We can learn a lot by reading. As an old fashioned American, I read English; this is the language of communication in the United States I learned in school. I am told that English is still taught in school here; but you wouldn’t know that if you follow the public debate about whether English is or should be the ‘National’ language’ or, more properly, the ‘Official’ language of the United States.
Some of the things I have learned from reading, for example by reading a column by George Will, is that a Rabbi coined the phrase ‘melting pot’ in 1906 following a large immigration from eastern and southern Europe. Some recent political theorists prefer to view America as a ‘salad bowl’ rather than a melting pot. Why is this the case? Because it reflects the ‘liberal’ orthodoxy that American are not supposed to be ‘one’ people, we are supposed to be a collection of separate elements, like a salad. We are to accept all the separate cultures even if the result is that we are no longer a ‘melting pot of American thought, values and culture’.
George Will further notes that the English requirement was strengthened in 1950 by a law that stated “an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language” was required to attain United States citizenship. Is it surprising to anyone that this law is not enforced, like so many others that seek to protect Americans from threats abroad and at our borders? Will dirty Harry Reid say the 1950 law is racist?
Theodore Roosevelt, one of the great American presidents in my estimation, signed a law requiring those seeking to become American citizens demonstrate ‘oral English literacy’. T.R. said one of the most profound remarks on this subject in our nation’s history.
In 1919, shortly before he died, TR said,
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Not too long ago the senate of the United States had a chance to confirm the principles of the 1950 law and those expressed by Theodore Roosevelt; instead what was it the senate did? Instead of making it clear that English is the ‘Official’ language of our country, they voted that English is our ‘National’ language, whatever that means. Democrats, and too many Republicans, disagreed with the idea that English should be our Official language. These ‘Republicrats’ said that such a law would undue William Jefferson Clinton’s extension of benefits to those not proficient in the English language. Imagine that, illegal aliens that don’t speak English would be ‘deprived’ of benefits to which they should not be entitled in the first place, if we made English our Official language! Shamefully, a majority of Senators bought into this. An original amendment to make English Official was thus ‘watered down enough’ so that Senator McCain was able to say “In my opinion the amendment is watered down enough to make it acceptable”. I may not have known T.R. personally, but well enough to say “McCain you’re no Teddy Roosevelt”.
Interestingly, even the ‘watered down’ version had 34 Senators voting against it; this despite the current law that to become citizens it is required that immigrants understand the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance and American history. Even the ‘watered down’ version to make English a ‘common unifying language’, received 34 ‘no’ votes
Is anyone surprised by the ‘consistency’ of these senators to thwart the will of the people they represent ‘for the greater (liberal) good?
English is the ‘Official’ language in 27 states and 51 nations, but not in the United States. It has been stated that a recent Zogby poll showed 84% of our population, including 71% of Hispanics, believe English should be the official language of our government; but the Senate knows better than the people they serve. Can you recall when our representative government has been so out-of-touch with American people? English as a common language is the only chance of preserving our national unity and assimilating non-English speaking immigrants into our American culture; remember our country’s motto, “out of many, one”. Our culture is in jeopardy because so many immigrants are not assimilating into society like earlier immigrants once did.
The lack of assimilation by many immigrants is also due to the liberal fantasy of politically correct multiculturism. Schools do not teach American history as they did previously, or they teach a distorted version. The politically correct approach is to focus on minorities, not the actual historical foundation of our country’s origin and the people that made the United States a great bulwark of freedom.
Assimilation of non-English speaking immigrants is also thwarted by government edicts that require voting ballots in a dozen of different languages. Is this also behind the ‘let’s not make English our official language’ crowd? By the way, if only citizens can vote, and everyone must be able to speak English, why do we need to print ballots in languages other than English?
Many of our institutions are promoting a non-English speaking separation of ethnic groups. The liberal media and college teaching staff encourage us to think of ourselves, not as Americans, but as a member of some tribal group; for example, Hispanics, afro-Americans, Muslim groups, Jews, Christians, or by whatever country we or our ancestors came from. Accepting ‘tribalization’ as part of our national personality defeats assimilation into a unified national identity; just look at the Middle East and Africa. The looming destruction of societies in France, The Netherlands, even England, should be a wake-up call to not let this happen in the United States.
Those of us that believe in our hearts America is a great nation and want our country to stay that way, also believe it is important to maintain English speaking as our nation’s identity. We are not helped in this goal by a president that opposes English as a national; language. The day after the senate voted for the watered down ‘English is our national language bill’, [then] Attorney General Gonzales said Bush “has long opposed making English the country’s national language”. Gonzales emphasized this point: “The president has never supported making English the national language.” Instead, Gonzales said “Bush has long supported a concept called English-Plus”. What in the world is “English-Plus”, and why doesn’t Bush support English ‘alone’ without the ‘plus’ as our national language?
The Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, also criticized the watered-down senate characterization of English as the national language as an “unnecessary addition to immigration legislation that provides no money to teach English” and, more specifically, “The measure contains no additional funding for local governments to teach English and shows how they are out-of-touch [they are] with the rest of the United States”. Excuse me Mayor, but who paid for all the other immigrants that previously came to this country to learn English? Has the US government been “out-of-touch” with rest of the United States for centuries? Unfortunately, this elected Mayor represents the thinking of an entire population of ‘new’ immigrants, and far too many senators.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
A Little Reality Please in the War against Terror
Just because power exists does not mean that the power is used correctly or properly. A case in point is the decision by the Supreme Court dictating that an enemy on the battlefield in the war against terror is entitled to ‘prisoner of war’ status under the Geneva Convention. Liberals carry this erroneous judicial conclusion a step further and say that the Bush administration is now prevented by the court from practicing “torture” of terrorist detainees; in this they echo statements of the many critics of Bush and the Iraq war.
The liberals are wrong on many counts; not just in echoing the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Geneva Convention, but also in the erroneous conclusion and statements of their allied media critics. First of all, the inescapable fact is that neither the Bush administration nor our military practice ‘torture’ or inflict ‘inhumane treatment’ on the terrorist enemy found or captured in the terror war ‘battlefield’. By definition, “torture” is “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge … or for shear cruelty”. I defy liberals and other critics to point out even one example of ‘torture’ practiced by our military or condoned by ‘the Bush administration’. The critics are blinded on this issue by their apparent hatred of President Bush.
Some claim that U.S. detainees are subjected to “inhumane treatment” which the Supreme Court in bestowing Geneva Convention treatment on captured terrorists, prohibits. Of course, unlike ‘torture’ there is no standard definition of such heinous acts. Unfortunately, the dictionary is not helpful since “inhumane” is defined as “not humane, lacking humanity, kindness, compassion, etc.” The question to the liberals is: has there ever been a war where captured enemies were treated with ‘kindnesses and ‘compassion’?
The United States has been continuously criticized for ‘inhumane treatment’ of captured terrorists, not more so than by the liberal news media in our own country; the childish treatment of prisoners in Iraq being the most ‘grievous’ example. In fact, one of our soldiers was sentenced to prison for allowing a dog to bark uncomfortably close to a terrorist. Other terrible inhumane treatments were allowing female soldiers to be in the presence of naked terrorists, disrespecting the Koran and keeping murderous terrorists in shackles while transporting them.
Detainees in Cuba are being treated better than they ever lived before their capture. Reports are that they eat better than their military guards, are given many perks, are allowed to freely practice their ‘religion’ (whereas Muslims around the world kill those that do not practice ‘Islam’) and are provided with better housing, clothing and health care than western world prisoners receive in any Islamic country; is this ‘inhumane treatment’? Furthermore, one detainee asked to not be released from Guantanamo because his life is better imprisoned in Cuba than it would be in his home Country.
Liberals say that “Not only does subjecting detainees to degrading treatment undermine our human rights efforts across the globe, but it only increases the likelihood that our own soldiers captured in combat will face the same vicious and vindictive assaults.” Who among us believes that those unfortunate captured American soldiers that were really tortured and ultimately decapitated would not have preferred to have received American-style ‘inhumane treatment’ than the treatment received at the hands of their Geneva Convention counterparts on the terrorist side? What say you liberals?
The liberals are wrong on many counts; not just in echoing the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Geneva Convention, but also in the erroneous conclusion and statements of their allied media critics. First of all, the inescapable fact is that neither the Bush administration nor our military practice ‘torture’ or inflict ‘inhumane treatment’ on the terrorist enemy found or captured in the terror war ‘battlefield’. By definition, “torture” is “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge … or for shear cruelty”. I defy liberals and other critics to point out even one example of ‘torture’ practiced by our military or condoned by ‘the Bush administration’. The critics are blinded on this issue by their apparent hatred of President Bush.
Some claim that U.S. detainees are subjected to “inhumane treatment” which the Supreme Court in bestowing Geneva Convention treatment on captured terrorists, prohibits. Of course, unlike ‘torture’ there is no standard definition of such heinous acts. Unfortunately, the dictionary is not helpful since “inhumane” is defined as “not humane, lacking humanity, kindness, compassion, etc.” The question to the liberals is: has there ever been a war where captured enemies were treated with ‘kindnesses and ‘compassion’?
The United States has been continuously criticized for ‘inhumane treatment’ of captured terrorists, not more so than by the liberal news media in our own country; the childish treatment of prisoners in Iraq being the most ‘grievous’ example. In fact, one of our soldiers was sentenced to prison for allowing a dog to bark uncomfortably close to a terrorist. Other terrible inhumane treatments were allowing female soldiers to be in the presence of naked terrorists, disrespecting the Koran and keeping murderous terrorists in shackles while transporting them.
