Symbol of Victory

Ground Zero

In November 1621, Pilgrims disembarked from the Mayflower on a piece of the New World at Plymouth Rock, MA. They left many friends and families behind and were met with a cold, uninviting new life. The uncertainty of their future was not as important as living with religious freedom—the ability to worship and embrace their spiritual beliefs without government intervention. For nearly 400 years, this New World has allowed countless individuals to worship in any manner they see fit. Today, a group of individuals want to build a 15-story $100M+ mosque and community center two blocks from Ground Zero. Legally, they are protected by the Bill of Rights and can worship and build their mosque. However, this issue is not a legal one but rather one of sensitivity and appearance.

On 11 SEP 01 (9/11) a militant group of Islamic fanatical terrorists (al-Qaeda) declared war on every American, our way of life, and our freedom of beliefs. While this group does not represent all of Islam or Muslims, it does represent the harm individuals can do in the name of religion. My argument and the argument of many who oppose the building of the mosque is not against Muslims or those who embrace the tenets of Islam, but rather the appearance of what some if not many will associate with the mosque. The senseless attacks of 9/11 by these terrorists left nearly 3000 dead in addition to the 19 suicide hijackers. It was the largest loss of life in a terrorist attack, or military attack (think Pearl Harbor). To many, especially those who lost loved ones and friends to the attack, building a mosque less than two football fields from Ground Zero is a slap in the face. Look at the aerial photo below illustrating the locations.

The location of the mosque is a building owned by Stephen Pomerantz and at the time of the attacks, was leased to Burlington Coat Factory. Since the attacks the building has been "on the market". Why? Because part of the landing gear and fuselage of one of the jets tore through the roof and several of its floors, compromising the building's integrity. It remained on the market for several years until a developer purchased the rights to buy. The development group behind the purchase is a tax-exempt foundation with assets totaling less than $20,000. In the first 5 years, the foundation raised less than $100,000. Where are they going to get funding for this building?

The figure-head of this development group is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who claims to be a moderate Muslim who embraces all faiths and wants this mosque to serve as an example where Christians, Jews, and Muslims can live side by side, in peace. He, however, has a checkered past. He blamed America as a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks; would not declare Hamas as a terrorist group, and denounced belief in interfaith dialogue: In March 2010, in Arabic, Rauf stridently denounced interfaith discussions. "I don't believe in interfaith dialogue," he said in an article that highlighted his statement in its headline. He is also a strong supporter of Shariah Law (if you do not understand this, research it). In the Washington Post 05 JUN 09, referencing President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt, he states "By embracing Islam in the peacemaking process, Obama has laid down a challenge to Muslims. Live up to the tenets of our religion, embrace Shariah law as conceived by the Prophet, and see what happens." I do not want that here. The only theocracy I want to live in is one in which the Almighty God, the Great I AM—sits on the throne.

Additionally, Rauf wants to name the mosque and community center--Cordoba House. Cordoba was a Christian Spanish city that was conquered by the Islamic Moors and became the capital of the Muslim Caliphate. The Caliphate refers to the first system of governance established in Islam. In one of Usama bin Laden's videos released after the 9/11 attacks, he specifically designated the attack as revenge for the loss of Cordoba and Andalusia to the Spanish in the 15th Century. Does this sound like a place of unity? Also, how many non-Muslims will use the "community center"?

Again, this is not about whether they have the legal right to build, but rather should they build there? New York Governor, David Patterson offered to provide state land at no charge if they would consider relocating. They are adamant about this location. Incidentally, just 3 blocks further from the proposed site is the current mosque that has been there for decades. Some have suggested purchasing the adjacent property and building there. Again the answer is NO! What is so important about this location? Raheel Raza, a Pakistan-born Canadian woman and author of Their Jihad, Not My Jihad: a Muslim Canadian Woman Speaks Out, has an answer for this. "We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation. It's an act of "fitna". Fitna is an act of mischief-making, which is forbidden in the Koran.

Ms. Raza is not the only Muslim to oppose this location. Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9-11 said, "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world." Suleiman Schwartz, Executive Director of Center for Islamic Pluralism, a Washington DC non-profit organization explains building a mosque this close to ground zero is inconsistent with the Sufi philosophy of simplicity of faith and sensitivity towards others and "grossly insensitive".

Zuhdi Jasser, founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. "For us, a mosque was always a place to pray...not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn't be about promoting Islam. It's the place where war was declared on us as Americans." What does the American public have to say about this location?

Aerial photo of World Trade Center Ground Zero following Sept. 11 attacks. The red square right of Ground Zero marks the former Burlington Coat Factory and the proposed location of Cordoba House. The Red line at the far right is the location of the existing mosque.

In a 10 AUG 10 Fox News survey (the most recent survey available, others including a CNN poll, Wall Street Journal poll, and Gallup Poll all have the same results) clearly states Americans do not support this:  64% of Americans thought it would be wrong to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center so close to Ground Zero; 30% felt it would be appropriate. Of the 64% the breakdown between parties: Democrats 56 to 38%, Republicans 76 to 17%, and Independents 53 to 41%. At the same time, 61% felt that the Muslim group had a legal right to build a mosque there. (Democrats 63 to 32%, Republicans 57 to 36%, Independents 69 to 29%). Clearly, the American populace is against this site and I strongly urge our political leaders to grow a pair and speak out against this.

