Barnhart Blog

Military Service and the Presidency; Why General Wesley Clark is Wrong

Since the start of the 2008 Presidential election cycle a cloud of controversy has existed on the Internet in regards to John McCain’s war record. Whispers about the subject were heard when McCain ran for the Republican nomination previously but when he lost the nomination to George Bush, nothing came of it.

Last Sunday while appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, former 2004 Presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton supporter turned Obama adviser; General Wesley Clark (Ret.) brought the subject into the spotlight by questioning whether or not military experience qualifies a person to be President.

Clark's comments tossed gasoline onto a subject that has remained dormant in the media for most of the year while Bloggers have debated it in a very heated manner.

Since John McCain is the target of the controversy I thought it best to outline the 4 schools of thought in regards to his military service and they are as follows;

1.   Many left leaning political analysts, pundits and Bloggers question the “fairness” of McCain's campaign using his military experience to validate his character and qualifications, especially since the two most likely Democrat nominees, Clinton and Obama, lacked any military experience.

2.   John McCain’s supporters contend that his military service, his time as a P.O.W., his medals and military leadership experience easily qualify him as a war hero and that McCain should use his military service to his full advantage during the campaign

.

3.   Then there are a few on both the far-right and the far-left who insist that McCain is a traitor because while in captivity and under extreme duress he revealed his mission, he signed documents for the North Vietnamese which were used to certify him as a war criminal and those documents were used as propaganda tools against the US government and other P.O.W.'s. Because of those actions some have gone so far as to say McCain is no different than actress, protester and Communist sympathizer Jane Fonda.

4.   Finally, there are those on who acknowledge McCain’s service but say it in no way qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief.

What follows is my personal commentary on the matter…

A)  The first school of thought is absolutely stupid and only an idiot with Socialist or Marxist views would make such a suggestion. No person with half a brain should ever suggest that a candidate not discuss their military experience simply because it might not be fair to other candidates who don’t.

B)   John McCain has every right to discuss his military service in an open and honest fashion. His campaign should talk about it openly so voters get a much better sense of how his military service shaped his character

.

C)   I get “McCain is a traitor” emails every week from loud mouths on both sides; I receive them from Obama supporters who use it to excuse Obama’s Marxism, the former John Kerry supporters use it as “pay-back” for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacking Kerry in 2004 for his controversial war record and testimony before congress in the 70’s, and then there are the far out conspiracy nuts who think the C.I.A. killed Kennedy in 1963 and have run a puppet government ever since.

All three of those nitwit types need a swift kick in the behind. I dare say that none of them could stand the kind of pain and mental anguish McCain endured in North Vietnam. Every human has a mental, physical, spiritual and emotional breaking point, McCain reached his after years of horrible abuse, torture and neglect. I can't begin to imagine what John McCain survived.

The only people who have even the slightest reason to hold a grudge against McCain are those who were strong enough to endure an equal or greater amount of torture in the Hanoi Hilton but never signed a propaganda statement. Only God truly knows what those men went through, that said, those few who hold a grudge against McCain should make efforts to temper any comments with wisdom, humility and compassion. They need to remember that after McCain finally did break after four straight days of torture he resisted any further temptations despite efforts to the contrary. His stubborn resistance landed him in solitary confinement for two years

.

D)  Those who say they respect McCain’s military service but do not recognize it as a valid Presidential character trait should review American history.

We have had 43 Presidents, 31 served in the military prior to being President; 30 were officers, 24 served in the US Army or a state militia, 6 were in the Navy, 1 was in the Air Force. Of the 31 Presidents with military experience only 1, Thomas Jefferson, served at a time when the US was not involved in a conflict of some kind. For those keeping score, even Franklin Roosevelt served this country in a civilian capacity as Secretary of the Navy during World War I, counting his service he would be number 32. Of the 11 remaining Presidents with no record of military service, historians generally agree that 6 of them represent administrations which either under-achieved on their stated goals, left office under a cloud of scandal or both

.

With that said, I concede that military service is not a prerequisite for President and it is not a predictor of success or failure, some Presidents with military experience are considered to be unsuccessful in achieving their full potential.

Democrats would likely point to the current Bush administration’s unfavorable ratings in regards to oil prices, the lack of economic stability, the money spent on Iraq, and the failure to find and kill Osama Bin Laden.

