Thursday, June 28, 2012

While We Were Sleeping

While the entire country was riveted to the news that Obamacare, the most expensive and freedom robbing tax bill in U.S. history, was upheld by the Supreme Court, the President was busy driving in the last nail in the coffin of liberty.

It is not the first time the media helped in the deception of Americans and in hiding the truth.

We were so preoccupied with the looming health care insurance premium that is really a tax for the privilege of living in the U.S., the upcoming health exchanges, Obama’s domestic army of IRS health insurance enforcement agents, more unemployment growing on the horizon, and a dim economic future, that we overlooked the national emergency declared by President Obama.

President Obama sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate on June 25, 2012, announcing his declaration of national emergency.

According to Kenneth Schortgren, “the United States is seizing assets and property owned or managed by the Russian Federation relating to nuclear items and programs tied to Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU).” (, June 26, 2012)

“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in view of the policies underlying Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, and Executive Order 13085 of May 26, 1998, and the restrictions put in place pursuant to Executive Order 13159 of June 21, 2000, find that the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.”

The ramifications of this national emergency are quite complex, given the fragile state of the global economy, the unstable Middle East, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the weak dollar, our huge national debt as the number one threat to national security, the 257 Foreign Trade Zones in the U.S., the insolvency of the euro crisis born by the socialist welfare states in the euro zone, huge unemployment across Europe, bank bailouts and insolvencies, military posturing by Iran, China, Russia, and Korea, the touted Arab Spring/Winter, and the subsequent takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s recent election. We can speculate but we will certainly be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat since only progressives and Democrats are opinion makers and the arbiters of truth. Any possible theory advanced by other Americans would be met with incredulity and derision. At a minimum, it would be seen as hate speech or racism.

We were also oblivious to today’s strike down of the Stolen Valor Act. Using indefensible judgment, the Supremes said that it is now acceptable to lie about military service. Apparently, the First Amendment protects the Americans’ right to lie, even if that lie involves a person’s military service, medals, and awards received. (Lee Ferran, abcNews, June 28, 2012)

The decision vindicated Xavier Alvarez who was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The bill made it illegal to claim ownership of or to wear military medals and ribbons, which were not earned. Alvarez never received the medals claimed nor served in the military. He was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine, and community service. His lawyers convinced the Supreme Court that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional and it violated his right to lie.

SCOTUS, through Justice Kennedy, defended its 6-3 decision in Alvarez’s favor that the Stolen Valor Act is “too broad and ignores whether the liar is trying to gain anything through his or her false statement.” A lie by any other name is still a lie. People lie to gain influence, access, money, and positions of power.

While cowardly Americans exercise their SCOTUS-decreed right to lie about military accomplishments, the true heroes who receive medals and ribbons do so by sacrificing their lives, limbs, blood, treasure, and precious time with their families.

Driven into oblivion, the state of Realityville is becoming stranger by the day – the loons and the corrupt are running the asylum.

The Supremes Have Spoken

I was hoping against all odds that the will of the people would prevail. However, inside my heart I knew that it was hopeless. Nine impartial and totally objective Americans with no personal interests, outside influences, or opinions have decided the fate of millions of Americans for generations to come. It was interesting to ponder why one Supreme Court justice who helped draft Obamacare, did not recuse herself from this decision – the stakes of fundamental transformation of America must have been too high to follow ethical standards.

The best health care system in the world has succumbed to the weight, power, influence, and money of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are no longer serving “we the people,” and to faceless socialist bureaucrats who find it rewarding to control and destroy other people’s lives.

Speaker John Boehner immediately released a statement, assuring the American people that “Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.” 

Mr. Boehner, with all due respect, apparently this President does not listen to the people, he only listens to his people who have voted him into office and continue to support his destructive policies.

Republicans had many opportunities to make real positive changes to the insurance part of the health care system and to the much-needed tort reform. Yet Republicans have done nothing and, to add insult to injury, have allowed themselves to be bribed into voting for Obamacare. Words are cheap. Uncle Sam has been comatose for years and finally demised today.

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.” (John Boehner, Speaker of the House, June 28, 2012)

Fifty percent of Americans who are on welfare, here illegally, die-hard communists, Congress people and their families who will not be subjected to Obamacare, and those who stand to gain financially are applauding the passage of this frightening law. Unfortunately, the other 50 percent of the population are mourning the loss of medical freedom and choice.

The federal government was established with limited powers. Forcing individuals to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States is still unconstitutional in spite of the Supreme Court ruling. The Supremes have now deemed the individual mandate a tax.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of March 23, 2010 is still an abomination, thousands of pages long, which violates the Commerce Clause because the individual mandate is not tied to any economic activity much less voluntary activity.

“Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly referred to as the Taxing and Spending Clause, also fails to support the mandate. If the mandate is a tax, it is a direct tax on individuals or an excise tax. As a direct tax, the mandate fails to pass constitutional muster. It also fails as an excise tax because excise taxes are levied on goods or things not on people as a condition of their existence.” (Issue Briefing - American Center for Law and Justice)

Obamacare forces medical personnel to provide abortions as a mandatory health benefit, contraceptives, and abortifacients even though the President insisted, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Since when is the killing of millions of unborn Americans a medical necessity? Liberals scream about the mistreatment and killing of animals but find it perfectly fine to kill the unborn, it is their choice. They should count their lucky stars that their moms did not find their birth an inconvenient “choice.”

Obamacare is a massive federal power grab and the largest tax increases ever imposed on the American economy. Two new additional entitlement programs will add massive budget deficits and debt to our country. Immense regulatory power has been given to the Health and Human Services over every aspect of our national health care system. Billions of dollars will flow into states to twist their arms to form the “health care exchanges.” Americans who will not get insurance through their employers will be forced into these socialized medicine exchanges. The new federal bureaucracies will micromanage every aspect of your lives. (Amy Payne, Obamacare after the Court, June 28, 2012)

The regime elites and the very rich will now have their own separate stellar hospitals and polyclinics while the rest of us will fight over the dreadful socialized medical care “exchanges.” We will be exchanging freedom over our bodies for the pills that we need to survive as long as we are not deemed too fat to waste treatment on, don’t smoke, don’t drink, exercise daily, eat what the nutritional police proscribes and HHS demands.