Putting a mosque in this location is similar to erecting a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, or perhaps a German cultural center at Sobibor, Poland or Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland, or Treblinka, Poland—all Nazi extermination camps. In fact, at one of the locations, a group of nuns established a convent only to have the Pope ask them to leave because of the appearance of insensitivity. A convent-not anything related to Nazis, or even Germany. Do you see the similarities? Do you understand why so many are against this? As always, research this yourself and make your own decision...do not take my opinion or anyone else's as your own. 

Connect the Dots

Something in the Gulf of Mexico "smells fishy". "Where there is smoke, there is fire." "If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, and pairs well with cranberry...." I am not one prone to believe in ALL conspiracy theories, replete with black helicopters, Tri-Laterial Commission, and Area 51 lore, but something about this oil well disaster "does not add up". Regardless of which idiom you choose, we need to look into this explosion.

Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, Gulf Of Mexico

Shortly after the blowout on 10 APR 2010, a military friend passed on to me that he had heard scuttlebutt of something going on in the Gulf weeks before the blowout. A lot of special ops types—USN SEALs, USMC Force Recon, British Special Boat Service (SBS)—were running exercises gaining access to Deep Oil Rigs, and even leaving some behind for security. Then there was the North Korean submarine that was allowed to attack the well as part of the "compensation" for allowing the two reporters (Laura Ling and Euna Lee who work for Al Gore's media outlet "Current TV") to be held in North Korean prisons for wandering across the border, to return home with Bill Clinton. Okay, this one is way out there. However, read on and let me know what you think.

First, let’s examine, or start plotting "data dots", who helped BHO with the largest contributions to his war chest:

1. University of California
2. Goldman Sachs (this is not the first time you will see this company)
3. Harvard University
4. Microsoft
5. Alphabet, Inc. (Google)
6. Citigroup
7. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
8. Time Warner.

Amazing. Together these contributors provide unlimited Intelligence, Financial Resources, access to and distribution of information, and propaganda of his progressive and socialistic ideas.

Of the above group, Goldman Sachs is of specific importance. It was Goldman Sachs that was part of the Bush bailout in his last months in office. Henry Paulson, Bush’s Treasury Secretary, was the architect of the bailout. They also have the greatest investment in carbon credits and offsets trading, purchasing two carbon-offset companies. They have made Al “Sex Poodle” Gore a huge amount of money selling these offsets. This will have a major impact on the Cap and Trade Bill passed early last year. Three weeks before the Deepwater Horizon explosion they divested (sold) nearly 50% of their BP shares. They were not alone in divesting BP assets. BP CEO, Tony “I just want my life back” Hayward sold one-third of his stock in the company. In addition to these sellers, the American investment company Vanguard through two of their funds, Vanguard Windsor II Investor and Vanguard Windsor Investor, sold over 1.5 million shares of BP stock. According to BHO’s Public Financial Disclosure Report, he is required to complete each year, all of his wealth is split between two Vanguard funds: Vanguard 500 Index Fund (three accounts) and Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund (three accounts).

Each of these companies has now started investing in another energy company—Exxon Mobile—whom they believe will eventually purchase BP assets if not the entire company. BP has also hired Goldman Sachs to provide advice on how to proceed.

Another company that seemed to be in the right place at the right time is Halliburton. Two weeks prior to the explosion they purchased the world’s largest oil disaster company, Boots & Coots. The two principles of this company were trained and worked alongside great oil rig fighter Paul “Red” Adair.

If you are still with me, you obviously have questions—you should. How could this be? Why would anyone do something like this? Gordon Gekko provides us the answer “Greed is good.” To advance a liberal agenda, to pay back those that got BHO and his socialistic cronies to the White House, is it possible this administration could do such? Before we answer let’s look at one other person that stands to make a lot of money from this. George Soros is one of Moveon.org’s huge financial backers.

George Soros is the major stockholder in a Brazilian oil company

George Soros

—Petrobras. Last August, Barack H. Obama gave Brazil $10 Billion US Dollars for offshore drilling and exploration. Why would he support another country's drilling when he does not support it for our country? Incidentally, the initial $2 Billion was immediately funneled to Petrobras. After the explosion in the Gulf, BHO issued a six-month moratorium on all deepwater drilling. Within 48 hours of issuing the moratorium, Soros contacted Laborde Marine, a company that services the deep-water drilling market, attempting to lease all of its vessels and move them to Brazil. Some dates to help track this development.

Petrobras Logo

• 18 MAY 09 Soros Fund Mgmt, LLC sold 5 million common shares of Petrobras.
• 14 AUG 09 George Soros bought 5.8 million shares of Preferred stock in Petrobras.
• 19 AUG 09 BHO commits to $10 billion in loans to Petrobras with an initial payment of $2 billion.
• 20 APR 10 Explosion on BP Deepwater Horizon rig.
• 06 MAY 10 BHO declares a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling.

The reason Soros bought preferred stock is because the common stock was 21 percent higher than preferred; he made money just on the sale/repurchase of stock. Not to mention the profit in future earnings from stock appreciation and the increase in oil sales as Brazil stands to fill the gap between supply and demand for the US.

