Along with summer time, the solstice brings us hurricanes

June 25, 2024

Well, with June comes the birthday of West Virginia, the start of summer, and the start of the six-month-long hurricane season. 

Hurricanes are one of nature’s most powerful storms, and the strong winds, storm surge flooding, and heavy rainfall can lead to inland flooding, tornadoes, and rip currents, all of which can cause great damage to property and death to those in their path. 

Obviously, something like this generates a great deal of attention, particularly in coastal areas where they are most likely to strike.

Stormfax.com tells us that on average there are as many as 12 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 major hurricanes each year during the Atlantic hurricane season. 

“As the impacts of climate change have been more and more evident, we have seen and experienced increasing frequency and gravity of extreme weather events,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said recently, when the country’s ability to respond to disasters was being discussed.

The climate change/global warming faction thinks that this year could be a very busy hurricane season as climate change causes storms to be stronger. And, the first named storm of the hurricane season has already arrived, dumping heavy rain on parts of Mexico.

Climate change they say is the result of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, many climate scientists tell us that the Earth is much cooler now than in the past, and that the warming that is cited is not a large increase, and that we are still a long way from the historical warmest temperatures.

Other scientists warn that if we continue to try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we will significantly harm plant growth, and it is plants that give us the oxygen that keeps us alive. They also say that rather than cutting the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in half, we need to double it. Doing so, they say, will spur greater plant growth, which is a good thing.

But if the climate change folks are correct that the planet is warming and that it is a true problem, is there correlation between warmer temperatures and more and stronger hurricanes?

David Legates is a professor emeritus of climatology at the University of Delaware, a visiting fellow for the Science Advisory Committee in the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, and has written a book titled “Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism.”

He says that “[If] we have colder periods, we will get more hurricane activity. If we have warmer periods, the hurricane activity tends to drop off.” Under that premise, warmer weather equals fewer and less severe hurricanes.

In an interview for The Daily Signal, interviewer Virginia Allen asked him: “Professor Ligates are hurricanes over the past five to 10 years more severe than hurricanes were maybe 50 or 100 years ago?”

“Of course they are because these sites could never tell you anything that can’t be true,” he responded. “See, when you say more severe, we can parse that in a variety of ways. We can say there’s more hurricanes happening.

“We can say that the hurricanes that happen are becoming more intense. We can say that the hurricanes that are happening are actually becoming larger and more powerful overall. Or we can say that they’re making landfall more often than not. And after all, landfall hurricane is the worst-case scenario. If a big hurricane stays out in the Atlantic, that’s only a good thing unless you’re a shipper.”

He then presented some graphics produced by Ryan Maue, who served as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) chief scientist and produced the graphics from data from NOAA that illustrate his position.

Legates said, “if you look at that record, you see lots of variability over the years, but you see no long-term trend either in tropical storms or hurricanes. So, we can’t really say that over the last 50 years that there’s been a dramatic increase in the number of tropical storms or hurricanes or there has been a drastic decrease. It looks just like there’s lots of variability, which we call year-to-year. Some years we get hit and some years we don’t. And so, there’s no change there.”

After further discussion, Allen asked: “So we’re seeing a decrease in the number that are making landfall?” 

“Yes, it is less that are making landfall, which should be a good thing to write home about,” he said. “I know news likes to say, ‘let’s pick on the bad stuff. If it bleeds, it leads,’ but this is good news to write home about [and] that if there’s something in that signal, it’s a good signal.”

In conclusion, Allen asked Legates if there was anything that humans could do to affect the severity of hurricanes. His response: “A warmer world might do that because as we’ve seen [in] the coldest period of the last 400 years, the hurricanes were a little more intense. So maybe a warmer world is the best thing we could hope for.”

Maybe global warming/climate change isn’t really a crisis, after all.

Millions cheer Trump being convicted on 34 felony counts

June 18, 2024

Former President Donald Trump was convicted by a jury in New York last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It is the first trial on four crimes of which Trump has been accused.

This conviction represents the first time in the nation’s history that a former president has been found guilty of a crime. And it has the added element of interest because Trump is the Republican candidate in the November presidential election, where he is seeking a second term.

Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are ecstatic over the verdict, rendered on the second day of jury deliberations. Sentencing on the crimes is scheduled for next month, and there is the hope among his non-fans that he will receive jail time.

That’s the story of one side of this highly controversial topic. On the other side are supporters of the former president who disagree with the verdict and believe this trial should never have occurred.

Critics of the trial have many complaints about the way Trump has been treated, including a long list of “irregularities” and questionable things with the initial charges and the actual courtroom process.

They cite the huge effort to keep Trump from running for reelection that includes states trying to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot. This effort was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that states cannot make this decision.

