Update on ‘Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.’

Our “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign continues to gain momentum. Yesterday, American Solutions delivered the first round of signatures - 350,000 - to the U.S. Senate urging them to take immediate action to lower gas prices by drilling for oil domestically.

We delivered the signatures to the offices of Senators Alexander, Clinton, Durbin, Ensign, Kyl, McCain, McConnell, Obama, Reid and Schumer urging them to offer real solutions to our energy challenges, beginning with using more of our domestic energy resources.

GO HERE and Sign the Petition Now! Join the 453,842 people who have signed the petition.

350,000 Strong for “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.”

Research Update

Nearly 80% of Americans support lowering energy prices by using domestic energy sources, even if it means drilling off our coasts and in Alaska, rather than suing OPEC.

[Discuss This Topic with The Bear]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Number of refineries declines but capacity expands

Investments in new capacity and improved technologies have enabled U.S. refiners to produce record amounts of fuels for consumers. However, for many years, the rate of return on investment in U.S. refining lagged behind the returns for the S&P Industrial average. It is only
in recent years that refiners have enjoyed higher average earnings. Refiners need to continually
invest, and do so even when earnings are lower.

While no new refineries have been built since 1976, the industry has added the equivalent of one new average-sized refinery each year over the last decade. Since 1985, refining capacity has increased by 20 percent even though we have 57 fewer refineries because it has been more efficient to expand at existing refineries. The infrastructure to bring crude in and get products out is in place, the permitting process is quicker, and it is more
cost-effective to add on to a refinery versus building a new one. In addition, the elimination
of subsidies under the government price and allocation controls in 1981 led to closure of
many smaller, less efficient refineries through the 1980s and 1990s.

Capacity has increased while at the same time, industry invested $50 billion to make the cleanest burning fuels in the world. Much of the investments were in technologies and investments to meet stringent clean air standards set by the Clean Air Act of 1990.

Energy legislation enacted in 2005 made a positive contribution by permitting accelerated
depreciation for certain U.S. refinery investments placed in service before 2012; this helped to
make U.S. refinery investments more attractive economically. According to the [tag]U.S. Energy
Information Administration[/tag], current domestic refinery expansion plans will boost domestic refining capacity by about one million barrels per day by 2012, the equivalent of five new refineries. Moreover, a number of refinery modifications or expansions have been announced to handle increased processing of heavier crude oils including synthetic oil derived from Canadian oil sands.

U.S. Crude Oil Resources

Our nation’s energy security requires policies that do not disadvantage the investor-owned
oil companies, but rather enables them to be competitive in the global marketplace. Our nation
needs policies that promote greater supplies of oil and natural gas, not policies that hinder our
industry’s ability to provide American consumers the energy they demand and need. We have
abundant volumes of oil and natural gas resources beneath federal lands and coastal waters, but the bulk of these resources have been placed off-limits to development.
For example, according to federal government estimates, there is enough oil in these areas to
power more than 60 million cars for 60 years.

U.S. Natural Gas Resources

There is enough natural gas to heat an additional 60 million homes for another 160 years. However, more than 85 percent of the coastal waters adjacent to the lower-48 states, and which extend up to 200 miles from our shores, are off-limits to oil and natural gas exploration. And, 75 percent of the most prospective, technically available U.S. onshore areas are off-limits or accessible only with significant restrictions.

U.S. Corn Use 2007-2008 (13 Billion Bushels)
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

Oil and Energy Policy

Politicians are mind boggling because they are destructive self serving individuals by nature lacking in the moral fortitude to lead but somehow we keep sending the same incompetent people back to Washington time and again. This can be only explained away by what Plato said a couple of thousand years ago….

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

There is no other area in our political spectrum where this is more apparent than our energy policies where the holier than thou gang proclaims “America Must End Their Dependence On Foreign Oil”. It would be hard to find anyone who would disagree with this but yet, when you look at the Democratic energy policies they are designed to insure our mutual self destruction. We literally bite the hand that feeds us.

