Friday, May 30, 2008

Carbon credits markets open for business, and there is big money to be made

The carbon credit scam is in full advance around the world and that means there are trillions of dollars to be made. Finally the real reason for the new religion founded by Al Gore is becoming apparent even to those who have refused to see the truth and follow blindly into the man-made global warming abyss.

Despite warnings by scientists throughout the world, 31,000 at last count, a gullible public led by devious politicians genuflects at the alter of global warming preachers. People throughout the world have bought into the most incredible scam since Lenin and his brethren sold the religion of communism paid for by the blood of millions in his country and elsewhere.

In the United States we are about to have lifestyle-changing laws imposed upon us so that enormous amounts of money can be made by perpetrators of the hoax and Americans accept the outcome without so much as a whimper. When the Lieberman-Warner bill and others already in the congressional hopper are passed through the legislature and signed by whoever becomes the next president, all the sheep can do is pray for justice in the next world because there will be none in this one.

Recent reports that Canada has newly opened a cap and trade carbon credit market, joining other countries that have opened shop in Europe and the United States, reveals a glimpse of the world to come. Under the premise of giving polluters a chance to buy and sell carbon credits, Canada is providing their country’s first emissions-trading market. The TSX Group Inc. has launched the Montreal Climate Exchange to give polluters a place to buy and sell carbon credits. Since Canada is a country that's a big emitter, the market potential is very large.

The world’s best current day opportunity to throw off Mid East oil shackles is the Canadian tar sands and oil production in British Columbia is a major “emitter”. This industry alone will have to buy carbon credits that will earn for the hoax perpetrators amounts of money to be envied by even the fat cat sheiks of Arabia. Luc Betrand, the deputy chief executive officer of TSX Group and the head of the company's Montreal-based derivatives operations said in a good example of understatement "Our sense is this is going to be a very important market in Canada. You can see the size of the market when you look at the tons of carbon dioxide that we emit."

Carbon credits trading is a growing business around the world as more countries limit the amount of pollution that companies can produce. Companies that emit less than they are allowed by law can earn credits that they can sell to companies that pollute too much. Exchanges similar to the newly opened exchange in Montreal are up and running in Europe and the United States. The global market for carbon credits could reach €2-trillion by 2020 ($32-trillion U.S. dollars) from about €46-billion ($72 billion) this year, according to Oslo-based forecaster Point Carbon. That’s a lot of money even for those in congress who are accustomed to giving a way billions of dollars every year.

So as you line up to buy the last remaining incandescent light bulbs and tickets to see the “Inconvenient Truth”, you can be content in the knowledge that you are helping to support Al Gore’s 25,000 square foot mansion and providing an opportunity for the global warming crowd to live the high life. History is full of examples of sheep being led to slaughter, but none on such a grand scale as we have today.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

The true story about the shrinking dollar and the increasing price of oil

A lot is being written and talked about oil and the dollar these days. After global warming, the talk of the town is what’s happening to the dollar and the increasing price of oil. I believe the explanation of both of these has not been reported.

We are reminded almost daily in the newspaper business sections that "the dollar is declining fast and is in deep trouble." The implication is that this is bad and the dollar needs to go up and fast. It is also implied that the dollar is sinking so fast it will soon be almost worthless and that our government, i.e. the Federal Reserve Bank, can’t do anything about it. However it seems to me that the declining value of the dollar in the world market place has been useful to level the playing field so-to-speak in international commerce, and successful commerce is what keeps countries thriving. Around the world there is a loss of business to American manufacturing industries and our growing exports are testimony to that.

I read recently that we had a 2.5% increase in production of durable goods in April. It was also written that after subtracting for transportation, production was actually up 4.2% in the non-defense related industries. I’m no economist but that seems pretty good to me.

A low valued dollar adds good paying jobs and generates a large amount of income for the country. If the value of the dollar went up, our growing export business would drop like a lead balloon. The dollar is still the currency of the most powerful economy in the world. We may not be liked because of that power but in spite of all the badmouthing the dollar gets from abroad and even in this country, dollars are still what most in the world still want.

This not to say that we don’t have problems, congress spends more money than we take in and the increasing debt can eventually hurt us but not just yet. Of course we need to get spending under control but the prospect of doing that is not high.

The Federal Reserve Bank has a lot of power to defend the dollar which must not be underestimated. The Federal Reserve chairman said recently that the dollar would be defended, though he added the words "if necessary."

This tells currency speculators that the Federal Reserve believes the dollar value is where they want it at the moment. If the Federal Reserve needs to, they have the power to drop the value of other currencies and raise the value of the dollar. As evidence of this power, recall what happened when Bear Stearns faced bankruptcy. Most in the financial world acknowledge that the Fed saved the world’s financial system from possible collapse.

As far as oil is concerned, I think the entire run-up of oil prices is a very carefully planned event by the oil suppliers; namely the Middle East producers. Really big money is financing the buying of the futures contracts to run up prices in this incredible fleecing of oil-buying countries. Very likely those responsible are the same ones that caused the 1973-74 gas lines and which changed the world’s financial power forever although the reason is different this time.

Oil producers have realized that eventually alternative fuels will force oil producers to reduce their price per barrel by a huge amount in the not to distant future so they must "make hay while the sun shines" so to speak. Very likely oil producers and those that enjoy huge profits from oil sales are using their huge money pools to run up prices that then result in higher prices per barrel even though costs of production have not changed.

In my opinion all the talk of running out of oil is nonsense. If we want it bad enough, we could do what the Nazis did in WWII and just make oil from coal like the German scientists did over 50 years ago; they maintained their entire war machine with synthetic fuel.

This price management is similar to the diamond business. Diamonds can be made now that are indistinguishable from natural diamonds and for very low cost. The diamond business is manages to control supply so prices remain high.

The oil business people have a carefully contrived plan to fleece the world of huge amounts of money that will then be used to buy all sorts of businesses like banks, insurance companies, food companies and almost any high grossing consumer goods company, regardless of its location in the world. This is in preparation for the time oil prices eventually fall so that income from these purchased businesses will replace the oil income.

Newspaper almost every day report about companies being bought. The money comes from banks and other financial institutions previously bought with oil money, often disguised to hide the oil giants and sovereign wealth funds of oil-producing countries.

The mechanisms exist to do something about this but they are not being used. You may remember as I do when the Hunt Brothers’ attempted to corner the silver market in the 1980s. The politicians and regulators (the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) cut them off at the knees. But, this time it is not two brothers doing the cornering, it is multi-trillion-dollar combines that know they have the power to prevent any action to stop them. Money is power and a huge amount of money is huge power.

Keep all this in mind the next time you read about our problems with a shrinking dollar and that we can’t do anything about higher and higher gasoline prices. We benefit when the dollar is weak and we can become oil-independent and drive down prices whenever we have the will to do so.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

American workers will pay for climate change redistribution of wealth laws

Despite 31,000 scientists debunking the idea that you and I are responsible for climate change on the planet, congress is going forward with enactment of laws that will have disastrous effects on our economy and way of life. Members of Congress are considering several bills designed to combat climate change. Chief among them is Senate bill 2191--America's Cli­mate Security Act of 2007--introduced by Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). This bill would set a limit on the emissions of green­house gases, mainly carbon dioxide from the com­bustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.

As much as 85 percent of energy required to fuel our economic engine comes from fossil fuels. Senate bill S. 2191 represents an extraordinary level of economic interference by the federal government. Congress has not learned from the recent mandate of ethanol how government interference causes unintended consequences, and ethanol illustrates some of the costs and risks created when a government imposes significant new regulations on the energy market. Requiring expansion of ethanol use has imposed unintended impacts on world food prices because of increased acres under cultivation for corn production. Despite of the enormous expense of producing ethanol, which is far less efficient as a vehicle fuel than gasoline, production goals set for ethanol are unlikely to be met and anticipated environmental benefits are even less likely to be obtained. Yet the unfortunate consequences of S. 2191 far exceed the results of mandating ethanol usage.

The Lieberman-Warner bill if (most likely “when”) enacted into law, strict upper limits on the emis­sion of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) with the main emphasis on carbon dioxide (CO2), will be imposed. The mechanism for limiting GHG emissions will be the infamous “cap and trade” program which requires emitters to acquire federally created permits (allowances) for each ton of GHG emitted. The cost of the allowances will be significant and will cause large increases in the cost of energy for consumers. The effect of the cost of allowance will amount to an energy tax and the increase in energy costs will amount to large transfers of income from private energy consumers to special interests.

According to William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Ben Lieberman and Nick Loris Center for Data Analysis (Report #08-02):

“Cumulative losses in gross domestic product (GDP) are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.

The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020 and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030. Our analysis does not extend beyond 2030, at which point S. 2191 mandates GHG reductions to 33 percent below the 2005 level. However, it should be noted that the mandated GHG reductions con­tinue to become more severe and must be 70 per­cent below the 2005 level by 2050.”

If the direct economic impact is not bad enough, a generally unreported provision of S. 2191 is that all imported goods are subject to GHG emission rules. It will be necessary to measure the GHG footprint for all imported goods, to determine the relative aggressiveness of the exporting country concerning their GHG limiting programs, and assign a possible emissions tariff. Obviously the inherent imprecision involved in such calculations will make international trade subject to the vagaries of bureaucrats.

