The Myth of Finite Fossil Oil

Over the years, we have heard many comments concerning our limited reserves of fossil fuel oil. The prophits of limited oil reserves have been proven wrong each time. Where did the definition of oil as a fossil fuel come from? A good history source can be found here. LINK  A Russian   Mikhail Lomonosov developed the biogenic theory in 1757 that stated that oil was created by the decompositon of organic material.

The first rejection of this hypothesis occurred about a half century later. The German geologist A. von Humboldt and the French chemist L. J. Gay-Lussac (both quite famous scientists at the time) proposed that oil came from great depths within the earth and was unrelated to biological material. Another French chemist M. Berthelot scorned the biological origin notion and demonstrated that organic molecules could be created from inorganic materials. Other scientists of the time confirmed this result. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Russian scientist D. Mendeleev, discoverer of the Periodic Table of the Elements, proclaimed that oil is a primordial material that erupted from great depths beneath the earth. He hypothesized that the oil travelled along the pathway of deep faults. He was criticized by the geologists of the time because deep faults were unknown then. Today we know they exist as plate tectonics and are well understood. This was the basis for the development of the Abiotic Theory.  Abiotic Theory holds that oil is continously being produced by chemical synthesis deep within the earth's mantle.  A good summary of the scientific evidence supporting Abiotic Theory can be found here LINK here LINK and here LINK .

What does this mean to us?  It means that we will never run out of oil and there is no need for expensive alternate energy sources.  Stop the Cap and Trade nonsense and drill baby drill.  Our economic crisis can be stopped in its tracks by the simple procedure of drilling on our own shores and stop sending our wealth overseas to the Arabs.

Democrats Never Change: Party First, Country Second

President Obama, much like F.D.Roosevelt did in his Presidency, is advocating a program for rebuilding the infrastructure of the country and thus put people to work during the current economic downturn. In FDR’s program, he had a similar program called the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The states were given the power to administer these programs. Where did all this spending go? FDR spent the money not in the poor states (the South) but in western and eastern states. Why? The south was solidly Democratic and their votes were in the bag, but the other two areas were relatively close in results.

 What better way is there to convert a region to the Democratic philosophy other than giving them money. Indiana’s Democratic county chairman V.G. Coplan told FDR’s campaign manager:

"Use these Democratic projects to make votes for the Democratic Party.”

The Democratic Party was not thinking in terms of what was good for the country, but what was good for them and their socialistic ambitions. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a communist, compares himself to FDR and considers his economic programs to revitalize Russia as analogous to FDR’s New Deal. LINK

I wonder where President Obama will spend the infrastructure money that he is proposing. I suspect that most will be spent in cities with less than 500,000 people as all cities with larger populations voted for the Democrats when Senator Kerry was running for president.

The current demographics for President Obama’s victory have not yet been defined although Nate Silver LINK suggests that

Barack Obama's strength in cities won him the election, meaning he "might be America's first urban" president, statistics whiz Nate Silver writes in Esquire. Obama's "pragmatic, superior, hip, stubborn, multicultural" ways make him unmistakably urban, Silver writes, and America's changing demographics mean that urban voters matter now more than ever.

This makes me of the opinion that Obama will spend the infrastructure money in the smaller cities and in those states that might swing to the Republicans.  The infrastructure bill might be the October surprise.

I imagine that Dan Savage LINK said it all when he recommended to the Democratic Party that

“The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities.”

Cap and Trade Revisited

The Democrats are hoping to push through Cap and Trade during the present lame duck session of Congress.  The bill already passed the house but now needs Senate confirmation. LINK   A recent article by Clive Hamilton LINK published in ABC's The Drum Unleashed espoused the typical liberal view that the science of global warming is settled and something should be done to halt it.  Without specifically mentioning it, I think Mr. Hamilton is pushing for Cap and Trade.  In support of his comments regarding the settled science of global warming and
the inevitable catastrophe that awaits us, he states the following:

"I have tried to find some new studies that go the other way (meaning that there is no global warming, italics mine) in the hope I can counterbalance this bleak story, but have not succeeded."

As Mr. Hamilton had trouble finding arguments to the contrary regarding global warming, I thought I'd give him a helping hand.

Dr. Kauffman of the University of Sciences published an article in The Journal of Scientific Exploration LINK that thoroughly debunks the concept of global warming.  He does not say that climate change does not occur but that the concept that man is causing this is totally false.  His list of references should help Mr. Hamilton find opposing viewpoints. Dr. Kauffman is of the opinion that:

"Forced limits on C02 emissions will not be productive and will cause serious drops in living standards in industrialized countries, if adopted."

Dr. Jaworowski, an eminent expert of CO2 analysis in ice cores and glacial drilling investigated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data and wrote a paper titled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time". LINK  He concluded

"During the past 3,000 years, one can observe a clear cooling trend in the Earth’s climate (Keigwin et al. 1994, and Khilyuk and Chilingar 2006). During this period, the global temperature deviations were 3°C, with a trend of decreasing global temperature of about 2°C. As Khilyuk and Chilingar stated: “This cooling tendency will probably last in the future.  We live in the cooling geologic period and the global warming observed during the last approximately 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history.” ....Not man, but nature rules the climate. The Kyoto Protocol and the IPCC reports, tuned by Malthusian ideas, may surely make a lot of noise and cause enormous harm for the global economy and for the well-being of billions of people. But they can do nothing for the climate. This we shall learn in the near future."

Dr. Jaworowski's references should give Mr. Hamilton quite a few more of opposing viewpoints.

Dr. Essenhigh of Ohio State University also refutes the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming and provides a rather in depth analysis of the subject. LINK He along with others not only believe but have demonstrated that water vapor is the main cause of heat absorbtion by the atmosphere. Dr. Essenhigh invites any and all discourse on the subject with the following statement

"The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers."

Mr. Hamilton, just as most liberals, is not concerned with the facts but rather acts on emotion.  In support of his arguments and media bias against global warming, he quotes Tim Holmes (?)

"The implications are deeply disturbing, not only for our prospects of tackling climate change, but for basic standards of honesty and integrity in journalism."

An interesting quote, but who is Tim Holmes?  It turns out that he is just another liberal and obviously supports Hamilton's point of view.  Before you talk about honesty and integrity in journalism, look in the mirror.  By the way if you need anymore opposing viewpoints to global warming, look a little harder.

IS OBAMA A MUSLIM?

A new Pew poll indicates that 18% of Americans think that Obama is a Muslim.  This is a seven point increase  in a little more than a year ago (March 2009).  34% think Obama is a Christian while 43% don't know one way or the other. LINK

The Washington Post thinks that the18% have come to the wrong conclusion.  They base this premise on Obama's faith advisor, Joshua DuBois, statement that

"the president's Christian faith plays an "important part" in his daily life."LINK 

Both the Post and the 18% cannot be right: one of them must be wrong.  Is it possible to resolve this dilemma?  Let us suppose that Obama is a Muslim.  Islam prohibits lying except in three instances.

"The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife."
The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims.

Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

• Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
• Renounce belief in Allah.
• Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
• Utter insincere oaths.

Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened. LINK

As Dr. Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission observed:

In a 2007 New York Times interview, entitled Obama, A man of the World, Obama fondly recalled the Islamic evening call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” According to the article, “Obama went on to recite its opening lines with a perfect Arabic accent: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet!”

“A devoted follower of Jesus Christ would never say ‘Allah is supreme and there is no god but Allah,’” argues Dr. Cass. “Sitting in a pew from time to time doesn’t make someone a Christian. If anything, Obama is rooted in Islamic tradition.” LINK

If Obama is a Muslim (and he obviously does all of the bulleted items listed above) then he must be doing something to protect or advance the Islamic cause.

On the other hand he may be a Christian.  If he is, why doesn't he act in a Christian manner?  Christians accept the Bible as the word of God and Jesus as the savior.  Rev. Don Hamer of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission explains how Obama does not exhibit Christian behavior.  He has compiled seven videos  showing Obama's  violations of Christian tenets. LINK  One of these videos is presented below.


Maybe Obama is not a Muslim or a Christian, maybe he's just an atheist.  I don't have any preference either way.  He can be what he wants to be but I don't understand his sympathy or partiality to Islam.  My guess would be is that Obama is a Muslim.  What his intentions are for America remains to be seen.  On the surface his objectives for our country do not appear to be good.

IS FACTCHECK.ORG BIASED TOWARD THE DEMOCRATS?

