New York City officials are the latest to consider banning smoking in their parks and outside spaces – and where the US leads, the UK often follows. 

Having driven smokers outside their workplaces and enclosed public places, city authorities are considering limiting the options for a quick puff. 

The possibility of extending smoke-free legislation was outlined in a public health policy document (pdf). However the mayor, Michael Bloomberg – who has championed anti-smoking programmes but is up for re-election – appeared to qualify the extent of the restrictions. He wanted “to see if smoking in parks has a negative impact on people’s health”, the New York Times reported today, suggesting it “might not be logistically possible to enforce a ban across thousands of acres”.

Banning items didn’t work so well back in the 1920s so I’m not so sure this will pan out real well for New Yorkers or any other states that begins controlling peoples’ lives.  We may even begin to see underground smoking parlors – who knows!? 

On a side note, I must admit New York has at least one thing going for it, as opposed to Maryland, it is willing to freeze funding for the corrupt entity called ACORN and conduct a state-wide investigation!