In summary, S. 2191 is a cap-and-trade bill that caps green­house gas emissions from regulated entities starting in 2012. In the beginning each power plant, factory, refinery, and other regulated entity will be allocated allowances (rights to emit) for six greenhouse gases, but only a total of 40% of the allowances will be available to these facilities. The remaining 60 percent will be auctioned off or distributed for other types of GHG-producing facilities. Most emitters will need to purchase at least some allowances at auction. For example, businesses that reduce their CO2 emissions in order to meet the S. 2191 targets will still have to purchase 60 percent of the needed allowances in 2012 and an even higher fraction in subsequent years.

Looking ahead to the future after S. 2191, businesses that reduce their emissions below their annual allotment can sell their excess allowances to those who don't (the trade part of cap-and-trade). However, over time, the cap is decreased from a freeze at 2005 emissions levels in 2012 to a 70% reduction below those levels by 2050. In addition, the fraction of allowances that are given to the businesses that emit GHG is reduced, and a larger fraction is auctioned to the highest bidder.

You might ask what happens to the vast amount of money collected in payment for the allowances. S. 2191 specifies how the distribution of the auction proceeds will be spent, with constant percentages from 2012 to 2036. To facilitate the market in allowances, a new nonprofit corporation called the Climate Change Credit Corporation is to be created to initiate and complete the auctioning of allowances. According to the Center for Data analysis report:

“Eleven percent will be allocated to an advanced-technology vehicles-manufacturing incentive. While 44 percent is to be spent on low-carbon energy technology, advanced coal and sequestration programs, and cellulosic biomass ethanol technology programs, 45 percent is to be spent on assisting individuals, families, firms, and organizations in the transition to a low-carbon regime. This includes 20 percent allocated to an Energy Assistance Fund, 20 percent allocated to an Adaptation Fund, and 5 percent allocated to a Climate Change Worker Training Fund.”

Given the very wide distribution range of projected auction proceeds, an enormous number of de facto entitlement programs will be created for socialistic distribution for decades to come. In the final analysis, we are entering into a massive redistribution of wealth according to the socialist agenda because ultimately the cost of implementing climate change programs like the Lieberman-Warner bill will fall on the American worker.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Big government is the problem, not the solution

One of the candidates seeking the presidential nomination of his party said that high gasoline prices will affect how Americans drive - gee, do really think? This is just one of the many profundities spoken by Barack Obama from behind his teleprompter.

We have seen gasoline prices go up strikingly before; sometimes we even had to wait in line for the privilege of paying more money so we could use our cars. The excuse then was we had a shortage of oil; which turned out not to be true. Nonetheless we were urged by the government to keep our thermostats low (the sweater business boomed), to drive the "double nickel", 55 mph, and buy gasoline according to our license plate number on alternate days. Suddenly the oil genie reappeared and we were able to mothball our sweaters, drive at a more reasonable speed limit and gasoline flowed freely into our gas-guzzlers, albeit at a higher price.

Today gasoline prices seem to rise almost hourly (alright daily then) and some of us may have to go into debt to keep our cars fueled; this is no joke, charging gasoline cost on credit cards with increasing unpaid balances is increasing our debt.

Everyone is feeling the pain of increased gasoline prices. But that's nothing compared to the rate at which the cost of other things has risen. For example, first class postage has risen 2,100 % in the last 89 years while the cost of gasoline has gone up 1,400% in the same period.

What's the reason for the higher increase in postal rates, the post office is a monopoly. Anything that is operated by a government approved monopoly has the privilege of charging as much as they want and has no incentive to reduce costs; consider utility rates - electric, gas and water companies have no competition so where else can customers go for their services?

Oil companies individually may not be a monopoly but they are collectively. Who can buck market forces to sell gasoline at lower prices? The government is of course complicit because it will not allow efforts to increase the supply or even to produce oil from different sources; we can thank global warming fanatics and environmentalists for that.

The U.S. government is the biggest monopoly in the world. Like all monopolies it has no incentives to economize. What's worse is that spending decisions are made for political reasons, not because the social benefits outweigh the costs.

The U.S. Postal Service has the power to increase postal rates at will and has no incentive to reduce costs. They recently purchased more than 30,000 ethanol-capable trucks to show their sensitivity for the environment. What has been the result, their gasoline consumption rose by more than 1.5 million gallons. A Postal Service study found that the new vehicles get as much as 29% fewer miles to the gallon.

We can expect the government will solve our energy problems with the same long rang thinking as the post office has. Aren't you glad we have the government to solve our energy and environmental problems?

The sad thing is we are not blameless in this tragic fiasco because we have approved big government at the ballot box. By looking to politicians to solve problems we surrender responsibility to the most wasteful, incompetent, and often harmful institution in the world - our government.

We are told we have to do something about our reliance on foreign oil, which is absolutely true. But how does the government propose to address this, with mandates for mass-produced ethanol and farm subsidies that drive-up the cost of food, while the decentralized sector of our economy is busy trying to create real solutions.

We have a choice. We can either continue to elect politicians who support centralized government solutions or we can elect those who will allow American ingenuity to take care of this for us.

If we rely on private enterprise instead of the government and remove artificial barriers to development, we will surely enjoy the same success that has made our country great. The only way to go is to prevent centralized government action because government is usually the cause of problems, not the solution to them.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Why have Democrats forgotten about Iraq?

You can always tell when things are going well in Iraq – critics are generally silent and the Democrats move on to other bogus issues. However the best indication is newspapers don’t report the unfortunate death of each of our brave American fighting men and women.

It is no accident that success in Iraq as measured by reduced violence and increasing assumption of responsibility for their country by Iraqis is slowly being achieved by improved military management under General Petraeus. President Bush has always been willing to accept the judgment of military leaders in Iraq and finally there is someone who is doing the job.

But as good as our military and our officers are doing, we must acknowledge that the Iraqi government under Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stepped up and has begun to protect their country themselves – they must also be recognized and praised.

From the beginning of the Iraqi government creation many observers feared Maliki, a Shiite, would favor Shiites over the other segments of the Iraqi population, Kurds and Sunnis, and would turn the country over to Shiite Iran. Fortunately for Iraqis and the United States, this has not happened.

The first indication of Iraqi nationalism occurred when Maliki ordered the Iraqi army to subdue the Shiite militia in Basra and Baghdad. By acting against Shiite insurgents so strongly Maliki showed willingness of the Iraqi government to secure the country under its own responsibility; obviously the Americans helped and lent support but it was the Iraqi military that were fighting and dying for their country. The Maliki effort may not have been perfect but it was clearly an indication the Iraqis were willing to take action to preserve their new "more Democratic" government and country.

Although the action to subdue Shiite insurgents and the so-called "Mahdi army" under Muqtada al-Sadr was reported somewhat in the U.S. news media, it wasn’t given the attention this action deserved. For the leftists in the press and the Democrat Party success in Iraq on any level is bad news; only unsuccessful results in Iraq are politically useful to them to maintain public antipathy for our military action in Iraq (and against Republicans).

The latest success in Iraq to overcome al-Qaeda also goes largely unreported. My local newspaper, for example, had a small article about this on bottom of page 11. The U.S. ambassador announced that the al-Qaeda network in Iraq was never closer to defeat and praised Prime Minister Maliki for his action to control the Shiite and Sunni militant groups; did you read about this on the front page of your newspaper, probably not?

Iraqi forces have been cracking down on al-Qaeda terrorists both in the northern city of Mosul and in Basra in the south. Iraqi military in the thousands trained by the United States military attacked and ultimately controlled the Shiite stronghold in Sadr City in Baghdad, something that hasn’t happened in years. Of course al-Qaeda doesn’t give up easily and they continue terrorist attacks against Iraqis but clearly the Iraqis themselves are making headway to bring terrorism under control and minimized.

United States Ambassador Ryan Crocker described the achievements of the Iraqi government:

"There is important progress for the Iraqi forces in confronting the Sunni and Shiite militias. The government and the Prime Minister are showing a clear determination to take on extremist armed elements that challenge the government’s authority … no matter whom these elements are."

If the media were reporting news, these Iraqi efforts and successes would be covered at least as well as past failures but this won’t happen because their agenda is to support Democrats, not to inform the public. It does not help Democrats for the public to know our military under President Bush and the military leaders he chose is making progress in the war on terror as manifested in Iraq; have you noticed that Democrats aren’t bringing up Iraq as much as
they did before?

Thursday, May 22, 2008

The story of Farmer John and why the government doesn't like him

Farmer John is a hard worker. He raises milk cows and sells milk in his area. Farmer John sets the price of his milk and also decides how much milk will be produced on his farm. He determines milk production based on his estimate of the demand and how much milk he can sell. Farmer John is lucky that there are only a few milk producers in his area selling milk and their cost of production is all about the same as his.

Farmer John's profit for his investment in the farm and his hard work depends on how much money he makes selling milk above his costs. If Farmer John decides to produce more milk, he can only sell the additional milk by pricing it below his competitors. If he sells more milk at a lower price it is possible that though he sells more milk, his profit does not increase. In fact, if he lowers the price of his milk to sell more, his competitors will also have to lower their prices to sell their milk and everyone's profits will decline.

