Saturday, April 07, 2007

pathological liberalism and the inability to stay connected to reality

Marie Cocco of The Washington Post gives us, with this column, a clear illustration of just how unbalanced the liberal thought process is, to the point where liberalism in its purest form is a mentally disturbed condition. Let's break down this column and I'll show you what I mean.

A great gust of common sense has blown away the rhetoric that obscures the president's soft-on-polluters policy with slogans such as ``Clear Skies.'' The Supreme Court decision demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency take steps to regulate emissions that are linked to global warming is a victory for Mother Earth. And much, much more. She didn't wate any time, did she? She just came out swinging with the liberal lies! The Supremes did not show "common sense," they created a new law out of thin air. That is an unconstitutional power grab on their part. And the law they passed was not a victory for Mother Earth. The Earth won't be affected one way or the other by their unconstitutional actions. The decision was, in fact, a victory for socialism and for a greatly expanded, infinitely more intrusive federal government.

The substance of the environmental case was simple: The Bush administration, in its ideological war against regulation in general and its refusal to acknowledge the scientific evidence of global warming in particular, subverted the Clean Air Act by having the EPA abandon its mandate to treat certain auto emissions as air pollutants. All the usual weasel words the administration uses when it wants to get its way -- that there is some overarching presidential power to replace laws and congressional requirements with the political judgments it prefers -- were swept away. There is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming. That is a liberal lie. Bush did not subvert the Clean Air Act. He simply refused to add language to the law making carbon dioxide a pollutant covered by the law. The Supreme Court unconstitutionally amended the law to include CO2. Weasel words? No, the Bush administration simply stated facts. That stands in stark contrast to the baldfaced lies spoken by John Paul Jingleheimer Stevens as he sought to justify the unconstitutional opinion he wrote based on the very latest in science fiction.

When Congress required the EPA to use its judgment in assessing the danger of air pollutants, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court's 5-4 majority, it meant the judgment had to be applied based on facts about the public's health and welfare. The agency's decisions, the court said, were to be made ``within defined statutory limits.'' Now those are weasel words! Congress required the EPA to use its judgement, the left wing lunatics on the Supreme Court disagreed with that judgement because they have joined up with Brother Gore's Travelin' Salvation Show, so they decided to change the law. The Supreme Court is now officially the new EPA! Show me where in the Constitution it says they get to do that! And what about "based on facts about the public's health and welfare."? That's just hilarious! The Stephens decision was based on science fiction that real science has proven to be false. At the risk of boring you, I will repeat a question which NOBODY has even attempted to answer for me--How can climate experts accurately tell me what the weather will be like 30 years from now when they can't even get a 5-day forecast right?

"Put another way,'' Stevens wrote, "the use of the word 'judgment' is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text.'' No, put another way, the Supreme Court decided to change the statutory text.

The next 6 paragraphs have nothing to do with global warming. They are simply the same old liberal rants about what a rotton human being Pres. Bush is, so I will ignore them. Let's just stay focused on the topic Marie Cocco-Puffs is supposed to be writing about.

After its EPA ruling, Bush effectively reiterated his intent to do little about global warming -- he pointedly failed to say he would order the environmental agency to get moving. Instead, the president rehashed an argument for inaction, saying that there must be international progress on climate change first. This is an assertion the administration made in its legal arguments -- and the Supreme Court had just explicitly rejected it. The president's ``broad authority'' in foreign affairs, Stevens wrote, "does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.'' Pres. Bush did not refuse to execute domestic laws. The law never said that CO2 was to be regulated. At least, it didn't until Five Angry Liberals All Dressed In Black decided to rewrite the law. If you want to gripe about the president refusing to execute domestic law, I'll talk with you about illegal immigration..... What's that you say? .....You don't want to talk about illegal immigration and the president's refusal to execute our immigration laws? It appears that liberal hypocracy knows no bounds!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hondo, you have been saying for days that this ruling is unconstitutional. You have yet to say how, and frankly I have reason to believe that you won't be able to tell me specifically how it is. Under the clean air act the EPA is required to regulate ALL types of emissions shown to effect climate. CO2 EFFECTS CLIMATE. More CO2 leads to warming. Period. Whether that is a bad thing or not is what's in dispute these days. You seem to be about 20 years behind on this argument. In reality, the Supreme Court did NOT create a law out of thin air. What they did was interpret the law --- IF the clean air act mandates that the EPA regulate climate changing emissions and CO2 is a climate changing emission THEN the EPA should regulate CO2 emissions.

You may have missed it in junior high school, but there is a huge difference between climate and weather. You make the same contention that I hear all the time that if there is a snow storm here or a cold snap there it must PROVE that there is no such thing as climate change. Well pal, WEATHER is the climatic conditions at any one given point in time while CLIMATE is the COMPOSITE or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region averaged over many many years.

Now, this is where I think liberals, conservatives and everyone in between are (yourself and myself included) are completely guilty when it comes to this whole argument. IT DOESN'T MATTER. This whole debate is meaningless because all sources of energy are unsustainable anyway. Petroleum, Coal, Natural Gas - there days are numbered. Why we are still so petty in our arguments about these forms of energy is beyond be when in reality we should be 20 years ahead of where we are in coming up with alternative energy sources. With the rate of the world's population growth and the limited resources we have left it still amazes me how completely ignorant everyone is.

11:39 AM  
Blogger hondo said...

Anonymous, perhaps you have difficulty with reading comprehension, but I have repeatedly stated what is unconstitutional about the Supreme Court decision. It is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court is not a legislative body. They don't have the power to make laws, and they don't have the power to amend laws. This recent decision amended the law to include CO2 as an emmission that needs to be regulated. The law doesn't say that.
You say that it has been "proven" that CO2 makes the climate warmer. That is a false statement. CO2 was being produced, both by cars and by humans exhaling, back in the 70's. That was the time when all of you wacky environmentalists were warning about global cooling. Roughly half of the world's climatologists today say that CO2 emmissions have no measurable effect on the climate. Justice Stevens decided to agree with the 50% of the world's scientists who think CO2 is responsible for global warming. That's not what he gets paid to do. He doesn't have the power to decide all by himself, or in conjunction with 4 other like-minded liberals, that 50% of the world's scientists are wrong and that the debate is settled. The Supremes legislated from the bench, and that is unconstitutional.

5:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counter