At this point in time there is no alternate fuel other than oil, nor is there a need for one, here is an except from Cambridge Energy Research Associates in 2006….

In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels — three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents — and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.The new report describes CERA’s liquids supply outlook as “not a view of endless abundance.” However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030, but that the idea of a peak is itself “a dramatic but highly questionable image.”This means that there is time to consider the best way to develop viable energy alternatives that would eventually provide the bulk of our transport energy needs and ensure that there is a useable production stream of conventional crude for some time to come,” CERA concludes.

The full report can be read here…

Here is another link from United States Department of Energy chart that provides worldwide proven reserve figures. Please note that these resources are known to exist. These numbers do not include the energy resources that have not been found yet. It’s also important to note that several countries do not provide their reserve data.

So are we running out of oil? Not hardly, but in fact untapped supplies indicate that oil resources are growing. But when it comes to politics facts are irrelevant as compared to political agendas.

The 2007 Energy Bill passed by the Democrats set the stage for $18 billion in new windfall profit taxes on oil companies, which is a sure way of discouraging future research and development.

It established new foolish ethanol standards, which have removed 15% of our farmland from food production to make the ethanol equivalent of just 2% of our gasoline which have caused food prices to rise dramatically.

Under Section 526 of that law, tar sands are considered to be an alternative fuel. But the law requires oil sold to the U.S. government and produced from alternative sources to emit fewer greenhouse gases than oil produced from conventional crude sources.

Canada has an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of oil on its territory, much of it locked in tough-to-excavate tar sands in the province of Alberta. By comparison, oil-rich Saudi Arabia has an estimated 270 billion barrels left.

Classifying the oil sands as a non-conventional fuel limits our supplies from our number one oil supplier Canada that will only drive the price of oil up. I am sure that China and India won’t have a problem using tar sand oil.

So while the Democrats kowtow to the environmentalist’s lobby the American people are asked to bend over and grab their ankles.

For John McCain this can be a win-win policy on oil because the majority of American people will agree that it is time to end the environmentalist hold that is dictating our energy policy. The people are tired of giving their petro dollar to the Middle East Oil producers who promote terrorism. They ere tired of being squeezed at the gas pump by $100 per barrel oil prices while the Democrats chase windmills, wind farms and ethanol biofuels which cause food prices to rise.

The American people are ready for a sound energy policy which includes drilling and tapping our own natural oil resources.

But the difference between genius and stupidity of Congress is that genius has its limits.— paraphrase of Albert Einstein

Related

Ethanol Lobby Is Perpetrating A Cruel Hoax By WALTER E. WILLIAMS

One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline.

(snip)

Let’s look at some of the “wonders” of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.

Ethanol is 20% to 30% less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That’s enough corn to feed one person for a year.

Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel — oil and natural gas — to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers — all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol.

On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10% or 12%.

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn’t make it in a free market. That’s why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers.

In fact, there’s a double tax — one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

There’s something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil?

More here…

Clinton Link In Brazil Ethanol Probe

More here from CBS News

[Discuss This Topic with The Bear]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The Mortgage Mess

The Federal Reserve in 2002 offered the same remedy for an economic slump as they do today, they slashed interest rates to record lows which created an overheated housing market, The Fed was wrong then and they are about to repeat the same mistake again but this time it is more significant because they are fueling inflation.

The Housing Market is unique because it varies by location to location so it is hard to generalize when speaking about it. What happened to the housing market in Florida, Arizona and Las Vegas which saw unbelievably high growth in the value of homes and is not comparable to the Mid West or other areas which saw average growth. Over the past ten years just about every homeowner has seen the value of their house increase by a National Average of 10% per year. (Value has doubled in ten years.)