If Farmer John miscalculates the demand for his milk and produces too much or too little, his profit will be lower. If he produces too little milk and the demand is greater than he expected, the price of milk will go up because demand exceeds supply but only his competitors will benefit. If Farmer John produces too much milk for the demand, much of the milk will not be sold and/or the price will come down; in either case Farmer John will earn less money. So, for Farmer John the best of all worlds is that he judges the market correctly, doesn't produce too little so he can't supply the demand, or to much so there is excess supply and the price and his profit goes down.

As the demand for milk goes up milk producers' increase their production and the profits go up. Eventually as the profits increase and grow larger, customers complain that Farmer John and other milk producers are making too much money. Because milk customers have a lot of votes, politicians in government believe they have to do something to make the milk customers happy so they also complain about what greedy profiteers milk producers are and they demand that milk prices be lowered. In fact, those politicians having a basic bias against business anyway, call for congressional hearings and investigations into the milk industry; they are sure something illegal is being done by the milk producers, they're not sure what but they are determined to find out what that is. Some in government go so far as to say a limit should be placed on how much profit Farmer John should be entitled to earn.

To show whose boss, congressional committees require Farmer John and other milk producers to come before congress and explain why he and the others are so profitable when those buying milk are having a hard time of coming up with money to pay the higher price of milk. Some of the members of congress get pretty nasty and really complain to Farmer John. It's only a good thing lynching was outlawed a few years ago or Farmer John would have a right to fear for his life, the anger is so great. It doesn't matter that the congress people are only making a show so that the voters who elect them will be happy with their choice and will keep them in office; the important thing is that the congress people show everyone "they feel their pain."

Farmer John tells the congress people that things would get better for all if they were allowed to raise more cows and build farms in areas inhabited by insects, rodents and birds but congress would have none of it; after all some of the people that vote for them love insects, rodents and birds and don't want their loved ones to be inconvenienced (and those that love insects, rodents and birds may not vote for them in the next election).

Farmer John also points out that it has been over thirty years since the government let milk producers build a milk processing plant and shortage of processing facilities also affect the amount of milk available to customers and thus the supply and thus the price. But once again their plea falls on deaf ears because the people who like insects, rodents and birds have plugged the ears of the politicians so they can't hear or think.

Well that's the story of Farmer John; next time I will tell the story of Oliver Oily, the oil man.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Discrimination is in the eye of the beholder

Normally the Federal District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is considered a serious court; just behind the U.S. Supreme Court in stature. But the other day this Court of Appeals undid decades of respectful service by its decision in a case concerning United States money; yes, that’s right, our very own paper dollars instantly recognizable around the world in various denominations.

According to this venerable court, because all paper money has pretty much the same feel, the Appellate Court ruled "the government is denying blind people meaningful access to the currency." The courts decision could require the Treasury Department to "make bills of different sizes or print them with raised markings or other distinguishing features."

As is often the situation in our judicial system, the case lingered around the courts for years, six years to be exact. The American Council of the Blind sued for changes in the currency, but the unsympathetic government has been fighting the case. Of course our currency as it is now makes it difficult for blind people but there are many things in our society that cause difficulties for some folks; most haven’t thought of suing about it yet but this Court of Appeals decision may just encourage them to "seek redress in the courts" for these unforgivable acts of discrimination.

Discrimination is what the case is all about and the court agreed with the organization for the blind. The court ruled 2-1 that existing adaptations to make up for "inconvenience" to blind people were insufficient under the Rehabilitation Act. "The government might as well argue that there's no need to make buildings accessible to wheelchairs because handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask passers-by for help", the court said. Note: the court set a new standard for discrimination; "inconvenience".

Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote for the majority "Even the most searching tactile examination will reveal no difference between a $100 bill and a $1 bill. The secretary (of the Treasury) has identified no reason that requires paper currency to be uniform to the touch".

Unfortunately for the blind and for this court, judges don't decide how to design currency; this function appears to still be up to the Treasury Department but the court’s ruling may force the Treasury department to address what the court called a "discriminatory problem."

Although the process of redesigning currency could take years, a spokesman for the Council of the Blind said that "since blindness becomes more common with age, people in their 30s and 40s should know that, when they get older, they will be able to identify their $1 bills from their fives, tens and twenties."

The government could ask for a rehearing by the full appeals court or challenge the decision to the Supreme Court however Treasury Department spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said the department was reviewing the opinion and noted that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which prints the nation's currency, recently hired a contractor to consider ways to help the blind. She said the results will be available early next year.

Actually the Treasury department has previously considered making bills of different sizes but ran into opposition from makers of vending and change machines. Government lawyers raised this issue in court, saying it could cost billions to redesign vending machines. But the court said such data are murky, especially since one proposed solution would be to leave $1 bills unchanged. (Nothing was said about the many machines that take bills of different denominations.)

The Appellate Court said the government failed to explain why adding more changes would be an undue burden since currency has been redesigned recently. One of the court's majority said more than 100 other countries vary the size of their bills and others include at least some features to help the blind. The appeals court ruling said the U.S. never explained why such solutions wouldn't work here.

Interestingly, not all blind people agree that U.S. money should be changed. The National Federation of the Blind, another organization dedicated to assist the blind, sided with the government and told the appeals court that no changes were needed. A legally blind manager of a shop inside the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. said he doesn't oppose changing the money but disagrees with the ruling. "To actually be discriminated against is to have something denied to you. We're not denied the use of money."

Too bad the Court of Appeals was not possessed of such common sense.

In view of this decision, let us reflect on other "inconvenienced" (discriminated) groups who might consider suing for better treatment.

Obese people have difficulty fitting into airplane coach seats; shouldn’t airplane cabins be redesigned with them in mind, or shouldn’t they be given larger first class seats for the price of coach?

Bald men are at risk for skin cancer when out in the sun. Why shouldn’t restaurants with outdoor seating areas provide sun shaded sections for bald men to reduce this risk?

Senior citizens (of which I am one) get discounts at movies, etc. Doesn’t that discriminate against ‘non seniors’?

By the way, blind people can bring dogs into public places where dogs are otherwise prohibited; does that discriminate against seeing people?

You get the point.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

We could be energy-independent if it weren’t for political asses and greenies

Before I got my first driver license I envied my young friends with cars. They ruled the neighborhood and had first choice of girls; I could only stand by and wonder what it would be like to be able to cruise down Main Street in my own “wheels” and eat at drive-in restaurants served by pretty car hops. Little did I know then that all this was made possible because gasoline was a bargain and fill-ups were affordable by most everyone.

Today drive in restaurants are gone and with them pretty car hops; and so is affordable gasoline. In those days the only Arabs I knew about were the occasional actors in movies like Road to Morocco, Flying Carpet and Alibaba and the Forty Thieves (how prescient was the title of the last one?). Never having been there I could only imagine the likes of Arabia; I suppose something like Coney Island without a Nathan’s Hot Dog Stand.

When I fill up my car with gasoline now, it costs $50, a far cry from the days when gasoline was 25 cents a gallon; and we have Alibaba, political asses and greenies to thank for that. They are responsible for unaffordable gasoline.

The main reason that gasoline prices were low in the fifties and stayed low from 1980 to 2006 is not because the Arabs were our friends and wanted to subsidize cruising down Main Street or that they loved us so much they wanted to sing kumbaiya with us. The reason they let us keep gasoline prices low and oil prices at $15 - $25 per barrel for decades is because at that price nobody was going to pay billions of dollars to build massive energy infrastructure projects to replace oil from the sands of Arabia. To do that it was necessary to not let oil sell for much over $30 a barrel so it would not be profitable to invest billions to develop alternate oil supplies. They had to have a ceiling to how high oil prices could go and that ceiling was what it would cost to develop alternative energy sources.

If we had any sense and were not prevented by Democrats and their green friends, having broken through that ceiling we would be adding millions of barrels per day of oil equivalent production capacity using proven technology available today. If this capacity were developed, the price of oil would fall because there would an excess of supply relative to demand and it would take a long time for the world economy to grow enough to utilize it. The fact that the world would be producing an excess of oil equivalent relative to world demand would mean depressed oil prices for decades.

If we remember the years 1974 to 1980, gasoline went from about $0.45 to $1.30 per gallon in the late 70's. This was a huge increase at the time and people were crying then like today. However, this increase in oil prices caused an increase in production capacity development to occur. In fact, production capacity was increased so much that it took from 1980 to 2007 for the world to get to the point where the excess capacity was all used up. For that reason we had over 20 years of progressively cheaper oil and the same thing would happen again if we let market forces work. But the problem is Democrats won’t let that happen.

Every possible attempt to create more energy supply has been thwarted by the Democrats. Outright bans, like ANWR, as well as environmental roadblocks preventing construction of new refineries and nuclear power stations by Democrats and environmentalists have made it clear their energy policy is high priced energy and socialism, not the free market.

Let’s look at the record as summarized by Investor Business Daily:

“For the last 28 years, Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans have again and again opposed our drilling for oil in Alaska’s ANWR area when we knew it contained at least 10 billion barrels of oil we could be using now.

• For the past 31 years, Congress repeatedly prevented us from building any new oil refineries that we now badly need.

• More recently, congressional Democrats defeated and discouraged any bill that would let us drill in the deep sea 100 miles out. However, it’s somehow OK for China to drill there.

• As a further indictment of our Congress, since the 1980s it has continually stopped all building of nuclear power plants while France, Germany and, yes, Japan, plus 12 other major nations, did build plants and now get 20% to 80% of their energy from their wise and safe nuclear plant investments.