For those of you who think communist health care is great because it is free, you are right. You get free euthanasia, free medicine that is in short supply, free denial of service, free denial of necessary lab test, free long wait for emergency medical procedures, free care for illegals that you subsidize, and free rationing of care based on age and insufficient funding. When that happens to you, remember that your vote had consequences, which you did not foresee when you were carried away by the promise of “free” and “social justice.”

I am so sad because I now have to live again in a communist state similar to that which I had fled from decades ago. I will be subjected to the horrors of socialized medicine again. I have experienced it firsthand and I know what it does to people, but I was outvoted by millions of ignorant Americans and useful idiots.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

What Communism Wrought

Today my Dad would have been 84 years old. I still mourn his tragic and premature death at the hands of communist goons who took over the country of my birth and terrorized people for 41 years. Dad was barely 61 and healthy.

The benevolent dictator Ceausescu ruled Romania with an iron fist, lording over the frightened and defenseless population. His portrait was everywhere next to his hideous wife, “the Mother of the Country.” She had given herself that title along with a Ph.D. in chemistry. A fifth grade dropout, she had grandiose ideas of her faux accomplishments.

Dad hated Nicolae Ceausescu and his co-dictator wife, Elena, with a passion. He never hid his utter disdain for the arrogant, narcissistic, and uneducated couple who rose from the poverty of community organizing with empty promises of paternal and maternal care for the weak, the poor, and the downtrodden, to a life-style of the rich and famous.

Torturing, imprisoning, and killing millions of innocents, the Ceausescus had appropriated their possessions and amassed such a vast wealth, it was hard to tell how much money he had in Swiss bank accounts, how much art, jewels, land, and homes.

The dictator was proud that he gave “homes” to all his subjects, the proletariat, crowding country and city folk alike into high-rise concrete apartment blocks, while taking their homes and land for agricultural cooperatives or grandiose buildings and palaces dedicated to the Communist Party. Hastily built of reinforced concrete, the nine to twelve story apartments were Spartan, ugly, cold, dirty from the heavy pollution, and chipping concrete chunks like loose teeth.

The benevolent dictator made sure that there was no middle class left when he finished his fundamental transformation of the former prosperous monarchy into a socialist/communist republic. He kept changing his mind as to whether the country was a socialist popular republic or a communist one, frequently altering the Constitution on a whim, adding more articles, while robbing Romanians of their former rights and freedoms.

People were frightened to speak to their neighbors or relatives because nobody knew who was an informer. The country had become a country of snitches for a few extra lei (the official currency) a month, meat and other necessities, proper medical treatment at the Communist Party polyclinics and hospitals, and access to drugs at their well-stocked pharmacies. Adults turned in their own parents and relatives. Children often did the same, without realizing that such childish indiscretions would send their parents to jail.

Dad was under the commies’ radar all the time because he refused to be a member of their party and always blamed them publicly for destroying the country. He was not shy to assign blame and to criticize the dear leader and his wife. Although a pacifist who could not hurt a fly, Dad was always beaten and imprisoned every time the Ceausescus traveled anywhere near my dad’s location.

The peoples’ discontent and misery was palpable but they did not dare discuss their thoughts with anybody. Dad had the courage and foolishness to say what was on his mind. He did not care that the communists had built a very strong police state: regular police, traffic police, security police, economic police, military police, and ideology police. Dad really believed in human beings’ inalienable right to freedom and economic independence, not dependence on an omnipotent government. He saw every day how this all-powerful government robbed people and gave back very little, while pretending to care.

Since goods were in such short supply due to poor centralized planning by communist bureaucrats, people learned to survive through stealing from work and bartering. Dad hated theft and reported the culprits all the time. Since theft at work started at the top and trickled down to the lowest ranks, orders were often given to punish my dad for daring to expose the thievery. He was beaten many times for his honesty. He always recovered, more resolute that he was doing the right thing.

One day his luck did run out. A savage beating and dropping from a certain height into a metal shaving pit resulted into a cracked skull that was not treated at all at the state-run hospital. Receiving little food or water, he died four weeks later, a slow and agonizing death, shrinking to half his healthy size.

Dad is in Heaven now, satisfied that his premature death was not in vain. Many people who know and understand how a totalitarian regime robs humans of their freedoms, are picking up the opposition against communism.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Environmental Floundering at the Rio+20 Summit

The much-hyped Rio+20 Summit in Brazil has ended. The UN Conference on Biodiversity, aptly named, “The Future We Want,” (we being the environmentalist NGOs and other UN affiliates) was met with vociferous protests from thousands of women who were joined by hundreds of men. As reported by AFP, advocates against the “green economy” and “green capitalism,” have gathered in Flamengo park for the People’s Summit, “a march of urban and rural women against this Rio+20 charade.”

According to AFP, a large banner of the international peasant movement Via Campesina proclaimed, “The peoples are against the mercantilization of nature.”  Shouting, the group objected to “green capitalism” as a replacement for the current form of “failed capitalism,” choosing instead to back an economy based on “solidarity and people’s sovereignty.”

Having failed to convince an ever-growing population of skeptics across the earth that global warming is dooming the planet, the UN has changed its propaganda tactics to climate change and to biodiversity threat.

Wanting a greener and more sustainable future for the rest of us, whether we want it or not, the environmentalists are admitting that the 45,000 attendees and 100 world leaders achieved very little in their green agenda quest other than spending tens of millions of dollars in Rio.

It was a real bust of non-binding declarations, theatrics of Greenpeace unfurling an “Arctic Scroll” signed by Paul McCartney, Robert Redford and other Hollywood types (it will be planted at the North Pole on the seabed), and small countries signing pledges.

Maldives will “ban damaging fishing practices.” Ecuador asked for donations in exchange for agreeing to protect its own Yasuni National Forest rather than exploit the oil underneath the rainforest. Grenada will only use clean-energy sources by 2030. Vatican shocked everyone by urging leaders “to recognize access to reproductive health services,” underlining gender equity. (The Washington Post, June 23, 2012)

Surprisingly supportive of a free market economy, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton “spoke of forging partnerships that would harness ‘the power of the market’ rather than relying solely on government action.” (Juliet Eilperin, The Washington Post, June 23, 2012)

Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway, expressed her concern in an opinion post that “governments are currently refusing to make the transformative changes needed to resolve the global sustainability crisis.” (Earth Agonistes, June 18, 2012, New York Times)

Could it be because governments are waking up to the global warming/climate change manufactured crisis, and representatives are being held accountable by constituents for their actions?