On the other hand Republicans would likely point to Jimmy Carter as an example of a woefully poor Democrat President because of his mishandling of the Iran hostage crisis, the dismantling of the military and his short sighted economic policies.

I believe there are three reasons why so many American Presidents have had military experience.

1.  Americans recognize that all were willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice if needed.

2.  Americans believe the military is an excellent place for a person to observe, learn and practice leadership skills.

3.  Americans believe that candidates with military experience will take the oath to defend the nation seriously and will not hesitate to use America’s military if necessary.

When Wesley Clark said on Sunday "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president" he not only discounted John McCain’s military service, he discounted his own military service, the service of millions of veterans, and he discounted the military service of 31 Presidents as if it has no value at all.

Military service is a common experience shared by 74% of American Presidents, anyone who ignores that historical fact and places no value in it is simply in denial.

John Barnhart of www.barnhartblog.com Responds to Jack Cafferty of CNN

I wanted to share this little tidbit with the readers of www.barnhartblog.com

It is a brief response I provided to Jack Cafferty of the Cafferty File on CNN. The topic of the day was "Why are Conservatives Happier than Liberals?" and the original post is available here.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/09/why-are-conservatives-happier-than-liberals/

The story Jack posted on his Blog is based on a study that was published in “Psychological Science” magazine. The scientific study confirmed the findings of other reports that came to the same conclusion. There are a myriad of different responses to Jack from both the right and the left and I encourage everyone to take a look at the story and then research the question and the answers for themselves.

Arthur C. Brooks, a New York Times contributor wrote another piece on the subject in the New York times "Freakonomics" Blog and discussion section and a link to his story is located here.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/conservatives-are-happier-than-liberals-discuss/

Below is my response to Jack's Cafferty's question: "Why are Conservatives Happier than Liberals"

Note: I did make a few very minor edits since I originally responded to Jack Cafferty's question when I was "on the go."

May 9th, 2008 6:24 pm ET
Jack it seems that many of your readers are as uninformed as they are unhappy. Being conservative does not mean that you resist change, are intolerant of others or don’t trust the government.

Conservative people are very much like the ant in the story of the Grasshopper and the Ant. We make what we believe to be sensible preparations for hard times and warn others to do the same. We work hard, we save, we conserve. While liberals tend to accept what ever comes without care or thoughtful preparation. When hard times hit they expect those who worked hard for what they have to then take pity on them, ignore their foolishness and bail them out while they whine and moan about how bad life is.

They want low priced gas but they don’t want us to drill any new wells or build new refineries. They want low cost alternative powered cars but don’t want the automakers to profit. They want alternative energy but they don’t want anyone to build an alternative solar or wind power station near them.

Conservatives are happy because we are realists, liberals are unhappy because they are not.

I think Winston Churchill said it best, if you are not liberal when you are young you don’t have a heart, if you are not conservative when you are older you don’t have a brain.

~ John Barnhart ~

www.barnhartblog.com

The Latest Liberal Strategy; I'm Rubber You're Glue!

Practically everyone has said it at one time or another when they were a child in the midst of a confrontation; in the sandbox, at recess, or on the playground..."Nananana booboo, stick your head in doodoo, I'm rubber you're glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"

What sounded okay when I was 5 or 6 would sound a bit ridiculous if I were to say it at age 40 while in the middle of a political discussion; but that is exactly what liberals are doing in this age of political correctness. Liberals are in the midst of conducting a war of words based on childish ideas in an effort to paint conservatives as out of touch, greedy, racist and evil.

Just today I received an email from yet another Democrat Massachusetts State Representative with a negative reaction to my Blog. Representative Benjamin Swan read my Blog about Obama arrogantly creating his own version of the Presidential seal for use on the campaign trail and then responded by calling me “small-minded.”

What I cannot figure out is if Massachusetts State Representative Benjamin Swan called me “small minded” because I think what Obama did was arrogant, because I am conservative, or because Massachusetts State Representative Benjamin Swan is trying to insinuate that my comments about Obama’s arrogance are racially motivated.

Last week Democrat Massachusetts State Representative Matthew Patrick responded by not only incorrectly stating that right wing conservatives have controlled the country for the last 30 years, but then bashed southern states by saying… “the southern states that lead in every negative category there is."