• From 1990 to 2000, U.S. crude oil demand rapidly accelerated by 7.41 quadrillion BTUs, according to Department of Energy data. And our rate of foreign oil dependency dramatically increased while our domestic oil production steadily declined.

Under the eight Clinton years alone, U.S. oil production declined 1,349,000 barrels per day, or 19%, while our foreign imports increased 3,574,000 barrels per day, or 45%.

During this time, President Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling bills that would have clearly made Alaska our No. 1 state in the production of our own vitally needed oil supply, not only for all Americans but also for national defense emergencies.”

It is not just that Democrats and members of Congress together were short-sighted, the fact is Democrats would not let the law of supply and demand determine the price of all oil. As Investor Business Daily concludes:

“… were they (the Democrats) simply and utterly irresponsible and incompetent in their actions that led us to become dangerously dependent on increasing oil imports from foreign countries? We think it was ‘all of the above’."

I agree with Investor Business Daily that it is a national disgrace for Democrats to relentlessly criticize, complain and condemn others when Democrats in congress are the true villains by constantly blocking and obstructing every effort for us to become more productive and less dependent on foreign oil.

While our fearless leaders are allocating huge sums to harness the power of wind and food production-damaging ethanol, they are ignoring real world possible solutions to our energy independence. In contrast to wind and ethanol, nuclear power which already provides 20% of U.S. electricity production, it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. If we are going to subsidize at all, then we should use the money for nuclear power because it is a lot more worthy than other "alternatives" like wind and ethanol.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency, issued a report that found ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per BTU (British thermal unit) of energy produced. At only $0.03 per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum fuel products, it is far less than $2.82 for solar and even $1.35 for refined coal. For electricity generation, the EIA study shows that solar energy is subsidized by $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and by contrast, normal coal receives $0.44, natural gas $0.25, hydroelectric about $0.67 and nuclear power $1.59. Most importantly is the promise of coal-to-oil conversion in a country with vast supplies of this untapped energy source. In just about 10 years, putting aside the objections of the green and global warming lobbies, our country could be free of reliance on Alibaba and the forty thieves.

Relying on domestic biofuels and nuclear energy is a much better solution and would enable the United States to become energy independent most cost-effectively and in a relatively short time. If that isn’t enough incentive, think about all those future generations of youngsters that will proudly show off their shiny roadsters as they cruise down Main Street.

Monday, May 19, 2008

If the Republican Party has lost its way, how can voters be expected to follow them?

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is the latest politician masquerading as a Republican to call for the party to change its ways and adopt Democrat policies to win elections. Some years ago Arnold said the Republican Party was in danger of "dying at the box office" if it failed to appeal to a wider group of voters. After successfully toppling former Democrat governor Gray Davis in a rare recall election, Arnold showed the way by becoming indistinguishable from the opposition party. Californians thought they were voting for a Republican but they merely replaced one tax and spend politician with another. California now has a $14 to $20 billion deficit (depending upon whose numbers you choose) and is rushing headlong to embrace global warming initiatives and universal health insurance, all bedrocks of Democrat policies.

The popular song sung by the Republican Party stalwarts this year is "the Republican brand has become damaged goods." One GOP representative has gone so far as to say "if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf." However the thing about any "brand" is that the public loses confidence in the brand when the quality of the merchandise deteriorates.

The Republican candidate for president, who won the nomination by default, John McCain, is also leading the way to transform the Republican Party into a mere shadow of its former self by adopting similar Democrat programs as has the California governor. Columnist Patrick Casey has correctly written regarding the McCain campaign: "The answer for GOP presidential candidate John McCain: take a page out of the Schwarzenegger playbook and sell a product that is "counter" to the current GOP brand on issues like global warming, spending and even immigration reform".

The present direction of the Republican Party is especially unfortunate because the last time the party acted like Republicans in 1994 they took the country by storm, but then they all campaigned and ran on conservative values and issues. As the GOP deviated from conservative principles, they lost public support and voters saw them just as phony Democrats and decided they might just as well vote for the real thing. After all, Republicans in congress and a complicit Republican president adopted Democrat traditions of excessive pork barrel spending, ethical lapses and big brother government policies. Republicans for the last 12 years did not follow anything even slightly resembling conservative policies.

Not even the Republican conservative base trusts Republicans after a long period of Rockefeller-style liberal Republicanism. To regain public confidence Republicans must return to conservative principles, govern in the future as conservatives and reject compromising with liberal policies and legislative proposals. As it is now, Republicans seem to want to out do Democrats for public approval by accepting big spending and jumping on programs rejected by conservatives.

The Schwarzenegger model might work in California now but presenting a "Democrat-Lite" alternative to voters is not good for the state or the country in the long run. California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner - the only Republican besides Schwarzenegger elected to statewide office in the last election - said his party's image has deteriorated because GOP candidates have forgotten the party's core principles: lower taxes and less government.

Poizner went on to say "Spending has skyrocketed. ... There's been this real crisis in earmarks, which are not justified, and there's been corruption because of ethics violations. "Republican Party leaders have done a terrible job and let the country down."

"Swing voters are looking for people who have the ability to get things done in both the private sector and public sector. We can win elections if we get back to the basics - and that's something that Senator McCain should do."

Ironically John McCain might win this very important Presidential election because many people understand the alternative, Obama or Clinton, would be disastrous for the United States and the world. Just the Islamic threat and the terror war issues alone together with the worldwide and domestic ramifications if we should lose, are likely enough to bring conservatives out to vote for McCain even though many of them might otherwise be tempted to not vote at all. But McCain has made it clear that he will not advance positions of importance to conservatives such as on illegal immigration, global warming and universal health insurance. As far as McCain is concerned he expects conservatives to support him even if it means repudiating their conservative beliefs.

I don’t think that’s the way for Republicans to rebuild the party. Winning elections that way may be expedient but it is not the way Republicans should present themselves if we want to do what’s best for the country.

Gallop pollsters and the Pew foundation have concluded that as Republicans have moved away from conservative principles, there has been a decline in the number of voters who identify themselves as Republican. The likely explanation is because there have been no national leaders that challenge Democrats on an ideological basis and promote conservatism. The last nationally recognized GOP leader that advocated conservative ideals was Newt Gingrich - ten years ago. Without such leadership, without such an enunciated conservative agenda for people to believe in and without a Republican Party that does what it promises, it is natural for voters to cease identifying with a party that has lost its way.

Whenever Democrats win in Republican districts it’s because the Democrat candidate runs as a conservative. Democrats had to run conservatives to win the three most recent House special elections. The natural home of many of those voters who elected conservative Democrats is really the Republican Party; not the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

If Republican leaders continue to say conservatism is no longer a winning strategy it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without anyone in the GOP publicly promoting conservative ideology and a true conservative agenda as a solution to our problems, how do we know that it won't work? When it's been tried in the past, it's attracted enthusiastic supporters and voters - and been quite successful.

We should do that again; I firmly believe most Americans are conservative and would elect candidates with conservative ideology if given a chance.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

“These are the times that try men’s souls”

To use an old manner of description, the American elite are "to smart by half". It is absolutely incredible how much damage to an otherwise thriving society can be accomplished by a small group of elitists who consider themselves smarter than everyone else and therefore able to dictate to others what is best for them. Of course they don’t do this alone, it is fortuitous for them that almost all propaganda machinery is operated by those captivated by elitists and certain in the belief it is their mission to spread the word and convince the rest that the particular elitist theory of the day prevails among the populace.

We can see this in the modern era as one perpetrated hoax after another taking hold in the manner new religions were spread and adopted. There is no room for disagreement with the premise of the hoax and those who persist are ridiculed and banished from their livelihoods, or worse. So it is with the religion of global warming; the modern day replacement for earlier ideologies seeking to bring down successful societies, to "level the playing field" so to speak to assure the axiom that misery loves company comes to pass. Why should one country succeed in establishing a comfortable living for their population when the world is full of hapless souls laboring under regimes incapable of equaling that success? In these times and for the recent past the United States has been envied by less successful peoples so it is better in the view of socialist thinking to lower the standard of the successful to the level of the unsuccessful. History is full of failed communistic and socialistic societies that chose the road of the "common good" instead of rewarding achievement and successful individualism.

Proponents of the new religion of global warming must rely on faith because there is no scientific basis for their beliefs. Relying on faith is in itself not a bad thing; indeed many real religions require adherents to do the same thing. However what is particularly insidious about this "religion" is that it leaves no room for other beliefs, much like Islam. But instead of decapitation of non believers, global warming purists inflict their religion on others by use of laws and governments to achieve what reason and logic cannot. They not so much create converts; they create subjects. But like royalty of old the leaders of the "faith" preach "do as I say, not as I do." Amazingly those who want us to live in a lesser state continue their lives in huge energy-consuming houses and lifestyles without as much as a peep from the masses they rule over.

Despite reams and reams of scientific data and increasing numbers of real science experts denouncing the idea that mere humans can accomplish earthly changes in climate, politician after politician continue to promote policies that will cause irreparable harm to the people they seek to put them in office. This has degenerated to such a low point that we are assured our next national leader will further the aims of the zealots who insist we must conform to the new religion. Unfortunately once the new philosophy is enshrined into law, there is no way to reverse the direction and repair the harm that will be done. We will all be using compact fluorescent bulbs, pay increasing costs for oil, gasoline and electricity, and higher prices for basic necessities. Our dependence on oil from countries committed to our destruction will continue and proven technologies and practices that would give the United States energy independence will be ignored to assuage those that place insects, lizards and rodents ahead of people.