Prince Charles chimed in with a pre-recorded video address in Rio. The Prince of Wales “had watched in despair” how people have ignored the dire warnings of “catastrophic consequences of inaction.” Could it be because skeptics would like to see hard scientific evidence as opposed to “consensus” which is just an opinion of people with agendas and (in)vested interests?

David Rothbard and Paul Driessen addressed the biodiversity emergency claims by the UN as the “greatest threat” to our planet. Craig Loehle, an ecology consultant, noted, “of 191 bird and mammal species recorded as having gone extinct since 1500, 95 percent were on islands,” killed by disease or predators introduced by humans. Six bird and three mammal species were extinct on continents, but none in recorded history attributed to climate change. (Rothbard and Driessen: UN’s threat to biodiversity, The Washington Times, June 15, 2012)

Rothbard and Driessen said that environmentalists make dire predictions based on “extrapolations from the island extinction rates fed into virtual-reality computer models that assume rising carbon dioxide levels will raise planetary temperatures so high that plants and animals will be exterminated. That is nonsense.”

Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser clearly explained that modelers ignore water vapor impact on climate because it is too difficult to include in computer models that are “preordained to show CO2 as the determinant factor.”  Even massive releases of CO2 during numerous volcanic eruptions throughout history are used up by the “insatiable appetite of the oceans for CO2,” measuring a “steady state” of 250 ppm. (Convenient Myths, 2010, p. 97 and p. 101)

Why are environmentalists going after CO2 and not water vapor? CO2 can be sequestered and taxed. California is auctioning off carbon credits on November 14 this year in spite of citizen protests.

Cap and Trade has been voluntarily implemented in nine states (the tenth state, New Jersey, dropped out) for the last three years in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) reported, they have capped and will reduce CO2 emissions 10 percent by 2018.

The people of those nine states have spent over a billion dollars to reduce CO2, which occurs 96 percent naturally, and they have only reduced an inconsequential amount of it. These citizens have paid 3.5 times as much per Kwh for their electricity. (

The Journal Nature dedicated a large portion of its June 7, 2012 edition to “Second Chance for the Planet,” wondering if “Rio Earth Summit can reverse twenty years of failure,” referring to the 1992 Rio Summit. All articles lamented the “shrinking biodiversity” and its effects on ecosystems due to the “voracious consumption patterns of the developed world,” which is entirely to blame. (p. 19)

Anthony Barnosky et al advance the preposterous idea that “the global ecosystem could eventually pass a tipping point and shift into a new state, the likes of which are hard for science to predict.” (p. 19)  

If the earth demise is hard to predict, how do they know that it could pass a tipping point? Is science now no longer exact but a field of computer modeling with extrapolated data and faulty assumptions and premises involving “could” and “might?”

Using a fortuneteller’s globe, environmentalists proclaim, “Earth and its inhabitants have a second chance in Rio.” If we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity, “we may not get many more.”

 However, do not worry, Paul Ehrlich, Peter M. Kareiva, and Gretchen C. Daily can tell you how to make your country more sustainable and avoid the world’s chronic environmental problems. (Nature, “Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization,” pp. 68-72)

1.      Achieving a sustainable population size

Earth’s carrying capacity cannot sustain the numbers of people and lifestyles at the current rate. Although the authors admit that carrying capacity is difficult to measure, it is clear that “human population’s size and consumption patterns are well above what Earth could support without impairment of vital life-supporting systems, exceeding planetary boundaries.” If this is not a scientifically accurate assessment, then it becomes just an individual’s perception.

2.      Securing vital natural capital (food, timber, industrial products, fresh water, water purification, crop pollination, coastal protection, recreation, genetic diversity, energy, climate, and health)

Rescaling population size, prosperity, equity, and the risk of reducing Earth’s carrying capacity can be achieved through UN global governance. (p. 69)

3.      Equity and environmental justice, including gender equity

“CO2 emissions per capita are lower in nations where women have higher political status.” (p. 71)

“The distribution of wealth and power permeates social, economic, and ecological thinking.” (p. 69)

“The uneven distribution of climate risk… falls most heavily on the world’s poorest nations.” (p. 69)

4.      Strengthen the societal leadership of academia

Academia can form university partnerships with NGOs, community organizers, and government agencies to transform “the dominant social paradigm globally by opening new options and incentives to change.” (p. 71)

Positive change is good but change in the vision of a global elite lead by the United Nations, academia, and non-governmental organizations is neither desirable nor recommended. Academia already plays a major role in the brainwashing of our children into Gaia environmentalism at all universities around the world.

The article states that UN Population Division projects that world population will be over 10 billion by 2100 at which time, demographer Ronald Lee suggests, “it is possible that desertification, global warming, shortage of fresh water, extinction of species, and other man-made degradation of the natural resource base will lead to catastrophic effects on the population and its growth.” (p. 69)

Since each person born will use “food and other resources from poorer sources, generally involving more energy and disproportionate environmental impact,” the suggested fix is to reduce fertility rates by ‘unmet need’ for contraception, by “supplying safe, modern means to those who do not want a child in the next two years of their lives but are not using any means of birth control.” (p. 69)

Education can have a demographic impact on the 75 million unintended pregnancies in the world annually, half of which end in abortion. (J. Bongaarts, Human population growth and the demographic transition)

“Making reproduction education and family planning universally available in the developing world could theoretically avert 20 million or more births annually, avoid over 25 million abortions, reduce maternal mortality by 25-40%, and greatly reduce the population growth rate.” (p. 70) I may be naïve and misinformed, but aren’t Planned Parenthood clinics primarily providing abortions?

Ehrlich, Kareiva, and Daily believe that a crash program of education globally would result in a billion fewer people in 2050.

“The Future We Want” Rio+20 Earth Summit should have been named “The Future We Dread” since freedom loving Americans and free market supporters have been pushing back against the destructive march of controlling environmentalists against private property, prosperity, economic development, and sovereignty. We take a collective sigh of relief since the Earth Summit appears to have ended in a monumental floundering.