Is the administration capable of such an underhanded, illegal conspiracy all in an attempt to push environmental controls on the US while at the same time repaying political cronies and making money for all involved? I do not have the answer to this. There are many Americans that believe George W. Bush (43), orchestrated the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and rigged them to blow with Thermite. I guess both “conspiracies” are possible, but are they probable? Make your own decision. Research this yourself. Evaluate the "data dots" and sources then "connect the dots". All of it is on the internet until BHO installs a “kill switch” to keep you from logging on.

Author's Note: As of the original posting date, 30 JUN 2010, the Deepwater Horizon is still gushing oil into the Gulf.

Sir, Yes Sir!

The recent comments attributed to General Stanley Allen McChrystal USA, who shares a birthday with me (seven years earlier), have
 blanketed the news cycle for the past 24 hours. Reading comments by others on Facebook and more importantly those of our leaders as reported on news programs, has prompted me to share my comments on this issue. 

GEN Stanley McChrystal. File Photo.

As a Marine--no longer in uniform--I believe that you have a chain of command and you must respect it; both up and down. It is true that once you take an oath to defend this country, you lose some of the very rights you prepare to defend; namely freedom of speech. You cannot allow open disrespect or insubordination from subordinates. This creates a situation that can quickly become out of control. If you do not like a commander and you hear others berating him/her, then perhaps you are slow to fulfill their orders, and finally do not obey them at all. Anyone in uniform who leads men/women must never under any circumstances speak or act with disdain towards superiors publicly. This is even more important as you gain rank—either on your sleeve or collar—because you have greater influence. If the comments that were reported in Rolling Stone magazine are both accurate and in the correct context, then GEN McChrystal sealed his own fate several months ago. 

I do not know the situation or the circumstances surrounding Michael Hastings camping out with McChrystal and his staff in Paris, or what the guidelines were for reporting. When you have a group of individuals who work closely together and are even separated in rank by a couple of grades, you become close and share things. Generals/Admirals especially 4-stars have a full staff that accompanies them everywhere; within that group is the inner circle with whom the General/Admiral becomes extremely close. These are people he/she has served with and respects and wants their talents and skills supporting his/her endeavors. Is it possible that the group of men while waiting for the sky to clear of volcanic ash and dust accepted Hastings and became “friendly” with him and therefore let their guard down? I think this is a possibility. Could the group have assumed unless they say “on the record” other comments were to be treated as “off the record”? That too is a possibility. I could see where something like that occurred and they did not think much about it. Only a few of the comments were attributed to GEN McChrystal, the others were unnamed staff. Even so, the General should have been more media savvy and exercised more self-control. 

It has been reported that GEN McChrystal voted for President Obama, and therefore shared some of the same political beliefs. It is obvious from all the reports last year regarding the troop increase request he, General David Howell Petraeus, USA (US Cent Com), and Admiral Michael Glenn Mullen, USN (CJCS) do not agree with the Obama plan for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. President Obama was determined not to let his generals run the war, but rather assert his authority as Commander-in-Chief (CIC) and make the decisions on how the war was to be fought. I have no problem with civilian leadership of the military—it is a good thing—however, the CIC must with the military input develop, design, and deploy a strategy for the war(s). If so, then he should give the military everything it asks for in its quest to complete the mission. This situation is the crux of the matter and it is not being discussed. The civilian leadership for these wars is not respected by the military men/women who are fighting the wars. There is a huge chasm between the current administration and the military. I believe some of what the General and his staff were attributed as saying is coming from the deep, nagging anger that the administration does not “get it”. They do not believe this administration cares for the military, and as the General stated in London several months ago, the solution offered by Vice-President Biden is “shortsighted”, aka stupid and unworkable. As a reminder, the VP wanted to fight Al Qaeda with drones and SF troops. GEN McChrystal has been in special operations since his commissioning. He was first assigned to the 82nd Airborne and three years later volunteered for Special Forces (SF). Since then he has served in special ops as a shooter/operator and worked/commanded S2/S3 and G2/G3 (Intelligence/Operations both at Unit and Division level). For the past 30 years, he ran most of the Black Ops our military has taken part in. So, as an “operator,” one would think he would embrace an all-SF war unless he believed it would fail. 

While there remains a disconnect between this Administration and the military men/women, and there are diverse views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama did the right thing and accepted GEN McChrystal’s resignation. You cannot allow this public dissension among the ranks. I hope President Obama allows for frank disagreement behind closed doors and gives the appropriate respect to the men and women who wear a uniform, pick up a rucksack, and carry a rifle to start their day at work. A good commander will ask for input and suggestions from his subordinates and welcome opposing views and ideas. However, once a decision is made and you walk outside and an order is given, your only response is “Sir, Yes Sir!” To set a good example President Obama must not allow his office, his aides, and his administration to speak negatively of the commanders in the field if they do not agree with his decision. I urge you to read Jonathon Alter’s book The Promise which was recently released. Alter is a far-left writer for Newsweek and also a Chicagoan who had unfettered access to the President and his staff while researching for this book. As I said earlier, respect goes both up and down the chain of command. 

Golden Evenings of Summer

Earlier tonight I and my daughter mowed our yard. After completing the job, I sat for a moment in the waning moments of the day,

watching the sun slip beneath the horizon when something caught my attention—a firefly. In that instance I was no longer a 48 year old man in Madison, AL, but a young boy growing up in rural Milton, FL. I was dressed in a similar manner: shoes—no socks, and a pair of shorts. 