The history of peoples of the world is replete with examples of destruction of successful societies from within. That is exactly what is happening to the United States now. We have people in this country seemingly committed to destroying America but who profess to be patriotic "we support our troops but not the war"; how ridiculous. We have highly placed leaders and past leaders who unreasonably criticize our government both in and out of the country. We have a candidate for president who aligns himself with those who damn our country and who have committed acts of terrorism against out country, and who disrespects our nation’s flag and pledge of allegiance, while a sycophant press ignores, or worse, excuses such behavior. And we have a large number of citizens ready to elect such a person to lead our country.

These are times that not only "try men’s souls", but may lead to an apocalypse, not in religious terms but in the every day lives of us all.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Another look at “carbon credits”

All candidates for the presidency this year have many policies in common but the acceptance of and reaction to false claims of man-made global warming carries the most far reaching implication for changing the lifestyle of Americans – for the worse.

The latest sham agreed upon by Clinton, Obama and McCain concerns the use of something called "carbon credits" as a device to "offset" acceptable greenhouse emissions despite their conviction that all such emissions are deadly to the future of planet earth. Purchasing carbon credits is supposed to compensate for the unacceptable emissions of gases like carbon dioxide deemed by self appointed climate experts as the cause of global warming. However, behind the scenes the real purpose is profit; that is profit to the mega businesses that have inordinate influence on governmental policies and legislation.

Carbon credits are the basis for the "cap-and-trade" proposals made by all candidates and therefore will be the policy of the next administration regardless who wins the presidential election.

According to the respected National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA):

"Cap-and-trade proposals advocated by the three candidates and under consideration in Congress would harm the U.S. economy, disproportionately hurt the poor and fail to produce promised environmental benefits. Cap-and-trade policies place a limit, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions but allow companies and industries that fall below those limits to sell or trade remaining emissions to those that exceed their limits."

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said": "The potential market value of those emissions could reach $300 billion per year by 2020." Furthermore, the CBO estimates that even if cap-and-trade proposals reduce emissions 15 percent by 2010 (and there are a growing number of scientists who dispute claims that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would have any benefit at all), it would reduce the disposable income of lower-income Americans by 3.3 percent compared to only 1.7 percent for the richest Americans.

NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett, co-author of the NCPA analysis, has predicted "Cap-and-trade bills will substantially raise prices for gasoline and electricity, inflict severe economic losses on the U.S. economy and lower living standards for lower-income Americans."

Analyses by Science Applications International (SAIC) and the EPA also show that the bills would have a severe impact on the country: "The legislation referred to as the 'Lieberman-Warner' bill, proposed by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), would increase gasoline prices by 60 to 144 percent and electricity prices by 77 to 129 percent" according to the SAIC. The EPA estimates the bill would "increase gasoline prices by as much as 53 cents per gallon by 2030 and $1.40 by 2050".

The SAIC analysis additionally warns the Lieberman-Warner would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by as much a 1.1 percent by 2020. The EPA reports that another bill sponsored by Senators Jeff Bingaman (R-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) could cost as much as $1.2 trillion annually and one sponsored by Senators Lieberman and John McCain (R-AZ) could cost as much as $1.3 trillion annually, while Lieberman-Warner could cost nearly $3 trillion annually.

D. Sean Shurtleff, NCPA graduate student fellow and co-author of the analysis has said "Finally, the benefits promised by cap-and-trade schemes-lower global temperatures-are unlikely to materialize since none of these proposals includes developing nations, like China and India. Every economic analysis to date indicates these proposals will harm not only the U.S. economy but also its most economically vulnerable citizens."

The information contained in this article was obtained from The National Center for Policy Analysis’ E-Team. It is one of the largest collections of energy and environmental policy experts and scientists who believe in sound science and that economic prosperity and protecting the environment can go hand and hand. The Team seeks to correct misinformation and promote sensible solutions to energy and environment problems; E-Team Website is .

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Today I would like to focus on China

China is a massive country with a massive population. In fact everything about China is massive. As their incredible economic miracle continues to grow, so does their ability to extend their influence in the world. That influence may not be apparent, or overwhelming, now but the future belongs to China. Will China use their growing power to the disadvantage of the United States or will massive problems balance that growth and keep China in check?

It won’t be long before China becomes the world’s biggest economy. When a country has the most money it isn’t long before they tell other countries what to do. After the First World War President Wilson using the position of the United States as the first modern age superpower caused the United Nations predecessor, The League of Nations, to be formed. Wilson brought his "14 points" to France to start off the process. Clemenceau commented that "God needed only ten."

After the Second World War the United States still was in the economic driver’s seat and pretty much told the world what to do; hence the United Nations was formed "to end all wars in the future" just as Wilson sought to do over twenty years earlier. Unfortunately this utopian plan was as much a failure as the previous effort. Although the many wars since 1945 were not global, they managed to kill millions of people anyway. Our country’s influence in the world has diminished in inverse proportion to the growing number of third world countries that became United Nation members and the growing worldwide demand for oil, and Arab treasuries.

Now China has the money, the biggest stack of dollar chips in the world. We can only wonder how long it will be before China exerts influence in keeping with its massive size, population and wealth.

As a result of China’s approach to population control, there are 5 girls for every 6 boys. In a country whose population counts in the billions, that’s a pretty big numerical imbalance. When China becomes the world’s largest economy in the not-to-distant future, it will also have 30 million young men who cannot hope to find a wife. What will they become? Why soldiers of course; then China will have the worlds biggest and, thanks to help from the United States, the most modern military. If they develop a desire to show the rest of the world how things should be done, who will be able to stop them?

But, and that is a big "but", what about China’s present and potential problems which match China’s attributes in size? Will these problems affect the role of China in the future?

China may have a troubling future ahead because of the very success they have achieved. Think of it as a chewing gum bubble; you can blow it up but unless it continues to enlarge, it will collapse. There can’t be the kind of growth China has had without the need to keep on growing or the bubble will burst; it must expand or it will collapse, it can’t stand still.

For example, in a credit bubble people need more and more credit to service the loans and investments they have. If they don’t get more money, their credit goes bad which will cause businesses to fail. Working people suffer the same fate and pretty soon there is a recession or depression. In China’s case a collapsed bubble is far more dangerous because China has hundreds of millions of people who have come to depend on high rates of growth. They aren’t peasants any more and they can’t stay where they are. They’ve moved to the cities to join the national proletariat and they need work. They need progress! They need to build giant roads and aqueducts, airports and factories. They need to produce more things. They need to contribute to the global economy. They need jobs. And if they don’t get them, China could blow up. China is run by a small group of people; as clever as they have been to engineer a growing economy, dealing with a severe down turn and the problems that will cause for a population the government needs to keep under control to survive will be beyond their capability.

The need for China to keep its economic bubble expanding has a profound affect around the world.

Just consider China’s growing consumption of oil. In 1998 China imported 165 million barrels of oil; now they are importing oil at the rate of 1 billion barrels a year, and this amount is growing exponentially. Increasing amounts of oil are required to continue to fuel economic development. It is no wonder oil is in the $120 a barrel range. In addition to the oil, China has built 229 new coal-fired power plants since 1990.

Rice is in short supply around the world and has become very expensive. When the Chinese people lived in the country and were farmers, they fed themselves with what they produced. But after they moved to the cities, they become consumers and not producers. Chinese city dwellers compete for their daily rice bowl with people in Europe, Asia and Africa.

The National Geographic says since 1949 China has lost one-fifth of its farmland to dust storms, desertification and urbanization. As strange as it may seem it is estimated China loses an area about the size of Rhode Island in arable farm land each year.

What does all this mean; well let’s see: the economy has to keep on growing at an unusual pace to avoid recession or worse, people are moving to the cities leaving fewer farmers to feed the country using less and less arable land, the Chinese have to compete globally for oil and food while their resources are diminishing, the authoritarian government has to keep the bubble expanding or risk a proletariat revolution … hmm.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Islamic propaganda infiltrates our schools

It is no wonder so many people in our country are unaware of the world-wide threat to civilization posed by Islam and their fanatical followers; the education system has broken down and has been replaced with an Islamic propaganda machine.

Almost everyday there are reports of some outlandish happening in the public schools and universities that would not have occurred a couple of generations ago. Can you imagine, for example, history textbooks being used by hundreds of thousands of public school students across the U.S. blatantly promoting Islam?

The American Textbook Council (AIC) was established in 1989 as an independent national research organization to review social studies textbooks and advance the quality of instructional materials available to teach history. They issued a report after a two-year project in which five junior and five high school world and American history texts were studied. The conclusion was:

"Many political and religious groups try to use the textbook process to their advantage, but the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are uniquely disturbing. History textbooks present an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security." Also found was that "the texts present "disputed definitions and claims [regarding Islam] … as established facts."

As examples of the biased teachings, the report listed ten textbooks containing flagrant misrepresentations of Islam; nonetheless California textbook suppliers and state authorities tried to defend the indefensible. Bert Bower, the founder of one of the textbook suppliers said "... not only did his company have experts review the book, but the state of California also reviewed it, and has approved it for use in public schools."

"Keep in mind when looking at a particular book, scholars from all over California (reviewed it)," he said.