Paul R. Ehrlich, Peter M. Kareiva, & Gretchen C. Daily, Nature, 7 June 2012, Vol. 486
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser, Convenient Myths, 2010,
Juliet Eilperin, the Washington Post, June 23, 2012
Rothbard and Driessen: UN’s threat to biodiversity, The Washington Times, June 15, 2012
J. Bongaarts, Human population growth and the demographic transition, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2985-2990 (2009)
Earth Agonistes, Gro Harlem Brundtland, June 18, 2012, New York Times
Nature, 7 June 2012, Vol. 486, “Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization”

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Radio Interview on Butler on Business WAFS 1190 Atlanta

Butler on Business, WAFS 1190 Atlanta. Topic: Rio+20,  UN Agenda 21 Length: 10 minutes
I come on at the 19 minute mark.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Yogic Farming for All and No Meat

To celebrate the suggestion of environmental activists that the upcoming UN Rio+20 Conference should go vegetarian, I am taking my husband to a Brazilian meat buffet for Father’s Day. The Washington Post is touting this morning a “novel” sustainable development idea, “To fix the climate, take meat off the menu.” (Washington Post, June 17, 2012)

The writers of the Washington Post article found out that Rio +20 is “papersmart” and uses organic foods. Frances Kissling, activist, and Peter Singer, ethicist, believe organic alone is not enough since “organic cattle typically produce even more methane gas.” Ruminating animals are quite flatulent.

I have no problem with vegetarians although some look anemic with a waxy skin texture. However, as long as I can eat meat when I wish and vegetarians do not impose vegan or other nutritional values on me, I support their eating habits wholeheartedly. People should have the freedom to eat what they crave. I draw the line at cannibalism.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) considers raising cattle and other animals for food to be a serious environmental global problem. (“Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO, 2006)

To solve the problem of having to feed meat to an increased populace, if we reduce population growth through measures that UN would control, approve, and dictate, we would not have to double animal production from 60 billion to 120 billion by 2050, exacerbating the need for grain production.

Environmentalists in India have promoted “Sustainable Yogic Agriculture”. Four hundred farmers use plots with organic farming plus meditation, and claim more success than traditional farming with chemicals, or just organic farming. Preliminary finds include germination one-week early, greatest “soil microbial population,” and other rich soil components. I wonder how many times a week farmers have to meditate over the crops and how many people are required per acre?

Today, June 17, 2012, Rio+20 Conference commences with the side event called “An Ethical Framework for Global Governance”  held by Gorbachev’s Green Cross International, the Government of Mexico, the Institute for Sustainable Development, Russia, and  the International Union for Conserving Nature – Commission on Environmental Law (IUCN CEL). Maurice Strong, the grandfather of green, is a featured speaker.

The discussion will focus on agreement of common ethical principles for global governance for sustainability. These ethical principles are exact replicas of Soviet values since Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union during formulation of “ecological imperatives.” Gorbachev became President of Green Cross International in December 1993 two years after he was deposed in August 1991 and the Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991. (The Clarion)

For those of you who need a refresher course, Maurice Strong is one of the framers of UN Agenda 21, and global governance is a “framework of rules, institutions, and practices, created by people who subscribe to the philosophy that government should manage society by setting limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations, and companies.” (Henry Lamb, Founding Director, Freedom21, Inc.)

Rio+20 proposes a $1,300 green tax on United States and other countries which would be used for the Green Climate Fund, projected to have $100 billion a year to help poor countries that have been affected unjustly by the activities of rich capitalists. This “social justice” green tax on every foreign currency would not be levied on the European Union countries because their economies use the same currency, the euro. (Joel Gehrke, Beltway Confidential, June 13, 2012)

Starting in June 13-22, 2012, Rio+20 Conference will have 477 side events presented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with a penchant for taxpayer dollars obtained through the misrepresented not-for-profit status. The conference titled, “The Future We Want,” is the freedom-loving Americans worst nightmare.

The expected 50,000 attendees will discuss, evaluate, and manipulate Sustainable Development as a tool for global governance – control of private property, individual freedom, population size, world’s economy, and sovereignty under the guise of protecting the environment and the ignorant humanity from self-destruction.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Global Warming Psychological Babble

The global warming alarmists have become so desperate in light of ever-increasing numbers of skeptics that they are trying to tie everything to global warming. Take for instance the Congressional Report Service paper prepared specifically to inform members and committees of Congress (“SEC Climate Change Disclosure Guidance: An Overview and Congressional Concerns,” Gary Shorter, May 24, 2012)

The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document, describing how publicly traded companies should apply existing disclosure rules to the risk that climate change developments may have on their businesses. (“Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change,” January 27, 2010)

In response to this resource-wasteful guidance, Senator John Barrasso and Representative Bill Posey of the 112th Congress introduced similar bills, S. 1393 and H.R. 2603, prohibiting the enforcement of the SEC’s climate change disclosure guidance.

Companies had no experience in the so-called risks associated with climate change, there is no tangible actual or potential reputational harm from climate change, and the whole process is highly speculative.

The most egregious stretch of manufactured global warming effects is a 55-page report published in February 2012 by the National Wildlife Federation titled, “The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States: And Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System is Not Adequately Prepared.”

Prepared by a forensic psychiatrist and an attorney who adapted in 2006 Al Gore’s book and film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” into a training course curriculum, the lengthy psychobabble, a “national forum and research report,” chastises Americans for “the adolescent-like disregard for the dangers we are warned of, driving green house gases up with only casual concern.”

We are asked, “To find a place in our hearts that mobilizes us to fly into action, forewarned, determined, and relentless.” We are probed with very childish questions, “what would the rest of the world think of us,” “where will we be safe,” “how will we feel about ourselves?”

Rational adults do not care what the rest of the world thinks. Americans feel safe unless environmentalists who treat us like children want to alter our lives fundamentally in the image of their worldview. We feel quite good about ourselves, although lately our egos have taken a beating, given the state of economic despair and purposeful destruction around us wrought by Congress who acts against “we the people” and by this Marxist administration.

The report is calling on “mental health professionals to focus on this, the social justice issue of all times.” The twenty-four college professors, lawyers, doctors, and lobbyists who took part in the forum when this document was distributed represented medical colleges of psychiatry, the CDC, environmental NGOs, climate change lobbyists, and proponents of UN Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity.