Of course I sent both of them emails asking them to clarify their comments, because one seemed to be playing the race card, while the other appears to reveal anti-southern hostility. They have not responded so I will be calling their offices in an effort to try and get them to do so. These two incidents are not isolated, they just happen to be from liberal Democrats who are Massachusetts State Representatives. Classy isn't it?

As a conservative Blogger I get hate mail every day from people who constantly are preaching about civility and tolerance, but then practice neither.

Take a few minutes to scan through www.huffingtonpost.com sometime, the amount of rude and filthy trash talking there goes far beyond the regular name calling and satire that should be on a "professional" political Blog.

Personal attacks are nothing new; when conservatives call the philosophy, judgment, broken-promises, policies, actions and inaction of liberals into question via editorials, talk radio, cable news, or the alternative media (like Blogs) liberals will immediately go on the attack demonizing their target in a suggestive manner.

Here are some other great examples:

May 13, 2008 MSNBC commentator Ron Reagan Jr. is asked by Chris Matthews to provide his thoughts on Obama losing to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia, his response was “I think the better question to ask is what is wrong with West Virginians?”

Imagine that, an ultra-liberal attacking moderates and more conservative blue-dog Democrats for thinking and believing the way they want to instead of endorsing the candidate he thinks they should.

Where are the tolerance, unity and inclusiveness in that?

Don't West Virginians have the right to support who they prefer, or must they all bend their knees and pledge support to who the left coast liberals tell them they must?

That very same night MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews made a similar comment “you could have predicted the outcome on this one 20 years ago…” both of them snickering afterwards.

What they were suggesting but aren’t brave enough to come out and say plainly is that West Virginians voted in favor of Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama because they are either (take your pick) uneducated, inbred, or racist; yet another classy stereotype from those self-absorbed wind bags.

Chris Matthews is famous for saying that when he hears Barack Obama speak he "feels a thrill going up his leg"; what Chris Matthews doesn't realize is that when Barack Obama speaks conservatives feel something too; it's Barack "Tax-Man" Obama reaching into our pockets and we aren't exactly thrilled about it. That is why we don't support the man.

Liberal commentators are not the only ones getting into the act, oh no... Barack Obama has use his mild mannered speechifying to express the same racially charged sentiments.

April 12, 2008 San Francisco, California Barack Obama made this statement about gun owners and Christians “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Many in the media have focused solely on the “guns and religion” portion of Barack Obama’s quote; however, when taken in total his comment suggests that  someone who has lost their job might take their frustration out on an immigrant by shooting them and then using their religious beliefs or economic situation  to justify it.

June 20, 2008 Jacksonville, Florida at a Democrat fundraiser Barack Obama himself plays the race card when he makes the following statements in reference to the kind of campaign Republicans were going to run against him. "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black? We know the strategy because they've already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn't moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us.”

What Barack Obama and others on the ultra-left are doing is placing everyone who disagrees with Barack Obama’s Marxist beliefs into one group and labeling them as racists and bigots. Quite a surprising strategy from a man who claimed he was going to transform politics and the nation; "We're going to reshape America in a way that is less mean-spirited and more generous."

Uh… yeah right… sure he is… by calling conservatives racists for disagreeing with his Marxist philosophy and politics Barack Obama isn’t providing “Change We Can Believe In” but he does represent change... “Change We Can’t Trust.”

Massachusetts State Representative Matthew Patrick Ridicules Southern States

Like many Bloggers I recently started sending material from my Blog to politicians of all parties. As a result I often receive email responses about my Blog commentary.

This week I sent an email about how Barack Obama had decided to create his own version of the Presidential Seal and how I saw it as evidence of his perceived arrogance. I personally don't care for his politics but if you do that is fine. His politics is something that my best friend and I debate all the time but we are still best friends despite our political differences. A link to the full Blog on the subject is located here - http://www.barnhartblog.com/barnhart_blog/2008/06/barack-obama-as.html

After sending my Blog-mail one of the responses I received was from State Representative Matthew Patrick of Massachusetts. Based on his response Mr. Patrick, a liberal Democrat, obviously didn't care much for my commentary but his response also reveals his reckless disregard for historical facts and blatant anti-southern bias. His email is detailed below. Pay close attention to his last statement.