One of those experts who the company said contributed to the text was Ayad Al-Qazzaz. He is a Muslim apologist and according to WorldNet Daily "a frequent speaker in Northern California school districts promoting Islam and Arab causes. Al-Qazzaz also co-wrote AWAIR's 'Arab World Notebook.' AWAIR stands for Arab World and Islamic Resources whose mission is to proselytize 'non-profit organizations' that conduct teacher workshops and sells supplementary materials to schools."

It is additionally not surprising that the AIC study also stated that:

"The report finds that "Islamic activists use multiculturalism and ready-made American-made political movements, especially those on campus, to advance and justify the makeover of Islam-related textbook content."

"Particular fault rests with the publishing corporations, boards of directors, and executives who decide what editorial policies their companies will pursue."

The textbook "History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond", published by the privately held Teachers Curriculum Institute (TIC), is especially criticized by the AIC. The book contains lessons having "stilted language that seem scripted or borrowed from devotional, not historical, material." Additionally noted was that another textbook "Medieval to Early Modern Times", features a two-page prayer to Allah "the Merciful."

The American Textbook Council said that there is suppose to be a ban in California on "adverse reflection" on religion in school. The issued report stated:

"Whatever 'adverse reflection' is, such a mandate may be conceptually at odds with historical and geopolitical actuality."

"None of this is accidental. Islamic organizations, willing to [provide] misinformation, are active in curriculum politics. These activists are eager to expunge any critical thought about Islam from textbooks and all public discourse. They are succeeding, assisted by partisan scholars and associations… It is alarming that so many individuals with the power to shape the curriculum are willfully blind to or openly sympathetic to these efforts".

Regarding the TCI textbook, the report said its lessons contain "stilted language that seem scripted or borrowed from devotional, not historical, material."

"Among the textbooks examined the editorial caution that is applied to coverage of Christian and Jewish beliefs is not of concern in presenting information about Islam" says the AIC. "For example, seventh-grade textbooks are replete with Islamic references to angels, revelations, miracles, prayers, and sacred exclamations; and using the titles 'Messenger of God' and 'Prophet of Islam' cross the line into something other than history, and more like scripture or myth."

According to the AIC report, among the lessons public school students must learn from the various books:
  • Muhammad "taught equality"
  • Fasting reminds Muslims of people who struggle to get enough food
  • Muhammad told his followers to make sure guests never left a table hungry
  • Arab traditions include being kind to strangers and helping needy
  • "These effusive formulations stop just short of invention and raise questions about the sources of information."
The textbooks praise Allah and don’t mention the Judeo Christian God. The TCI book includes 13 pages to Islamic references to textiles, calligraphy, design, books, city building, architecture, mathematics, medicine, polo, and chess; all treated as contributions of Islam despite the fact that even if true none can be attributed to the last thousand years. Nothing about Christianity or Judaism is mentioned.

Muslims have been extremely violent in extending Islam throughout the world. Yet the textbooks contend that actual physical conquering of some peoples was due to religious conversion. As stated in the textbook "World History: Medieval and Early Modern Times", "People were converted to Islam because they were attracted by Islam's message of equality and hope for salvation." Another textbook asks and answers the question: "How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim Empire treat those they conquered?" Answer: "They treated them with tolerance."

"At a time when intolerance marks Islamic cultures worldwide and multiculturalism is a ruling idea in U.S. schools, these 'wonderland-of-tolerance' tropes constitute a major content distortion," according to the AIC report.

The Crusades also receive critical comment in the textbooks; they teach the Crusades were "religious wars launched against Muslims by European Christians."

"When … Muslims groups’ attack Christian peoples, kill them, and take their lands, the process is referred to as 'building' an empire. Christian attempts to restore those lands are labeled as 'violent attacks' or 'massacres.'"

Also, "While Christian belligerence is magnified, Islamic inequality, subjugation, and enslavement gets the airbrush." The report also refers to inaccuracies in teaching about Sharia religious law, women's rights and terrorism, especially the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, which killed nearly 3,000, according to WorldNet Daily.

The textbooks casually mention the 9/11 tragedy: "The Modern World says, on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, teams of terrorists hijacked four airplanes on the East Coast. Passengers challenged the hijackers on one flight, which they crashed on the way to its target. But one plane plunged into the Pentagon in Virginia, and two others slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York…"

The 'matter of fact' nature and brevity of this passage in the textbooks is insulting to the memory of the victims because so much of the truth is not told. Who were the teams of terrorists and what did they want to do? What were their political ends? Since 'The Modern World' textbook avoids any hint of the connection between terrorism and jihad, the texts make no effort to help students understand that Islamic fanaticism caused September 11 to happen; why this is omitted in American teaching materials, and why such omissions are tolerated, is not hard to understand if the intention is to soft pedal Islam.

Parents, look into what your children are being taught; Islamic propaganda has infiltrated the curriculum and we will all become Islamic subjects if Muslims get away with this.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Extortion is fine as long as the aims are good, even if hypocritical

Suppose you owned some land and you wanted to build on it which is your right, and then someone comes along and says we will let you build on your land if you give away the major part of it; what would you say? What would T. Jefferson, J. Madison, J. Adams say as they rolled over in their graves? Maybe something like this: "Is this what we fought our revolution for?"

If it wasn’t land but your wallet and your money, that would be a felony. It still would be a serious crime if the felon bargained with you so you could keep part of your money. Why then is it acceptable now in our politically correct society for you to have to give away part of something you own in order to be able to use the remainder of it? The answer is that in the name of conservationism and protection of species extortion, robbery and theft are quite alright.

Modern day environmental felons don’t have to wield a weapon; they can use the courts to do their dirty work. Of course, it helps that while they are depriving you of your money, they are also using the money you gave the government in taxes to finance their assault on your property rights. Anything works in the socialist society these days as long as it’s done in the name of some bazaar notion of "doing good".

Recently in California the largest display of larceny ever seen occurred when the Sierra Club succeeded through extortion in depriving Tejon Ranch land owners of 240,000 acres – 375 square miles – in deal to allow development of what’s left. The very fact that the organization’s ideals can be bought is itself repugnant and serves to illustrate the hypocrisy of conservationists and other similar high minded organizations. If developmental use of the land would be detrimental for some odd reason, why does it become acceptable if a sufficiently high price is paid?

The land larceny was aided and abetted by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who applauded the land grab: "When forward-thinking people, like the people that are standing here with me today, are willing to sit down and make something positive happen … all battle lines are terminated. In other words there is a better way and that better way is in full display right here today in this stunning California landscape."

The Governor makes it sound as if the land owners were "willing" participants of the land give-away. What he deliberately overlooks is that the alternative to "sitting down" was to spend enormous amounts of money in endless litigation in an attempt to use the land owned in a lawful and constructive manner. Unless land owners agree with some catastrophic land use deprivation, those self-anointed guardians of the all species and wildlife, and the "environment" will do without force of arms but with aid of judicial activists what was unthinkable when the country was formed.

To give some perspective to the scope of the land grab, the land "willingly" given away is eight times the size of the city of San Francisco and roughly the size of Los Angeles.

The Tejon Ranch Company has been trying for years to develop several projects on land they own but some of the state’s prominent conservation and environmental groups stood in the way, until the owners agreed to give away a majority of their land holding for purposes these groups deem sufficiently worthy to overcome their commitment to preserve the environment for their lofty purposes.

The deal results in the largest parcel of land designated for conservation in the state’s history. In order to accomplish projects intended by the land owners, the Sierra club agreed not to challenge proposed development of the remaining land. Other conspirators in the extortion plot are the usual suspects: the Audubon Society, the Conservation League and Endangered Habitats League – all recipients of tax dollars.

This is not the only successful effort by those willing to sell their approval by agreeing to forego litigation. California environmentalists having the unlikely name "Get Oil Out!" recently agreed not to oppose an oil company’s off-shore drilling in exchange for money, land and a promise to shut down operations in Santa Barbara County in 14 years. (Note "money" is a part altruistic solution.)

The opportunities for depriving land owners of their legitimate rights are endless, not only in California but all over the country. As long as they have willing accomplices in the courts and in the government, the threat of expensive endless litigation will be a device to be exploited at will to achieve the socialist dream.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

"Press one to continue in English"

America is a “Melting Pot” (if it still is) because until now English has been the de facto national language. Efforts to make English the official national language have failed in congress due to federal legislators acting on the misguided notion that to make English our official national language would be offensive to some. This is the natural extension of the worst form of political correctness.

Although God considered it desirable to scramble the language of all peoples by destroying the “Tower of Babel”, there is no similar justification for extending the practice to this country.

In the United States we have seen a plethora of languages used for many public activities. Voting ballots around the country are printed in too many different languages to mention despite the requirement that those seeking citizenship learn the English language. What good does it do to print ballots in other languages when information useful to voters is principally available only in English? Are we intentionally creating a class of uninformed voters; and if so, how does that help the country?

Requiring employees in business establishments to speak English seems now to be taboo. In many places it would be appropriate to have a sign “English is spoken here” to accommodate English speaking minorities in those areas. We have to press a number on a telephone to “continue in English”. We are unable to speak with many service providers because they are immigrants who don’t speak English. There is nothing wrong with knowing more than one language; indeed it is desirable, but mere courtesy to those here before them should be sufficient in itself to motivate non-English speakers to join their fellow countrymen in a common language.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced legislation that declares English to be the official language of the United States government. This legislation, the "National Language Act of 2008," codifies the principle that no one is entitled to receive federal documents or federal services in languages other than English. The bill specifically states that no person has a right, entitlement or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services or materials in any language other than English. Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House. Does this legislation have a chance of passage when similar efforts have failed before?