Detainees in Cuba are being treated better than they ever lived before their capture. Reports are that they eat better than their military guards, are given many perks, are allowed to freely practice their ‘religion’ (whereas Muslims around the world kill those that do not practice ‘Islam’) and are provided with better housing, clothing and health care than western world prisoners receive in any Islamic country; is this ‘inhumane treatment’? Furthermore, one detainee asked to not be released from Guantanamo because his life is better imprisoned in Cuba than it would be in his home Country.
Liberals say that “Not only does subjecting detainees to degrading treatment undermine our human rights efforts across the globe, but it only increases the likelihood that our own soldiers captured in combat will face the same vicious and vindictive assaults.” Who among us believes that those unfortunate captured American soldiers that were really tortured and ultimately decapitated would not have preferred to have received American-style ‘inhumane treatment’ than the treatment received at the hands of their Geneva Convention counterparts on the terrorist side? What say you liberals?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Are we entering the ‘new world order’? [Part Two]
The question is: will we go willingly into the ‘new world order’ by letting our government enroll us officially into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) with Canada and Mexico to create a European Union-style government that replaces our Constitutional rights (see Part one in this series), or will we oppose this United States-destroying catastrophe? Those of us that value our freedom and way of life can only hope that information about this globalization plan will arouse our citizens to mount the same effort made to defeat, at least temporarily, the immigration amnesty legislation.
Unfortunately power seeking has replaced patriotism in defense of the United States; that’s the only plausible explanation for the behind-the scene efforts to bring about a restructuring of our country by advocates of SPP, which include prominent members of the Trilateral Commission who wasted no time creating a globalist strategy after its founding in 1973. What was that strategy?
Richard Gardner, an original member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in his 1974 article "The Hard Road to World Order" (Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations):
"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." (Gardner, Richard, ‘The Hard Road to World Order’, (Foreign Affairs, 1974)
Gardner's further stated that use of treaties and trade agreements (such as General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or GATT) will supersede constitutional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has happened. Gardner also praised the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the national sovereignty of individual nations. Gardner concluded that "the case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis".
Is this what Americans want?
SPP seeks to ‘harmonize’ laws of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. but it’s not just about trade; it is also about free travel between the countries (removing borders), improving opportunity for large corporations and power for government controllers. There is also a plan for a ‘North Emergency Management and towards Smart, Secure Borders’ (Orwell would be proud of this double-speak).
Information about the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) or NAFTA Superhighway has begun to leak out. But did you know that a Spanish corporation, “Cintra, has already signed a contract to build a road paralleling I-35 from Mexico to Canada with a branch extending I-69 going to Canada from Port Huron Michigan? The road system will have six-lanes for passenger cars, four lanes for trucks, a rail system, telecommunication lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, etc.” (‘Quietly, Quietly Building the North American Union’ by Steven Yates, October 9, 2006). It will require taking 500,000 acres of private land by eminent domain in Texas alone, (Supreme Court decision 'Kelo v New London, Conn.' set the stage for this massive appropriation of private property).
The administration tries to minimize the importance of what is happening within the many cabinet-level “working groups” comprising members of executive branches of the three countries, but won't deny the intention to form a North American Union. The administration says that the SPP activity is nothing more than “a dialogue, mere talk” but examination of the SPP.gov website shows otherwise. The “2005 Report to Leaders” on the SPP website lists more than 30 references to “trilateral memoranda of understanding,” “mutual agreements,” and other “frameworks of common principles”. These strongly suggest that formal, written legal agreements have been reached by the trilateral “working groups” operating within SPP governments. This looks more like re-writing U.S. administrative law to “integrate” or “harmonize” our administrative law with the corresponding administrative law of Mexico and Canada; ranging from public policy areas, e-commerce, air travel, steel policy, textile policy, energy policy, environmental issues, trusted trader programs, trusted traveler programs and biometric cards issued to citizens of the three countries. The resulting “trilateral agreements” are being achieved by SPP in secret without specific disclosure to the U.S. public or direct oversight examination by Congress.
SPP is the device that will drive America down the road "of an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece" just as Richard Gardner wrote in 1974.
Unfortunately power seeking has replaced patriotism in defense of the United States; that’s the only plausible explanation for the behind-the scene efforts to bring about a restructuring of our country by advocates of SPP, which include prominent members of the Trilateral Commission who wasted no time creating a globalist strategy after its founding in 1973. What was that strategy?
Richard Gardner, an original member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in his 1974 article "The Hard Road to World Order" (Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations):
"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." (Gardner, Richard, ‘The Hard Road to World Order’, (Foreign Affairs, 1974)
Gardner's further stated that use of treaties and trade agreements (such as General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or GATT) will supersede constitutional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has happened. Gardner also praised the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the national sovereignty of individual nations. Gardner concluded that "the case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis".
Is this what Americans want?
SPP seeks to ‘harmonize’ laws of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. but it’s not just about trade; it is also about free travel between the countries (removing borders), improving opportunity for large corporations and power for government controllers. There is also a plan for a ‘North Emergency Management and towards Smart, Secure Borders’ (Orwell would be proud of this double-speak).
Information about the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) or NAFTA Superhighway has begun to leak out. But did you know that a Spanish corporation, “Cintra, has already signed a contract to build a road paralleling I-35 from Mexico to Canada with a branch extending I-69 going to Canada from Port Huron Michigan? The road system will have six-lanes for passenger cars, four lanes for trucks, a rail system, telecommunication lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, etc.” (‘Quietly, Quietly Building the North American Union’ by Steven Yates, October 9, 2006). It will require taking 500,000 acres of private land by eminent domain in Texas alone, (Supreme Court decision 'Kelo v New London, Conn.' set the stage for this massive appropriation of private property).
The administration tries to minimize the importance of what is happening within the many cabinet-level “working groups” comprising members of executive branches of the three countries, but won't deny the intention to form a North American Union. The administration says that the SPP activity is nothing more than “a dialogue, mere talk” but examination of the SPP.gov website shows otherwise. The “2005 Report to Leaders” on the SPP website lists more than 30 references to “trilateral memoranda of understanding,” “mutual agreements,” and other “frameworks of common principles”. These strongly suggest that formal, written legal agreements have been reached by the trilateral “working groups” operating within SPP governments. This looks more like re-writing U.S. administrative law to “integrate” or “harmonize” our administrative law with the corresponding administrative law of Mexico and Canada; ranging from public policy areas, e-commerce, air travel, steel policy, textile policy, energy policy, environmental issues, trusted trader programs, trusted traveler programs and biometric cards issued to citizens of the three countries. The resulting “trilateral agreements” are being achieved by SPP in secret without specific disclosure to the U.S. public or direct oversight examination by Congress.
SPP is the device that will drive America down the road "of an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece" just as Richard Gardner wrote in 1974.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Are we entering the ‘new world order’? [Part one]
Whenever I hear the phrase “new world order”, I think of George Orwell who expected the new order in 1984; Orwell may have missed the mark by about 25 years but his tongue-in-cheek predictions may not have been wrong.
In 1993 Trilateral Commission members Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote an op-ed (Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1993) proclaiming: “[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States would have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century”. To emphasize the importance of NAFTA, Kissinger later wrote (Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1993] :
“It[NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a ‘new world order’ taken by any group of countries since the end of the cold war, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.”(Emphasis added)
In a March 23, 2006 ‘Summit’ meeting in Waco, Texas (ironic?), Canadian Prime Minister Harper, Mexico’s President Fox and President Bush released a statement: “We the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States have met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America”. We will establish working parties … that will … respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set up dates that will ensure continuous achievements of results”.
Congress and the American people were kept in the dark about this agreement by the “elected leaders” and only now are the details of the ‘leader’s’ intentions and actions by the “working parties” (also referred to as ‘working groups’) emerging. A book by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D, ‘The Late Great U.S.A.’ is required reading for those that want to keep our country as the founders created it.
An article by Christopher S. Bentley’s entitled “Immigration & Integration,” (July 24 issue of The New American) describes how “free trade” takes us into regional government and proceeds from there to world government. “Free trade” is the main tool of the emerging New World Order, currently building transnational corporate “capitalism”, that advocates of SPP expect will evolve naturally and easily into global socialism with an elite group wielding absolute power.
Bentley outlines the process occurs in five steps, or phases:
First, SPP creates a free trade area that lowers barriers to the trade of goods and services among member nations, while quietly instituting political and bureaucratic controls.
Second, SPP creates a customs union, which adds a common external trade policy and expands the bureaucracy to implement it.
Third, SPP creates a common market, which ends restrictions on migration and allows labor and capital to move freely across the national borders of Canada, the United States and Mexico.
“This,” Bentley wrote, “is exactly what is behind the Bush Administration’s fanatical zeal to implement its guest worker/amnesty program.” It becomes increasingly clear that Bush’s immigration policy makes perfect sense if he is committed philosophically to a borderless, North American Union.
Fourth, SPP develops the three countries into an economic union—which will have harmonized regulations and laws, a common currency (seemingly to be called the ‘amero’), a common tax policy and a common fiscal policy.
The Fifth and final phase, political union, follows almost naturally; political union develops out of the system of public-private partnerships that create unity among international bankers, corporations, and governmental bureaucracy.
All phases are part of a single guided process. The SPP working groups are beginning to put into place the final phase of the process by reviewing U.S. court decisions. When the legal process is ‘harmonized’, we are on our way to political union under a regional authority.
We may still have a geographical entity known as the United States, and we may maintain our political infrastructure essentially intact, but SPP bureaucrats will control everything of real importance, even ability to overrule whatever court decisions or Congressional legislation they decide contravenes official globalist policy. Our Constitutional rights will be history because treaties automatically take precedence *.
We must be vigilant, keep informed and do all we can to see SPP does not overtake our country.
*Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In 1993 Trilateral Commission members Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote an op-ed (Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1993) proclaiming: “[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States would have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century”. To emphasize the importance of NAFTA, Kissinger later wrote (Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1993] :
“It[NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a ‘new world order’ taken by any group of countries since the end of the cold war, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.”(Emphasis added)
In a March 23, 2006 ‘Summit’ meeting in Waco, Texas (ironic?), Canadian Prime Minister Harper, Mexico’s President Fox and President Bush released a statement: “We the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States have met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America”. We will establish working parties … that will … respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set up dates that will ensure continuous achievements of results”.
Congress and the American people were kept in the dark about this agreement by the “elected leaders” and only now are the details of the ‘leader’s’ intentions and actions by the “working parties” (also referred to as ‘working groups’) emerging. A book by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D, ‘The Late Great U.S.A.’ is required reading for those that want to keep our country as the founders created it.
An article by Christopher S. Bentley’s entitled “Immigration & Integration,” (July 24 issue of The New American) describes how “free trade” takes us into regional government and proceeds from there to world government. “Free trade” is the main tool of the emerging New World Order, currently building transnational corporate “capitalism”, that advocates of SPP expect will evolve naturally and easily into global socialism with an elite group wielding absolute power.
Bentley outlines the process occurs in five steps, or phases:
First, SPP creates a free trade area that lowers barriers to the trade of goods and services among member nations, while quietly instituting political and bureaucratic controls.
Second, SPP creates a customs union, which adds a common external trade policy and expands the bureaucracy to implement it.
Third, SPP creates a common market, which ends restrictions on migration and allows labor and capital to move freely across the national borders of Canada, the United States and Mexico.
“This,” Bentley wrote, “is exactly what is behind the Bush Administration’s fanatical zeal to implement its guest worker/amnesty program.” It becomes increasingly clear that Bush’s immigration policy makes perfect sense if he is committed philosophically to a borderless, North American Union.
Fourth, SPP develops the three countries into an economic union—which will have harmonized regulations and laws, a common currency (seemingly to be called the ‘amero’), a common tax policy and a common fiscal policy.
The Fifth and final phase, political union, follows almost naturally; political union develops out of the system of public-private partnerships that create unity among international bankers, corporations, and governmental bureaucracy.
All phases are part of a single guided process. The SPP working groups are beginning to put into place the final phase of the process by reviewing U.S. court decisions. When the legal process is ‘harmonized’, we are on our way to political union under a regional authority.
We may still have a geographical entity known as the United States, and we may maintain our political infrastructure essentially intact, but SPP bureaucrats will control everything of real importance, even ability to overrule whatever court decisions or Congressional legislation they decide contravenes official globalist policy. Our Constitutional rights will be history because treaties automatically take precedence *.
We must be vigilant, keep informed and do all we can to see SPP does not overtake our country.
*Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Friday, August 24, 2007
Is this the beginning of a North American Union?
Not many of us would know that there is a U.S. Department of Transportation Mexican Truck Demonstration Project, or that 37 Mexican trucking companies have been approved to drive their long-haul trucks through the United States starting as early as the first of September, but the Mexican government does and that’s what they are reporting.
The Inspector General of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued a report but the report was withheld from the public until very recently. Despite identifying safety problems with the program, the report did not say the Mexican trucks could not roll on American highways. Interestingly, the September 1 start occurs while Congress is still out of town.
Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said “The Bush administration is determined to push this Mexican truck project down the throats of the American people and Congress," and further, "Reading the inspector general's report, there are many serious safety concerns that are still far from resolved, … Now we're just supposed to ignore those recommendations and let the Mexican long-haul rigs roll anywhere they want in the United States, regardless whether it's safe or not?"
Other issues of concern are possible smuggling of drugs and people into the United States in Mexican trucks free to roam across the country. Obviously, there are not enough inspectors to assure our country is protected from this potential threat. Spokesman for American truck driver groups also wonder whether Mexican truck drivers meet requirements set for American drivers and if Mexican commercial truck driver licenses or drug testing procedures satisfy U.S. standards.
A bill passed overwhelmingly by the House (411-3 on May 15th), the 'Safe American Roads Act', would essentially block the project but, in an effort to ensure Mexican trucks will begin rolling across the U.S. on schedule, the Bush administration has been urging the Senate to not take any action on the House bill. Some reporters have written that the Senate committee having jurisdiction has put on hold taking any action on the bill passed by the House. It seems the Senate committee has no plans to discuss a Senate bill comparable to the House bill until after Mexican trucks start rolling on U.S. highways the first of September.
Authorizing Mexican trucks access to American highways is only one aspect of the secret negotiations following enactment of NAFTA and the Presidents agreement to begin work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement (SPP) signed by him and the government leaders of Canada and Mexico two years ago. The Bush administration has approved working groups whose activities are intended to implement SPP without any authorization from congress. The working groups themselves, their membership and work product have not been published anywhere.
It would appear the SPP working groups intend to achieve objectives set out in a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations report. This report surely looks like a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American Union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new government.
The SPP joint declaration, "Building a North American Community," stated:
“The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized. To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary. Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America”.
The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) report also calls for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with “free movement of people, commerce and capital within North America, facilitated by the development of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.”
Also outlined in the CFR report are a North American court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, a North American executive commission, a North American military defense command, a North American customs office and a North American development bank. By the way, there is now a customs port in Kansas City and plans for a Mexican customs facility which may have to be considered ‘sovereign soil of Mexico’. Documents of top executives have been uncovered and reported upon by WorldNet Daily suggesting that a Mexican customs facility “would by necessity” be considered Mexican territory. Wouldn’t that be a fine place to store people and contraband out of reach of U.S. authorities?
Mexican truck access to our country is an early program consistent with the aims of SPP; can more be far behind? Commitment to SPP may also explain why the Bush administration is dragging its feet in protecting our borders.
The Inspector General of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued a report but the report was withheld from the public until very recently. Despite identifying safety problems with the program, the report did not say the Mexican trucks could not roll on American highways. Interestingly, the September 1 start occurs while Congress is still out of town.
Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said “The Bush administration is determined to push this Mexican truck project down the throats of the American people and Congress," and further, "Reading the inspector general's report, there are many serious safety concerns that are still far from resolved, … Now we're just supposed to ignore those recommendations and let the Mexican long-haul rigs roll anywhere they want in the United States, regardless whether it's safe or not?"
Other issues of concern are possible smuggling of drugs and people into the United States in Mexican trucks free to roam across the country. Obviously, there are not enough inspectors to assure our country is protected from this potential threat. Spokesman for American truck driver groups also wonder whether Mexican truck drivers meet requirements set for American drivers and if Mexican commercial truck driver licenses or drug testing procedures satisfy U.S. standards.
A bill passed overwhelmingly by the House (411-3 on May 15th), the 'Safe American Roads Act', would essentially block the project but, in an effort to ensure Mexican trucks will begin rolling across the U.S. on schedule, the Bush administration has been urging the Senate to not take any action on the House bill. Some reporters have written that the Senate committee having jurisdiction has put on hold taking any action on the bill passed by the House. It seems the Senate committee has no plans to discuss a Senate bill comparable to the House bill until after Mexican trucks start rolling on U.S. highways the first of September.
Authorizing Mexican trucks access to American highways is only one aspect of the secret negotiations following enactment of NAFTA and the Presidents agreement to begin work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement (SPP) signed by him and the government leaders of Canada and Mexico two years ago. The Bush administration has approved working groups whose activities are intended to implement SPP without any authorization from congress. The working groups themselves, their membership and work product have not been published anywhere.
It would appear the SPP working groups intend to achieve objectives set out in a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations report. This report surely looks like a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American Union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new government.
The SPP joint declaration, "Building a North American Community," stated:
“The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized. To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary. Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America”.
The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) report also calls for establishment of a common security border perimeter around North America by 2010, along with “free movement of people, commerce and capital within North America, facilitated by the development of a North American Border Pass that would replace a U.S. passport for travel between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.”
Also outlined in the CFR report are a North American court, a North American inter-parliamentary group, a North American executive commission, a North American military defense command, a North American customs office and a North American development bank. By the way, there is now a customs port in Kansas City and plans for a Mexican customs facility which may have to be considered ‘sovereign soil of Mexico’. Documents of top executives have been uncovered and reported upon by WorldNet Daily suggesting that a Mexican customs facility “would by necessity” be considered Mexican territory. Wouldn’t that be a fine place to store people and contraband out of reach of U.S. authorities?
Mexican truck access to our country is an early program consistent with the aims of SPP; can more be far behind? Commitment to SPP may also explain why the Bush administration is dragging its feet in protecting our borders.
Do you feel safer?
After recent headlines in several newspapers, I was encouraged not to worry about Islamic terror in the United States; that is until I actually read the articles. Headlines such as “Muslim support for attacks fade” and “Global poll: Muslims reject suicide bombing” certainly are intended to reassure Americans and others that everything is right with the world again; but in reality they are really the work of politically correct ‘spin meisters’ at their worse.
These ‘news’ articles report hopeful changes in Muslim thought in “A wide-ranging survey of international attitudes in 47 countries by the Pew Research Center …”, in which we are told “that in many countries support for suicide attacks has declined” along with support for Osama bin-Laden.
According to the politically correct interpretation of the Pew report, large numbers of Muslims in the Middle East, and in particular “ten mainly Muslims countries, the Palestinian territories, as well as five African countries with large Muslim populations”, have forsaken murder-by-suicide to attain paradise and Islamic world domination. In reality however, the survey reveals support for suicide bombings “has dropped to 23%”. Well now isn’t that special; with a world Muslim population of one and a half billion, only 23% support suicide bombings. Are we supposed to be comforted that only 345 million Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people?