There are numerous references on the internet that suggest they are. For example, on the issue of health care, they refute the rumor that ObamCare “"Exempts" House and Senate members”. LINK Their rebuttal is that “No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact." The Washington Times LINK gives a different opinion:

“The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of "staff" includes only the members' personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect "ordinary Americans," according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders.”

Aside from from looking at the discrepancies in FactCheck's reported facts, it is worthwhile to examine the history of the organization. Brooks Jackson, left CNN LINK and joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2003 and launched FactCheck.org in December of that year. Link Funding was received from the "Annenberg family foundation and one other Annenberg foundation". The Annenberg Foundation also funded the The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). LINK

Bill Ayers, an associate of President Obama, was part of a terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other governmental buildings. His only regret was that maybe he did not do enough. He never went to prison because of a technical loophole regarding improper surveillance of his activities. Eventually, he became an education professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He not only founded the terrorist Weather Underground organization but the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was his brainchild. LINK.

CAC adopted the Ayers philosophy and stressed student radical political activism over achievement testing. In his books he recommended that teachers should be teaching opposition to American racism and oppression. Ayers obviously thought that societal changes could best be accomplished through the control of education. At least he did not tell the teachers to go out and bomb someone. Possibly with the years passing by he mellowed somewhat. But that doesn't mean he gave up his violent radical ideas. It probably means that he knows if he carries out another act of extreme violence he will go to prison. I'm sure the police officials involved will not make the same surveillance mistake twice. He was quoted as saying "I'm a radical, Leftist, small "c" communist." His educational philosophies were adopted by CAC. "The CAC's operations were closed in 2001, and subsumed into those of the Annenberg Institute for Social Reform". LINK As the Wall Street Journal put it: LINK

"CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)".

Small wonder that Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wanted to include millions of dollars in the stimulus bill for ACORN. It is supposed to be a non-profit organization but as is well known, they totally support the Democratic Party. Their members will even go so far as to generate fictitious votes for the Democrats if required. They are under investigation in this regard. LINK

What did FactCheck say about Bill Ayers during the McCain Obama campaign? LINK

"Even the description of Ayers as a "terrorist" is a matter of interpretation. Setting off bombs can fairly be described as terrorism even when they are intended to cause only property damage, which is what Ayers has admitted doing in his youth. But for nearly three decades since, Ayers has lived the relatively quiet life of an educator. It would be correct to call him a "former terrorist," and an "unapologetic" one at that. But if McCain means the word "terrorist" to invoke images of 9/11, he's being misleading; Ayers is no Osama bin Laden now, and never was."

It sounds to me as if FactCheck is softpedalling the representation of Bill Ayers. Intentions do not trump actions. Does this suggest bias? It may be that Brooks Jackson's time at CNN introduced some liberal bias into his thinking about facts. Is FactCheck biased in their reporting of the facts? I leave it to the reader to decide.

OBAMA�S NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE

In communist Poland, the state had an organization called �Zmotoryzowane Odwody Milicji Obywatelskiej (ZOMO. ZOMO translates to the Motorized Reserves of the Citizens Militia. They were a paramilitary riot police force and were used to quell unrest within the country. The government did not trust the armed forces to crush the Solidarity movement within the country and relied on the ZOMO�s to accomplish the task. As history shows, they failed and the Communist government was overthrown in December, 1989.

Who were the ZOMOs? Time magazine summarized the organization rather succinctly:
ZOMO members are often country dwellers, generally poor and with only six to eight years of education. Some are convicted felons. Says a Polish exile: "If someone has a criminal background, the authorities might say, 'Okay, we'll forget that little blemish if you give us a year in the ZOMO.
The selection process is said to favor brawny youths who in some fashion feel alienated from society. ZOMO members are generally kept apart from the people they are being trained to subdue. They live in their own barracks outside major Polish cities and enjoy special privileges, including generous salaries and ready access to consumer goods.� Link

Kind of sounds like the definition of a Black Panther.


The picture on the left (A. Luczak, Wesolych Swiat zyczy Komuna, Aug. 7, 2005, and Central Eastern Eurpean Online Library.) is a humorous lampoon of a ZOMO that was distributed in Poland during the time of martial law. The printing on the photo says �The communists wish you a merry Christmas�. A group of amateur photographers in Poznan made the picture into a postcard. It was then copied and distributed throughout the country. Their secret service acquired the photograph and launched an investigation to determine its origin. Several people were arrested and charged with crimes against the State. The charges were eventually dropped, as it could not be proved that any of the arrested was guilty of the crime. The photo is reminiscent of the Black Panthers intimidating voters in the U.S.

So what does this have to do with Obama�s national security force? The ZOMO�s were a civilian paramilitary force. Obama is proposing (July 2, 2008) that "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (emphasis mine)." He will have a difficult time finding the funding for such a large project if he intends to make the civilian forces as large as the military. We already fund part of his somewhat subdued paramilitary groups such as Acorn and SEIU but he still needs more money to carry out his plan. How does he anticipate getting such money without going to Congress and asking for it? The answer of course is to do it covertly.

The health care bill HR 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law on March 23, 2010. Its sponsor was the ethically challenged Democrat, Charley Rangel. Paraphrasing Pelosi, this is the law that we�ll find out what�s in it once we pass it. Nobody in Congress seemed to read it. The following section was included in the health care bill.

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) Establishment-
(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
(2) REQUIREMENT- All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

Article (2) is interesting. What this means is that Obama can pay his corps whatever he wishes. He does not need to comply with civil-service pay scales. That�s what the communist Polish government did to attract ZOMO members.

(3) APPOINTMENT- Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The President appoints the officers to the Ready Reserve Corps, whereas the Regular Corps is appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. This gives the President the power to appoint a Reserve Corp member to any rank he wishes.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY- Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS- Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) Assimilating Reserve Corp Officers Into the Regular Corps
Effective on the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

This section gives rise to the possibility that any Presidential appointee to the Reserve can be made to be of higher rank than a Senate appointee to the Regular Corp � effectively controlling any Senate appointee and abrogating Sec.203(a)(3).

(c) Purpose and Use of Ready Reserve
(1) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service's reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.

There is no definition of what is an emergency response mission. I guess this means that the President (possibly through his Surgeon General) defines an emergency. This is potentially dangerous.

(2) USES- The Ready Reserve Corps shall
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

This clause is particularly dangerous as there seems to be a distinction between �national emergencies� and �public health crises� � particularly when the Bill compares the Ready Reserve to the �uniformed service reserve personnel� (Military?). Does this mean that an emergency is something other than a health emergency?

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and

It appears that we taxpayers will be paying for �health emergencies� in countries other than in the United States.

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 799B) to improve access to health services.
(d) Funding- For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for recruitment and training and $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the Ready Reserve Corps.

Health Care bill HR 3590 not only gives us socialized medicine but also funds and creates Obama�s private army secretly.

On the surface this bill appears to pertain only to the Public Health Services Commissioned Corps but as Judge Napolitano explained (see video below)

It appears that there is more to this health bill than meets the eye.

The Conservative Examiner states "Before the ObamaCare bill was signed into law, many, including this writer, downplayed the significance of this portion of the legislation, believing that it only pertains to recruiting and deploying an adequate number of physicians during a healthcare emergency.

With Judge Napolitano's analysis of the provision, now that the bill is the law of the land, new concerns about the 'private army' appear to be justified." Link



Posted by Gene Pelc at 7:56 AM 0 comments

THE ETHICAL HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE

Charlie Rangel heads the Ways Committee and writes the tax laws. One would think that he would know the tax law and would pay his taxes. Instead, he chose to hide income. He was up before the ethics committee and faced thirteen charges of unethical behavior. Two of these counts are felonies and are punishable by jail terms. Rangel maintained his innocence and decided to take the matter to trial – although that is still uncertain. The House Ethics Committee recommended a reprimand instead of a trial. Link

The Ethics committee is composed of the following members:
DEMOCRATS - Barbara Boxer, Chairwoman, Mark Pryor and Sherrod Brown
REPUBLICANS - John Isakson, Vice Chairman, Pat Roberts and Jim Risch.

One has to wonder, how ethical are the members of the Ethics Committee? If you or I purposely evaded our taxes, I’m sure a jail term would be in order. I understand that Rangel is presumed to be innocent and a trial would clear that matter up. But if he accepts the reprimand, what happens next? Is he then free and clear and only has to pay the taxes that he mistakenly forgot? It’s hard to imagine that a man who writes the tax laws would not be aware of his own obligations. Is the Ethics Committee really ethical or are they simply trying to protect their own members. On other hand, are they trying to set a precedent for the next upcoming investigation of another Democrat – Maxine Waters?