The doomsday scenarios described in this document include many frightening and preposterous statements that have no backing in fact or science. Presented with a veneer of truth, supposed global warming effects on the psyche of the United States are presented as consensus opinion of people affiliated with environmental groups and universities. Consensus statements by public figures with an agenda are not facts.
The National Forum and Research Report is divided into an executive summary, six chapters, and a conclusion. (February 2012)

The Executive Summary concentrates on “Climate change lessons from the severe weather of summer 2011.” Violent weather is blamed on global warming instead of focusing on the fact that violent weather existed long before man’s industrial revolution.
The entire report ignores the fact that we have a much larger population today, almost 7 billion people in the path of harm in case of violent weather, we are more aware of occurring disasters, and we are almost instantly informed with a click of a button, as the news of any climactic event travels fast via Internet.

“Global warming…in the coming years… will foster public trauma, depression, violence, alienation, suicide, psychotic episodes, post-traumatic stress disorders and many other mental health-related conditions.” (p. i)
“The U.S. mental health care system is only minimally prepared to address the effects of global climate change-related disasters and incidents.” (p. ii)

The writers are stretching the exploratory relationships between supposed global warming trends in climate and the state of the American public mental health. “An estimated 200 million Americans will be exposed to serious psychological distress from climate related events and incidents.” (p. v)  “Some 50 million elderly people, and America’s 35 million low-income people will suffer a disproportionate amount of physical and psychological stress.” (p. vi) By what scientific method have they ascertained these findings?

On pages v and xi, suggesting that “anxieties could increase with continuous and frequent media reports on the subject,” (translation - ad nauseam reporting of one event on every alphabet soup channel for days on end), the Executive Summary recommends that “mental health practitioners, first responders and primary care professionals should have comprehensive plans and guidelines for climate change.”

People have problems finding doctors to treat them for actual ailments, have no insurance, cannot afford insurance anymore because of the expensive and choice-robbing of Obamacare, and now professionals in the mental health community are urged to “shape the best language” to allow environmentalists to control people based on non-existent climate change illnesses?

“Ramping up and sustaining pressure on public officials is imperative.” (p. xiii)

Chapter 1 laments the fact that public policy leaders are not implementing legislative proposals to” reduce gas emissions enough to restore balance to our world and avoid long term environmental damage.” (p. 3) Climate stability is so precarious, they say, that human stability and physical changes are “unprecedented in all of history.” (p. 2)

Chapter 2 uses hurricane Katrina, one of thousands of hurricanes in our collective history, as an example of the manufactured word “solastalgia”…a “palpable sense of dislocation and loss that people feel when they perceive changes in their local environment as harmful.” (p. 7)

I must be feeling “solastalgic” every day then as environmentalists are pushing UN Agenda 21 undesirable and property-robbing changes on our society without our approval.

The authors of the report, citing that 39 percent of Katrina evacuees experienced moderate PTSD, stated that “people suffer more from disasters that are “man made” than they do from natural disasters. How do they know?

I have PTSD every time I see communism around me (“man made” disaster) and I have experienced PTSD after a devastating earthquake (natural disaster). I cannot honestly discern which one is affecting or has affected me more. To answer such a question would be my opinion, my perception, which is neither scientific nor a fact.

“Climate change is already having an impact on biodiversity,...loss of Arctic sea ice threatens biodiversity across an entire biome and beyond.” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Outlook 3, May 2010)

I imagine that such bombastic statements have a frightening effect on ignorant and vulnerable adults and children who look up to authority for answers.

Chapter 3 discusses “traumatic global warming events” on vulnerable populations such as mentally ill, or the existence of epidemic levels of asthma among pre-school children. (p. 17)

Chapter 4 stretches global warming to unbelievable limits by connecting it to the stresses of war.

“As the U.S. military looks ahead to the likely causes of war in the next 30 years…global warming is front and center.” (p. 20)

Citing Army statistics that 20 out of 100,000 soldiers have killed themselves, the report attributes war, strife, social injustice, and suicide rates to global warming caused by the rich.

Redistribution of wealth will be necessary in order to avert the unleashing of global warming and the destruction of 30 percent of species and of humanity itself.

“The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world’s dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate and manifestly unjust.” (p. 22)

Chapter 5 predicts nationwide anxiety. Dr. Eric Chivian “stated that the destructive potential of global warming is, in many ways, “greater than what we faced with nuclear war.”(p. 27)

The authors suggest that a green economy could fix everything for the common good, “would provide opportunities for struggling American workers and some stalled or outmoded enterprises dependent on older industries and burning fossil fuels.” (p. 28)

Hapless Americans should not worry though, “the discipline of psychology can be used to uncover what the barriers are to reducing our carbon footprint and adopting a green lifestyle.” (p. 31). The nanny control state will take care of everyone and everything. All you have to do is relinquish your freedom completely.

Chapter 6 addresses the high cost of ignoring mental health and climate change. “The American Journal of Psychiatry estimates that mental illness results in lost earnings of $193.2 billion per year.”(p. 35)  How do lost earnings from mental illness connect to global warming? How is a person “grievously hurt by global warming?” I think liberals and environmentalists have the answer already figured out.

I do not know about you but I need to take something for my headache before a much-deserved Realityville break in order to restore my sanity. Environmental activism for the sake of controlling the globe’s productive population is a mental disease in itself.


Thursday, June 14, 2012

Wormy Banana

My 80-year old mom is sitting at the kitchen table dissecting a banana as if it was a biology specimen under a microscope. I watch her for a few minutes intently before I ask her what she is doing. With a scientific look of Eureka discovery on her face, she tells me, she is looking for worms. Worms? She is 100 percent sure; the bananas I just bought at the grocery store have worms, especially since they had ripened enough to be extra sweet and mushy. She is peeling away and separating the banana core into smaller segments, believing that the tiny white fibers are worms.

I started to explain that they do not, but I stopped short. Mom spent most of her adult life in the Eastern European block where fruit flies were rampant and uncontrollable. Insecticides such as DDT, although banned in this country, were used on most crops and vegetables low to the ground, but it was difficult to spray powder on fruit trees in order to kill the pests that loved fruits as much as we did. Crop dusting by aerial spraying was not something the communist regime did. There was plenty manual labor around. The population needed employment in spite of the meager wages. Workers dusted or sprayed the chemicals themselves without masks or any protection for that matter.