World travelers among us may want to take notice that 34% of Lebanese, 9% Pakistanis, and 70% Palestinians support suicide bombing (with a “sampling error of 2 to 4 percentage points”). In another survey, 36% of Muslims in France, 31% of Spanish Muslims, 30% of British Muslims, and 17% of German Muslims, believe violence in support of Islam is justified.
Are we safer in the United States? According to another Pew research poll, 26% of Muslims between the age of 18 and 29 believe suicide bombing is justified in “at least in some circumstances” and 5% of all American Muslims had a favorable view of Al Qaeda. With the Pew estimate of 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, there are over 300,000 Muslims who support suicide bombings and 117,500 who support Al Qaeda.
The Pew survey also found that young adult Muslims are more likely to attend Mosque services where they receive Imam-inspired empathy for radicalism foolishly tolerated by Western Societies. Although younger Muslims are less likely to pray, they are inculcated with Jihad in Saudi-supported Mosques and typically consider themselves as Muslims first before Americans.
Of course most of the Muslim animosity is directed at the Jewish community. A poll conducted by The Guardian in England found that 47% of British Muslims said that they would consider killing Israelis as suicide bombers if they lived in the ‘Palestine Territories’ and “more than one in ten said further terror attacks on the United States would be justified”. If you are wondering why so many Muslims have such views, you can begin by considering the continuing inflammatory misreporting and lies about the Israeli-Palestine conflict by the news media, the favorable reporting of the Palestinian effort ‘to arrive at a peace plan’ without giving up violence against Israelis, “seductive good news by the endless propaganda of the Arab cause” (British commentator Peter Hitchens), the biased reporting in the news media (for example, CNN who equated suicide bombing ‘Martyrs’ with Christian Youth Groups), and pronouncements by Hamas-fan and Nobel Prize Winner – Jimmy Carter.
News articles are spun furiously to find an acceptable angle to present the information that Muslim Americans see “a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society” (approximately 752,000 Muslims seeing this “conflict”). The mainstream media often reports ‘good news’ about changing Muslim attitudes when they find some basis to do so; hopefully their view of the Pew report is true and that ‘improvements’ in Muslim attitudes are a new wave of Muslim thought. But even if this is the case, America and the world already have enough potential suicide bombers to kill a lot of people; do we have enough time for changes in Muslim attitudes about suicide bombing to rid the world of terrorism?
These ‘news’ articles report hopeful changes in Muslim thought in “A wide-ranging survey of international attitudes in 47 countries by the Pew Research Center …”, in which we are told “that in many countries support for suicide attacks has declined” along with support for Osama bin-Laden.
According to the politically correct interpretation of the Pew report, large numbers of Muslims in the Middle East, and in particular “ten mainly Muslims countries, the Palestinian territories, as well as five African countries with large Muslim populations”, have forsaken murder-by-suicide to attain paradise and Islamic world domination. In reality however, the survey reveals support for suicide bombings “has dropped to 23%”. Well now isn’t that special; with a world Muslim population of one and a half billion, only 23% support suicide bombings. Are we supposed to be comforted that only 345 million Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people?
World travelers among us may want to take notice that 34% of Lebanese, 9% Pakistanis, and 70% Palestinians support suicide bombing (with a “sampling error of 2 to 4 percentage points”). In another survey, 36% of Muslims in France, 31% of Spanish Muslims, 30% of British Muslims, and 17% of German Muslims, believe violence in support of Islam is justified.
Are we safer in the United States? According to another Pew research poll, 26% of Muslims between the age of 18 and 29 believe suicide bombing is justified in “at least in some circumstances” and 5% of all American Muslims had a favorable view of Al Qaeda. With the Pew estimate of 2.35 million Muslims in the United States, there are over 300,000 Muslims who support suicide bombings and 117,500 who support Al Qaeda.
The Pew survey also found that young adult Muslims are more likely to attend Mosque services where they receive Imam-inspired empathy for radicalism foolishly tolerated by Western Societies. Although younger Muslims are less likely to pray, they are inculcated with Jihad in Saudi-supported Mosques and typically consider themselves as Muslims first before Americans.
Of course most of the Muslim animosity is directed at the Jewish community. A poll conducted by The Guardian in England found that 47% of British Muslims said that they would consider killing Israelis as suicide bombers if they lived in the ‘Palestine Territories’ and “more than one in ten said further terror attacks on the United States would be justified”. If you are wondering why so many Muslims have such views, you can begin by considering the continuing inflammatory misreporting and lies about the Israeli-Palestine conflict by the news media, the favorable reporting of the Palestinian effort ‘to arrive at a peace plan’ without giving up violence against Israelis, “seductive good news by the endless propaganda of the Arab cause” (British commentator Peter Hitchens), the biased reporting in the news media (for example, CNN who equated suicide bombing ‘Martyrs’ with Christian Youth Groups), and pronouncements by Hamas-fan and Nobel Prize Winner – Jimmy Carter.
News articles are spun furiously to find an acceptable angle to present the information that Muslim Americans see “a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society” (approximately 752,000 Muslims seeing this “conflict”). The mainstream media often reports ‘good news’ about changing Muslim attitudes when they find some basis to do so; hopefully their view of the Pew report is true and that ‘improvements’ in Muslim attitudes are a new wave of Muslim thought. But even if this is the case, America and the world already have enough potential suicide bombers to kill a lot of people; do we have enough time for changes in Muslim attitudes about suicide bombing to rid the world of terrorism?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
All Men Are Created With ‘Equal Rights’
Paraphrasing The Declaration of Independence, all humans are created with the same and equal ‘rights’. All people are not ‘created equal’; some are smarter, some are prettier and some are more evil than others. This is true regardless of ones’ religion, ethnicity, color, sexual orientation, and origin or belief system. However, no one should have rights superior to others, and no one should be able to inflict their beliefs on others. How a person views other people is a personal decision and the person should not be demeaned, ridiculed or placed at a disadvantage because of those views. Actions, however, are another thing. In order to have equal ‘rights’, it is also necessary that no one be disadvantaged because of the views and actions of others.
Therefore, advancing one set of views in away that would ‘force’ others to share those views is totally unfair and should not be tolerated by people ‘with equal rights’. People with different political views may seek to persuade others by their words that they are right and those with different views are wrong, but no one is entitled to have the use of law and governmental regulations to accomplish ‘forced persuasion’. Unfortunately, our ‘politically correct’ society permits and countenances legal action to do what words alone are unable to do to convince disagreeing people to change their views.
One tool used by people to advance their views, and political agenda, is to corrupt the English language; to misuse words to convey an impression that those disagreeing with them are not only wrong, but in some cases actually evil; one such word is ‘racist’ and another is ‘homophobe’. It is also popular to ignore the accepted meaning of a word, such as ‘amnesty’, and attempt to make people believe the meaning is something contrary to the accepted definition. Another example is the word ‘gay’; once used simply to describe a happy state of mind, now used as a euphemism for ‘homosexual’. To call attention to these things immediately gives rise to the terrible characterization – ‘racism’.
Sometimes because the actual description of words in the identity of an organization or the political effort may turn some people off, acronyms are used to soften the impact the actual words may have. One example is NAMBLA, “North American Man/Boy Love Association”, another example is LGBTQ, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer”, and a third is GLBT, “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender” (believe it or not, GLBT actually has a ‘historical society’).
Political activists often demand special privileges for members of their groups. Of course, this means that their members are to have rights superior than others have. If we remember that our Declaration of Independence says all people have ‘equal rights’; a principle that has guided our country from its beginning, it is clear that such political activists seek more than that to which they should be entitled. There are many illustrations. Congress has a ‘Black Caucus’, but there could never be a ‘White Caucus’; there is a government funded, in part, ‘National Association of Colored People’, but a corresponding association of white people would be considered ‘racist’; there is a ‘Gay and Lesbian Alliance’, but any alliance of heterosexual people is often forbidden on school campuses and other institutions; atheists are a protected minority, but religion has no place in schools or public institutions; there is an organization openly calling for the Mexican takeover of our southwest, especially California, but what would the public news media say about a formal resistance to that movement? If more examples are needed, we can cite the many ‘immigrant rights’ groups; would groups advocating the rights of American citizens be well received? I think not.
There was a time in this country when the word ‘patriot’ was a proud identification to have. Former senator Barry Goldwater was ridiculed for suggesting that extremism in defense of liberty (patriotism) was no vice when he ran for the presidency. Today, there is an entire political party and a news media that wants to turn the definition of patriotism on its ear. They contend that it is possible to support our country’s enemies, or ignore the clear threats to our freedoms that some groups pose, and still be patriotic. If they succeed by persuading a majority of American with words or law and regulations to accept these views, our beloved country will be destroyed like countless others before ours, by destruction from within.
Therefore, advancing one set of views in away that would ‘force’ others to share those views is totally unfair and should not be tolerated by people ‘with equal rights’. People with different political views may seek to persuade others by their words that they are right and those with different views are wrong, but no one is entitled to have the use of law and governmental regulations to accomplish ‘forced persuasion’. Unfortunately, our ‘politically correct’ society permits and countenances legal action to do what words alone are unable to do to convince disagreeing people to change their views.
One tool used by people to advance their views, and political agenda, is to corrupt the English language; to misuse words to convey an impression that those disagreeing with them are not only wrong, but in some cases actually evil; one such word is ‘racist’ and another is ‘homophobe’. It is also popular to ignore the accepted meaning of a word, such as ‘amnesty’, and attempt to make people believe the meaning is something contrary to the accepted definition. Another example is the word ‘gay’; once used simply to describe a happy state of mind, now used as a euphemism for ‘homosexual’. To call attention to these things immediately gives rise to the terrible characterization – ‘racism’.