Representative Waters “came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband's financial ties to the institution.” Link)

She is confident that she has done no wrong and will fight the charges. Like Rangel, she is innocent until proven guilty. I suspect that no trials will be forthcoming for either of them and like Rangel, she too will be offered a reprimand. Whether they take them or not, remains to be seen.

If this leads you to believe that I don’t trust most of the current members of Congress, you’re right.

OBAMA DIRECTS NASA TO REACH OUT TO MUSLIMS

Charles Bolden, NASA administrator, was charged by Obama to: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering” (http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/NASA_s-new-mission_-Building-ties-to-Muslim-world-97817909.html#ixzz0tcyLPn8p).

Since the Democrats and Obama are wondering how to save money, I thought I would decrease their budget by a few billion dollars by listing all of the Islamic contributions to science, math and engineering. This should save NASA and Bolden the time and money needed to rediscover all of Islam’s historic contributions.


ARAB CONTRIBUTIONS TO MATHEMATICS

• Developed solutions to quadratic equations – year 850.
• Introduced the first use of tangent function. Developed tables of sines and tangents at 15 minute intervals – 940-998.
• Gave numerical solutions to certain higher order equations – around 11th century.
• Discovered a geometrical solution of solving cubic equations – 1048-1122.
• Calculated the value of pi to sixteen decimal places – 1390-1450.
• After this time, the Arab world was closed to mathematics. Historical data taken from http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/arab/arab.html.

If you wish to read an exaggerated view of Arab mathematics see http://worldupdates.tripod.com/newupdates10/id142.htm.

The Arabs claim they invented the ZERO. The number zero was invented in India and by the Maya. In India they used an empty space and later a dot for the zero symbol. This was around the third century BC. The Maya invented the number zero for their calendars in the third century AD. The number zero (0) was first used in the seventh century AD. The Arabs introduced the zero into Europe after 800 AD. The name zero comes from the Arabic word sifr
(http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99535.htm). I guess maybe they did discover the number zero since they developed a word for it “sifr”.

ARAB CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE

The Islamic Golden Age occurred between the eighth and thirteenth centuries. There were advances in alchemy, astronomy, medicine etc. Individual items are too numerous to mention in such a short article, so I’ll just give a summary of what some of the scholars of our time think of the Arabic contributions. Bertrand Russell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A History of Western Philosophy) suggests that Islamic Science was not innovative but communicated ancient knowledge to medieval Europe. Others say that Muslim scientists did help in defining experimental science and a quantitative approach to experimental study and this is probably true. Huff says that they did not bring about a modern scientific revolution (Huff, Toby E. The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p87.)

The Islamic Arabs did make one notable contribution: Ibn al-Haytham was regarded as the "father of modern optics" for his influential Book of Optics written between 1011 and 1021 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics). The sixth ruler of the Fatmid Caliphate ordered him to control the flooding of the river Nile. He realized the impossibility of such a task and fearing for his life, he feigned madness. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest doing scientific studies.

ARAB CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENGINEERING

The Arab website (http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=247) defines the extent of their engineering contributions: “Concerning Arab contributions to engineering, one can look to the water wheel, cisterns, irrigation, water wells at fixed levels, and the water clock. In 860, the three sons of Musa ibn Shakir published the Book on Artifices, which described a hundred technical constructions.” Does anybody have use for a water clock lately?

SO WHY DID THE ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE END IN THE 13TH CENTURY?

The Islam Awareness web page (http://www.islamawareness.net/Maths/science4.html) perhaps summarizes it best:

“1. Internal Pressures (From Inside the Empire): the End to Scientific Progress

With the end of the Abbasid Caliphate and the beginning of the Turkish Seljuk Caliphate in 1057 CE, the centralized power of the empire began to shatter. Religious differences resulted in splinter groups, charges of heresy, and assassinations. Aristotelian logic, adopted early on as a framework upon which to build science and philosophy, appeared to be undermining the beliefs of educated Muslims. Orthodox faith was in decline and skepticism on the rise.
The appeal made by theologian … al-Ghazali turned the religious tide back to orthodox (traditional) belief. In a masterful philosophical argument, most clearly stated in his book, The Destruction of Philosophy, al-Ghazali declared reason and all its works to be bankrupt. Experience and the reason that grew out of it were not to be trusted; they could say nothing meaningful about the reality of Allah. Only direct intuition of God led to worthwhile knowledge. Philosophy was a snare, leading the unwary to the pits of Hell. By the time of his death in 1111, free scientific investigation and philosophical and religious toleration were phenomena of the past. Schools limited their teaching to theology (religion and the nature of God). Scientific progress came to a halt.

2. External Pressures (From Without)

During this same period, the European Crusades (1097-1291) weakened the Islamic Empires' powers from without. Cordoba fell to Spanish Christians in 1236. When the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1256 the Islamic Empire never recovered. Trade routes became unsafe. Urban life broke down.
Individual communities drew in upon themselves in feudal isolation. Science and philosophy survived for a while in scattered pockets, but the golden age of Islamic culture was at an end.”

SO WHAT DID THE ARABS CONTRIBUTE AFTER THE ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE?

In 2007, Nobel Prize recipient, physicist Steven Weinberg, stated that Islamic science never achieved much of importance since the twelfth century and quoted a Nature magazine (italics are my inclusion) survey that identified just three areas of science in which Islamic countries excel: desalination, falconry and camel reproduction” (http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2008/01/islamic-science.html). Try Googling for info on important advances in science by the Muslims since the Golden Age. I could only find some scant info for the last ten years. Islam had done its job and Obama should be proud.

Susan Estrich Hypes Immigration Reform

There is nothing more dangerous than a feel good, kind hearted, mis-informed Democrat that tries to spin the news. Susan Estrich, recently poured her heart out in an article posted on Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/Estrich/Steele-Rendell-Obama-immigration/2010/07/07/id/364027). Her heart goes out to the illegal immigrants. She undoubtedly means well but is mis-informed.

Ms. Estrich says that “…Republican leaders put out the story that President Obama needs to take a trip to the border to see just how dangerous it is. The only thing that could be more of a stunt than his taking that trip is the Republicans' call for him to do so. However dangerous the border is — or isn't — the president would certainly not find out by going there. It's the job of the Secret Service to see to that.”

First of all, she obviously doesn’t believe the news coming out of Arizona. She obviously doesn’t think it is dangerous. I suppose the citizens there are hallucinating about the dangers they face. I guess she missed the sign warning our citizens about travelling along a road because of drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. Secondly, the Secret Service is not in charge of border security and does not investigate the dangers involved (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm).

She further states that “The Mexican gangs who have been killing each other, the irresponsible coyotes who take people's money and risk their lives — you can be sure they wouldn't be anywhere near the president.” I agree with this remark because of all the security around the President. What illegal alien or criminal would want to be around him with all the security he has? She makes a rather superfluous statement – for effect I guess.

She then goes into a diatribe of how the Republicans are blocking immigration reform. For good measure she adds the following comment “The president is giving speeches about immigration not because he is pushing a bill, but to explain to Hispanic voters why he isn't.” She obviously doesn’t listen to the liberal news (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-renews-push-comprehensive-immigration-reform/story?id=11062758). I don’t blame her for not listening to the liberal media, but if she is going to be a good liberal, she should try to keep up to date.

Next she goes into an altruistic story telling: “Why reward those who violate the law? Then you tell them the story of a mother whose children were born in the United States, who are themselves citizens, whose oldest son is serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they say yes, well, that's different.” I don’t know who “they” are but children born to illegal’s should not be citizens.

“You tell them the story of young adults who came here as children and have lived their entire lives in this country, who are working hard, going to school, paying taxes, and they agree that of course we should not deport the high school valedictorian because his parents brought him here "illegally" as a child.” It’s tough to find a valedictorian and I would appreciate your source for such a person.

I offer the following in opposition to your heartwarming stories. “In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.” (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html)

“Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.” (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39031)

“Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.” (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39031)

I could give you a lot more statistics but this article would be too long. I suggest that you Google the question “what percentage of illegal aliens are criminals?” You’ll get 246,000 results. I must admit that I would feel sorry for the one valedictorian but I sure as heck would feel no remorse for the rest. By the way, two thirds of illegal aliens do not graduate high school. (http://cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html). You might have a hard time finding a valedictorian.