From: Patrick, Matthew - Rep. (HOU) [Matthew.Patrick@state.ma.us]

Wed 6/25/2008 8:59 AM

"John, Do me a favor and save your right wing rhetoric for the people who will believe it.  The right wing reactionaries have made a mess of this country for the past 30 years.  Anyone who wants to see the full impact of their governing philosophy need only look to the southern states that lead in every negative category there is." 

I guess Mr. Patrick didn’t use the same history books the rest of America does. According to my calculations right wing conservatives have not controlled the US for the last 75 years much less the last 30.

Apparently Massachusetts Representative Matthew Patrick has somehow selectively forgotten his American history or the educational system in his state is behind the curve. Democrats controlled The White House, Congress and the Supreme Court from the 1930's until 1980 and there were just four Republican Presidents during that fifty year time span; Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Reagan and at no time in all those years did the Republican Party control Congress.

During Reagan’s two terms and George H.W. Bush's one term the majority of congressional seats were still held by Democrats. That continued to be the case until the middle of the Clinton years when Republicans finally took over the majority in 1994 which lasted until 2006 during George Bush's second term, a total of 12 years.

Perhaps Massachusetts State Representative Matthew Patrick's recollection of history and his math would improve were he to have attended public school in the south. Apparently these kinds of comments and radical behavior is nothing new for Mr. Patrick, I did some research on him and he has a reputation for being rude to people. In fact, he gained some amount of notoriety in Massachusetts for being blatantly hostile to witnesses during testimony regarding discussion of a mandatory homosexual education bill.

I doubt very much if people from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, the Carolina's,  Mississippi and Louisiana (where they are still digging out from Katrina) or my home state of Texas would care too much for Representative Patrick trashing our region of the country if they were to read about it. We are God fearing, we are patriotic, we work hard, we pay our fair share of taxes, we support a large number of military personnel in our region and a great number of people from our states have fought and died for this country.

Politics aside perhaps Massachusetts State Representative Matthew Patrick would like to explain his comments and obvious anti-southern hostility.

Perhaps Massachusetts State Representative Matthew Patrick would like to explain to Barack Obama’s campaign and southern voters why he thinks it is okay to trash a part of the country Obama is trying to win in November?

Does Massachusetts State Representative Matthew Patrick not like southerners for some reason?

If you would like to contact Representative Patrick in regards to his apparent hostility towards southerners he can be reached here;

State House	District Office
Room 540	24 Collins Road
State House	P.O. Box 3252
Boston, MA 02133	Falmouth, MA 02536
Telephone: 617-722-2090	508-540-6308
Facsimile: 617-722-2848
E-mail: Rep.MatthewPatrick@hou.state.ma.us	RepMattP@Cape.com

God, Oil and Marxism; Why Conservatives Cannot Afford to Sit this Election Out

If you have wondered why gas prices are getting ever higher and why oil passed the $142.00 a barrel mark today, the answer goes much deeper than you likely realize.

It is not just about oil drilling, oil futures speculation, gas supplies, big government or big oil. Liberals have prevented more exploration, more drilling and cut back the energy leases available to energy companies over the last 30 years while promising everyone a cost effective alternative energy solution that never comes. Why?

Because the liberal hacks and back-benchers in congress associate every fossil fuel energy project with an effort to save some new speckled cockroach that the environmentalists target as an excuse to save the planet and prevent the search for and use of fossil fuels. If you don't believe it then ask yourself why Nancy Pelosi announced last year the creation of the "Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming." The two issues have nothing to do with one another minus the potential for accidental pollution but liberal environmentalists believe they do. Why?

Because most of the radical environmentalists don't believe that there is a God who ever gave humans the authority to name and use every plant, animal and thing responsibly for our physical needs and happiness.

According to the beliefs of each of the three great monotheistic religions in the world, Jews, Muslims and Christians, God gave us dominion over everything on the earth. He gave us the moral authority to use the earth for food, water, clothing, shelter etc. Jews, Muslims and Christians all agree on that point, not to mention a large majority of the other multiple-deity religions and each of them believes in using the earth in a conservationist manner according to God's word and the words of their respective prophets.

That is why radical leftists prefer to be called environmentalists and not conservationists.

For them environmentalism replaces a belief in a higher power and a higher authority than themselves. Conservation implies that a greater authority exists for humans to answer to for our actions. Environmentalists believe only in themselves and "mother nature", no God, no deity, no controlling legal or moral authority.