Sometimes because the actual description of words in the identity of an organization or the political effort may turn some people off, acronyms are used to soften the impact the actual words may have. One example is NAMBLA, “North American Man/Boy Love Association”, another example is LGBTQ, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer”, and a third is GLBT, “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender” (believe it or not, GLBT actually has a ‘historical society’).
Political activists often demand special privileges for members of their groups. Of course, this means that their members are to have rights superior than others have. If we remember that our Declaration of Independence says all people have ‘equal rights’; a principle that has guided our country from its beginning, it is clear that such political activists seek more than that to which they should be entitled. There are many illustrations. Congress has a ‘Black Caucus’, but there could never be a ‘White Caucus’; there is a government funded, in part, ‘National Association of Colored People’, but a corresponding association of white people would be considered ‘racist’; there is a ‘Gay and Lesbian Alliance’, but any alliance of heterosexual people is often forbidden on school campuses and other institutions; atheists are a protected minority, but religion has no place in schools or public institutions; there is an organization openly calling for the Mexican takeover of our southwest, especially California, but what would the public news media say about a formal resistance to that movement? If more examples are needed, we can cite the many ‘immigrant rights’ groups; would groups advocating the rights of American citizens be well received? I think not.
There was a time in this country when the word ‘patriot’ was a proud identification to have. Former senator Barry Goldwater was ridiculed for suggesting that extremism in defense of liberty (patriotism) was no vice when he ran for the presidency. Today, there is an entire political party and a news media that wants to turn the definition of patriotism on its ear. They contend that it is possible to support our country’s enemies, or ignore the clear threats to our freedoms that some groups pose, and still be patriotic. If they succeed by persuading a majority of American with words or law and regulations to accept these views, our beloved country will be destroyed like countless others before ours, by destruction from within.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Appeasement Loses; Psychology of Defeat Wins
During the past decade the civilized world has experienced the same Islamic threat to survival that it was exposed to centuries ago, but the danger of destruction and success of the insane ideology is substantially greater. No longer do the Islamists just use scepters and knives to kill and enslave disagreeable Muslims and non Muslims, they now have advanced arms and human bombs, with weapons of mass destruction looming on the horizon.
Much of the world struggles with the question of how to defeat Islamic tyranny, while others insist on ignoring the lessons of history and try to mollify Islam with appeasement in one form or another. Appeasement doesn’t work; world history is replete with examples. No amount of appeasing Hitler prevented world war and the holocaust. Giving in to Stalin’s quest for communist world domination didn’t stop the expansion of communist ideology and enslavement of large numbers of people. Appeasement by ignoring brutal treatment in Southeast Asia only led to killing of millions of people just as it has in Africa. And appeasing Castro by failing to assist brave men who sought to overthrow his dictatorship has left an entire country of people who don’t remember what it would be like to live in freedom. The only means of resisting and overcoming tyranny in any form is to apply enough force to eradicate it. Appeasement always encourages violence and instills more confidence in the tyrant to take bolder and bolder action. In the world today, that ‘tyrant’ is Islam.
Just like the Nazis and communists, Islamic activists think concessions and good will gestures are signs of weakness, and they have only contempt for the appeasers. Hitler bombed Britain after Chamberlain brought home his ‘peace treaty’, conceding Eastern Europe to Stalin didn’t stop the Soviet Union from trying to expand their domination over other countries and peoples, and most importantly, appeasement only encouraged them to intimidate the world, just as the murdering Islamists do now.
In today’s world, Islamic Fascists practice intimidation through terrorism. Their barbaric acts are so heinous that peaceful people become afraid; fearful of taking any action that would ‘offend’ the terrorists. Not long ago liberals were wondering aloud, “what have we done to make them hate us?” Another response to Muslim violence in the liberal media was, and still is in France, (before Sarkozy?), for example, “We marginalize the Muslims and prevent them from becoming a part of our society”, or, “Muslims are discriminated against, that’s why they behave as they do”. These, attempts at explanations for violent behavior, and many other hand-wringing excuses given for Muslim actions, are do-gooders’ efforts to take the blame themselves for the Muslim’s atrocious acts.
A look at history suggests how Islamic fascism can be overcome; we must intimidate the intimidators. The evil ambitions of Japan were conquered by using the atomic bomb. This showed the Japanese they could not win the war they started, and the Japanese war-like spirit was broken. Similarly, overwhelming force and destruction of Germany and the Nazi war machine made them face the reality that they could not win the war.
Israel has historically taken this approach in combating Muslim terrorists and terrorism. We can only hope, for their sake and ours, that they do not change course now. If Israel has not yet succeeded, it is because the United States and the Western World have not allowed them to take the necessary actions to intimidate the intimidators by all means possible. In his autobiography ‘Warrior’, Ariel Sharon said that after a career as a soldier fighting for Israel’s survival, he came to the conclusion that it is necessary to deal with the Arab terrorists in a profound way. In Sharon’s view:
“The objective (was) not simply retaliation or even deterrence in the usual sense. It was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction they could never win.”
Clearly, this is the anti-dote for Islamic tyranny. The civilized world must create a psychology of defeat in the Muslim mind so they believe they cannot win the war of terror, nothing else will work. In order to do this we cannot tolerate appeasement, we cannot ask for forgiveness when Muslims scream that they are offended, we cannot give in to intimidation by giving up freedom of the press, we cannot give Muslims special treatment not accorded to others, we cannot allow any action by Muslims that threatens us, or potentially threatens us. Muslim children should not be able to bring knives to school because it is related to their religion, nor should Muslims be able to conceal their appearance in public documents by wearing Burkas. Muslims and their Imams should not be able to spout seditious oratory, nor should they be able to rail against our values and incite violence. Giving Muslims rights others don’t have, or making excuses for their behavior, as is especially being done now by our media, some of our Congressional members and University professors, merely emboldens them to further extreme actions, ultimately leading to force and violence to further their cause of national domination, and a world-wide Caliphate.
Instead of appeasement, freedom lovers the world over must crush violent Muslim practitioners and adherents to an insane ideology. If the planet Earth were threatened by war-like aliens from another world, all of us would come together to resist the invasion and keep the world free. We must do the same now; resist Muslim world domination by all means possible! Our lives, and the lives of posterity, depend on it.
Much of the world struggles with the question of how to defeat Islamic tyranny, while others insist on ignoring the lessons of history and try to mollify Islam with appeasement in one form or another. Appeasement doesn’t work; world history is replete with examples. No amount of appeasing Hitler prevented world war and the holocaust. Giving in to Stalin’s quest for communist world domination didn’t stop the expansion of communist ideology and enslavement of large numbers of people. Appeasement by ignoring brutal treatment in Southeast Asia only led to killing of millions of people just as it has in Africa. And appeasing Castro by failing to assist brave men who sought to overthrow his dictatorship has left an entire country of people who don’t remember what it would be like to live in freedom. The only means of resisting and overcoming tyranny in any form is to apply enough force to eradicate it. Appeasement always encourages violence and instills more confidence in the tyrant to take bolder and bolder action. In the world today, that ‘tyrant’ is Islam.
Just like the Nazis and communists, Islamic activists think concessions and good will gestures are signs of weakness, and they have only contempt for the appeasers. Hitler bombed Britain after Chamberlain brought home his ‘peace treaty’, conceding Eastern Europe to Stalin didn’t stop the Soviet Union from trying to expand their domination over other countries and peoples, and most importantly, appeasement only encouraged them to intimidate the world, just as the murdering Islamists do now.
In today’s world, Islamic Fascists practice intimidation through terrorism. Their barbaric acts are so heinous that peaceful people become afraid; fearful of taking any action that would ‘offend’ the terrorists. Not long ago liberals were wondering aloud, “what have we done to make them hate us?” Another response to Muslim violence in the liberal media was, and still is in France, (before Sarkozy?), for example, “We marginalize the Muslims and prevent them from becoming a part of our society”, or, “Muslims are discriminated against, that’s why they behave as they do”. These, attempts at explanations for violent behavior, and many other hand-wringing excuses given for Muslim actions, are do-gooders’ efforts to take the blame themselves for the Muslim’s atrocious acts.
A look at history suggests how Islamic fascism can be overcome; we must intimidate the intimidators. The evil ambitions of Japan were conquered by using the atomic bomb. This showed the Japanese they could not win the war they started, and the Japanese war-like spirit was broken. Similarly, overwhelming force and destruction of Germany and the Nazi war machine made them face the reality that they could not win the war.
Israel has historically taken this approach in combating Muslim terrorists and terrorism. We can only hope, for their sake and ours, that they do not change course now. If Israel has not yet succeeded, it is because the United States and the Western World have not allowed them to take the necessary actions to intimidate the intimidators by all means possible. In his autobiography ‘Warrior’, Ariel Sharon said that after a career as a soldier fighting for Israel’s survival, he came to the conclusion that it is necessary to deal with the Arab terrorists in a profound way. In Sharon’s view:
“The objective (was) not simply retaliation or even deterrence in the usual sense. It was to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction they could never win.”
Clearly, this is the anti-dote for Islamic tyranny. The civilized world must create a psychology of defeat in the Muslim mind so they believe they cannot win the war of terror, nothing else will work. In order to do this we cannot tolerate appeasement, we cannot ask for forgiveness when Muslims scream that they are offended, we cannot give in to intimidation by giving up freedom of the press, we cannot give Muslims special treatment not accorded to others, we cannot allow any action by Muslims that threatens us, or potentially threatens us. Muslim children should not be able to bring knives to school because it is related to their religion, nor should Muslims be able to conceal their appearance in public documents by wearing Burkas. Muslims and their Imams should not be able to spout seditious oratory, nor should they be able to rail against our values and incite violence. Giving Muslims rights others don’t have, or making excuses for their behavior, as is especially being done now by our media, some of our Congressional members and University professors, merely emboldens them to further extreme actions, ultimately leading to force and violence to further their cause of national domination, and a world-wide Caliphate.