Estrich rambles on further with the statement “The only way to address the immigration issue fairly is if we can put partisan politics aside, stop posturing, stop scoring points with language and stunts, and try to work together on a solution. That won't happen in an election season, no chance.”

My rebuttal to this is the following quote:
“Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).” (http://cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

Why not say directly what you’re true intent is? The Democrats are counting on the illegal vote. Why not? It only furthers the cause of a Socialist state.

THE HYPOCRITICAL LYING DEMOCRATS

President Clinton gave a glowing and apologetic eulogy to the late Senator Byrd. His lying comments were as follows:
"He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected," former President Bill Clinton said of Sen. Robert Byrd.

"And maybe he did something he shouldn't have done come and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that's what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians," he added.
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/02/clinton_defends_byrds_kkk_ties_he_was_trying_to_get_elected.html)

Let’s discuss his “fleeting association” as President Clinton described it. I think this falls into the classification of what the definition of “is” is.
1. Senator Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK while in his twenties and thirties. By my reasoning, this is about ten years. I guess if you’re a Democrat this could be called a “fleeting” period of time.
2. Senator Byrd achieved the title of Kleagle. What is a Kleagle? A Kleagle is a KKK officer commissioned to recruit new members.
3. He later rose to the rank of Exalted Cyclops. What is an Exalted Cyclops? He is the leader of the klavern (a local unit of the KKK) i.e., den leader.

Now let’s discuss President Clinton’s statement “he spent the rest of his life making it up.” I suppose that this statement requires a definition just as “is” did. The following items are ways in which he spent the rest of his life making it up.
1. Byrd claimed he left the KKK in 1943. He was born in 1917. This made him 27 years old at the time – a direct contradiction to point one above.
2. In 1946 he wrote a letter to the Klan’s Imperial Wizard that the Klan was needed now more than ever – he is now 29 years old.
(http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=383
3. When he won his election in 1958, he defended the Klan and “he personally felt the Klan had been incorrectly blamed for many acts committed by others.” He is now forty one years old.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp “A Senator’s Shame”)
4. He voted against two black Supreme Court nominees: Marshall and Thomas.
5. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – he was now 47 years old.
6. In 2001 he used the phrase “white niggers” on a television broadcast – now age 84.
(http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/)
7. The NAACP gave him a 100% rating during the 108th Congress – 2003-2005. I guess this meant that he finally supported African Americans. He is now 86-88 years old.
I suppose he spent the last four to six years of his life “making it up” as President Clinton says.

Now let’s discuss Clintons comment “He was trying to get elected.” What does this tell you about the Democrats? They will, lie, steal, cheat and say anything to get elected. Clinton did a good job of personifying the true Democrat and Senator Byrd was an excellent example of the same.

Who Caused the Gulf Oil Spill?

We have Obama holding his boot to the throat of BP. The Democrats want a criminal investigation to determine who was responsible for the oil spill. All of the liberals are looking for a scapegoat. Why don’t they just look in a mirror to see the person responsible? The blame can be traced directly to themselves and the environmental wackos.
Who forced the oil companies to drill so far offshore and more than a mile deep? The Democrats and their far out left are entirely to blame. If the oil companies could have been left to drill closer to shore in one hundred feet of water or so we wouldn’t have this catastrophe. Capping an oil well in one hundred feet of water is child’s play compared to doing the same in five thousand feet of water. Divers, either in full diving gear or scuba divers could have done the job in a few days or less. The environmental damage could have been confined to a few miles of beach or less. The economic impact would be hardly worth mentioning. As usual, the do-good, feel-good liberal’s grandiose plans always produce the opposite effect. Instead of maintaining pristine beaches in local areas, they manage to pollute most of them at once; so much for good intentions.
Obama, using his omniscient intellect, has a solution to the problem. He has now stopped all off-shore drilling for the next six months. He has also postponed drilling off the Alaskan shores until 2011. He has cancelled a lease for drilling off the coast of Virginia. Who says he can’t take care of problems. Just maybe there is a schizophrenic or split personality side to his behavior. While taking care of one problem, he creates another. His solution only makes us more dependent on foreign oil, particularly from the Arabs. It will probably force the loss of thousands of jobs as the oil companies shift their drilling operations to more friendly shores. On top of all this, his solution will only cause the deficit to grow by many billions more but not to worry; we can always print more money. This is another of his solutions. Create inflation and our debt obligations will be paid off in cheap money – provided that the USA doesn’t sink under the burden.
Why can’t the Democrats and their environmental wackos realize that we should drill on land and much closer to shore? Oh, I forgot we don’t need oil, the sun and the wind will take care of our energy needs. No, I didn’t forget coal and nuclear energy but the liberals sure did. I’m sure the liberals have a solution to the wind problem. They will just keep on talking and that should generate enough wind to keep the windmills going.

THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO MAKE YOU SAFE

The Democrats are contemplating passing a bill mandating that all automobile manufacturers include a black box inside of the vehicles. This box will monitor the operation of the vehicle and will enable the government to issue recall orders if something goes wrong. Sounds good doesn’t it? After all, looking out for your safety is a noble concept. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything and continue to vote for the Democrats.

Let me give you another reason for the black box. If an electronic gadget enables government to monitor each vehicle, then it’s a hop, skip and a jump for the government to monitor the mileage that you put on the car. It is equally simple for them to monitor the average miles per gallon that your vehicle provides. Why would these two factors interest the government? The answer is simple: CAP AND TRADE.

You might ask yourself what has CAP AND TRADE got to do with me. As you already know, CAP AND TRADE is a law that Gore and the Democrats hope to pass to limit greenhouse gas emissions. They consider carbon dioxide as the main culprit contributing the most to global warming. Forgive me, I temporarily forgot the euphemism that the Democrats are currently using, I meant to say climate change. Global warming has fallen into disrepute and is no longer politically correct. As everybody knows, an automobile is a huge contributor to the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Consequently, the miles driven can be taxed under CAP AND TRADE.

Of what interest is it to the government to know the average miles per gallon? Don’t forget that the government owns GM (government motors) and is beholden to the auto workers union. GM is too big too fail and the government must insure its viability – it also has to take care of the union. What is fairer than to tax the older, less efficient (low miles per gallon) cars at a higher rate and at the same time tax all owners for mileage driven? You might think that this is too complicated. The government would take the simpler route and just place a tax on each gallon of gas purchased. Such a simplistic approach would not solve their problem. They’ve already lambasted other car manufacturers as unsafe – indirectly supporting GM. They need to sell more cars to keep the union workers employed. What better approach is there other than to tax the older cars out of existence? Government dollar awards didn’t work as a large segment of the new cars sold weren’t GM. Smaller cars are in your future.

Such a system also helps solve another of the Democrats problem – unemployment and socialism. Think of the large government bureaucracy they can create to keep track of all the vehicles. This would enable them to hire more government workers and expand the role of government. At the same time, more government employees reduce unemployment and tend to keep the Democrats in power.

WHICH DEMOCRATS MAKE THE MOST MONEY FROM CAP AND TRADE?

The Democrats have now put climate change ahead of immigration legislation. I wonder why? An excellent article that was published in Human Events (10/03/2007) spells out the convoluted connections between Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Carol Browner and others. Browner is the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama Administration. Browner previously served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration). The article, “The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade” by Deborah Corey Barnes, can be found at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663. Please read the article. I leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions of why cap and trade is being pushed by these people. Glen Beck, Fox News, also gave a detailed discussion of following the money, but it is hard to remember all of the people involved. If you missed the Glen Beck show, Investor’s Business Daily (April 29, 2010) followed Beck’s lead and gave a good accounting of the “The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud”. Aside from the scam artists already involved, our Democratic congressmen and senators are probably also involved in one way or another.

An interesting subject is what happens to the Democrats that vote for cap and trade if the Tea Party is successful in removing them from office? How will the Democrats pay them off for casting an aye vote? We already know how Senator Harry Reid made a wise investment in land that appreciated dramatically. The land increased in value after good old Harry put in a road, with federal funds of course, that conveniently had a positive effect on his land value but was done for the good of the state. Believe that and you’ll believe anything. But what happens to those politicians that vote for cap and trade and then get voted out of office? How will they make money? There are a number of ways.