After push mowing 2.5 acres, I would relax and sit with my brothers. It was a time to forget about the troubles of today and the toils tomorrow would bring; a time to run with my two brothers—chasing fireflies. While we did not know it then, we were chasing more than a firefly in the yard. We were chasing our dreams and goals. Many a time we would close our hands over one and then dismiss the idea we had actually caught it, only to open our hand to see it fly away. It was on those evenings when the shadows became so long that they finally disappeared into another, and the last of the sun’s golden rays faded into a memory that we learned how to be men. 

To catch a firefly you needed a plan. You must determine which of the numerous fireflies you want to chase, focus on it, and then chase it with wild abandon until it is safely in your grasp. Do not let it go. Do not let it slip between your fingers. We must focus on a specific goal, follow it until it is obtained, and then after reaching your goal, set it aside and focus on another. 

Those Golden Evenings of Summer a lifetime ago, carefree—yet full of promise, are not much different than those of today. Are you where you thought you would be at this point in your life? Did you make something of yourself? Did you reach your goals? The Sun may be low in the sky, but it has yet to set. You can still go in your backyard, find a firefly and give chase until you catch it. 

After a few moments of paging through mental photographs, I was once again in my backyard. My pain ridden body is not as firm, not as fast, and not able to run as far but I was determined to catch a firefly. It took a moment, but I caught one and smiled as I opened my hand to let it go. Chase your dreams. Start today. 

Alternative Energy Sources

Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, APR 2010.

The past several days I have read many comments in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. My silence on the issue was intentional because I did not wish to appear as if I were politicizing this disaster. Many of you know I am a staunch Conservative and capitalist and I grew up on Pensacola Beach. Additionally, I believe in accountability and do not like it when either party 
wishes to spin facts to further their agendas. Many times individuals read

an article or a quick post and share it with their Facebook friends. In some instances, the article is an editorial and lacks credible primary sources and is portrayed as fact and then becomes fuel for the argument. I prefer to research all sides of an issue, and then make my own choice and opinion. I welcome healthy spirited debate on issues but do not allow character attacks or name-calling. 

Alternative Fuels
The US and almost all industrialized nations are dependent on fossil fuels and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Yes, it is true that our government and others around the world have chosen to limit research and development funds for Alternative Energy Sources. In many instances, oil companies have actually purchased patents for alternative energy sources from inventors to then shelve the idea so they (oil companies) would not have to compete with it. Possible alternative energy sources include natural gas, coal, geothermal, wind, solar, nuclear, biomass, and hydroelectric. As with any resource, there are both pros and cons. I would like to address just a few.

States Impacted by Spill.

Solar
Interesting fact: one square meter of solar panels would power a 100-watt light bulb for 8 hours. A “typical home” in the US uses either electricity or gas to provide heat—heat for the house, hot water heater, dryer, and stove/oven. If you choose to power your house with solar electricity, you would have to use natural gas appliances for all heating needs. In this case, you would only use electricity for the lights, TV, computer, refrigerator, and washer. This averages out to approximately 600 watts per hour; for 24 hours, that is 14,400 watt-hours per day. Most solar panels can generate 70 milliwatts psi of surface. On average, the “typical home” will receive 5 hours of usable sunlight per day. This then totals 350-milliwatt hours/day. In this situation, you would need 41,000 sq inches of panels for the house that does not have AC. This is roughly 285 square feet. In addition, you would need a battery bank, an inverter, and a huge unobstructed backyard. Remember this is w/o AC; this would at the very least double the figures above. Many homes do not have this much free space to erect such a structure or an open location where several homes/businesses could erect a solar farm (Janet Ramage’s book “Energy: A Guidebook.)

Wind Power
Wind power is another option that on the surface appears to make sense, but in reality, fails miserably. Denmark offers the best example of a country that invested huge sums of cash hoping to decrease their import of electricity from other countries and actually thought they would be able to export electricity. With the wind coming off the Atlantic Ocean, they constructed huge farms and in 2004 only contributed 3.3% of the nation’s electrical requirement. In reality, windmills appear to be simplistic: a tower with a huge fan attached that is then connected to a shaft that is connected to a commutator and then an armature. As the shaft, the commutator, and the armature rotate, it produces a magnetic flux—positive and negative poles—and voltage is then induced through brushes. This electricity is then introduced into the power grid. Unfortunately, the turbines at electrical plants cannot be turned off because of the variability of wind. Turning them off takes a huge amount of electricity to ramp up and down and increases the production of CO2. (The Utilities Journal). David J. White, “Danish Wind: Too Good to Be True?”. JUL 2004). Throughout Europe, all windmills produced on average less than 20% of their rated (theoretical) capacity. The British and American Wind Energy Associations plan for 30% but fall short of this mark. In California, the average is 20%. Again, this is because winds are not sustained to reach or achieve peak performance. Additionally, extremely high winds also decrease efficiency. Any wind speed over 30 mph decreases marginal utility because of increased wear and tear on equipment. In high winds, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. The fan must have a safety “switch” installed to keep speed low. Problems with dead bugs halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine. Also, the build-up of salt on offshore turbine blades similarly has reduced power generated by 20% to 30%. Countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, Japan, Spain, and England have halted or decreased funding for windmills because of decreased efficiency and increased operating costs. For windmills to be competitive with fossil fuels, they would have to increase by 900,000 percent. Costs to consumers would skyrocket. This is not a viable option for widespread power production in either the near or the far future.