Nationally housing prices have fallen by an average of 10% and we may see more decline yet this year until the mortgage mess is corrected. In real terms that house you own for the past ten years may only be worth ¾ of increased value and not double. Mortgages are based on the LTV (Loan-to-value) and presently the average mortgage balance is 47% of the original loan on a National Average. This indicates that most Americans have substantial equity in their homes.

Home mortgages are a commodity they are brought and sold in bundles in the free market just like stocks on the exchanges by large institutions. Rarely does the originator of a loan hold it through its term. Just like all free markets from time to time go through a period of corrections, this is where the housing market is today. The market is telling us that prices rose to fast and to high and it is time for an adjustment.

Owning a home is still one of the best investments that an American family can make.

The latest numbers show 83 out of 10,000 mortgages are in foreclosure (less than 1%) and 5.2 % are delinquent which means that 94% of Americans are meeting their obligations.

But what has added chaos to the present mortgage crises is what I call the Enron Syndrome, Walk-a-ways and an incompetent Federal Reserve headed by Ben Bernanke. And to this you can add politicians who have ‘no clue’ what they are talking about but see the mortgage crises as a vote buying scheme.

The Enron Syndrome – The top dogs in the large institutions are nervous because what happened at Enron where the chiefs in charge went to jail because they OVER valued their holdings. So what we have today is caution and to be sure the large institutions are now UNDER valuing their assets which has added to the stock market slump.

Walk-a-Ways – I don’t have any exact numbers just yet but what is happening in Florida, Arizona and Las Vegas is people who speculated on Condos/Homes are putting the keys in the mail box and simply walking away. These are not poor people who need help they are investor who put 10% down (nominally speaking) looking to make a profit on a heated market and have seen value of their units decline beyond their investment and decided to minimize their loss.

So when everyone assumes that the foreclosure problem is totally among poor people they are wrong.

Ben Bernanke and The Fed – The more I have watched him and listened to what he has to say before Congress I have come to the conclusion that he no more sure of what he is doing than the man in the moon. I see a man struggling with his words and this leads to no confidence vote in my mind.

His latest suggestion that Lenders should renegotiate terms with borrowers in foreclosure borders on rank amateurism from an economist to pure insanity. He has suggested that lenders discount the principle amount of these loans to a point where borrower can afford the payment. His reasoning is that it will be cheaper for the lenders than foreclosing which is costly.

So for those in the 94% group of Americans who are making their mortgage payments on time I would say… I want a PRINCIPLE REDUCTION too and I deserve it just as much as anyone else! The idea that we could discount every mortgage in this country is beyond ridiculous because at that point we would have an economic collapse.

But the idea that we should help a few who made bad investments in the housing market is just as insane as to say we should help investors in the stock market whose stocks have gone down.

At this point we will have total chaos in our economic system, and you can see why I say the Fed chairman’s proposal is insane, especially coming from a man in his position.

Beyond that it breaks the basic contractual principles of law whereby lenders can not depend on the sanctity of a contract. Mortgages would become an endangered species.

What McCain has to do is come out for protecting the 94%’s home equity against deflation and guarding against inflation is a must. If you have to choose sides I would rather be on the 94% side. If need be he can call for changes in the Federal Reserve System.

Part III – Oil and Energy Policy (Tomorrow)

[Discuss This Topic with The Bear]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

The economy is a mess and inflation is upon us, history has shown that in an election year the party in power (The White House) will feel the wrath of the American voter.

Whether we are in a period of minimal growth or recession has yet to be determined but the reality of the situation is the economy is not healthy. Real wages have declined and the cruelest of all taxes is upon the American public, inflation which reduces the buying power of consumers.

And add to this is the “climate of perception”, the Democrats and the MSM will trumpet economic negativity and the anti-war left is about to run a series of TV ads blaming the Iraq War for the slowdown in the economy. Nothing could be farther from the truth but “perception” can be become reality as the drum beat goes on and I would expect no less from a party that always puts their own well being ahead of the interests of the country.