I do not remember ever eating a fruit that did not have worms in it. Fruit flies deposited their eggs that grew into tiny, white worms that wiggled out of cherries, apples, pears, prunes, peaches, apricots as we took bites out of them. We could try to extricate the worms by cutting the fruit into sections without parasites in them, or could just eat it whole and unwashed, not worrying or thinking about the worms. They constituted, after all, extra protein, and we were starved for protein all the time. We were not vegetarians by choice. Meat was so hard to find except at Christmas time when country folks slaughtered pigs and the government supplied stores in town with extra meat in order to pacify the starving urban proletariat.

There were a few orchards slated for communist elite consumption or export and those were tended to carefully. The fruit was whole and untouched by parasitic fruit flies.

During Christmas holidays, small shipments of oranges and bananas came from Greece, Israel, and people fought over them in long lines at the state grocery store. Such rare delicacies were rationed to a few pieces per family. We were so excited to get the exotic fruits and free of worms!

There were no 10 pound bags of oranges similar to those we buy at Sam’s Club and no neat rows of perfect oranges or bunches of bananas like those that we find in American grocery stores every day. We take the abundance for granted because we have never experienced shortages of anything. We trust that whatever we need, will always be there, someone will grow them and ship them to our markets. But will they?

Mom finished her inspection of the “imperfect” banana. She threw it out with a huff, convinced that it had worms. Mom is blessed to have plenty of other foods or fruits to satisfy her hunger. By the grace of God and a stroke of good luck, she lives in the land of plenty. She does not have to worry about her next meal. She has the luxury of throwing away good food that she mislabels wormy, tainted, or rotten. After all, there is so much food in this country and so cheap. Will we always be so lucky and have this luxury forever?

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Gobal Warming Cash Cow in Peril

Hillary Clinton has recently visited Greenland to experience firsthand “global warming.” According to James Taylor, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites have shown minimal if any reduction in polar ice caps since 1979 when their satellites were launched. “Whole Viking villages built in Greenland 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, remain buried under hundreds of feet of snow and ice.” (James Taylor, “Hillary Needs a New Global Warming Travel Agent,” Forbes, June 6, 2012)

Progressive liberals in lock-step consensus are not allowing the global warming cash-cow fraud to die in spite of the fact that thousands of real scientists have debunked the notion that humans, with their mundane activities, can cause the global climate to change. A whole industry of snake oil salesmen was born, waiting in the wings to get rich off the sale of carbon credits and the “green” and “renewable” energy.  The renewable part is a fallacy in itself – once energy is spent, it cannot be renewed.

Always at the forefront of progressivism, California lawmakers signed into law Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) called the California Global Warming Act of 2006, a blue print of the UN Kyoto Accord of 1997.

Californians are organizing a rally in Sacramento on August 15, 2012 to protest California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the planned auction of carbon credits as a commodity on November 14, 2012.

CARB operates outside legislative oversight like the EPA. The cap and trade program will be implemented under the leadership of Mary Nichols and eleven board members appointed by Governor Jerry Brown. Businesses will pay billions of dollars and pass the cost onto hapless consumers. (

On the eve of the United Nations +20 Rio Earth Summit in Brazil, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has issued a 525-page report of “dire warnings” that the Earth’s strained environmental systems “are being pushed towards their biophysical limits.”

The doomsday picture includes but is not limited to the melting of the polar ice caps, deforestation of tropical jungles, loss of desert in Africa, out-of-control use of chemicals, and “emptying out of the world’s seas.” Rising sea levels, floods, droughts, collapse of fisheries, endangered coral reefs, endangered  vertebrate species, doubling of greenhouse emissions, pesticide contamination, and other cataclysmic events are some of the consequences compiled in the last three years by a team of 300 UN commissioned researchers.

The upcoming conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro on June 20-22, 2012 will discuss four of the success stories (eliminating ozone depleting chemicals, phasing out lead in gasoline, more access to water supplies, research of marine pollutants) of the 1992 Rio Conference on Biological Diversity, while lamenting the lack of success in other areas.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, a skeptic of global warming, told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that he would not attend the Rio+20 Earth Summit. Klaus’ 2007 book (“Blue Planet in Green Shackles – What is Endangered:  Climate or Freedom?”) named environmentalism as the 21st century’s biggest threat to freedom, the market economy, and prosperity.” (Jennifer Rigby, The Prague Post)

“We have to say goodbye to unrealistic dreams of new sources of power and stop subsidizing these unprofitable sources by posing a burden on the consumer, either individual or corporate.” (President Vaclav Klaus, Energy Gas Storage Summit at Prague Castle, May 24, 2012)

“Change is possible,” says UNEP executive director Achim Steiner, “Given what we know, we can move in another direction,” away from the age of irresponsibility and towards global action. Is this global action changing fundamentally the way we live in order to accommodate the vision for the planet of a few environmental elites who would give precedence and rights to animals over humans?

If increased access to water is a success story, we must tell that to the people of Tombstone, Arizona, who were denied access to water following a devastating fire in 2011 that destroyed pipelines carrying water to a town of 1,600 residents. The only way residents were allowed to restore their water supply was with primitive tools and wheelbarrows, a herculean task since some sections of the pipes were buried under 12 feet of mud, following monsoon type rains and huge boulder fallout. The endangered Mexican spotted owl is why the EPA was imposing such stringent requirements. The reservoir is dry and the residents are running out of time to shore up their water supply before the new monsoon rains start.

The bankrupted farmers in San Joaquin Valley, California, who lost multi-generational farms when the government cut off their irrigation water, may also ask where is their increased access to water supply that the United Nations so proudly boasts. The government purposefully turned large sections of a previously lush and highly productive farming community into a dust bowl.

During the Rio conference of 1992, three documents were produced that have altered our lives in incremental steps and are now irreversible across the globe:

-         The Framework Convention on Climate Change
      -         The Convention on Biological Diversity
      -         UN Agenda 21

The UN Agenda 21, although not ratified by Congress, has been quietly implemented all over the country at the local and state levels through ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) sponsored initiatives and visioning grants from various federal government agencies (EPA, Department of Energy, HUD, HHS), and NGOs (non-government organizations) such as the Sierra Club.