America's greatness as a melting-pot nation has always been advanced by assimilation to a common language. Large-scale illegal immigration threatens national cohesion and the country’s shared values because new arrivals are unwilling to learn English and our national policy is to excuse this deficiency. In addition to the obvious benefits, the "National Language Act of 2008" will reduce costs to our federal government and will encourage new, legal immigrants to quickly adopt America's native tongue.

Learning English has always been and will continue to be a key step in achieving the American dream historically desired by legal immigrants to the United States for centuries; why should it not be so now?.

Monday, May 5, 2008

What would Hillary Clinton do to our country as president?

We have pondered about Barack Obama as president but as events unfold and Hillary seems to be getting the upper hand for the Democrat presidential nomination, we need to reexamine what this "smartest woman in the world" would do to our country.

Carl Bernstein had it right when he wrote this about a Hillary Clinton presidency:

"What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?

The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.
Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often.

And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated."

There is a reason why so many people have a negative view of the former "First Lady"; for one, she is a shrill-voiced near communist espousing ultra-liberal policies with the character deficiencies well described by Bernstein.

Representative of Hillary’s ideas of authoritarian government control is her universal health insurance plan, disguised as "universal healthcare"; which would provide poor quality cradle-to-the-grave medical care for everyone. Gone would be the individual right to work with their physician to select most appropriate medical treatment, gone would be the ability to have a medical insurance program according to one’s budget, gone would be the need for employers to provide competitive health insurance to their employers and, worst of all, gone would be doctor’s incentives to provide their patients the best healthcare possible. If the Hillary program was made law, replacing all these lost rights would be a government program giving bureaucrats control over who lives or dies.

The fine print in the Hillary healthcare proposal is also interesting, and it’s always important to read the fine print. According to the latest "Hillarycare" program the government would have a great deal to say about your health care. In addition to requiring you by law to buy health insurance coverage, many employers would be required by law to either provide coverage or pay a tax to cover health expenses. States would be "relieved" of the burden of regulating health insurance markets. Healthcare costs in the United States are high but no higher than in the countries with socialized medicine. High costs can be addressed by reducing unnecessary spending so workers' taxes may be reduced leaving them more money to pay for medical needs and by making health insurance companies more competitive by opening up the whole country to insurance companies to offer their products. The free market is still the best way to keep costs down.

Although all Democrats never saw a tax increase they didn’t like, Hillary is quite clear that she would make sure that the "wealthy", defined as virtually anyone earning $75,000 to $100,000 a year, will have to share their wealth with those "less fortunate". Americans would see the Bush tax cuts evaporate and in their place would be an even more socialized tax structure than we have; "from all according to their means to all according to their needs."

Businesses deemed to be "earning too much" would have the government intercede to correct the imbalance. Hillary, like all Democrats, refuses to acknowledge that any added costs placed on business ultimately are paid for by their customers. Even proposals to tax "excess profits" are feel-good programs that will add to the cost of gasoline and other petroleum products and do not lead to lower costs. Although additional income to the government gives Democrats more income to redistribute, the burden is on the public not the oil companies.

Hillary Clinton’s "Iraq war policy" is another smoke and mirror attempt to hoodwink American’s tired of the war but the consequences of implementing her plans are dangerous for our long term security. She proposes a speedy withdrawal from Iraq regardless of the consequences on the ground and returning the Reserves to peacetime status. She doesn’t realize that reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq will increase the danger to them and total withdrawal will provide a gift to terrorists.

Hillary’s solution is very simple. As noted by the Heritage Foundation to explain what happens upon American withdrawal from Iraq: "If you are an Iraqi, you will know almost immediately because American troops will start departing your country, leaving the field open for al Qaeda as well as the Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups that nearly tore the country apart before the United States increased troop levels to prevent a full-fledged civil war. All the gains that have been made since the beginning of the U.S. engagement, which marks its fifth anniversary, stand to be lost."

Back to the domestic front, Hillary Clinton's solutions to domestic issues also would have bad long lasting implications for the country.

Senator Hillary Clinton recently introduced a proposal for a new $10 billion federal program to offer government-subsidized preschool for all children across the country. Under her plan, states that offer such programs would be eligible to receive federal funding if they agree to follow federal guidelines on matters such as teacher training requirements and curriculum guidelines. This is an overt attempt to have the federal government dictate what should or should not be taught to your children.

In keeping with the Clintons' history of opposing school-choice initiatives, Hillary Clinton has attacked school vouchers which could be used by parents to escape the inefficiencies of public education and avoid politically correct indoctrination.

As an advocate of expanded public housing, Hillary Clinton will out do her Democrat predecessors. If she has her way, Hillary Public housing may be coming to your neighborhood. Hillary Clinton is leading a movement to spend billions of tax dollars to buy homes in foreclosure and convert them to public housing. Do you have houses in foreclosure near you; if so you may find yourself in a public housing neighborhood?

In the words of Senator Hillary Clinton:

"If the Fed can extend $30 billion to help Bear Stearns ... the federal government should provide at least that much emergency assistance to help families and communities address [their problems]. That's why I'm calling for the creation of a one-time emergency $30 billion fund that would go directly to cities and states to address the housing crisis. This money could be used to purchase foreclosed or distressed properties, which cities and states could then resell to low-income families or convert into affordable rental housing."

We are all familiar by now with Hillary’s dispensing with the truth regarding her exploits, but the truth-challenged Hillary also easily misrepresents the facts about the state of domestic affairs. According to Hillary:

"[W]e now have the largest budget deficit we've ever had, $311 billion. We went from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus to what we have today, which is a $9 trillion debt."

But the facts show this is wrong on several counts. By calling the current budget deficit the largest in American history, Hillary Clinton fails to consider the need to adjust for any economic growth – or even inflation – over the nation’s 232-year history. Using standard measurements, this year’s projected budget deficit of 3 percent of the economy is a far lower than the actual record 30 percent level in 1943 during World War II.

And even using her unadjusted numbers, Hillary’s mid-year figure has not yet passed the final 2004 budget deficit of $413 billion.

If that isn’t bad enough, Hillary Clinton refers to an alleged $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus in her husband’s term that was projected on paper in 2001 (and therefore never actually existed) and accuses the Bush administration of turning the "surplus" into a $9 trillion debt. However the $9 trillion represents the total cumulative federal debt that has been building since the early days of the Republic. Is Hillary blaming the current administration for budget policies dating back to the Thomas Jefferson administration when we made the Louisiana Purchase in 1803?

Hillary Clinton complains that the Bush administration has been a government for special interests. This is more than a bit disingenuous since Bill and Hillary Clinton have been masters of the illegal campaign donations. Even to this day Hillary finds herself having to return illegal donations "she didn’t know about" and is the subject of a law suit that claims she was a recipient of a major unreported and illegal donation put on by one of her fund raisers.

Then there is the general problem of honesty, or rather dishonesty. Ever since she entered the public arena when her husband ran for president in 1992, she's found telling the truth a real challenge. "This is a real difficulty for her," said pollster John Zogby. "With Bill Clinton, there was always an honesty problem. But he always was able to overcome it through charm and brilliance. … It doesn't look like she is able to transcend those fundamental problems that she has with the truth." A recent Gallup Poll found that 53 percent of Americans think Clinton isn't "honest and trustworthy." Just 29 percent said the same of her Democratic rival Barack Obama, and 27 percent said it of Republican John McCain.

Even Hillary’s Democrat constituents don’t think Hillary is a truth-teller. A Pew Research Center poll before Clinton had to back down from her account of her Bosnia trip found that 29 percent of white Democrats considered her a "phony," almost twice as many as the 15 percent who described Obama that way. Researchers at Pew concluded that Democrats' views of Clinton "are more influenced by perceptions that she is phony than by any other trait or emotion tested."

We already had one Clinton president who was a liar; do we want another? Hillary and Bill may perhaps be fun neighbors to have but to entrust them with our future would be national suicide; and rest assured, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Bill too.

Friday, May 2, 2008

The changing U.S. population; will we remain "e pluribus unum"?

Much attention is paid to the increasing numbers of Hispanic immigrants, largely illegal immigrants, adding to the population numbers but little attention is given to the Hispanic births in the United States that change our country’s demographics.

New Census Bureau data indicates the Hispanic population in the country is now more than 15% of the total and this is mainly due to children born of illegal immigrants in the United States and to births among Hispanic people already in the country. Also reported by the Census Bureau is that there are 45.5 million Hispanics in the U.S., which is an increase of almost 10 million more than there were in 2000; at that time Hispanics made up 12.6% of the population as compared to 15% today. Hispanics were responsible for half of the U.S. population increase between 2000 and 2007 and also for the United States maintaining a population growth rate that exceeds the 2.1% necessary for avoiding a decrease in population as is occurring throughout Europe.

Whereas in the 1990’s the increase in the Hispanic population was due to the surge of largely illegal immigration, between 2006 and 2007 about 62% of the increase in Hispanics came from births. In other words, if we close the borders, which of course we won’t, there is still going to be a large increase in the Hispanic population in the country and they will continue to be an increasing proportion of the total just due to the high birth rate.