The true cost of the Iraq War is $500 billion plus according to the Congressional Budget Office, not the trillion dollar numbers tossed around by the MSM. On average the United States is spending about $125 billion dollars a year on the war. Now this is a significant amount of money but in a country that has a $14 trillion GDP it represents less than 1% of GDP.

Last fall I was asked by the Republican National Committee to blog on their behalf, but I declined because (and told them so) this blog is my own personal venue to speak my mind and this old Bear will serve no master. I will direct my fire at anyone who deserves it and party affiliation has no bearing when it comes to what I believe is right for America.

With that said, today I offer the Republican Party and their Presidential nominee, John McCain some sound advice on how to get conservatives to support him, for without the conservative vote, a potential McCain Presidency will go down in flames.

The true culprits for our economic woes are varied and many but given the state of the economy it will be the number one issue of the upcoming election.

On The Economy

Most American are economic morons and do not understand the way free markets work, so McMaverick economic message most be delivered in a way to explain in every common day language his proposals to right the economic ship.

The Value of the DollarThe American dollar has been in free fall and is at this time is at record lows as compared to other currencies in the world. Since this is a global economy (and it is) the more the dollars declines, the more expensive it becomes to buy foreign goods, oil and commodities for the American consumer.Real wages (buying power) have declined because of the weak dollar and for those of you who live in an economic abyss this means it cost more for the food on your table and gas at the pump.The manipulation of the value of the dollar comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve and they are caught between a rock and a hard place at this time. The FED has chosen to ignore the dollar and fight our economic slump by reducing interest rates to stimulate the economy. This in my mind is like worshiping false idols because any lower reduction in interest rates at this time will only fuel inflation which is now above the 3% acceptable level.Inflation is a killer tax because it reduces the consumers’ buying power! (But then I repeat myself)

Ronald Reagan once said (and I paraphrase) “No country can have a strong economy without a strong currency.” I endorse this and so should John McCain. McCain has to explain this in simple terms as I have tried above to the American public.

Related:

Democrats Blame the War for Crisis in the Economy

[Discuss This Topic with The Bear]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

There should have been little doubt left in the minds of viewers of Fox and Friends this week when, for the first time ever, Hillary Clinton granted an interview to Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson on Monday. Though she was not presented the ‘softball’ form of questions that she prefers, the first question from Gretchen was certainly not unreasonable. Paraphrasing Gretchen’s question, she asked the senator what she would consider the most important issue she would need to address as President.

Hillary indicated that there were actually two issues – ending the war in Iraq and healthcare for the masses. Certainly, these are not new thoughts from Hillary – but is this the pitch that a presidential candidate wants to make to a national audience that shuns (if not loathes) the likes of The Today Show, Good Morning America, Oprah, The View, and several other bastions of liberal propaganda?! She’ll spin her responses in multiple directions for any audience of left-wingers, but she clearly draws the line at protecting our national security.

Thanks for being honest, Hillary! Not that you do that easily, but between your socialistic approach to government and your pandering to the practitioners of victimization and entitlement, that response was a natural answer for you. That response should become instant fodder for conservative presidential candidates (a very small club!). I’m sure Barry Hussein Obama would like to use it as well, but he’d first have to look at himself in the mirror – and then cry.

It is certainly comforting to know that she didn’t bat an eye in skipping by the issues of the war against Islamic terrorism and illegal immigration. I don’t think she was enthralled with Doocy when he reminded her of these larger issues and that many Americans might disagree with her priorities.