• Al Gore, who is on his way to becoming the first billionaire from Global Warming, could give each of all 257 Democratic members of the House a million dollars for an aye vote. This would reduce his net worth by a quarter of a billion dollars. Such a scenario is highly unlikely as few Democrat give away any of their own money. They only give away other people’s money.
• Most politicians have considerable money squirreled away in PACs. By law the money cannot be used for personal use. The Feds are currently investigating if Democrat John Edwards used PAC money to support his mistress. I feel reasonably sure he will be cleared of all charges. Other Democrats will be a little more discreet. I’m sure that if they don’t give the money back to the Party (highly unlikely), they will find a way to have wives, sons and daughters somehow involved with the PAC at a fancy salary. After all the politician doesn’t have to make the money he only needs to keep it in the family and have access to it.
• The most probable way that the out of office Democrat will still make money is either by being employed by one of Al Gore’s non-profit or for profit organizations. Either way they will be rewarded; if not with actual cash then I'm sure stock or options will come into play.
• Finally if Gore is too tight fisted to hire them directly, they will become consultants or lobbyists for the climate change religion. Obama promised that “"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/) He’s already broken that pledge with the Goldman Sax debacle. I agree that a member of the House is not a political appointee but Obama conveniently left the door open for politicians to do as they please. Payola comes in many ways.

While I’m on the subject of politicians getting rich, why don’t we push for a law that requires a potential candidate for office give a precise estimate of his or her net worth before entering office and after he or she leaves it. No more of this one half million to five million or five to ten million estimate. That leaves too much room for chicanery. Aren’t you tired of the smart investments made by politicians such as Reid (land) or Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures investment? It seems to me that most politicians, if they’re not already rich, leave office rich. It would be interesting to know how they do it. Perhaps they should write a book on smart investing.

Do We Really Need Green Energy?

Now that “global warming” or “climate change” as the Democrats now call it has proven to be a hoax, it is time to address their new plan of attack to control the economy. Their emphasis will shift to a green economy to conserve our limited and finite reserves of oil. The validity of finite oil reserves becomes the question. Is oil really a depletable resource? I’ll attempt to answer this with some of the latest theories on oil production.

The United States has oil and plenty of it, if only the Democrats would permit the oil companies to drill. I assume (with doubt) that oil might someday, far off in the future, be depleted, but each time someone predicts the end of our oil coffers, somehow new reserves are found. To stop the zealots that want to save the earth and replace people with flora and fauna; the followers of the pseudo scientific religious belief in global warming and the alarmists that think we are running out of oil from just calling me a conservative who doesn’t care, I offer the following few paragraphs for their consideration concerning the depletion of oil.

There have been many predictions of the world running out of oil. These prognostications have been taken to heart by the Democrats and accepted as dogma. Dr. J.F. Kenney a geologist and CEO of Gas Resources Corporation located in Houston, Texas as well as Russian scientists do not accept this belief. Dr. Kenney had taught and studied in Russia for five years alongside the developers of the Abiotic oil theory first enunciated in 1951 (CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECENT PREDICTIONS OF IMPENDING SHORTAGES OF PETROLEUM EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE, http://www.gasresources.net).

In essence what the theory says is that “fossil fuels” do not arise from decayed biological detritus but are produced inorganically in the mantle crust interface in the earth somewhere between five and twenty miles deep. The hypothesis that the “fossil fuel” oil was created from decayed biological material was first put forth in 1757. The first rejection of this hypothesis occurred about a half century later. The German geologist A. von Humboldt and the French chemist L. J. Gay-Lussac (both quite famous scientists at the time) proposed that oil came from great depths within the earth and was unrelated to biological material. Another famous French chemist, M. Berthelot, scorned the biological origin notion and demonstrated that organic molecules could be created from inorganic materials. Other scientists of the time confirmed this result. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Russian scientist D. Mendeleev, discoverer of the Periodic Table of the Elements, proclaimed that oil is a primordial material that erupted from great depths beneath the earth. He hypothesized that the oil travelled along the pathway of deep faults. He was criticized by the geologists of the time because deep faults were unknown then. Today we know they exist as plate tectonics and are well understood. This was the basis for the development of the Abiotic Theory.

In 1946, Russia was an oil poor nation. The Russian government realized that this was an untenable situation as oil would be needed for economic expansion as well as for carrying out war in the event that such a possibility would occur. They initiated a program to find oil that was the equivalent of the Manhattan Project that the United States created to develop the atomic bomb. This gave rise to the oil Abiotic Theory and to its development. Using these techniques, the Russians have managed to find oil in places which historical fossil fuel theories eliminated from consideration. By the mid 1980’s, Russia evolved from on oil poor country to an oil rich nation. Their success rate for oil drilling is considerably higher than that found in the United States. In the Russian Dnieper-Donets basin, a previously oil barren area according to fossil fuel theorists, sixty one wells were drilled and of those, thirty seven were commercially productive (F. W. Engdahl, Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer, Sept. 14, 2007, http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/ ) compared to about a ten percent success rate in the USA (nine out of ten holes drilled are dry holes).

After Dr. Kenney became involved with the Russian developers in the late 1990’s and had worked along with Russian scientists to open up major oil fields in the country, he returned to the USA and started to introduce this technology into the United States. According to Dr. Kenney there are some 4000 scientific Russian papers on the subject but very few have been translated into the English language. Among Russian scientists, the fossil fuel theory is considered to be obsolete.

Dr. Kenney along with some Russian scientists, proved their point by synthesizing oil from ordinary inorganic (not the organic detritus generated by living things) materials in the laboratory and presented their results in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA (The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, http//www.pnas.org/content/99/17.toc Aug. 12, 2002). Dr. Kenney, just as the Russians do, believes that all oil is made this way and is for the taking. In the USA there are numerous dissenters to Dr. Kenney’s assertion. For example, the New Scientist reports (J. Hecht, You can squeeze oil out of a stone, Aug. 17, 2002, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523562.000):
“Petroleum geologists already accept that some oil forms like this. Nobody ever argued that there are no inorganic sources, says Mike Lewan of the US Geological Survey. But they take strong issue with Kenney's claim that petroleum can't form from organic matter in shallow rocks.”
Notice that the argument here is not if oil can form from inorganic material but that some oil can’t form from organic material.

Dr. Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) in his 1999 book, “The Deep Hot Biosphere” offers compelling evidence for the concept of how oil is formed as reported by WorldNet Daily (C. Bennett, Sustainable Oil?, May 25, 2004, www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645). According to WorldNet Daily:
“He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life. He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?”

I will give one more example taken from Bennett’s article that suggests that the Abiotic Theory points in the right direction for finding oil.
“About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil. By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s. Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.”

Raymond J. Learsy (Oil’s Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of Billions, Aug, 12, 2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/oils-dirty-big-secret-as_b_118380.html) wrote an interesting article in the Huffington Post concerning the theory and why it has not been wholeheartedly embraced in the United States. The following is a partial quote from his article:
“Is the theory of abiotic oil viable? I am not a geologist so I cannot begin to answer authoritatively. It is certainly worth exploring with far greater seriousness than has been the case to date. But I have come to learn the oil industry and its minions. One can rest assured that if abiotic oil is a true challenge to current theory and most especially in the dimension it is purported to be, the oil patch will do all in its power to divert our attention elsewhere. Were we to learn that the supply of oil is limitless, the emperor's clothes would evaporate and the price of oil would collapse.”

If the reader is truly interested in this subject, the references cited are worth reading.
Gene Pelc

Democrats and Global Warming

Now that the Democrats have moved our country closer to their Socialist goals and control one sixth of the economy, it is time to take over another huge portion of our gross domestic product. This will be done by the religious belief in global warming and cap and trade. Let me tell you a little about my experience in Poland, Russia and Belarus and what they think of Global Warming.

During the communist years, the populace and the politicians of Poland thought very little about global warming. In fact pollution of all sorts was abundant. Rivers were dirty and as mentioned earlier some were even black as in the town of Katowice. There was concern about lung cancer particularly in those cities were coke oven gas emissions were intense. People constantly complained of the dirt and soot that was emitted from steel mills and power plants. They tried to keep their cities clean as evidenced by the lack of paper and debris on city streets. In fact I was reprimanded by a woman when I threw a cigarette butt onto the sidewalk. Waste receptacles were placed strategically on the streets. These containers also included a small tray for extinguishing cigarettes and cigars. I learned to use them when I did walk the streets. But in spite of the populace’s tendency for personal responsibility toward the environment the companies paid little heed. Raw sewage was dumped into rivers. Chemical discharges into rivers were also frequent. Cities near paper plants smelled from the stench of vapors being let loose from the mills into the air. These complaints were some of the reasons that people left the cities on the weekends and went to the country to their “dzialkas” (garden plots) for “swieze powietrze” (fresh air). The complaints regarding pollution were never made with regard to climate control or changing climate, but only in regard to how it affected their daily lives. The cleanliness of the cities and their health concerns were of primary importance.