Instead of appeasement, freedom lovers the world over must crush violent Muslim practitioners and adherents to an insane ideology. If the planet Earth were threatened by war-like aliens from another world, all of us would come together to resist the invasion and keep the world free. We must do the same now; resist Muslim world domination by all means possible! Our lives, and the lives of posterity, depend on it.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Does SCHIP 'save the children' or expand government control of our health?
Slogans can be useful tools to mold public opinion. Old people like me can remember the World War II advice: “Loose lips sink ships” to remind everyone to not help the enemy by disclosing important information. Germany had a slogan to hype up their population: “Deutschland uber alles”, meaning ‘Germany above all’ (sorry, my typewriter doesn’t have an umlaut). Even the New York Times has a slogan, but sadly it should be rewritten to ‘All the news that’s fit, and not so fit, to print’. Today a popular slogan is to justify all manner of terrible proposed legislation is ‘save the children’. (Another unfortunate slogan commonly used is ‘save the planet’, but that’s for another time).
The ‘State Children's Health Insurance Program, (SCHIP), has now become the latest program that seeks support with the slogan – ‘Save the Children’.
Congress is considering how to provide health care for millions of Americans. What Congress does will affect children, Medicare beneficiaries, and taxpayers now and for years to come. The new House bill is 465 pages long and is called The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (H.R. 3162). This bill greatly expands dependency of millions of Americans on government health care; it undermines private health plans, reduces choice for Medicare beneficiaries, and burdens taxpayers with a permanent new entitlement.
The House uses the need to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by September 30, 2007 (the expiration date) as an excuse for expanding the present program. SCHIP now covers about 6.7 million children whose families are low-income but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. However, under the House bill SCHIP is no longer limited to low-income persons or even to ‘children’. This is accomplished by redefining both "low-income" and "children." (CBO, "Fact Sheet for March 2007 Baseline: State Children's Health Insurance Program," February 23, 2007). Under the bill, eligibility for government coverage would be extended to families with incomes up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level (FPL)—$82,600 for a family of four. Most of us would not consider this definition of low-income to be a reasonable standard. Also, the definition of “children” is expanded to include those under 25 (are 20-year olds children?)
The proposed legislation would greatly undermine private health care insurance; currently 89% of all children between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; 77% of all children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; and 50% of all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance (CBO, "The State Children's Health Insurance Program," Pub. No. 2970, May 2007). Recent studies indicate that people with private insurance will likely drop eligible dependents in favor of welfare-style health coverage. According to CBO estimates, the House bill would move nearly 1.9 million people off private insurance and onto taxpayer-supported health care. (CBO, Estimated of Changes in SCHIP and Medicaid Enrollment of Children Under H. R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, as Ordered Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on July 27, 2007," July 27, 2007). The House SCHIP bill clearly expands government control over the financing and delivery of health care. If enacted, it would affect millions of Americans for years to come by progressively reducing personal choice in private health care alternatives, ‘crowding out’ private coverage among the young, and eliminating or reducing private health plans as options for the elderly and disabled in Medicare.
Currently all Medicare beneficiaries are free to enroll in Medicare Advantage, the program of private health plans created under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.
The House bill would affect the current Medicare Advantage program and would cut the projected enrollment in half by 2012. If enacted, the bill would partially finance the government expansion by "equalizing" payments between Medicare Advantage plans and the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, even though Medicare Advantage plans have better cost coverage. The CBO estimate indicate that such "equalization" would amount to about $50 billion in cuts over the next five years and $157 billion through 2017. (CBO, "Estimated Effect on Direct Spending and Revenues of H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, for the Rules Committee, as Ordered Reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on July 27, 2007," July 27, 2007). This would hurt seniors and deprive seniors of their choice of insurance programs. Most of the reduction "would be reflected as reduced benefits or increased costs to the plan's participants."(CBO, "Medicare Advantage: Private Health Plans in Medicare," Economic and Budget Issue Brief, June 28. 2007). The CBO further indicates that “such measures would render Medicare Advantage less attractive to seniors, encourage a number of them to return to the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program, and discourage enrollment by otherwise potential participants”.
Proponents of the House bill continue to say the legislation to revise the current SCHIP program is necessary to “save the children”, but is it really intended to save children not now covered by insurance or is it another power grab and a subtle version of the disparaged ‘Hilary care’ defeated during the Clinton administration?
The ‘State Children's Health Insurance Program, (SCHIP), has now become the latest program that seeks support with the slogan – ‘Save the Children’.
Congress is considering how to provide health care for millions of Americans. What Congress does will affect children, Medicare beneficiaries, and taxpayers now and for years to come. The new House bill is 465 pages long and is called The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (H.R. 3162). This bill greatly expands dependency of millions of Americans on government health care; it undermines private health plans, reduces choice for Medicare beneficiaries, and burdens taxpayers with a permanent new entitlement.
The House uses the need to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by September 30, 2007 (the expiration date) as an excuse for expanding the present program. SCHIP now covers about 6.7 million children whose families are low-income but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. However, under the House bill SCHIP is no longer limited to low-income persons or even to ‘children’. This is accomplished by redefining both "low-income" and "children." (CBO, "Fact Sheet for March 2007 Baseline: State Children's Health Insurance Program," February 23, 2007). Under the bill, eligibility for government coverage would be extended to families with incomes up to 400 percent above the federal poverty level (FPL)—$82,600 for a family of four. Most of us would not consider this definition of low-income to be a reasonable standard. Also, the definition of “children” is expanded to include those under 25 (are 20-year olds children?)
The proposed legislation would greatly undermine private health care insurance; currently 89% of all children between 300 percent and 400 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; 77% of all children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance; and 50% of all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the FPL are enrolled in private health insurance (CBO, "The State Children's Health Insurance Program," Pub. No. 2970, May 2007). Recent studies indicate that people with private insurance will likely drop eligible dependents in favor of welfare-style health coverage. According to CBO estimates, the House bill would move nearly 1.9 million people off private insurance and onto taxpayer-supported health care. (CBO, Estimated of Changes in SCHIP and Medicaid Enrollment of Children Under H. R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, as Ordered Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on July 27, 2007," July 27, 2007). The House SCHIP bill clearly expands government control over the financing and delivery of health care. If enacted, it would affect millions of Americans for years to come by progressively reducing personal choice in private health care alternatives, ‘crowding out’ private coverage among the young, and eliminating or reducing private health plans as options for the elderly and disabled in Medicare.
Currently all Medicare beneficiaries are free to enroll in Medicare Advantage, the program of private health plans created under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.
The House bill would affect the current Medicare Advantage program and would cut the projected enrollment in half by 2012. If enacted, the bill would partially finance the government expansion by "equalizing" payments between Medicare Advantage plans and the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, even though Medicare Advantage plans have better cost coverage. The CBO estimate indicate that such "equalization" would amount to about $50 billion in cuts over the next five years and $157 billion through 2017. (CBO, "Estimated Effect on Direct Spending and Revenues of H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, for the Rules Committee, as Ordered Reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on July 27, 2007," July 27, 2007). This would hurt seniors and deprive seniors of their choice of insurance programs. Most of the reduction "would be reflected as reduced benefits or increased costs to the plan's participants."(CBO, "Medicare Advantage: Private Health Plans in Medicare," Economic and Budget Issue Brief, June 28. 2007). The CBO further indicates that “such measures would render Medicare Advantage less attractive to seniors, encourage a number of them to return to the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program, and discourage enrollment by otherwise potential participants”.
Proponents of the House bill continue to say the legislation to revise the current SCHIP program is necessary to “save the children”, but is it really intended to save children not now covered by insurance or is it another power grab and a subtle version of the disparaged ‘Hilary care’ defeated during the Clinton administration?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The dilemma of SPP: does one 'public benefit' justify loss of sovereignty?
The SPP program secretly being implemented by our government and the countries of Canada and Mexico is frightening in the potential threat to United States sovereignty. Americans of all political persuasion should be rightfully skeptical of plans to form a more ‘imperfect’ union that some label the ‘North American Union’ and which internationalists view as akin to the European Union. SPP seeks harmonization of governmental institutions of the United States, Canada and Mexico at the cost of many of our constitutional rights. The problem for some of us is that there are indeed potential benefits of some of the SPP programs but they should be achieved apart from SPP by limited cooperation among the countries of North America. In order to avoid "throwing the baby out with the bath water", efforts must be made to limit the SPP internationalist programs advocated by Trilateral Commission members of the affected government administrations while retaining reasonable cooperation in some areas for the benefit of each country’s citizens.
Although activities of the so-called ‘working groups’ of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are scrupulously kept secret, it appears when a proposal of the group might make the SPP seem a good thing, low and behold the public is informed. The latest ‘leak’ to the public via a friendly press concerns development of a North America Air Traffic Control program under SPP purportedly designed to improve air traffic safety. Some form of this is a good thing, however as is typical of SPP the air traffic control proposal goes well beyond anything desirable for traffic safety.
A proposed North American air traffic control system was previously mentioned in a statement by then-Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta Sept. 27, 2004, "We must make flying throughout North America as seamless as possible if we are to truly reap the rewards of the expanding global economy." The language used by Mineta is clearly an expression of the real SPP intentions; that is, expand global economy for the benefit of the continents’ business giants. However, to make SPP projects like this more palatable to the American public, it is couched in terms appearing to improve safety, which it does, but the benefits to big business is omitted.