And then, just in case we had forgotten, she reminded us of her experience – of which she has also become quite adept at inserting into her speeches and interviews. She told Doocy that her “35 years of experience” has made her the most qualified candidate to run this country. Where else than in today’s Democratic party can you throw around such empty claims? Anyone of Hillary’s generation can make the claim of 35 years of “experience” – but of what? Because she tends to pander to the intellectually deprived and gullible as well as socialist/communist Koolaid drinkers, they will accept and endorse any lie or distorted claim that she makes! What exactly has she ever managed other than her husband’s zipper and all of the subsequent damage control? And that, of course, would not exactly make her a poster child for effective management skills! Experience as a leader?! Of what?! Hillary is incapable of inspiring others to follow her (other that those that would follow the likes of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Tim Robbins, and Michael Moore). She is not leadership material – at least of a democratic republic. She is simply a pathetic power-mongering opportunist that remained married to the most disgusting excuse for a human being that our Presidency has ever known. If not for that relationship, she would not even be able to defeat any of the aforementioned jackasses or Charlie Sheen, Ted Kennedy, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marz, Rosie O’Donnell – or even Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi!

And as if that wasn’t enough of an eye opener about the prospects of a Hillary presidency, her slime-ball husband demonstrated the very next day that he too can make any claim and expect it to become gospel. His response to the same question about what Hillary would do first as president (aside from castrating her husband) would be to send him and Bush ‘41’ on a world tour to let the rest of the world know that the USA is once again open for business! Egos don’t come much more inflated that those of this piece of Arkansas trash – and then to think that people would buy the fact that George W.’s dad is going to sell out his son to celebrate the coming of another Clinton orgy?! God help us all to have the conviction to defeat this manifestation of Evil – they are wrong for this country and wrong for humankind.

By Rick who is On the Right Side of the Issues

[Discuss This Topic with The Bear at The Absurd Report]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

If you ask someone whether he wants American troops out of Iraq within a year or two, the answer is likely to be “yes.” Indeed, I would give that answer as well.

The question of whether most Americans want out of Iraq is not marginal as no sane person likes war and the idea of killing. However, at what point would the American people support withdrawal? Would the American people support a withdrawal even if doing so meant the US would have to accept defeat?

This certainly would lead to the total radicalization of the entire Middle East including moderate Arab countries like Jordan and Egypt plus the reestablishment of Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The ‘Surrender-crats’ have claimed a mandate from the 2006 Election results for immediate withdrawal but I haven’t seen any polls or other evidence to substantiate this.

Here are the numbers from the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives….

Public Opposes Immediate Troop Withdrawal

Low Support for Immediate Pullout
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News’ survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people” (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).

Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences
A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).

Majority Supports Funding War, Troops
[More...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

This week Howard announced the effective doubling of Australia’s military commitment to Afghanistan. This will reach 1000 Diggers by next year. It is one of the most dangerous and militarily important troop commitments Australia has made in decades.

The key to the new commitment, to leave within days, is a special forces group of 300. This will be made up of a Special Air Service contingent, backed up by commandos with heavier weaponry and armour, and a strong intelligence component.

There are two separate Allied operations in Afghanistan right now. There is Operation Enduring Freedom, led by the Americans with British participation. And there is the International Security Assistance Force, which is a NATO operation and manned mainly by Europeans and Canadians.

The Howard Government wanted to deploy its special operations group as part of Operation Enduring Freedom because it has a more robust mandate and stronger rules of engagement.

But this was opposed by the Dutch. Overall the Dutch have more than 2000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Australians, who form a 400-strong Reconstruction Task Force in Tarin Kowt in Oruzgun, work intimately with the Dutch.

The Australians have a high respect for the Dutch. But the Dutch are in Afghanistan as part of ISAF, not as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

ISAF has a long list of Taliban personnel it is prepared to target. These are the so-called high-value targets. However, at times the restrictions on its rules of engagement are ridiculous. If ISAF coalition forces discover a house with two Taliban high-value targets, and four other Taliban fighters who are not on the list of ISAF approved targets, it cannot attack the house. This is not a scenario of protecting civilians but of protecting Taliban targets who are just not specifically on the list.