The state of the environment in Poland had been worsening since the 1950’s. At this time the communist bloc emphasis was placed on building up heavy industry, the military and the economy. No one paid much attention to the environment . Due to the lack of adequate communal and industrial sewage disposal most of the rivers were significantly polluted. Only 50% of the cities in Poland had sewage purification plants. Warsaw had none at all. Silesia (Katowice is part of this region) and Cracow are frequently called “the area of ecological disaster” because they generate most of the pollutants in Poland. They occupy only 3% of the Poland’s land area but generate 50% of all toxic gas emissions and 40% of all dust emissions. Lead and cadmium particulates were of special concern as eventually these heavy metals found there way into the food chain. The Poles were concerned with the safety of their children both born and yet to be born.

The Russians had 38 garrisons stationed in Poland and as Townsend (www.zb.eco.pl/gb/4/soviet.htm)stated: “Not one of the Soviet garrisons stationed in Poland has shown the slightest regard for laws protecting the environment. Commanders do not recognize it as their duty to repair the ecological damage, nor to pay compensation.”

Oil, kerosene and other oil based substances had found there way into the soil and rivers causing severe pollution. When the Soviets left these bases, the area looked as if a hurricane hit the place. They removed windows, doors, plumbing, electrical wiring and anything else that could be salvaged and took it with them. The only thing left behind was a devastated and badly polluted area. Officer’s apartments were stripped bare. They took everything: bathtubs, toilets and even the kitchen sink. It had been reported that lead and cadmium polluted the soil and water around their air bases and fuel bunkers . The Poles resented what the Russians did to their environment and demanded that Moscow pay for the cleanup and damages. However the Russians refused and the Poles gave up their demands in 1992.

The post 1989 years introduced democracy into Poland and brought about increased attention to the environment and as of late the so called heating of the earth’s climate (global warming). The awareness of global warming may have been the result of the propaganda that liberal newspapers throughout the world have generated in this regard. Equally as well, since Poland is closely allied with the Western world and in particular with the United States, it may be that the Polish politicians found it expedient to mimic the mantra of the US Democratic Party -- especially now with a Democratic White House and Congress.

Conversely, in recent years, Polish, Russian, American and many other scientists have begun to think not only about global warming but rather global cooling. Professor Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski , a Pole, studied ice core samples from numerous glaciers throughout the world from 1972 to 1991. He has published twenty papers on climate, most concerning the measurement of carbon dioxide in ice cores. The most important greenhouse gas found in the atmosphere is water vapor and is responsible for about 96 to 99% of the “greenhouse” effect. Among the other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), fluorocarbons, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide the most important is CO2. The latter contributes only 3% to the total “greenhouse” effect. The manmade contribution of CO2 to the total effect may be in the range of 0.05 to 0.25%. His recent paper (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf) warns that global cooling is in progress and an ice age is coming. Solar cycles, not carbon dioxide, determine climate.

He refutes much of the data that are presented in Al Gore’s documentaries including Gore’s presentation of the famous “Hockey Stick” graph that represents atmospheric carbon dioxide content over the past 10,000 years. Dr. Jaworowski is not alone in his antipathy toward Gore’s conclusions. (For those liberals totally immersed or not committed to the pseudo science of global warming, I heartily recommend reading his publications and many of the references cited in this book. They are filled with data, history and graphs to substantiate the conclusions drawn.) An excerpt from Dr. Jawarowski’s article follows: “....an eventual drift into Ice Age conditions appears inevitable.” These conditions “would render a large fraction of the world’s major food-growing areas inoperable, and so would inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present human population.” According to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe(F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, Cometary Impacts and Ice-Ages, Astrophysic and Space Science, 2001, Vol. 275, pp. 367-376) “those who have engaged in uncritical scaremongering over an enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth’s temperature by a degree or two should be seen as both misguided and dangerous,” for the problem of the present “is of a drift back into an Ice Age, not away from an Ice Age.”

Dr. Jaworowski is strongly against the global warming theory and believes it is more of a political program. In a more recent article, he gives a summary of how the global warming movement was pushed forward. The following is taken directly from his recent paper (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf: “Maurice Strong, who dropped out of school at age 14, established an esoteric global headquarters for the New Age movement in San Luis Valley, Colorado, and helped produce the 1987 Brundtland Report, which ignited today’s Green movement. He later become senior advisor to Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General, and chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “U.N. Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Strong, who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” This pretty much appears to be the intent of the Democratic Party. Strong elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which, he said, can be implemented by deliberate “quest of poverty...reduced resource consumption...and set levels of mortality control.”

Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

For the reader’s benefit, the Brundtland Report (www.un-documents.net/ocf-06.htm#I) was put together in 1987 and was a report presented to the United Nations concerning the preservation of species and ecosystems on the planet earth. This, as Dr. Jaworowski said, started the Green Movement.

James Schlesinger (www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/climate_change_Schlesinge.htm), who had served as secretary of energy, made these comments at a symposium on the 25th anniversary of the Energy Department's C02/climate change program. He gave a concise summary of some of the anomalies that exist in the data used to support global warming. His final comment, as reported in the Washington Post article, was:
“There is an idea among the public that "the science is settled." Aside from the limited facts I cited earlier, that remains far from the truth. Today we have far better instruments, better measurements and better time series than we have ever had. Still, we are in danger of prematurely embracing certitudes and losing open-mindedness. We need to be more modest.”

A recent article in the Russian newspaper Pravda (www.english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-1)warns of an impending ice age. Ice core data show that ice age maximums and warm interglacial periods are cyclic in nature. Unlike Al Gore’s misinterpretation of the data in an Inconvenient Truth, the data show that increases in carbon dioxide levels lag temperature increases by about eight hundred years. In other words, as temperatures increase global carbon dioxide levels rise and not the reverse. This is a major point in the global warming debate. Al Gore and the rest of the global warming advocates reiterate that an increase in carbon dioxide causes a corresponding increase in global temperatures – contrary to the scientific evidence. I suppose that it is to Al Gore’s benefit to maintain this fiction as his financial gains are large with the cap and trade marketing effort. The Vostok ice core data show these cyclical variations over the past 420,000 years. Within that time span, peak temperatures occur every 110,000 years followed by peak carbon dioxide levels of approximately the same range as they are today. Pravda reports that we are at the peak of a warm interglacial time span and the earth is about to enter the next ice age.

A US Senate report (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9) concerning global warming gives information about 650 reputable scientists who debunk the liberal (Al Gore and the Democrats) claim that a consensus has been reached regarding global warming. These scientists are from all over the world with substantial scientific credentials. Several quotes taken from report are listed below to illustrate the opinions expressed.
• ““I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.”
• ““It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic (man made, definition mine) global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.”
• ““Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.”
• ““The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round. A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.”
• ““I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.”
• “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.”

There are many more comments like this with somewhat detailed explanations of why the various scientists believe as they do. Aside from the abundant scientific data debunking global warming as being man made, many doubt the computer simulations (which do not include significant climate variables) that predict climate effects out into the far future when they can’t predict next week or next month’s weather. Many of the scientists, as quoted in the Senate report, believe that the global warming belief is pure politics. The introduction to the reports says it all.
“Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder as a steady stream of peer reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of manmade climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic (man made) warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.”

Fifty two United Nations scientists (who may have been politically motivated) wrote the report “IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers ” that the liberal media have hyped as the cause of global warming. The Democrats needed an issue and jumped on it. Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi (both Democrats) are strongly in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions . As both are non-scientists but are politically deft, they became converts to the pseudo scientific religious belief propounded by Al Gore in an Inconvenient Truth. Waxman, trying to demonstrate that the greenhouse gas problem is a fact and to dramatize a growing (growing – Hebert’s or Waxman’s word not mine) business community consensus that believes the climate issue must be confronted, invites 14 industrialists and environmentalists to the opening of the new Congress’ first hearing on global warming. Just who did he invite? As Hebert (www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95NNE8O0&show_article=1)wrote in his article the invited were “….14 corporate executives and environmental leaders who have pressed for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050”. No dissidents, only those that agree with Waxman. This makes a consensus? Since when is science ruled by consensus and not by facts?