Bio-fuels
Bio-fuels (biodiesel, ethanol) are promising assuming we can fund and implement a feasible distribution network. The main drawback to ethanol is the allied increases of alternative uses of corn. As we use more acres of land to produce corn suitable for ethanol (no it is not the same type of corn used for human or animal consumption), it displaces land used for consumption. Consequently, prices of corn and corn products will increase (less supply same demand yields higher prices); prices of milk and beef will increase (less corn for feed, increased prices); prices of chicken and eggs will increase (same argument). It is also more lucrative for a farmer to plant an acre of corn intended for ethanol production compared to consumption, which would raise prices higher. The amount of corn required to produce enough ethanol to fill the tank of an SUV is equivalent to feeding one person for a year. Also, the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is negative for producing ethanol. Whether we use traditional fossil fuels or ethanol, the energy expended to get the energy produced is greater. Not efficient use of energy—six units used to produce one unit. (Science Daily, 2005).

Regardless of which alternative fuel we attempt to use, there are some uses that cannot be substituted, i.e. airliners, 18-wheelers, and construction equipment without major mechanical changes. At one time, I knew the percentage of total fuel consumption these users represented; it was around 30%. This is a lot higher than I would have thought. However, I could not find a percentage in the quick search I conducted.

Other Countries
Assuming the US changes course and uses an alternative energy source, we still have the problem of other countries remaining dependent on fossil fuels. This is one of the reasons “Cap and Trade” will fail. Other countries have neither the desire, incentive, nor financial ability to change. Additionally, if we chose to stop offshore drilling for US consumption, other countries, China, Russia, Germany, et. al. would continue drilling off our coasts and receiving all the benefits from the oil. 

With respect to other countries, the US only imports 21% of all of its oil from Middle East countries—the largest from Saudi Arabia (15%). Our neighbors to the North and South (Canada and Mexico) account for most of our imported oil.

Some have argued that we went into Iraq to gain control of its oil reserves—or we went to war over oil. To date, we have received very little of the oil Iraq produces and if we do receive oil, it is to be purchased based on the spot rate. Even before the Iraq invasion, the US imported less than 3% from Iraq. (Department of Energy website.)

Obama Administration
BHO’s administration exempted BP’s Gulf of Mexico drilling from an environmental impact study. The Interior Department exempted BP’s calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year. Three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely. The decision made by the Department of Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP’s lease at Deepwater Horizon a “categorical exclusion” from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on 06 APR 09—and BP’s lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions—show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, 05 MAY 10). 

Also in recent days, there have been several comments and links to a huffingtonpost.com editorial by Joseph A. Palermo in which he references an interview of Michael Brown, former FEMA Director in the Bush administration by Neil Cavuto of Fox News. From the White House Press room Robert Gibbs, made similar remarks in an exchange with Fox News Reporter Wendell Goler. Mr. Gibbs said during the interview, Mr. Brown accused the Obama Administration of leaking the oil on purpose. He stated: “Mr. Brown, FEMA Director Brown under Katrina, intimated on Fox—and it wasn’t, I will editorially say, that it didn’t appear to be pushed back on real hard—that this spill was leaked purposely in order for us to walk back our environmental and drilling decisions, and that the leak that we did on purpose got out of control and now is too big to contain.” I was watching “Your World with Neil Cavuto” when the host interviewed Mr. Brown and did not hear him either explicitly or implicitly say the Obama Administration caused the leak. The closest he came to such is in the following “…And I think the delay was this. It’s pure politics. This president has never supported big oil. He has never supported offshore drilling. And now he has an excuse to shut it back down.” The following day Mr. Cavuto addressed the allegations and included a link to the entire interview, Mr. Gibbs’ comments, and a transcript of the interview. I’ve included the link at the bottom of this note. While this might make for good debate among those who believe in the tri-lateral Commission, black helicopters, and other conspiracy theories, to think a President or his administration would create such a disaster to advance their agenda is as absurd as a President and his administration blowing up buildings to have a reason to go to war.

Conclusions
In closing, I want to clarify a few things about my own beliefs. First, I think the oilrig explosion and subsequent ecological fallout are devastating. The loss of human life is paramount. Nothing will ever restore the loss their families feel. Obviously, any potential ecological losses, loss of, or decrease in seafood industry, and economic losses of tourism dollars will impact the Gulf Coast for years to come. I support responsible drilling, and upon careful review of the number of oil rigs off the US coast, and the number of barrels of oil that are pumped and then “transferred” back to the coast via pipelines, the percentage of loss or spilled oil is extremely low. I heard the other day, that the safety ratings, with respect to loss/spillage to barrels pumped (USA), are better than the airline industry worldwide. I understand the argument if only one baby out of one million is dropped in the delivery room those are good odds, unless it is your baby that is dropped. We do not know the cause of this explosion, and furthermore, while the USCG has termed BP the “responsible person” that does not imply criminal negligence or civil liability. Additionally, many are quick to jump on the anti-BP bandwagon and choose to boycott the company until the Gulf Coast is restored to a state before the explosion. I will not attempt to dissuade you from doing so but think for a moment of some of the products you use every day that are oil derivatives; many developed or further developed by BP and its subsidiaries: Legos, Velcro, lip balm, erasers, hockey pucks, rubber gloves, elastic bands, perfume, bubble gum, synthetic fabrics, straws, toothpaste, lipstick, ballpoint pens, computers, sneakers, plastic dishes, artificial limbs, garbage bags, balloons, band-aids, fertilizers, fishing rods, pantyhose, parachutes, soft contact lens, VCR and cassette tapes, soft drink bottles, plastics, and over 3500 other products. 