In light of the fact that it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution for a local or state government representative to collaborate with international bodies, ICLEI changed its name to Local Governments for Sustainability.

Some local and state governments are beginning to understand the private property grab and are pushing back. The state of Alabama passed Senate Bill (SB 477), “Due Process for Property Rights Act,” at the end of May 2012, approved unanimously by both State House and the Senate. The governor signed the bill into law, with total silence from the media. The law protects private property rights and forbids any state or local government agency to participate in UN Agenda 21. The law describes briefly how the UN Agenda 21 plan was devised at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (

Other local boards and representatives, who understand fully what is at stake and stand to benefit directly from their collaboration with ICLEI and implementation of UN Agenda 21 goals, are forging ahead with their plans in spite of their constituents’ protests.

The World Bank published a report outlining how it will push economic development that conserves natural resources and controls pollution. Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president for sustainable development, said, “We don’t have to have global agreements. It would be a whole lot easier if we had them, but we can move forward without them.” That is a scary proposition in a democracy.

Ban Ki-Moon, UN General Secretary, discussed the newest wealth re-distribution scheme, “Sustainable Energy for All,” pushing to eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies.

The Guardian received the leaked 81-page draft of Rio+20 document, “The Future We Want.” The good news is that the 180 governments that are expected to sign the draft are yet to agree on the exact wording; only 20 percent of the language has been approved so far. (John Vidal, The Guardian/UK, June 8, 2012)

The journal Nature published an article “Approaching a state shift in Earth’s Biosphere” on June 7, 2012. The lead author, Anthony Barnofsky, and its 21 “consensus” coauthors describe how human activity has brought the globe to a tipping point in which “planetary-scale critical transition” to a different environment will occur and the main culprit is international trade.

I used to think that the television docudrama, “Life Without People,” was a doomsday ridiculous scenario because it did not explain how people suddenly disappeared. Consensus of college professors with an agenda sounds compelling, but it is not science. Blaming international trade for global warming borders on the insane.

The paper warned, “humans have radically changed 43 percent of the Earth’s surface from its natural state” and have exceeded the 30 percent change that supposedly triggered the “last planetary-scale environmental shift 11,000 years ago when glaciers advanced and then retreated.” How they know with such precision what happened 11,000 years ago when meteorologists cannot even predict tomorrow’s weather accurately, baffles me. (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, June 7, 2012)

Were humans engaging in international trade 11,000 years ago? Did they have cars, factories, planes, boats, and all the other pollutants blamed for the current “dismal state of the planet?” Are humans that ignorant to believe the environmental nonsense that the planet is dying?

Saturday, June 9, 2012

On Being "Green"

My late friend Henry Lamb opened my eyes to the fraud of UN Agenda 21 and the environmentalist proponents of sustainability’s “green” agenda.  All of a sudden, everything around me became “green” and “sustainable” – ads, buses, trucks, cars, homes, flyers, construction materials, electronic billboards, gadgets, toys, shopping bags, stores, banks, the military, and companies. Businesses are ecological now and everything they do is “sustainable” for the Earth whether that is true or not.

Nobody wants to live in a polluted area, no matter what political leanings he/she may have. Most Americans take good care of their environment and volunteer to clean pollution. We passed some good regulations years ago and we have cleaned up our act in many areas, giving new life to formerly abused habitats, reducing pollution drastically. However, all this faux “greening” around me is nauseating and so is the EPA.

I started watching with purpose the behavior of my liberal neighbors, who comprise more than ninety-five percent of the surrounding population, and made some interesting observations. I see the eco-nuts shopping in their environmentally friendly Priuses and Smartcars, wearing “Diversity is Great” t-shirts and exhibiting Coexist bumper stickers with religious symbols, carrying dirty re-usable shopping bags with a smug and superior smirk, mixing meats and veggies in the same unwashed bag.

I am not an engineer to calculate the footprint of producing a re-usable bag vs. a plastic bag and the ultimate damage to the environment. I do know that both are made from petroleum by-products. I also know that it is unhealthy and dangerous to re-use eco-friendly grocery bags that are not laundered frequently and thoroughly.

I get dirty looks when I take out grocery store plastic bags and reuse them for trash, dirty kitty litter, and recycle the unused bags. Judging by the scant content of recycling trash bins in the street, liberals do not recycle much, in spite of the loud and obnoxious “save the planet” rhetoric. Perhaps they cook everything from scratch, never use any packaging, and live like the Wild West pioneers.

There is bright red communism inside the “green” environmentalist power grab and control. The country is spending billions it does not have in order to appease the “green” egos and the money making political machine.

We must pay punishing carbon taxes but Al Gore and Hollywood can fly their jets shamelessly while lecturing us on cutting our carbon footprint, turning the thermostat down in winter, up in summer, buying $50 light bulbs or mercury laden compact fluorescent light bulbs, driving less, riding bikes, walking, or staying home for the sake of the planet.

We are spending money borrowed from China in order to advertise that we are “green” and to reinvent the wheel. Our President wasted billions of dollars on alternative and expensive green energy, and “saved or created” non-existent green jobs, causing generations of future Americans to be slaves to a national debt far exceeding Gross Domestic Product.

Rep. Darrell Issa asked a BLS representative recently what the definition of a “green job” was. I was curious myself and I got my answer from President Obama’s highly qualified professorial administration. Any job can be green if you tweak the definition - bus driver, floor sweeper, Salvation Army employee, antique dealer, college professor in an environmental studies department, repair shop mechanic or clerk, any worker in a place that recycles, oil lobbyist, and the list can be endless.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines green jobs as any products and services that “collect, reuse, remanufacture, recycle, or compost waste materials or waste water.” Rep. Darrell Issa said, “Any type of business that sells used goods is a green job, according to BLS.” By this definition, a flea market seller has a green job. (The Blaze, Becket Adams and Jason Howerton, June 8, 2012)

If I increase public awareness of environmental issues, I have a green job. If I drive a bus instead of a car, I have a green job. If I drive a two-seater tin can called the Smartcar, I am green. If I teach about environmental doom and gloom, I am a green employee. If I make a movie about nature, I am green. National Geographic is definitely a green company. If I work at the zoo and scoop poop, I have a green job. If I compost my garden, I am green.