What did these industrialists and environmentalists recommend? They endorsed a cap and trade plan along with incentives for coal plants that capture carbon dioxide. What were the incentives? Who knows? But you can almost be sure that our tax dollars will pay for these incentives. What might these incentives be? Undoubtedly they will include initial capital equipment expenditures, if not as an outright gift to the industry, then probably thru a rapid depreciation allowance or a “grandfathering” of their pollutant emissions for a number of years. If none of these options come true then certainly our after tax dollars will pay for the capital equipment and the additional operating cost through higher product costs. Industrialists are not stupid. Knowing full well that the Democrats won the election and will pursue global warming to satisfy their voters, why not take advantage of the election and have the government (we the taxpayers) pay to solve an imaginary problem. The CEO’s of the various companies involved are responsible to their stockholders for maintaining profitable operations. If the global warming debacle requires additional spending that will add nothing to their bottom line, they would be fools not to try having the government (we the people) pay for it.

The Democrats are proposing a “cap and trade” policy to prevent greenhouse gas emissions. What is cap and trade? The government (read as some wise, all knowing Democrat) will tell each factory the amount of pollutants they can emit and cannot exceed. For this they will receive a credit (cap) for the specified amount of pollutants that they may emit. If they exceed their amount of credit (cap) then they must buy additional credits from a company that pollutes less than permitted. The purchase and sale of these credits is the trade. In theory, the company that pollutes less than its cap makes money by selling the excess credits. On the other hand the polluter who buys credits loses money. Who keeps the profits? The company that sells the credit. Who pays for the losses? The consumer as no company can keep operating at a loss. The companies forced to buy credits will pass their costs on to the consumer through higher prices for their products.

But is there really a profit when a company sells a credit? That depends on the price of the credit. If the price of the credit is too low to afford a reasonable return on the investment for capital equipment, no company will install pollution abatement equipment unless forced to do so by the government. So who sets the price of the credit? The government and it will set the price as high as possible to ensure that equipment is installed. It is somewhat of a Ponzi scheme with the last few in being the losers. To whom will the last few factories sell their credits?

Between companies, cap and trade is a zero sum game. What one loses the other gains in equal amount. The only loser in the game is the consumer as no matter what the companies do, provided they try to meet the proposed requirements for greenhouse gas emissions, the consumer will pay through higher costs for the goods provided. It is a Ponzi scheme with the taxpayer the loser. Cap and trade theoretically provides the cheapest method for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supposedly provides encouragement to install pollution abatement equipment for the control of greenhouse gases. The only problem with this economic theory is that it must first be proved that there is a need to remove man made carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If it is proven, then it might make sense, but this seems highly unlikely.

The Democrats are solving a problem that does not exist. Their only concern appears to be in keeping their voting base happy and who cares about the rest. Another case of class warfare; only this time their poor base will be hurt. The cost of electricity, gasoline and a myriad of other products will rise beyond the poor’s economic current status. On second thought, maybe not; since the Democrats do want to spread the wealth around they may provide additional government benefits to the “poor” (who knows who the poor are but I suppose the Democrats will eventually tell us) to offset price increases. Cap and trade coupled with the Democrats spending plans will certainly help us on the way to a grand dose of inflation; all of this for the pseudo scientific religious belief in global warming. The Democrats are sure of global warming as evidenced by quotes reported in Hebert’s article:
“Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who chairs the subcommittee that will write the initial legislation and chairs a separate committee on climate, said a consensus for mandatory emissions reductions is clear. "Now the hard task of enacting global warming legislation is before us," said Markey”.

Fourteen handpicked members holding similar convictions to those of Democratic politicians are invited to a committee hearing and that makes it a consensus. This “consensus” is the mandate for enabling Congress to pass global warming legislation? Only a Massachusetts liberal could come to such a wise and clear conclusion from such limited data. He would make King Solomon proud.