Hispanics tend to have more children and larger families than other ethnic groups. The population is also younger on average so the large number of births doesn’t outpace deaths. Between July 2000 and 2007, there were 8.4 Hispanic births for every death; African-Americans had 2.4 births per death and the ratio for white Caucasians was 1.6.

The average white female in the U.S. has 1.8 children, which is under the replacement rate of 2.1 necessary to maintain a stable population; whereas Hispanic women have on average 2.8 children.

In the years 2000 and 2007 sixteen states (among them West Virginia, Illinois and New Jersey) experienced a decline in the white population according to the new Census data. For the same period whites were a majority of population growth in only 11 states.

It must be recognized that the Hispanic people in the United States, both those who gain legal citizenship and those who become citizens by virtue of being born here, will become a growing political base sought after by both Democrats and Republicans. This effect is magnified by the fact that Hispanics are expanding their presence beyond the southwest.

Hispanics increasingly are venturing beyond their traditional centers of population and moving to the East, Southeast and the Midwest, in search of jobs and a lower cost of living. Therefore, the political importance of this segment of the population will be felt around the country and not just at the places of entry.

This explains why presidential candidates are courting Hispanics aggressively in the campaign and why advertisements are run in Spanish. It has been reported that Hillary Clinton's popularity among Hispanic voters helped her win primaries in Texas and California, though others would say it was due to "Operation Chaos" initiated by Rush Limbaugh who suggested Republicans temporarily change registration to "Democrat" to enable them to vote for Clinton in those states, thus keeping her in the race and continue to cause division in the Democrat party. Victories in Texas, California and Ohio were key to her survival in the race for the Democrat nomination.

Another consequence of the growing Hispanic population is in how that affects the country’s economy. Hispanic spending is greater than any other minority group because they have more disposable income than any other minority group. It is estimated that Hispanic spending today is about $860 billion a year but it is expected to be about $1.3 trillion by 2012, according to monitors of this sort of thing at the University of Georgia's Selig Center.

A serious problem for those concerned about illegal immigration is that Hispanics tend to be critical of those seeking stronger border control and efforts to deny benefits to illegal immigrants and are more favorable to those willing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Regardless whether or not a Hispanic is a U.S. citizen, these same political biases occur. Therefore, it will become increasingly difficult to successfully elect to congress and the senate candidates that oppose illegal immigration and all that goes with such opposition. To me that signals eventual changes in the political power base and the ability to keep American values and traditions as have existed for the past two hundred years; unless there is a turn-about in the thinking of second and third generation Hispanics.

Immigrants are good for America. Indeed, we are the great nation we are because our country welcomed immigrants. However in the past those coming here were anxious to become Americans and as a result we continued to have a "melting pot" of citizens. Unfortunately, for some time people coming to the United States did not have the same desire to assimilate into the American society and encouraged by the new "political correctness", they remained apart so that instead of a "melting pot" of different cultures remaining and forming one American culture, a "salad" was created whereby each culture remains as a separate entity. This defeats the "American dream" and breeds internal divisions and loss of loyalty the United States of America. We can see this when people waive foreign flags and protest to support illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. If one day such thinking prevails, we will lose the spirit of our national motto "e pluribus unum", "out of many, one"!

Thursday, May 1, 2008

The silent jihad against the west

Anyone that cares to learn about what is going on in the world is familiar with active jihad, the "holy war", conducted with terrorism and directed at the modern world in general and western civilization more specifically. But there is also another form of jihad that is part of the deliberate effort to have Islam replace all concepts of morality and the values held dear by the rest of us. The name of this silent "fifth column" effort is "Sharia Banking". Unfortunately, Sharia Banking is increasingly accepted by western banking institutions without any real understanding of what the Muslim goal is and what is at stake in the efforts by these institutions to attract more business, profits and money to bail them out of financial messes they brought upon themselves.

Islamic Sharia banking is coming to the United States and other western nations, thanks to global banks such as Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Great Britain is now pledging to become the Islamic banking center of the world. Clearly the headlong rush by all global banks to enter the world of Islamic banking is well underway. Why do western banks seek to participate in Sharia banking; because it gives them a chance to enter the Islamic banking industry which has over $1.5 trillion available today and is growing at a steady and explosive rate of over 15% per year.

The implications for the west, and especially for the United States, are staggeringly destructive. Islamic banking working through global banks is doing for Islam what it could never do on its own: giving legitimacy to Sharia law and infiltrating it into the fabric of western society.

For those not familiar with Sharia Banking; it is a system which creates and sells services and products that are in strict accordance with Sharia law. Sometimes it is referred to in the Islamic culture as "Sharia finance". It dictates how the practices of banking, investment, bonds, loans, brokerage, etc, are to be conducted.

To insure compliance and to become "Sharia banking" compliant, banks must hire Sharia experts to review and approve each product and practice of the bank. This is known as "halal", which has been described as "the Muslim equivalent of kosher in Judaism." There is a shortage of such Sharia experts so there is competition among banks to find such experts to sit on their boards of directors. By having an "expert" involved in banking decisions, this provides the legitimacy to each banking decision because it is made at the director rather management level. However, most of these Sharia experts" are from the radical Wahhabi school of Islam in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and they hold views diametrically opposed to the basic values of Western civilization.

The Center for Security has identified some of the Sharia experts sitting on the boards of U.S. financial institutions. The top twenty "advisors" include many with conflicts of interests and anti-trust issues since they sit on boards of many Islamic banks at the same time. The Center for Security identifies a couple of advisors with ties to money-laundering and terrorism:

Yousuf Quaradawi who is prominent in the Muslim Brotherhood, owns two banks himself and has issued statements in support of Palestinian attacks on Israeli citizens and has issued rulings supporting Hamas and Hezbollah jihad attacks against Israel.

Muhammad Yaqui Usami who is a radical cleric and Sharia court judge in Pakistan. He is on the board of organizations that train thousands of Taliban and jihad foot soldiers. But the most heinous thing is his complicity in the murder and suffering of countless innocent Muslims as apostates because they disagreed with his Islamic mandates.

These are the kinds of people advising U.S. banks on how to conduct their business to assure they are "Sharia compliant".

There are many differences of Sharia banks from orthodox banking. In Sharia banking interest (deemed "usury" regardless of rate or amount) cannot be charged, and investments must not be associated in any way with gambling, drinking alcohol, eating pork, etc. Very importantly, it calls for alms giving, referred to in Islamic parlance as "zakat".

Zakat demands a tithe of 2.5 percent of revenue be donated to Islamic charity. If western banks follow this rule, it is certain that a portion of this money will end up in the hands of radical Muslims who are sworn to destroy the United States and replace our government with Sharia law.

For those unfamiliar with it, Sharia law is the legal and judicial system of Islam that is brutally imposed on many Islamic countries in the Middle East. It is the embodiment of the totalitarian ideology practiced by the Taliban, Iranian Mullahs and Saudi Wahhabis.

Sharia law is perpetuated by claiming to have its roots in the Koran, but it is actually for the most part based on rulings and dictates made by Islamic scholars and caliphs over several centuries. Non Muslims know Sharia law’s practices of harsh brutality and punishment as well as the total subjugation of women from newspaper articles describing the many rulings handed down by Sharia courts. These actions have shocked the western world; here are a few examples that have been written in various press accounts:

"The December, 2007 "teddy bear" case in Sudan, where a British teacher was sentenced to 40 lashes and a year in jail for allowing her students to name their teddy bear "Mohammad." Islamic mobs demonstrated in the streets and called for her execution. The November, 2007 case where a 19 year old gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia received a sentence of 200 lashes for riding in the car with her rapists. In 2006, a 34 year-old mother who was forcibly raped was ultimately tried and convicted of adultery, and was ordered to be stoned to death. Publication of cartoons in Denmark deemed disrespectful of Mohammad which caused endless demonstrations and mayhem, as well as the killing of many people."

Islam and Sharia law demands total and unquestioned submission. Its followers are told that Sharia law is given by Allah and that whatever befalls them (good or bad) is "Allah’s will." To question a judgment under Sharia (right or wrong) is to question Islam itself and will only bring harsh punishment. Curiously, by Islamic thinking if a person receives harsh punishment for something they didn’t do is nonetheless acceptable; the rationale being that Allah could and would have prevented it if that had been his will. This fatalistic approach which is contrary to what all other societies believe allows Islamic rulers to get away with virtually any thing they choose to do.

International bankers have long ago proven themselves to be completely amoral when it comes to money. They financed the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918 just as readily as they financially supported Hitler in the 1930’s. Now they are doing the same for the Islamists that want to destroy western civilization just as the communists and Nazis tried unsuccessfully to do before.

Unfortunately the odds of Islamic success are very different than the earlier threats. For one thing there are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and Islam is the fastest growing religion in history. Secondly, the spread of Islam is financed by the oil that is extracted from mid-eastern countries and thirdly, Islam has already infiltrated most of the west, especially in Europe. Now Islam has the combined support and encouragement of the entire global banking community.

There is an unholy alliance between Islam and global banking which may be the final nail in the coffin of western civilization in the historic quest for Islamic global domination. Remember that the next time you hear Islamist mobs chant "Death to America" – and don’t take it so lightly.