It has been evident for almost four years now that the Labor Department has been manipulating employment data for political purposes. Rep. Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, indicated that the Obama administration has reclassified ordinary jobs as “green jobs” in order to prove that billions of taxpayer dollars have created green and eco-friendly jobs, and to increase President Obama’s re-election chances. The government should actually create jobs not attempt to snow job the taxpayers.

Blogtalk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr. of Dallas

Friday, June 8, 2012 radio chat with Silvio Canto Jr. of Dallas. Topics: This day in history, Obama's strange speech on Fox News this morning, the failures of his economic policies, U.S. and EU, my new book, Liberty on Life Support, illegal immigration, and a special song by Karl Stephen Brunig.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Anomie and Immigration

“The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of the country.” (Thomas Sowell, November 29, 2011)

We have had an incremental communist/Islamist/fascistic/environmentalist revolution in the U.S. facilitated by illegal immigration, refusal to accept American values, culture, and language, lack of border protection, the liberal indoctrination of our population in the name of religious tolerance, political correctness as a form of speech control, unions, politicians’ betrayal, and environmentalism. The tragedy is that nobody paid attention or noticed.

European nations such as France and Germany acknowledged through their respective leaders that the darling liberal philosophy of “multiculturalism” has failed miserably across Europe.

Associate Professor of Political Science Jonathan Laurence at Boston College believes the culprit for the failure of Islamic immigrants’ integration in Europe to be “anomie.” (The New York Times, “How to Integrate Europe’s Muslims,” January 23, 2012)

The dictionary defines “anomie” as a societal instability caused by the erosion and abandonment of moral and social codes. Muslims perceive the absence of a supporting moral and social framework in the country they immigrate to and express their displeasure through a social alienation and feelings of disorientation, which result in violence and hatred.

It is not that young immigrants of Muslim faith hate the infidels. It must be anomie that persuades immigrants to take to the streets, causing violence and burning private property, while calling for the destruction of the very Western culture, which took them in and supported them financially. Western culture is not only ignored and maligned, but also rejected vehemently.

Liberals like to attribute the lack of Muslim integration to right-wing citizens who do not allow Muslims their religious requirements, thus preventing assimilation and creating radicalism. The fact that mosques teach children intolerance and hatred toward Christians, and Christians are killed all over Africa gets lost in the narrative.

Liberals think that Muslims should have “democratic rights” to form associations and participate in political life. Democracy is a lofty goal, however, most Muslim countries do not understand the concept of democracy which is alien to their history. They are totalitarian regimes ruled by seventh century norms of behavior and moral code. Furthermore, Shariah Law is incompatible with western law and our Constitution.

Once a person desires to immigrate to another country, they should abide by the laws in that country, not the Shariah Code of the country they have left. Rejecting the law of the land should have one solution, repatriation of the immigrants to the country of origin where they are free to follow their tribal law.

Nobody prevents Muslims from seeking political office, they certainly have plenty of money to run campaigns and have done so successfully. They can buy businesses, real estate, and land, build mosques, and open their own schools.

A Western nation believes in religious liberty. It has a unifying language, a legal code, and culture that define that country. Excessive tolerance to allow immigrant sub-sets to take over will result in the destruction of the host country and culture.

Liberals are eager to vilify citizen patriots as right-wing extremists and hate mongers when they blame the lack of integration of the large-scale immigrant population, Muslim or Christian, into the host western culture on excessive tolerance.

The immigration influx started in the early seventies, enabled, promoted, and protected by progressives. The fruits of such policies are social unrest, legal and justice duality, all born and sustained by unbridled multiculturalism.

Liberals have turned many European cultures upside down with their excessive tolerance towards immigrants from non-Christian roots, giving them not only basic rights as the local population, but privileges that ordinary citizens do not have but must subsidize through taxation.

At the same time, it is hard to blame Muslims for rejecting a western culture, which is defined by rampant corruption, lawlessness, moral decay, and the trampling of faith and family. However, if they are so incensed by Western cultures, they should have stayed in the countries they left where they were comfortable and happy with their own value system.

Women in western countries have fought hard to gain equal rights with men in the work place, the right to vote, drive cars, go to church alone or with their husbands, express their opinions freely without consulting first with a male family member, go out in public in the garment of their choice, go to the beach in a bikini, and go shopping or on vacation without a male chaperone. Western females are not subjected to the Muslim-style dual daily reality of separate but equal, and the status of a half a person in a court of law.

Islamic theology is incompatible with Western values and particularly our Constitution. Shariah Law should not co-exist within our legal system. Everybody should be equal under the law of a country and appear in front of the same judge not a special theocratic tribal judge.

Everybody should learn the history of the host country, the language, the culture, should respect the Constitution, the flag, the national anthem, and obey the laws. Seeking to establish a world Caliphate and replacing our democratically elected representatives with a theocratic system of government is alien to our culture. Wearing costumes that hide completely the identity of a person is not a western custom. Expecting and demanding special treatment because of religious beliefs is counter-productive to a civil society.

Liberal political correctness has replaced for decades common sense and stifled conservative freedom of speech. Hate speech has now taken the place of political correctness in Britain and soon in the U.S. by adding the punishing teeth of the law. Conservative speech is now deemed inflammatory and resulted in the banning from England of a famous talk show host.

I may be naïve, but in modern times, I cannot imagine a Christian who would censor or object to any worshipper of another God. We welcome anyone who is faithful to the U.S. and swears allegiance to protect it.

I understand Americans who mistrust immigrants who carry allegiance to their former countries and seek to destroy the host country as well as forbid and annihilate any other faith other than their own. Until such time, IN GOD WE TRUST features prominently on our U.S. currency and in any institution that has not been sued by the atheist ACLU to have any mention of God removed from the premises.

While we are busy developing new ways to improve life and alleviate pain and suffering for humanity, “nation building” Iraq and Afghanistan into the democracy they do not want, the Islamists are confident that we will submit to their seventh century theocratic life style and the Caliphate will reign supreme.

While the communist elites want to control us for the “common good," "social justice,” and the interest of the proletariat by eliminating the middle class, the so-called “bourgeoisie,” the environmentalists on the march are restricting our lives, property, and freedoms into “sustainability” through regulatory doomsday faux predictions, sending us to the stone age by interdicting the use of fossil fuels.