Socialist Schooling Philosophy and the Democrat’s Agenda

In 1976, the official government jargon was that the Peoples Republic (Poland) was still in the socialist stage of development proceeding toward the ultimate goal of communism . To achieve this goal, the government focused its efforts on the education of the populace – younger people in particular. Prior to 1990 all textbooks were published in two state controlled publishing houses. The Minister of Education certified that the textbooks reflected the views of the administration. The educational objective was to produce students that would be good socialist citizens loyal to the ruling party and who would never question the hierarchy of power .
As Dr. Tran quoted in his article:
“Determined efforts were made to make the pupils identify with the model of a socialist man (sic) committed to building a socialist society, acting in conformity with the principles of socialist morality, manifesting his respect for and love of work and anxious to master the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism (Tomiak, 1988, p. 1008).”
(Tomiak, the reference cited by Dr. Tran, was a professor at the University of London and was an expert on communist/socialist educational systems.) Polish history was revised to reflect a more or less past harmony with the Russians (although such was not the case) and caused the historians of the time much consternation in trying to reconcile actual history with the ideology of the government. Economic studies stressed that centralized planning was superior to capitalism and prohibited the distribution of books that presented contradictory views. Religious topics were totally excluded from the curricula. Polish patriotism was downplayed as too nationalistic and multinational socialism was substituted in its place. Polish heroes were relegated to historical footnotes if not entirely omitted from the history books. They attempted, with great difficulty, to show that a free (socialist) Poland arose from a historical feudal system that enslaved the people. The whole philosophy of education was to support the ultimate goals of the government. Teachers were expected to support the interests of the government and paid little attention to the interests and needs of the pupils.
To ensure that future generations of well trained and properly indoctrinated bureaucrats, professionals etc., would be available, education was made mandatory and free. Free meaning that there was no tuition cost. Not everybody could go to a university. To gain entrance into a higher education facility, a potential student had to have superior grades in high school and pass written and/or oral exams.
A quick summary of the school system taken from reference 123 is as follows. It was mandatory that students attend school up to the age of fourteen. Children 3 to 6 years old could attend kindergarten. It was compulsory that all age 6 children go to grade 0 which was considered to be a preparatory class for entering the primary grades 1 thru 8. Students were graded on a scale from 2 to 5 with the latter being the highest rank. Students with only 2 marks were not promoted and had to repeat the class. Upon completion of the primary schooling (eighth grade) and depending upon their grades, students had three options for proceeding into the higher grades. Students with the highest rank usually went to study at the “lycea” a four year course focusing on science, arts and physical education. Pupils with rankings of 3 to 4 went to the “technikum” (a 4 to 5 year course) specializing as secondary medical and economics schools. To be enrolled in either of these schools, a student had to compete and pass an entrance examination based on the Polish language and mathematics. Prior to 1983, potential graduates had to pass two written examinations for Polish and for mathematics in their last year of school before graduating. Post 1983 the law was slightly changed. They still had to take the written Polish language test but had the choice of mathematics, history or biology for the second test. If they passed the written test they then went on to an oral test of the Polish language and a second oral test of their choosing. If they passed these exams they were issued a certificate that they had completed their “matura” (the equivalent of a diploma). Free college tuition was available to the holder of the “matura”. The colleges decided how many students they would accept. To get into college the prospective student had to pass an entrance examination that could be written, oral or both.
Students that had rankings of less than 3 when they finished primary school went on to basic vocational schools were they learned to be machinists, hairdressers etc. and then went into the work force.
Prior to the government being overthrown in 1989, there were only state run schools. Private schools did not exist.
How does our public school philosophy, dominated by the principles and beliefs of the Democratic Party, compare with the communist/socialist agenda? First let me rewrite Tomiak’s opinion of the communist/socialist state and relate it to the Democratic Party:
Determined efforts were made to make the pupils identify with the model of a Democratic Party (socialist) man committed to building a Democratic Party (socialist) society, acting in conformity with the principles of Democratic Party (socialist) morality, manifesting his respect for and love of work and anxious to master the basic tenets of the Democratic Party (Marxism-Leninism).
The words in parenthesis belong to the original quote. Thus far there is no difference between the ambitions of the socialists and the Democratic Party. In fact their educational philosophy is identical: destroy American history, relegate American heroes to a footnote in the history books, stress the flaws in the capitalist system and eliminate nationalism in favour of multinationalism.
The key to the ultimate success of instilling Democratic Party doctrine in the young minds of America is to control their education. Instead of teaching that we are a united diverse nation as exemplified by our national motto E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) our liberal schools are teaching the opposite: we are a nation divided into multiethnic and multicultural groups. We are not united by a common purpose and goal as elucidated in the Declaration of Independence. Instead globalism and not nationalism is being taught as the future of this country. We are not united by a common language, English, but rather are becoming like Europe. Soon, if we do not require English to be the one language for the United States, we will be Europe and most of us will not be able to converse with our neighbors.
Senator Inhofe (Republican) introduced legislation to make English the official language. The Democrats strongly opposed it. However he did get his bill passed with the following modification: the word official was changed to national. What is the difference between the words “official” and “national”? Official would have meant that bilingual language schools would not exist, government documents would be in English and immigrants would have to learn the language. Why would the Democrats oppose such a proposal that would bring immigrants into the mainstream of American life? Why would they want to keep the immigrants separate and ignorant of the English language? The answer is simple – votes and particularly the Spanish vote. National is a feel good word and causes the Democrats to appear as fostering a common language but it leaves things as they are. Even so, most Democrats opposed it .
“Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the legislation struck him as invidious—if not in motivation, then in result. “While the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist,” he said. “I think it’s directed basically at people who speak Spanish.””
As usual, when they have nothing better to say and to hide their agenda, they play the race card. Divide the nation by playing one class against the other; keep the country in a state of multiple bifurcated classes.
We have governmental documents written in different languages. Why? Was this policy made to foster the integration of immigrants into society or to keep them from being aware of the history and politics of their adopted country? How can a person not knowing how to read English possibly know the political issues involved let alone know for whom to vote? How could such a voter be aware of what the politicians are saying in totality unless he can read? Certainly he can listen to snippets of political speeches on the liberal TV news but what can he learn of divergent opinion? The identity of the country is being destroyed.
The students are being taught that the United States is only a part of the World Melting Pot and not that the nation is the melting pot that promulgated the concepts of liberty and justice for all. If we are part of the World Melting Pot, does that mean we support oppressive societies that demean the rights of their citizens? The Democrats may actually believe this as they certainly support the rights of the terrorists that are trying to destroy our nation. Senator Reid should be happy to know that “The Internationalist”, a communist group, supports the Democratic Party position and favors bilingual schools in America . Why? Because they too want to destroy the one common denominator that holds the USA together: the English language. The Democrats, by segregating groups into individual ethnic and philosophical entities and keeping them ignorant of the foundations of our society, find it easier to guide them in the direction that the Democrats want.
Bill Ayers, an associate of President Obama, was part of a terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other governmental buildings. His only regret was that maybe he did not do enough. He never went to prison because of a technical loophole regarding improper surveillance of his activities. Eventually, he became an education professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He not only founded the terrorist Weather Underground organization but the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was his brainchild . CAC adopted Ayers philosophy and stressed student radical political activism over achievement testing. In his books he recommended that teachers should be teaching opposition to American racism and oppression. Ayers obviously thought that societal changes could best be accomplished through the control of education. At least he did not tell the teachers to go out and bomb someone. Possibly with the years passing by he mellowed somewhat. But that doesn’t mean he gave up his violent radical ideas. It probably means that he knows if he carries out another act of extreme violence he will go to prison. I’m sure the police officials involved will not make the same surveillance mistake twice. He was quoted as saying “I’m a radical, Leftist, small “c” communist.127” His educational philosophies were adopted by CAC. As the Wall Street Journal put it:
“CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).”
Small wonder that Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wanted to include millions of dollars in the stimulus bill for ACORN. As mentioned earlier, ACORN is an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party. It is supposed to be a non-profit organization but as is well known, they totally support the Democratic Party. Their members will even go so far as to generate fictitious votes for the Democrats if required. They are under investigation in this regard127. Bill Ayers activism must have passed over to Nancy Pelosi, Senator Reid and President Obama as all three will say or do anything to get more votes to foster their agenda in spite of what it might cost or the harm it could do to the country.
Rewriting history is an integral part of controlling the development of our young students and future voters. History must point in the direction of the Democratic credo that America is bad and must be changed. Republican congressman Tom Tancredo in a speech before congress showed numerous examples of what the history books were telling our students. Excerpts from his speech follow:
“This is what the textbook purports to be true. It said that this textbook was written ``in response to the bicentennial celebration of the 1776 American Revolution.'' You think good, nice idea, ``and it's lies.'' Its stated purpose is to ``celebrate our resistance.'' Who are they talking to here? Celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders?
The book describes defenders of the Alamo as slave owners, land speculators and Indian killers, calls Davey Crockett a cannibal, and it said that the 1857 war on Mexico, not war with Mexico, war on Mexico was an unprovoked U.S. invasion.”
“Here is what this one says about American history. It teaches that Sitting Bull had strength of character while Custer was a fool and rode to his death. Now I am not saying Sitting Bull did not have strength of character and purpose; but, again, look at the way all these things are presented. It discusses U.S. soldiers killing Indian women and children in Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, but fails to mention the Indian killings and the kidnapping of white women and children the summer before Sand Creek.”
“Further, it editorializes that George W. Bush's conservative administration and policies are extreme. This is a textbook. It states that the Reagan-Bush ``conservative agenda'' limits advances in civil rights for minorities and that the conservatives' bid to dismantle Great Society social programs could be compared to abandoning the Nation.”

The Bradley report compiled by historians, political scientists, journalists, public figures and educators, describes the deficiencies in the teaching of American history in our primary, secondary and college schools. Essentially, one of their conclusions was that schools are focusing on what is wrong with the United States rather than defining its successes. An excerpt from the report follows:
“The reasons for this failing are not hard to find—boring textbooks that lack narrative drive, a neglect of America’s heroes and dramatic achievements, curriculum standards that push the founding period out of high school into the lower grades, and teachers inadequately prepared in American history. Too often, students are taught more about America’s failings than its successes. Absent are those “mystic chords of memory” that Abraham Lincoln believed held our country together.
The teaching of American history should include America’s great public documents and speeches, and books with compelling narratives. The period of the American founding should be emphasized at all levels, including high school, by teachers who have majored in history. Students should first be taught about America’s great heroes, dramatic achievements and high ideals so they can put its failings in perspective. Meaningful, balanced history best prepares young people for informed democratic participation.
College does little to close the civic literacy gap. Studies show that large numbers of college seniors, even at elite universities, cannot correctly identify major national figures such as James Madison or phrases such as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” They are unable to define representative democracy or the separation of powers. Most colleges do not require an American history or American government course. Where history is taught, it is often taught as a fragmented history, a history of this or that group, not of the nation as a whole.”
“In a nation that celebrates its diversity, we need to remind ourselves that we are also part of “one nation indivisible.” Americans by a margin of 80 percent to nine believe that our schools should focus on American citizenship, not ethnic identity. Majorities of Latinos (70 percent) and African-Americans (54 percent) agree. Parents of schoolchildren, regardless of background, also concur. Eighty nine percent of parents overall believe “there’s too much attention paid these days to what separates different ethnic and racial groups and not enough to what they have in common.”
Marcia Segelstein quoted Marvin Olasky, a contributor to the Bradley Report, as saying: “schools are producing 'Hate America First' voters." A quote from her article admirably shows what diversity should mean:
“According to James Ceaser, professor of politics at the University of Virginia and a participant in the project, the country's understanding and appreciation of diversity is important but should be balanced by emphasizing what we share. "In selecting the title 'E Pluribus Unum,' the Project embraces the conviction that plurality and unity are not necessarily in tension with one another, but are supporting ideas of the same national experiment. Plurality is only made safe when it is grounded in a deeper commitment to national unity. Unity is the precondition for healthy diversity."”
Why does the school curriculum push the teaching of the founding of the United States down from the high schools into the lower levels? Because the younger students tend to accept what the teacher says. In most cases, they have not yet developed to the stage where they can challenge the teacher’s authority or question the interpretation of history. The young mind is more malleable and can be shaped, formed and bent into the mindset of the sculptor. They are more readily brainwashed and more likely to accept the concept that our country is a bad country founded on incorrect principles.
The Washington Post reported on a survey that showed colleges are more liberal than the conservatives ever imagined. 72% of the teachers at colleges and universities classified themselves as liberals while only 15% claimed to be conservatives. In terms of political party preference 50% were Democrats with only 11% claiming to be Republicans. The most liberal departments were English literature, political science, philosophy and religious studies with more than 80% of the teachers saying they are liberal. No more than 5% said they were conservative. The study did not measure how the teacher’s political views affected course content or instruction. I can only imagine the outcome of such a survey.
Did the Democratic Party cause the history books to be written in a style detrimental to the United States? I can’t say and probably no survey could determine if this true or not. No Democrat would admit to it. But it is reasonable to assume that the liberal philosophy, derived from whatever source, has profoundly influenced what is presented to modern day students.
Gene Pelc