Several legal authorities, including present and former law professors as well as former prosecutors and defense attorneys, have cited a list of problems with this entire process, from the filing of the charges all the way to the rendering of the verdict.

Let’s consider Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s role in this. During his successful campaign, he noted his past experience and desire to go after Trump and his sons to “hold them accountable.” And he has satisfied his supporters on this point.

On the Sean Hannity show on Fox News Channel, former Harvard law professor — and proud Democrat — Alan Dershowitz heavily criticized Bragg’s accusing Trump of falsifying business records to allegedly pay porn star Stormy Daniels hush money, saying that it’s the “weakest” case he has seen in his 60 years of being an attorney.

“There is nothing here,” Dershowitz told Hannity. “There is no misdemeanor, there is no felony, there is no federal crime. The feds refused to prosecute — even Bragg refused to prosecute until some of his young progressive woke prosecutors demanded that he prosecute.”

He criticized Bragg for “trying to elevate it to a felony by claiming that the only reason that he paid the nondisclosure funds was to prevent voters from learning about it. Obviously, he did it because he didn’t want to embarrass his family, he didn’t want to embarrass his wife. And the idea that you can prosecute somebody — they could have gone after Alexander Hamilton on this theory,” Dershowitz said.

Appearing on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria” Dershowitz told host Maria Bartiromo that Bragg ought to be investigated for bringing this case under the existing circumstances. “Nobody in history has ever been charged with failing to disclose in a corporate form the fact he paid hush money.” Dershowitz said. “The reason you pay hush money is to not disclose it. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money.”

More problems with the trial have been cited by Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School. Turley lists several things done during the trial by Judge Juan Merchan. Here are a few of them.

“For many of us, the Trump trial has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped,” he wrote for The Hill.

“At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records,” Turley wrote, alluding to the fact that defense attorneys cannot adequately defend their client if the alleged crimes are not specifically named.

He noted that “the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions,” with no interference from Merchan.

A guilty verdict needs a unanimous vote by all 12 jurors. But Turley wrote that Merchan told the jurors that “they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict.” 

“Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility,” Turley wrote before the verdict had been reached. “That leaves either a hung jury or a conviction. However, the framing of this case and failure to protect the rights of the defendant have undermined the perceived legitimacy of the proceedings and any possible verdict.”

There are several other salient points Turley, Dershowitz and others have made, and other factors highlighting the blunders in this trial, but there isn’t enough space in this column to cover them all.

Apparently, the left believes doing anything to prevent Trump from winning the election is okay.

Many do not appreciate D-Day or Israel’s fight for survival

June 11, 2024

Last week we observed the 80th anniversary of D-Day, which occurred on June 6, 1944. At that time the forces of eight allied countries, including the British Commonwealth and the United States, began an action that would over the next year defeat the horrible forces of Nazi Germany.

At the time it was the largest amphibious invasion in military history, and in restoring democracy and peace to much of the world, and the United States played a very significant role in that action. And thousands of U.S. and allied military personnel gave their lives to save the world from Nazi Germany.

The importance of this action is observed and celebrated annually, attended by remaining veterans of that action who are in their 90s and over 100 years-old, the President of the United States, and leaders of other countries.

The ceremony in France is observed by the French citizens whose nation benefitted greatly from it. They solemnly and thankfully observe D-Day at the official ceremony, and many or perhaps most of them display American flags at their homes and businesses.

It has been reported that more French people display our flag to celebrate D-Day than Americans do at any time.

How things have changed in America. One red flag is that D-Day celebrations are valued more by the French than by Americans. Another is how many Americans do not understand that the current war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in the fault of the Hamas terrorist organization, not Israel. 

Hamas’ savage, unprovoked attack in Israel on October 7 of last year at a peaceful music concert left more than a thousand innocent people dead. Among the dead were some 40 American citizens. Others were taken hostage, and many of them have been killed or have died as a result of their imprisonment. Some Americans are among those hostages, as well.

And yet, protests at college campuses condemn the Jews, not only those in Israel, but from wherever they reside, even here in America. Not only are the Jews blamed for responding to the terrorists in order to defend their very existence, the terrorists of Hamas and other Iranian proxies are regarded as heroes by some, and given the sympathy that is only deserved by true victims.

The Hamas worshipers chant “Death to Israel,” “Death to the Jews,” and even — believe it or not — “Death to America.”

How can so many of us know so little about what actually happened, or know a version that didn’t occur? Or perhaps worse, know what happened and not care that Israel was savagely attacked, and more than a thousand were killed in often the most disgusting and horrific ways? 