The U.S. tax payers have built nine navigation systems for Mexico and Canada under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) in an apparent first step toward establishing the satellite infrastructure needed to create a North American air traffic control system. The FAA website indicates that a CAN/MEX/USA working group (forerunner to SPP working groups) held its first meeting in Mérida, Mexico, in June 1995, during the Clinton administration. The CAN/MEX/USA working group can be traced further back to October 1993, when the International Civil Aviation Organization worked on its global communications. In an FAA webpage where international activities are discussed, the FAA says the activities organized under the North American Aviation Trilateral agreement reaffirm the FAA goal to establish regional cooperation for seamless air navigation in North America, (consistent with the 1994 statement by Mineta) and SPP.
The "2006 Report to Leaders" posted on the SPP web site states: "In order to increase navigational accuracy across the region, five Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) stations were installed in Canada and Mexico in 2005." As was reported elsewhere, "WAAS is a space-based augmentation system that provides precision navigation information to aircraft equipped with Global Positioning Satellite/WAAS receivers through all phases of flight."
One source, (FAXDC), has reported "discussions are underway to create a North American Air Traffic Control System, complete with Federal Aviation Administration issuance of WAAS certifications for Canadian and Mexican airspace. According to reports, satellite technology applied to air traffic control systems would involve "Canadian and Mexican foreign nationals not only hosting but operating and maintaining U.S. air navigation equipment as part of a continental Global Navigation Satellite System." The plan permits Mexican and Canadian air traffic controllers to operate within North American airspace as if they simply were operating from a U.S. city.
The core of the U.S. air traffic control system is the Global Positioning Satellite system that functions as an integral part of the seamless Global Navigation Satellite System envisioned by the International Civil Aviation Organization. A currently developing program, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, (ADSB), involves replacing existing radar sites to incorporate WAAS navigation signals and report aircraft location to air traffic control. ADSB information on all participating aircraft can be fed to Mexican and Canadian air traffic control.
This is indeed a significant effort toward removing regulation barriers of the three North American countries, which though perhaps beneficial to traveling Americans on one level, also facilitates the larger designs of the Trilateral Commission internationalists. Of course, FAA and SPP-affiliated government officials deny any intent to integrate Mexican or Canadian airlines into the domestic structure of U.S. air travel to help business interests, by citing as their reason "the need to facilitate international travel between the three countries and coordinate air traffic control for U.S. airlines flying into or over Mexican or Canadian airspace".
At the first North American Transportation Trilateral (NATT) meeting with transportation ministers of Mexico and Canada in Tucson, Ariz., Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters said, "I look forward to the day when it is as easy for an airline to start new service between Tucson and Montreal or Monterrey as it is between Tucson and Austin." She also said, "With globalization intensifying the pressures on all our economies, it has never been more important to connect these networks, coordinate our policies, and remove the barriers that keep large and growing volumes of goods and travelers from moving efficiently across our borders. In the United States, we see the opportunities in aviation as especially promising." Although the American public may see some benefits of "removing the barriers", it is the mega-businesses that will profit the most.
With the Peters' view reflecting U.S. government intentions, can it be long before Mexican and Canadian airlines are permitted in the future to operate from within domestic U.S. air terminals to serve locations within the U.S. on a competitive basis with U.S.-domiciled airlines?
Secretary Peters set off another bombshell by pointing out at the NATT meeting, that the 2005 Air Services Agreement between the United States and Mexico, and the Open Skies accord, lift restrictions on continental travel to provide for "free and open trans-border air travel." What do you think this will do to maintaining border control?
It is likely that there is a future intention is to integrate a North American GPS/WAAS system with a system being established by a European Union agency to manage EU airspace. An Australian airspace management organization also intends to use the FAA investment in technology to advance what ultimately will become a world-standard satellite-based airspace navigation system.
Perhaps these are worthwhile goals, but is it proper to conceal the real intentions of this SPP-backed project and should these goals justify all the many sovereignty-defeating provisions of the SPP?
Although activities of the so-called ‘working groups’ of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are scrupulously kept secret, it appears when a proposal of the group might make the SPP seem a good thing, low and behold the public is informed. The latest ‘leak’ to the public via a friendly press concerns development of a North America Air Traffic Control program under SPP purportedly designed to improve air traffic safety. Some form of this is a good thing, however as is typical of SPP the air traffic control proposal goes well beyond anything desirable for traffic safety.
A proposed North American air traffic control system was previously mentioned in a statement by then-Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta Sept. 27, 2004, "We must make flying throughout North America as seamless as possible if we are to truly reap the rewards of the expanding global economy." The language used by Mineta is clearly an expression of the real SPP intentions; that is, expand global economy for the benefit of the continents’ business giants. However, to make SPP projects like this more palatable to the American public, it is couched in terms appearing to improve safety, which it does, but the benefits to big business is omitted.
The U.S. tax payers have built nine navigation systems for Mexico and Canada under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) in an apparent first step toward establishing the satellite infrastructure needed to create a North American air traffic control system. The FAA website indicates that a CAN/MEX/USA working group (forerunner to SPP working groups) held its first meeting in Mérida, Mexico, in June 1995, during the Clinton administration. The CAN/MEX/USA working group can be traced further back to October 1993, when the International Civil Aviation Organization worked on its global communications. In an FAA webpage where international activities are discussed, the FAA says the activities organized under the North American Aviation Trilateral agreement reaffirm the FAA goal to establish regional cooperation for seamless air navigation in North America, (consistent with the 1994 statement by Mineta) and SPP.
The "2006 Report to Leaders" posted on the SPP web site states: "In order to increase navigational accuracy across the region, five Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) stations were installed in Canada and Mexico in 2005." As was reported elsewhere, "WAAS is a space-based augmentation system that provides precision navigation information to aircraft equipped with Global Positioning Satellite/WAAS receivers through all phases of flight."
One source, (FAXDC), has reported "discussions are underway to create a North American Air Traffic Control System, complete with Federal Aviation Administration issuance of WAAS certifications for Canadian and Mexican airspace. According to reports, satellite technology applied to air traffic control systems would involve "Canadian and Mexican foreign nationals not only hosting but operating and maintaining U.S. air navigation equipment as part of a continental Global Navigation Satellite System." The plan permits Mexican and Canadian air traffic controllers to operate within North American airspace as if they simply were operating from a U.S. city.
The core of the U.S. air traffic control system is the Global Positioning Satellite system that functions as an integral part of the seamless Global Navigation Satellite System envisioned by the International Civil Aviation Organization. A currently developing program, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, (ADSB), involves replacing existing radar sites to incorporate WAAS navigation signals and report aircraft location to air traffic control. ADSB information on all participating aircraft can be fed to Mexican and Canadian air traffic control.
This is indeed a significant effort toward removing regulation barriers of the three North American countries, which though perhaps beneficial to traveling Americans on one level, also facilitates the larger designs of the Trilateral Commission internationalists. Of course, FAA and SPP-affiliated government officials deny any intent to integrate Mexican or Canadian airlines into the domestic structure of U.S. air travel to help business interests, by citing as their reason "the need to facilitate international travel between the three countries and coordinate air traffic control for U.S. airlines flying into or over Mexican or Canadian airspace".
At the first North American Transportation Trilateral (NATT) meeting with transportation ministers of Mexico and Canada in Tucson, Ariz., Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters said, "I look forward to the day when it is as easy for an airline to start new service between Tucson and Montreal or Monterrey as it is between Tucson and Austin." She also said, "With globalization intensifying the pressures on all our economies, it has never been more important to connect these networks, coordinate our policies, and remove the barriers that keep large and growing volumes of goods and travelers from moving efficiently across our borders. In the United States, we see the opportunities in aviation as especially promising." Although the American public may see some benefits of "removing the barriers", it is the mega-businesses that will profit the most.
With the Peters' view reflecting U.S. government intentions, can it be long before Mexican and Canadian airlines are permitted in the future to operate from within domestic U.S. air terminals to serve locations within the U.S. on a competitive basis with U.S.-domiciled airlines?
Secretary Peters set off another bombshell by pointing out at the NATT meeting, that the 2005 Air Services Agreement between the United States and Mexico, and the Open Skies accord, lift restrictions on continental travel to provide for "free and open trans-border air travel." What do you think this will do to maintaining border control?
It is likely that there is a future intention is to integrate a North American GPS/WAAS system with a system being established by a European Union agency to manage EU airspace. An Australian airspace management organization also intends to use the FAA investment in technology to advance what ultimately will become a world-standard satellite-based airspace navigation system.
Perhaps these are worthwhile goals, but is it proper to conceal the real intentions of this SPP-backed project and should these goals justify all the many sovereignty-defeating provisions of the SPP?
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Are 'Alternative Fuels' the Answer?
From the president to news pundits to congress to ‘some’ of the public, concern rages about what is seen as an energy crisis. In particular, those raging are certain that the world faces an oil shortage in the not-to-distant future. Not only does the world face oil calamity, but such oil as there is comes from areas of the world dominated by enemies of western civilization. Americans are treated to the mixed message that we must become oil sufficient ourselves and we must develop alternatives to oil for our energy requirements, in particular, to replace gasoline for our cars and other vehicles.
The answers to the ‘energy crisis’ political energy ‘experts’ have for our future are hydrogen-fueled vehicles, something called ‘fuel cells’ for cars, and replacing gasoline with ethanol (no not ‘moon shine’). Are these proposals realistic and are there better answers, ‘NO’ and ‘YES’!
Although better and more current numbers are readily available by simply adding up the number of registered vehicles in all states, ‘The Physics Factbook’, edited by Glen Elert, reports that as of 2003 there were 204,000,000 vehicles in the United States (how many more by 2007?). Other estimates have been as high as 240,000,000 vehicles. It is also estimated that as of 1997 there were 600,000,000 vehicles in the world and by 2030 there would be 1,200,000,000 vehicles in the world. Virtually all of these vehicles operate with internal combustion engines using gasoline or diesel fuel. If overnight the world would be supplied with available hydrogen or ethanol-fueled vehicles, there still would be millions of vehicles needing gasoline or diesel fuel to operate.
