Growing numbers of scientists say global warming a political theory rather than scientific fact

As most of you know by now, forecast models Wednesday predicted a major blizzard for New York City, Washington, D.C., and other densely populated areas of the Mid-Atlantic beginning Friday of this week. That prediction has proved to be correct. High winds and  crippling snow of more than a foot are expected. Some areas expect over three feet of snow.

The blizzard has already reignited the hotly contested debate over global warming. One television news crew, for example, seized the blizzard to disparage those who point to snow storms and blizzards as ample evidence that the doom and gloom of the global warming true believers is likely exaggerated and overblown. But the chief meteorologist at the news outlet took the opportunity to do some much needed educating of her own.

The chief weather scientist at the news outlet in question explained to the news crew -- and the public at large -- that just as it is true that major blizzards do not provide enough proof to raise the alarm about global cooling, so it is true that slowly warming temperatures in some areas provide no definitive proof that the entire globe is getting hotter than ever before. And if one blames these warming temperatures on human activity, then the global warming theory is even more suspect.

Temperature fluctuations, said the meteorologist, are normal and have very little to do with human activity. Literally hundreds of climate scientists agree with her. The last Ice Age, for example, occurred long before human life as we know it existed. And ever since the end of that Ice Age the world as a whole has been getting warmer.  At the height of the last Ice Age the layer of deep freeze permafrost reached all the way down to the southeastern portion of the United States, encompassing the Carolinas, Northern Georgia. and other southern portions of the country that today are not associated with cold weather. In addition, the long and gradual warming had nothing to do with human activity, given that primitive man had not yet developed the ability to utilize fossil fuels. Thus, very little carbon was sent up into the air.

And this was the point made by the astute meteorologist. Even if it could be proved that every single area on earth was beset by rising temperatures, such an observation would tell us nothing as to the reason why. As it stands now the rising temperatures can be traced to certain areas and not to every city and country on earth.  The ice shelf of Antarctica can be proved to be growing in thickness and expanse. Climate scientists, however,  consistently fail to point out this crucial fact.

Rumors suggest Palin may become Trump's running mate

This evening former Alaska governor and running mate to John McCain in the 2008 presidential race, Sarah Palin, endorsed Donald Trump for the presidency. Speaking before a large, enthusiastic crowd in Ames, Iowa, Palin told the crowd that Trump is one of the few who could make America great again. Some have remarked that Trump has much more in mind for Palin, not just an endorsement.

Touting his ability to create jobs for thousands of Americans within our own borders, Palin asserted that Trump has the means to get the economy moving again at a time when little has been done in Washington to end America's financial woes. She further expressed enthusiasm for Trump's statements on the border wall, legal immigration as a means to stop the flood of illegal aliens, gun rights, and a tax structure that will serve as an incentive for small businesses and large corporations to expand, create jobs, and to be bullish on America.

The Examiner has learned, however, that rumors abound behind the scenes concerning a possible offer to Palin from Trump to serve as his vice presidential running mate. So far both Trump and Palin have been totally silent on the subject.

During a meeting of the Young America's Foundation recently, Palin made a personal appearance to promote her new book "Sweet Freedom." But whether she intended to or not she sounded like a candidate either as someone's running mate or as a presidential candidate herself. While no one at the meeting mentioned the subject at all, behind the scenes in private there was a cautious, slow moving rumor that the possibility of a Trump-Palin ticket was being discussed. Later, speaking on condition of anonymity to an investigative reporter, the anonymous informant stated that word of a possible Palin addition to the ticket was more than just a rumor. The fact that it is being discussed at all means someone in the Trump campaign believes that such a ticket is well worth considering even if nothing comes of it.

However, questions abound. Is Palin truly interested in the job? Conventional wisdom says no, an emphatic no. But Palin is anything but a conventional politician. Is Trump truly interested in having her on the ticket? That remains to be seen. If the rumors are true and if Trump is truly interested in having Palin on the ticket, then he will do anything -- including the hard sell -- to convince a reluctant Palin to join him in turning America around from the current march into the abyss,

Caddell warns there are no real Democrats anymore

This and other articles by me can be found at Examiner this week.
----
Appearing on a panel on the Fox News Channel over the weekend a former Democratic official for the Jimmy Carter campaign warned  centrist Democrats and the American people  that what was once embraced as the Democratic Party has now thoroughly morphed into an extremist group that promotes socialism and even totalitarian ideology. The name may be the same but the ideology has not. Former Carter official Pat Caddell made the remarks in response to a statement by a fellow panelist that Republicans are right wing extremists.

Further Caddell charged that the entire American government in both Parties  has lost the consent of the governed. Caddell cites a recent poll  that shows that 90 percent of Americans say Washington politicians do not work for the people but for themselves. The rage this has caused is palpable. Not only are most Republicans livid over the betrayals by their elected officials but Democrats are just as angry -- if the polls are right.

if most Democrats would be totally candid they would have to admit that the Democratic presidents in the past they have considered great would today be unwelcome in their own Party, such as FDR, Harry Truman, John F Kennedy, and others who never made it to the White House such as Hubert Humphrey and Henry "Scoop" Jackson.  Hubert Humphrey once remarked he was proud to be a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association -- the NRA. And Humphrey was far from being the only one. Would Obama, California governor Jerry Brown, Colorado governor Hickenlooper, or US Sen Elizabeth Warren for example seek to oust  JFK, FDR, or LBJ from the Democratic Party due to their views on guns? it is easy to believe they would with the constant derogatory rhetoric used against gun owners.

And this brings us back to the subject at hand on this and any number of issues.  Caddell the Democrat believes it is the Democrats who have become extremist.

Trump casts doubt on citizenship of Cruz, Rubio

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has created controversy once again, this time by casting doubt on the citizenship of fellow Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.  Trump bore down on the subject today. The last time the "birther" issue took center stage was during Barack Obama's first bid for the White House in 2008.

This time however Trump obviously wishes to deliver a knock out punch to his closest rivals -- Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. According to those within the Trump campaign the only thing standing between Trump 's path to the nomination are Rubio and Cruz.  The campaign believes that Trump will have smooth sailing to becoming the Republican nominee if  Rubio and Cruz are out of the way.

Many Republican conservatives are quick to point out that both Cruz and Rubio meet the requirement of natural born citizen as specified by the Constitution due to the fact that in this case one or more parents were US citizens at the time of their birth although neither were born in the US.  Others have said that the US Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen" and the US Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of the term.  And thus there is no way to know today what the Framers meant when they used the term natural born citizen as a qualification for becoming president though many progressives argue exactly that.

However the American people have been most fortunate time and again in that the Framers told us precisely what they meant in their many  letters and speeches when they used certain terms in framing the Constitution. Thus according to many legal scholars we are not dependent on the Supreme Court to issue rulings on what the Framers meant when they  themselves told us precisely what they meant at the time.

Regarding the term natural born citizen as a  requirement for being president many scholars contend that there is no need for guesswork.  The Framers often referred to Vattel's laws of the Nations when it comes to certain terms used by the Framers and their supporters of freedom around the world. And Vattel notes a straightforward definition paraphrased -- "a natural born citizen is one who was born in a country to parents who are citizens" of that country.

Central  to the debate is the term "born in a country" and "born to parents who are citizens." Does the term "in a country" include military bases around the world? Given that these bases are considered to be "in a country" -- our own --  then it would be hard to imagine the Framers excluding  those born on US  bases provided their parents are US citizens. And the term "parents who are citizens" is straightforward as well.  The clause does not mandate that both parents be citizens. This indicates that one parent is enough.