What is currently happening in Gaza is totally justified. It is essential to Israel’s continued existence, and was caused by the savage Hamas terrorists. Hamas, the terrorist proxy of Iran, was elected to rule the Palestinians of Gaza by the Palestinians of Gaza.

The failure to appreciate D-Day for its world-changing result, and the huge role America’s military played in that event, and the other traditions of our country that are not appreciated or are despised, is more than a little unnerving.  

And history tells us that this has happened before. Other great nations existed for centuries, and then collapsed because of weakening attitudes from within. That is where we are today in America.

We have failed so badly to teach our young about the great things of America. So many do not really know about their country, and do not appreciate it. And indeed, some even hate it. 

And it is not just our failure to educate younger generations about the wonders of their country that is a problem, we have a large faction actively working to subvert that education process further by deceitfully changing what should be being taught.

Other troubling things are happening, too. We have China buying up farm land and land near military bases, and buying interest in or ownership of food producers. There have been several suspicious fires at food processing plants.

While other countries are focused on developing a military that can conquer other nations, we have military leadership focused on diversity, equity and inclusion instead of merit, competence and being the deadliest force on Earth.

We have borders that are essentially wide open, allowing anyone who wants to enter the country for any reason to enter, and thousands of others being flown into the country by the government. Rampant inflation harms everyone in the country. Attorneys general and district attorneys in many places value criminals over victim, and that has led to a serious increase in crimes.

We have a man in the Oval Office who is a beloved leftist, but a disaster as President of the United States of America!  The leftist faction is determined to destroy the USA as designed, and replace our limited government structure that gave us a world-leading level of personal freedom and innovation with another one-party government that seeks to control everything.

Is it possible to undo all the subversion, mis-direction and false knowledge? Can the country our Founders created be saved? Or will America slowly decompose into Venezuela II?

The meaning of laws or the Constitution should not be changed on a whim

June 4, 2024

Why is it that those on the left — liberals, socialists, Marxists, “progressives” — think that the ideas expressed in our laws and the Constitution are just suggestions, and their interpretation by judges and others in positions of authority can vary with the wind?

Do they really believe that words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at any given time as political fervor and social preferences dictate? 

Well, yes, many of them believe that whatever their political motivation is at any moment is enough to justify changing the meaning of a law or a feature of our Constitution that was written years, decades, or even centuries ago.

Those written words were just ideas of the moment, they suggest, and everyone knows that ideas and circumstances change as time progresses. Therefore, the meaning of laws and the Constitution must be flexible enough to be understood as they want to understand them at any point in time.

And they want to get rid of anyone in any position who believes the contrary: that laws and the Constitution mean what they meant when they were created, and will continue to hold that meaning until they are properly changed by the appropriate processes.

In order to get the world organized to their liking, the leftists want to remove anyone from their official position that doesn’t follow the popular ideological line. Supreme Court Justices, for example, who follow the law and Constitution as written. They are “originalists,” or “judicial conservatives.”

Like umpires and referees, judges, justices, magistrates, etc., must not take sides in their work. They must not change the rules of the game during the game. They have the duty to apply the laws and terms of the Constitution as they were intended when created, without applying political or ideological bias. 

That point is frequently missed by some observers who instead want their personal beliefs to prevail in such matters, despite what the intent of the measure in question may be.

But the interpretations of our Constitution and existing law must be based upon the circumstances that prevailed at the time they were created, and that those circumstances were why these laws and Constitutional provisions were created to begin with.

If the original circumstances that were the basis of a law or a feature of the Constitution no longer exist, if things have changed substantially, then the law can be repealed, or the Constitution can be amended as needed. But until those actions take place, the laws and Constitution must be followed as written, and as intended. The leftists prefer to consider the U.S. Constitution a “living document,” the meanings of which ebb and flow with the tide of time.

This concept was dealt with in an article by United States Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch titled, “Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution.” 

In this article, he addresses some specific instances. However, we will focus on the primary meaning: “Originalism teaches only that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies.”

“Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.”

And then, the crux of the debate: “Living constitutionalists often complain we can’t know the original understanding because the document’s too old and cryptic. Hardly. We figure out the original meaning of old and difficult texts all the time. Just ask any English professor who teaches Shakespeare or Beowulf.”

And he then describes the leftists’ preferred solution to the disagreement: “For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.”

In common parlance, they want the documents to say whatever they prefer them to say at any given moment. And those meanings can change with a new breath.

“Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what,” Gorsuch asks? “The ‘judicial Power’ of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people.

“But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those ‘bad’ results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be? Regardless of who benefits today — the criminal or the police; the business or the employee; immigrants or ICE?”

Originalism focuses on process, not substance. The originalist concept protects the country from renegade “jurists” who will do whatever improves their political/ideological position. This is not what America is about.