Radical environmentalists would prefer to keep their focus on anything other than human moral authority from God, that is so they can keep their eyes closed to the concept of creationism and intelligent design. If they ever had to admit that humans have a God given right to use the earth like conservationists do, they would also have to answer for their other radically liberal beliefs like their constant persecution of those of us who believe in God and our belief in living a generally compassionate, morally responsible and faithful life.

Compounding the problem is the opportunistic and selfish greed of oil executives, speculators and politicians who are in it for the accolades and the money while the rest of human kind suffer under heavy taxes for energy. While we are suffering they act like a  bunch of robber barons and blame each other for the problem keeping the common middle-class at war with one another over who to blame.

Still don't believe me?

Then follow the money. According to reports from the IRS and the US Tax Foundation from 1977 to 2004 US oil companies received profits of $630 Billion dollars, they paid costs of $518 Billion dollars while our own US government took in $1.34 trillion dollars in taxes from it, for what?

The US government fat cats make sweetheart deals with their lobbyist cronies, they get big business deals and junkets while in office and after. Why is the federal government excessively taxing the oil companies while artificially raising the price on the midddle-class; they don't find the oil, they don't drill it, ship it, refine it, market it or distribute it. They have all ridden a huge gravy train for years and they just want it to continue so they use the weirdo environmentalist agenda to keep it going as long as they can.

Still don't believe me?

Then ask yourself one final question....if I am not correct, why is congress not doing something about the price of oil and striving to make us energy independent instead of letting the middle-class suffer; it's because they don't believe they will ever have to answer for their greed, triangulation, deception and misdirection.

The moral majority and religious conservatives in America who are trying to decide whether or not to sit this election out because they don't like either candidate need to wake up and smell the coffee. They need to realize that the Marxists, the radical left, the environmental socialists and the greedy robber barons all believe there is no moral authority; no one will punish them for what they are doing to demonize and marginalize believers and religious conservationists. In short, the Marxists, the radical liberal left, the environmentalist socialists, and the greedy robber barons live their lives and act as if God is dead and they have no one to answer to.

If the reality of that fact does not slap my fellow conservative Americans in the face and wake them up, nothing will. It is time for believers of all faiths to find common ground, to put on the full armor of God, get into the fray and stop sitting idle on the sidelines. We cannot afford to allow the Marxists, the radical left, the environmental socialists and the greedy robber barons to continue the destruction of this country by exercising policies that by their very nature are apathetic towards the legal and moral authority that exists over them.

Common Sense Makes a Mockery of Global Warming and Climate Change

In the 1970’s, while the rest of the world was waiting for “the next ice age” predicted by scientists in the 1960's, NASA Scientist James Hansen and three of his colleagues were investigating the impact that humans might have on climate change, specifically global warming.  During his study Hansen concluded that the world needed to brace itself for a cycle of global warming brought on by man-made pollution.

James Hansen is an award winning scientist and author with B.A degrees in physics, mathematics and astronomy. Hansen leads the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he has taught at The University of Iowa, and Columbia in New York, he is heavily involved in earth science studies and he is interested in climatology as a sideline.

In 1981 one of his research papers was published in Science magazine, in that paper Hansen concluded that Co2 contributes to global warming and that carbon emissions would lead to global warming sooner than he had previously predicted in the 1970’s.

Climatologists had already predicted that a trend would be apparent by 2020, but Hansen was saying in 1981 that the change was already occurring and that there would be record high temperatures as early as 1990.

Soon after his paper was published in Science magazine many environmental activists, liberal think tanks, and hundreds of media outlets began predicting the end of the world. They started talking about giant holes in the ozone layer, glaciers melting, terrible droughts due to global warming, world-wide famines, and predicted that world war three would be fought over fertile, usable land, access to water, and food; they sighted the famine and war in Ethiopia as evidence of Hansen’s theory being fact.

19 years passed and after no world-wide droughts, famines or world wars had taken place Hansen jumped back into the media spotlight by publishing new findings in 2000.

In that paper, “Global Warming in the Twenty-First Century: an Alternative Scenario”, Hansen claimed that if humans focused on fossil fuel emissions of “greenhouse gases” and Co2 in the short term they could avoid tragedy.

Of course Hansen neglected to mention in his 2000 findings that the world had already somehow managed to side step tragedy for almost 20 years before he needlessly resurfaced to predict the end was just around the corner.