Are we a nation dependent on the petrochemical industry? Yes. Should we invest in alternative energy sources? Most certainly. Ironically some of the best advances in alternative energy sources come from space exploration—you simply cannot use petroleum-based products in space or to get there, but funding for space exploration has been decreased and subsequently, the products of discovery and invention (technology transfer) have slowed. So where does this leave us? There are many things that we can do to conserve energy and thus decrease the demand for fossil fuels. Turning lights off when not in use; changing thermostats, decreasing the number of errands (automobile), replacing less efficient appliances with newer ones, using photochromic glass (smart windows) and/or thermochromic glass (repels or reflects sunlight) in new construction. Additionally, we can inform our representatives that we want funding for alternative energy sources. Of the sources, I did not mention but offer great promise is natural gas. 

Natural gas or Methane (CH4) burns cleaner than oil-based fuels but is more expensive due to production cost; this should decrease with greater production (economy of scales). When used in automobiles—Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is less efficient because of the lower compression ratios of combustion engines designed for oil-based fuels. However, engines designed specifically for CNG have higher compression ratios and therefore do not lack in performance or fuel economy. When used as Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) it offers greater specific energy (energy per unit mass) than traditional kerosene-infused aviation fuels. Another advantage is the ease of Hydrogen production. You will notice that Methane has four Hydrogen atoms when water is introduced the result is Hydrogen (H2) and Carbon Monoxide (CO).

In closing, I would urge each of you to not: simply point fingers at BP specifically and “Big Oil” in general; argue we should decrease our dependence on Mid-East oil (only 21% comes from this region); believe that there are viable alternatives in wind, solar, and ethanol. More importantly, we should not politicize the oil rig disaster; let’s first stop the leak, and clean up the mess. When those are completed, we can then seek to discover the cause of this explosion and attribute or assign civil responsibilities and possibly criminal responsibilities. This is a bi-partisan problem and it deserves the brightest and most informed individuals seeking solutions from both sides of the political aisle.

If you disagree with what I have written, let’s discuss it. In fact, I challenge each of you to do your own research on the issues and make your own decisions. Do not take my opinion and make it yours. I researched most of this information several months ago helping my oldest daughter with a college paper and most of the data is still current. You will be surprised at what you discover, and how your views might change if you just start researching.

My Two Cents

This past Sunday will become a day of historical significance for all Americans. The House of Representatives passed HR 3590, Patient

President Obama signing ACA into law.

Protection and Affordable Care Act and HR 4872 Reconciliation Act of 2010 will then be sent back to the Senate needing only a simple majority vote. On Tuesday, with great pomp and circumstance, President Obama signed the Bill into Law. Many have commented on this event both prior to and after the signing; commentators ranging from personal friends to conservative talk show hosts, to political analysts; both Republican and Democrat; Conservative and Liberal. Now I would like to offer my two cents.

I have in many different venues expressed my love of country, respect for the law, and ultimate respect for the Office of President of the United States of America. My first Facebook comment was on a post sometime in September. Since then I have commented on posts by others, and many of my own. In each, I have expressed how angry I am because of the manner in which our government conducts business. Briefly, our elected leaders, and yes we are a Democratic Republic (if you do not understand what this means I suggest you do some research) and we place our confidence in the elected officials to represent our wishes and desires and to not substitute their own selfish interests. There was a time when our bicameral Congress members would debate with great enthusiasm and vigor on the floor, then go out for laughs and drinks afterward. They might have had ideological differences but there was respect for the other members and a respect for differing beliefs. Outbursts such as those by Rep. Joe Wilson (R) SC during a joint address by President Obama, and most recently from Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R) TX during a floor speech by Rep. Bart Stupach (D) MI. That era has sadly passed us by. No longer, do our elected officials vote what is best for the country, but rather what their party tells them to vote. There is little to no respect and even disdain for the person if they have a differing view. When each party attempts to “win” we, the American people lose. I believe this past week, we suffered a huge defeat. Additionally, many elected officials ran on a platform of "changing Washington" or claiming they could not be bought. I am sure they all started full of optimism but then reality sets in to get recognition, to be a part of the "in" crowd, and to preserve their jobs, they start voting for what keeps their job instead of what is best for the country. Most know voters do not take the time to read how their elected officials vote and can therefore release press statements acting as if they are fighting for the little guy, which is true if they are the little guy. This is a great reason to support term limits.