Is it realistic to expect that commercial hydrogen-fueled vehicles or vehicles with fuel cells will be available anytime soon when at present they are at best scientific experiments? Well, what do you think? The millions of dollars being proposed for fuel cells and hydrogen vehicle research could much better be spent elsewhere on real-world technology already proven to be able to replace oil we import from undependable countries; namely, processes that produce oil from coal.
The United States has among the largest proven reserves of coal in the world. Oil production from coal is successfully performed on a commercial basis from tar sands in Alberta, Canada (China, Japan and others are already investing in Canada). There is a pilot plant in Pennsylvania producing oil from coal. A company in South Africa has been commercially producing oil from coal for decades. The Nazi Germany war machine was fueled by oil produced from coal which enabled them to extend World War II several years. The technology to produce oil from coal exists now and could be made even more efficient and successful if the millions of dollars proposed for hydrogen-as-fuel research and fuel cells were diverted to programs that will really help our country in the comparatively near future. Huge coal reserves exist in Montana and other western states as well as in Pennsylvania. Imagine the additional employment of Americans developing these resources would also provide.
Ethanol is also seen by many as a panacea for our ‘oil crises, but is this realistic?
Presently several ethanol-based fuels are potentially available with a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline the most common. There are recognized drawbacks to ethanol fuel. It has lower fuel economy and costs of ethanol are escalating. A serious issue is that one mega company Archer Daniel Midland is the single main supplier; one company paralleling the success of many major competitive oil companies. Ethanol is a less efficient fuel so motorists would have to spend more for ethanol fuel than for gasoline, even at the present high prices of gasoline at the pumps. Speaking of ‘pumps’, fewer than 1,000 of the 176,000 filling stations in the country sell ethanol fuel (most are in farm states), not a comforting thought to those of us that drive daily. Today there are only 93 plants making ethanol in the United States, 24 more are said to be under construction. When all ethanol plants become available, their production will be 5 billion gallons a year. Current annual consumption of gasoline is 140 billion gallons a year.
Frequently cited to support the idea of ethanol fuel are countries like Brazil and Sweden that make significant use of ethanol fuel. The less publicized fact is that using ethanol in vehicles with engines not adapted or modified to use ethanol in place of gasoline will cause significant damage to the engines. Ethanol has a higher flash point than gasoline; structural engine components and materials from which they are made are not selected for ethanol combustion environments. Therefore, owners of the millions of vehicles on the road in this country and around the world that use ethanol fuels can expect to experience unexpected repair costs and possible engine failures. Why doesn’t this happen in Brazil; because in anticipation of using ethanol fuel, car engines were modified along the way to minimize these problems. Furthermore, Brazil has considerably fewer vehicles than we do and oil consumption in Brazil is miniscule compared to America.
Transportation in our country accounts for about 67% of the oil consumed. It is reported 46% of our needed oil is produced in this country, and is likely to become a lower percentage in the future. According to the Energy Information Agency, in 1994 residential vehicles traveled 1,793 billion miles; they say this is equivalent to a distance of 70 million trips around the world. Everyone can make their own guess at how many more miles per year are traveled in this and last year.
What does this mean? Well for one thing, even if all oil used for transportation were converted to ‘alternate fuels’, we still would need a great deal of oil (33%). Secondly, with billions of miles traveled each year by Americans, alternative fuel supplies along the miles traveled would have to be hugely increased to service traveling motorists. Thirdly, our entire infra structure for manufacturing vehicles, producing fuel and delivering fuel to consumers would have to be changed or constructed at a cost of billions of dollars and many, many years.
Now let’s consider the oil-from-coal alternative.
The oil produced from coal is fully analogous to oil from wells, perhaps better in terms of oil properties and quantities of impurities. Therefore this oil and products made there from, such as gasoline and diesel can be processed in present-day conventional refineries and distributed in present-day distribution channels. It is economical to produce, especially at present and likely future costs of oil on the world market. Produced in sufficient quantities to supplement current US oil production, oil from coal can enable America to become fully self sufficient without need to obtain oil from societies that threaten our very existence. We would be able to not only satisfy our current and future transportation requirements; we will also have enough oil to meet our non-transportation needs. Moreover, this could all be done in much less time if we make a national effort. Does the ‘Manhattan Project’ come to mind?
Years ago steel made coal ‘king’, today oil can do the same thing; and we have plenty of it.
The answers to the ‘energy crisis’ political energy ‘experts’ have for our future are hydrogen-fueled vehicles, something called ‘fuel cells’ for cars, and replacing gasoline with ethanol (no not ‘moon shine’). Are these proposals realistic and are there better answers, ‘NO’ and ‘YES’!
Although better and more current numbers are readily available by simply adding up the number of registered vehicles in all states, ‘The Physics Factbook’, edited by Glen Elert, reports that as of 2003 there were 204,000,000 vehicles in the United States (how many more by 2007?). Other estimates have been as high as 240,000,000 vehicles. It is also estimated that as of 1997 there were 600,000,000 vehicles in the world and by 2030 there would be 1,200,000,000 vehicles in the world. Virtually all of these vehicles operate with internal combustion engines using gasoline or diesel fuel. If overnight the world would be supplied with available hydrogen or ethanol-fueled vehicles, there still would be millions of vehicles needing gasoline or diesel fuel to operate.
Is it realistic to expect that commercial hydrogen-fueled vehicles or vehicles with fuel cells will be available anytime soon when at present they are at best scientific experiments? Well, what do you think? The millions of dollars being proposed for fuel cells and hydrogen vehicle research could much better be spent elsewhere on real-world technology already proven to be able to replace oil we import from undependable countries; namely, processes that produce oil from coal.
The United States has among the largest proven reserves of coal in the world. Oil production from coal is successfully performed on a commercial basis from tar sands in Alberta, Canada (China, Japan and others are already investing in Canada). There is a pilot plant in Pennsylvania producing oil from coal. A company in South Africa has been commercially producing oil from coal for decades. The Nazi Germany war machine was fueled by oil produced from coal which enabled them to extend World War II several years. The technology to produce oil from coal exists now and could be made even more efficient and successful if the millions of dollars proposed for hydrogen-as-fuel research and fuel cells were diverted to programs that will really help our country in the comparatively near future. Huge coal reserves exist in Montana and other western states as well as in Pennsylvania. Imagine the additional employment of Americans developing these resources would also provide.
Ethanol is also seen by many as a panacea for our ‘oil crises, but is this realistic?
Presently several ethanol-based fuels are potentially available with a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline the most common. There are recognized drawbacks to ethanol fuel. It has lower fuel economy and costs of ethanol are escalating. A serious issue is that one mega company Archer Daniel Midland is the single main supplier; one company paralleling the success of many major competitive oil companies. Ethanol is a less efficient fuel so motorists would have to spend more for ethanol fuel than for gasoline, even at the present high prices of gasoline at the pumps. Speaking of ‘pumps’, fewer than 1,000 of the 176,000 filling stations in the country sell ethanol fuel (most are in farm states), not a comforting thought to those of us that drive daily. Today there are only 93 plants making ethanol in the United States, 24 more are said to be under construction. When all ethanol plants become available, their production will be 5 billion gallons a year. Current annual consumption of gasoline is 140 billion gallons a year.
Frequently cited to support the idea of ethanol fuel are countries like Brazil and Sweden that make significant use of ethanol fuel. The less publicized fact is that using ethanol in vehicles with engines not adapted or modified to use ethanol in place of gasoline will cause significant damage to the engines. Ethanol has a higher flash point than gasoline; structural engine components and materials from which they are made are not selected for ethanol combustion environments. Therefore, owners of the millions of vehicles on the road in this country and around the world that use ethanol fuels can expect to experience unexpected repair costs and possible engine failures. Why doesn’t this happen in Brazil; because in anticipation of using ethanol fuel, car engines were modified along the way to minimize these problems. Furthermore, Brazil has considerably fewer vehicles than we do and oil consumption in Brazil is miniscule compared to America.
Transportation in our country accounts for about 67% of the oil consumed. It is reported 46% of our needed oil is produced in this country, and is likely to become a lower percentage in the future. According to the Energy Information Agency, in 1994 residential vehicles traveled 1,793 billion miles; they say this is equivalent to a distance of 70 million trips around the world. Everyone can make their own guess at how many more miles per year are traveled in this and last year.
What does this mean? Well for one thing, even if all oil used for transportation were converted to ‘alternate fuels’, we still would need a great deal of oil (33%). Secondly, with billions of miles traveled each year by Americans, alternative fuel supplies along the miles traveled would have to be hugely increased to service traveling motorists. Thirdly, our entire infra structure for manufacturing vehicles, producing fuel and delivering fuel to consumers would have to be changed or constructed at a cost of billions of dollars and many, many years.
Now let’s consider the oil-from-coal alternative.
The oil produced from coal is fully analogous to oil from wells, perhaps better in terms of oil properties and quantities of impurities. Therefore this oil and products made there from, such as gasoline and diesel can be processed in present-day conventional refineries and distributed in present-day distribution channels. It is economical to produce, especially at present and likely future costs of oil on the world market. Produced in sufficient quantities to supplement current US oil production, oil from coal can enable America to become fully self sufficient without need to obtain oil from societies that threaten our very existence. We would be able to not only satisfy our current and future transportation requirements; we will also have enough oil to meet our non-transportation needs. Moreover, this could all be done in much less time if we make a national effort. Does the ‘Manhattan Project’ come to mind?
Years ago steel made coal ‘king’, today oil can do the same thing; and we have plenty of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