In 2003 Hansen resurfaced yet again with a new paper entitled “Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb.” In that paper Hansen first excused his previous incorrect predictions by saying that the stability of the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers had helped keep the planet cool in the face of rising Co2 levels, then Hansen expanded his position on global warming by saying "halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented international cooperation, but the needed actions are feasible and have additional benefits for human health, agriculture and the environment."

If Hansen’s views and predictions don’t seem extreme, consider his testimony this week before a congressional committee on climate change where he stated that anyone who disagreed with his theories in regards to Co2, global warming, greenhouse gases and climate change, were not only wrong but deserved to be put on trial and “tried for crimes against humanity.”

So let me get this straight, if anyone disagrees with James Hansen’s opinion on global warming and Co2 they should be put on trial for “crimes against humanity” …that is just stupid!

James Hansen is not now and never was a certified meteorologist or a certified climatologist who makes their living from studying the weather and historic weather patterns. He was and is an earth sciences teacher who works for NASA at an institute that studies astronomy. The study of climatology was for him originally nothing more than a topic of interest. He has since turned it into a business and some are starting to think his motivations are no longer self-less.

In fact, Hansen has come under heavy criticism for providing conflicting sworn testimony before congress in regards to global warming back in 1989. To excuse that mistake in judgment Hansen claims part of his testimony was not actually his.

Okay…then would the rocket scientist please explain how someone else’s words ended up in his sworn testimony?

Hansen has also come under fire for creating climate modeling for his global warming studies that not only didn’t include proper scientific control data but also used faulty temperature readings from 1934 to the present. Hansen claimed the earth was warming when according to NASA reports it was actually cooling slightly. Amazingly the earth’s current median high temperature limits have dropped over the last 5 years, but that is something Hansen avoids discussing because it defeats his efforts to gain personal credibility and money. Hansen has had hundreds of thousands of dollars awarded to him for his study on climate change and his benefactors include prominent Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry via the Heinz foundation.

Perhaps those contributions would explain his being buddy-buddy with the liberal left and his support of their radical thinking in regards to climate taxes.

Hansen helped make the concept of greenhouse gases, greenhouse effect and Co2 emissions household phrases back in the 1980’s, the problem is that most of the gases he refers to as greenhouse like Co2, nitrogen and methane are natural to the environment and are not predominantly man made.

The greenhouse effect is not correct in its description. The regulation of heat in a greenhouse is accomplished by a method known as convection and it involves either opening a floor, ceiling or window panel until the internal temperatures are optimal for plant life compared to the ambient outside air and temperature.

The earth regulates the radiation produced by man, animals, forest fires, volcanoes, and decaying matter via the natural life cycle involving the atmosphere, the vacuum in space, the ocean cycles, and the trade off of oxygen between plants and humans.

For those who don’t know here is the general make up of the air we breathe.
Nitrogen (N2): 78.09% Oxygen (O2): 20.95% Argon (Ar): 0.93% Carbon dioxide (CO2): 0.038% Others (less than 0.002% each): Neon (Ne), Helium (He), Krypton (Kr), Hydrogen (H2), Xenon (Xe).

Hansen has perpetrated one of the largest hoax’s known to modern man. There is not a deadly Co2 blanket that coats the earth’s atmosphere trapping extensive heat, methane and nitrogen underneath it as Hansen has predicted. Most of the air we breathe is not Co2 it is Nitrogen. If there were such a C02 blanket NASA and other high resolution satellites would reveal it the same way they reveal the gas clouds on other planets like Jupiter. Not to mention, that there are methods of making Co2 visible and to date none of them have revealed Hansen’s dangerous cloud hovering over the earth.

If it did exist an enormous cloud would be trapping excessive levels of Co2, nitrogen, methane, hydrogen, helium and other gases underneath it and people would be choking to death and falling over dead everyday by the thousands because of it.

It is a medical fact that a lack of oxygen to the brain will cause death or at a bare minimum permanent brain damage…so if nothing else according to Hansen’s theory there should be millions of brain dead people in the United States.

On second thought maybe there is some truth to Hansen’s theory…perhaps the reason why liberals believe in global warming is because they are the only ones affected by it.

Like I said, common sense makes a mockery of global warming and climate change every time.