In my past posts and more importantly in my years of being a political junkie, I have involved myself in the process. I remember voting for the very first time with my dad shortly after turning 18. I am proud to say I have voted every time there was “something to vote on” since then with one exception in 1999 when I was recuperating from a spinal fusion and in the Neuro Intensive Care Unit. I also served in the United States Marine Corps taking the oath: ”I, (name) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” 

Through the years, I have continued to pray for my country and its leaders as I am instructed in I Timothy 2:1-4 and proactively informed my city/county commissioners, School Board members, and both state and national representatives of my opinions and positions on various topics. I provide all of this as my political Curriculum Vitae; I believe I have earned the right to speak my mind.

There are some significant problems with the current healthcare system, but I do not believe that we must throw it out and start anew. Many of the problems associated with health care were not addressed. The method by which most Americans receive health care is via their employers. Have you ever wondered why our employers provide us with health insurance but not homeowners or auto insurance? What is special about health insurance? The answer originated during WWII. In the post-WWII era, many industries were beginning to boom and the talent pool was vast, but the companies were limited by the 1942 Stabilization Act which limited the wages they could offer prospective employees. They had to provide some incentive to attract the best talent. The companies chose health insurance, which later legislation and court rulings deemed both legal and provided a tax write-off for companies paying the premiums. Since then most Americans’ health insurance has been tied to their employment.

This new law has many “good” items but seriously falls short of providing the necessary reform we need. Most of the “good” items will become effective within the next 12 months, which will give the populace a “good” feeling and may not be as negative and vocal about the law. These include coverage for children until age 26, removing pre-existing clauses for children (although there are still some loopholes that will exclude some children); no longer will pre-existing illnesses prevent you from obtaining health insurance; and no longer a maximum lifetime benefit.

The “bad” items will start in a year or more (some after the next presidential election) which include: requiring every adult to purchase and maintain health insurance (more on this in a moment); employers with greater than 50 employees will be required to offer health insurance. If they do not they will be fined $2000 per employee. Health insurance companies will have to pay a fee for market percentage. This means if a company is growing and doing well through effective management and is rewarded by market share, it will be “penalized” for its success. The fee is then given to the companies that are not doing as well. This is like the student who is making high “As” for doing his homework, studying, and performing well on tests that are then required to give some of his grades to the underperformers. Or the salesman that works hard, makes new and more sales, and then has to give a percentage of his earnings to the employees that do not work as hard. This is not fair. Finally, there is the “Cadillac” health care tax on those individuals who have purchased a better plan. This tax is then redistributed to individuals who do not have the same level of coverage. Again, this is an attempt to redistribute the wealth.

Speaking of costs, the Congressional Budget Office provided its estimate or “guess” of what the program will cost over the next 10 years. The preliminary budgets have already been determined to be drastically wrong. Cost reductions and “savings” were counted twice, some expenditures were under-capitalized, and in some instances, they had no way of determining cost, so no cost was assigned. This is referenced in the footnotes but only one network is reporting this little tidbit. We have no idea of the costs, but they are far greater than what we can afford. One such cost includes providing health care to the uninsured and underinsured. President Obama in the words of Joe Wilson "lied" when he said illegal aliens would not be covered under his plan. As a "Constitution scholar" and professor he knew that they would have to be covered (even though he wants to say they will not) because of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. This clause requires the States to provide equal protection to all people in their jurisdiction. Incidentally, the number of uninsured and underinsured has risen in the past several months from a low of 25 million to now just under 50 million. Care to guess why the numbers have increased? Illegal aliens account for nearly 15 million of them. Healthcare costs for these individuals are not included in the CBO “guess.”

I know this is a long note and I will close in a moment, but there a just a few more items I must address. The new law requires all individuals to purchase health care. I do not believe the government can force or compel a person to purchase anything. Yes, all states require you to purchase automobile insurance if you wish to exercise your privilege of driving an automobile on the highway. This is to protect the property of others. Well, to circumvent this legality, they are authorizing the IRS to verify each person has complied because this “cost” is now called a tax, and depending on your income level you will either receive a deduction or pay a fee (Cadillac plans). Within hours of the passage of the bill, the IRS said it would need an additional $10 billion over the next 10 years for enforcement and compliance. Again, this was not in the CBO “guess.” Do you want the IRS involved in your health care?

In my opinion and many other conservatives, the main issues that should have been addressed in any healthcare reform are quite simple and do not require changing the entire system. These include: (1) Tort reform. We need to put an end to these junk lawsuits that contribute to higher healthcare costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it is good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued. (2) Access to insurance plans. Currently, you must purchase health insurance from a provider in the state you reside. Each state has different regulatory costs and this raises the cost of insurance. Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines. (3) Greater state controls. We need to give the States the tools and the freedom to create their own innovative reforms that lower healthcare costs. (4) Establish health “pools.” Individuals, small businesses, churches, civic organizations, and trade associations should be allowed to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, much in the same manner large corporations and labor unions do. (5) Medicare/Medicaid. Provide greater funding to the States to cover the elderly and low-income families. (6) Pre-existing conditions. These should not preclude a person from obtaining health insurance. There should be an option for an individual to pay a premium to obtain health care. (7) Extension of benefits. Most dependents lose their coverage once they turn 19 or 21; there should be an option for extending these benefits for an additional 5 years or so, but with restrictions. This is basically all we needed to do, but that would not have allowed the Democrats to reinvent the wheel and do so in a manner that would redistribute the wealth.