The Australians were not interested in this kind of handicapped engagement. Sending soldiers into harm’s way is a serious and profoundly consequential business. Canberra’s view is you either send them in to do the business, or you’re better off not sending them at all. …

Most European nations that do deploy in Afghanistan do so in the much more relatively peaceful north, rather than the violent south where the Australians are.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has complained to the Europeans directly about this.

A number of the Europeans apply restrictive caveats to what their troops will and won’t do. One of the worst sorts of caveat is geographic, restricting their forces to particular provinces. This led to one notorious situation where Canadians were in military trouble and called for air support. Nearby Europeans wouldn’t give it because they could not leave their designated province. …

More from The Australian

[Discuss this post over at the Absurd Report...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

There is something that is unexplainable in our present American culture, you become a Hollywood Star and all of a sudden you are now considered an expert in American politics.

Such examples of expertise have been shown by lightweights Charlie Sheen, Sean Penn and others who have studied Political Science at the Hollywood school of “Hate America.” Instead of being beholden to a country that provides them to live in unbelievable luxury and millions of dollars for spending money they insist on tearing their benefactors down.

Once any individual has a public forum, with that forum comes creditability, the responsibility of trying to be as accurate and correct as humanly possible. This is not an issue of a ‘Right to Free Speech’; it is an issue of ‘Common Sense for Idiots.’

This is not to say that one can not have an opposing point of view but such opposition should be based on some semblance of fact; not on the hatred of a country and Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Our political culture has become so poisonous by the blabbering idiots of the Hollywood left malcontents and lying politicians seeking political gain that the Enemy Within has replaced Al Qaeda as the number one threat to Western Civilization. The American Public has been bombarded 24/7 for five solid years by the mainstream media with lies and distortions that it is no wonder why the average Joe can’t figure out fact from fiction.

“The View” is a product of ABC and as one of the big three alphabet channels it has to take the responsibility for the venom that it is airing and the people they hire.

Now let’s get down to the ‘Queen of Nuts’, Rosie the Riveter and her latest mindless tirades.

Rosie: Christianity is just as violent (If not more) as Islam is.

The Bear: I have no idea what she bases this on and I would venture that she doesn’t either but I do have this link for Islamic Terrorist attacks ……

Obliviously, I can find no such link for Christianity.

Rosie: The talk show host again promoted conspiracy theories this week regarding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, claiming the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was the result of a controlled demolition. (An inside job by the United States government.)

The Bear: Popular Mechanics explains why O’Donnell profoundly misunderstands the facts….Click For More

It is needless to go on with Rosie-isms because it is senseless to repudiate unabridged insanity through civil discourse. The best way to handle Rosie’s mindless antics is to let ABC and the sponsors of the show how you feel.

I finish with this quote….

“Our elites have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without inconvenience to themselves. Defeat would be an embarrassment to President Bush, but nothing more.” —Jack Kelly

[Discuss this post over at the Absurd Report...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)

An article in The Daily Mail (UK) reported that schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils. It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

I contend that once teachers and schools indulge in rewriting history for the sake of “political correctness” how are you ever going to learn from history and move forward if you pretend it never happened. Sweeping it under the carpet won’t make it go away.

What is really happening here is “political correctness” is just a way of hiding their fear of Muslim extremists. Once we go down this slippery slope there is no end to what these appeasers will do.
Shall we remove all the crosses from churches, shall we deny the existence of Jesus Christ or will the final straw be the denial of all religions except Islam.

This kind of shallow thinking about controversial subjects will only lead Western Civilization to its ultimate demise. History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness.

It is the Muslims that must adapt to the 21st Century, not all others reverting back to the 7th Century. Why are we so bothered by offending these people? If the truth offends them, that’s tough. We are offering them a chance to escape their merger camel and tent heritage and it is up to them to assimilate and enjoy the wonders of the modern world or remain the most ignorant backward people on the planet.

There is only one choice and it’s theirs.

[Discuss this post over at the Absurd Report...]

| Trackback URL | Comments (No Comments)