You have probably noticed the increased rhetoric in the past few months from the President concerning the “evil health insurance companies.” He is saying they are the cause of skyrocketing healthcare costs and make too much money. Would you care to take a guess what their profit percentage averages? Twenty-five percent? Fifteen percent? No, 3.3%, that is it. They are ranked 40th (Fortune magazine reporting). This industry is behind the airlines (38th/3.6%), and Internet service providers (25th/7.2%), and topping the list is Network and Communications Equipment (think AT&T) at 28.8%. I know that profits are determined after all expenses and salaries are paid and one could argue that the senior management is overpaid thus reducing their profit. Check out their pay structure for yourself in their 10k financials. Insurance is not the cost driver here. There are many, but the insurance companies are not the bad guys. However, this administration wants them to be so they can take control of and eventually eliminate them and finally have a single-payer system or universal health that most socialistic countries have.

Many of you who read this will agree with me. Depending on the poll you read, between 51 and 59 percent of Americans were (are) against this law. Some of you will think I am a Limbaugh lunatic or that I have been Hannitized. I assure you I am a competent, educated individual who is capable of researching the facts and arriving at a decision. I urge you to do the same. We are living in dynamic times. This administration is doing all it can to redistribute the wealth and to take over as many companies and industries as it can. It started with the automotive industry, then banking, and now healthcare and it already has its sights set on energy companies. This is by definition socialism. Lenin remarked that socialism is just a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism. Watch the news; see what is going on. Get involved and be a part of the solution instead of sitting on the sidelines complaining.

In closing, I would urge each of you to watch what happens between the US and Israel. Since 14 MAY 1948, we have been an ally and friend

Will these companies still be here in 10 years?

of this great nation. We have been blessed by this relationship as God promised in Genesis 12:3 “I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” I have wondered how this administration will act towards Israel. It has shown great respect for all the Muslim countries and little to Israel. The administration blew out of proportion Israel’s news report of building on the West Bank while Vice-President Biden was in town and most recently, when President Benjamin Netanyahu was in DC. He did not receive the red carpet treatment visiting heads of state receive when they call on the President. President Obama would not pose for pictures with him; President Obama got up and left a meeting with President Netanyahu because Israel would not commit to stop building in Eastern Jerusalem and finally President Obama did not invite him to dinner, as is the custom (one that every president has done each time an Israeli president visited). Something will come of this, but I will save that for another note.

My opinions and thoughts might not be worth much, but I offer my two cents on this subject. This legislation will cost billions in direct costs and untold billions in indirect costs (fewer full-time employees, lost productivity, interest paid on borrowed money to finance, the devalued dollar as more will be printed), but the largest cost will be to our health care system. We have the best healthcare system in the world, everyone including two-bit despots around the world, who travel here to get well. This legislation will destroy a great country; I believe that to be the ultimate intent of this administration. When this administration starts messing with an industry that represents 1/6 of the economy, education, immigration, and gun control will soon follow. We have got to make this man a one-term president. 

Colt McCoy

Earlier tonight, I made a quick post about Texas quarterback Colt McCoy but I wanted to further express my admiration for this young

Colt McCoy

man. Think of this for a moment—this was his last night in a Texas uniform; he was undefeated and ready to take his team into battle one last time. Sadly it did not have the storybook ending so many of us are accustomed to, especially considering the fact this game was in the cradle of Hollywood where all movies end with the hero hoisted onto the shoulders of his teammates and carried off the field. This, however, was not the ending God had scripted from eternity past, but one that is best for this young man. Let us take a moment to put this into perspective to better enable us to understand the complete sense of loss this young man felt.

He returned for his senior year with but one goal—not to win the Heisman, which he finished in the top three voting the past two years—to win a National Championship. He led his Texas Longhorns to 45 victories and leaves as the winningest quarterback in not only the state of Texas, not only in the Big 12 Conference but also in all of NCAA history. Even better than our beloved Tim Tebow. Along the way, he broke nearly every record in school history. He was set for a showdown with destiny; to enter the Rose Bowl corral and shoot it out with the opposition to then ride off on horseback into the sunset of his college career. Instead, on the fifth play of the game, just two minutes into the game he is injured in a hit that even he admitted he has taken hundreds of times. 

At the end of the game, he faced the cameras and asked to comment on the situation. Yes, he was emotional—and no I do not hold this against him—but he took a moment to collect himself. He spoke of the great effort his team displayed, complimented backup quarterback Garret Gilbert on a job well done, and congratulated Alabama. To this point, this is what is scripted and expected, take the focus off you, and put it on others. It was his last statement that prompted this note. He gave praise to God and acknowledged Him in this circumstance. While I cannot remember his exact words, he stated he would never question God that he was a man of faith, and that no matter what he was firmly planted on “the Rock.” Many are quick to thank God when they win, but very few even mention him when something bad happens. Are we not to praise Him in all things? “Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” 1 Thessalonians 5:18. He had every right to stand there and complain, to express sour grapes but he did not. He put the game into perspective and praised his heavenly father.

I must admit that in my daily struggles that some of you are privy to; I do not give God all the praise and glory as I should. It is difficult when we look at the circumstance and try to praise Him; it is then we should shift our gaze heavenward and look past the circumstance. It took a young man from Texas to put this in perspective for me. I will finish with a wonderful Psalm “Because your love is better than life, my lips will praise you.”