The Collier County School District in Florida is being sued in federal court for banning the distribution of the Bible on public school campuses. On Religious Freedom Day January 2009, school officials declared Bibles unwelcome and their distribution intolerable. The officials reasoned that distribution should be banned because the Bible lacks any educational benefit for students. 

Only a quarum of stupendous ignoramuses would claim that knowledge of the Bible has no redeeming educational benefit. The Bible not only was the only prescribed textbook during the early 1900s in this country, but it also continues to have a profound influence on the philosophies of Western, Eastern, and African cultures worldwide.

“There is overwhelming evidence of the need for biblical literacy in public education. … [T]he goal is not spreading a particular religion but preventing the spread of something far worse: a crippling kind of ignorance.” –Chuck Colson

Both classic and contemporary English and American literature is steeped in biblical figures, allusions, metaphors, symbols, legends, and morality. Generally speaking, English professors agree that educated people, regardless of faith, need to know about the Bible:

“Without such knowledge one reads productions of 19th century culture much in the manner of someone who tries to use a dictionary in which one-third of the words have been removed.” –George P. Landow, Brown University Professor

It’s doubtful that any writer has assimilated Scripture more abundantly than Shakespeare. His knowledge of the Bible is extensive, and Old and New testament books are characteristic throughout his plays. In the estimation of Victor Hugo, “England has two books, one which she has made and one which has made her: Shakespeare and the Bible.”

“[I]f a student doesn’t know any Bible literature, he or she will simply not understand whole elements of Shakespeare, Sidney, Spenser, Milton, Pope, Wordsworth.” –Robert Kiely, Harvard University Professor

More often than not, students entering college who know something about the Bible:

• are more sophisticated students;
• recognize literary allusions and references;
• understand how characterization in novels and thematic levels in poetry are linked to biblical allusions;
• understand and recognize the Christ figure;
• possess a better understanding for Victorian art and literature;
• understand the parable genre;
• understand literary analysis;
• understand questions of canonicity and non-biblical literature;
• appreciate the tone of the politics of the 16th and 17th centuries; and
• can discuss “meaning” and “values” with understanding and insight.

The importance of reading the Bible is not limited merely to effectively transitioning to the academic world; American presidents have always advocated biblical literacy.

“So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens in their country and respectful members of society.” –John Adams

“Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet-anchor of your liberties … To the influence of this book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide for the future.” –Ulysses S. Grant

“The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state.” –Harry S. Truman

“Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible. …. The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers’ abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual … as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.” –Ronald Reagan

Since the country’s founding, God-fearing Americans have implicitly understood that “it is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people because biblical principles are the basis for human freedom. Whether educated or not, Americans can ill afford “to be ignorant of the Bible.” 

The school officials’ foolhardy ban against the distribution of Bibles on campus is a “crime against humanity” for behind their fallacious reasoning lies a humanistic attempt to belittle the very best book “that ever was or ever will be known in the world.” 

Their authoritarianism is nothing new; it is patterned after every tinhorn dictator stomping on a human face since the beginning of time. Technological advancements may make their approach to the destruction of freedom a bit more refined and sophisticated, but their aim to repress intellectual freedom and cleanse society of old ideas mirrors the iron rule of every totalitarian state:  freedom of conscience is an enemy and biblical principles a menace.

“For more than a thousand years the Bible, collectively taken, has gone hand in hand with civilization, science, law–, in short, with the moral and intellectual cultivation of the species, always supporting and often leading the way.” –Samuel Taylor Coleridge

In short, the Bible has shaped much of Western civilization and without its guiding influence, the dignity, worth, and rights of Americans will be rendered obsolete.

“We have gone through the epoch when the masses were oppressed. We are now going through the epoch when the individual is oppressed in the name of the masses.” –Yevgeny Zamyatin

“I loved what happened in the Bork hearings. … The Bork hearings were great. The Bork hearings were educational.”

–Elena Kagan on Breitbart TV.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but the Senate rejected his nomination following an intensely partisan debate led by Senators Ted (now dead) Kennedy and Joe (teats on a boar) Biden.

The Bork confirmation hearings were arguably the most contentious in the two-hundred-year history of the U.S. Constitution. The hearings were nothing more than a witch hunt to slander and smear a great legal mind to gain ideological control over the Court and the Constitution.

The majority of the senators who questioned Bork were focused on his vilification, not his jurisprudence. In particular, Kennedy used slanderous accusations and outright lies to demonize him.

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan … should not be able to … impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.”

–Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) quoted on Power Line.

The Economist agreed with Bork that

“There was not a line in Ted Kennedy’s speech that was accurate.”

Kennedy’s excoriating witch hunt worked so well to discredit the judge, whose legal competence and personal integrity were beyond doubt, that the word “borked” was invented as a verb to describe a Supreme Court or federal judgeship nominee who was denied confirmation as a result of sustained public disparagement.

Bork was rejected because he viewed the Constitution as the “the Founders’ Constitution” bound by original intent and not as a “living” instrument subjected to the interpretive whims of a leftist judiciary.

“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.”

–Charles Austin Beard from Wikiquote.

Bork argued that the court’s task is to adjudicate and not to “legislate from the bench”; i.e., judges should restrain from ad hoc pronouncements or subjective value judgments in deciding cases.

“We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no law other than their own will.”

–Judge Robert Bork as quoted in Eagle Forum.

The rule of law and the Constitution would be more secure had Bork joined Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas on the high court, but instead the Senate will likely add another Brother O lackey to join Sotomayor, only this one doesn’t know that we live in a Constitutional Republic not a Constitutional Democracy.

“The Bork hearings were the best thing that ever happened to Constitutional Democracy.”

–Elena Kagan on Breitbart TV.

Not only are the two aforementioned forms of government dissimilar, they are antithetical. From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles:

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

In a democracy, the power of the majority is unlimited lacking legal safeguards to protect the rights of the individual and the minority; in a republic, the power of the majority is limited by a constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority.

According to Bork, Kagan’s regard for the Israeli Supreme Court’s quintessential activist judge Aharon Barak as her “judicial hero” disqualifies her to sit on the Supreme Court. Kagan’s acclamation of Barak, whom Bork considers “the worst judge on the planet” and whom federal appeals court judge Richard Posner says “is a law unto himself,” reveals her potential as an activist justice.

“I try to be guided by my North Star, which is justice. I try to make law and justice converge, so that the Justice will do justice.”

–Aharon Barak, Israeli Supreme Court justice, as quoted in National Review.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter” when it’s their world view they share, and not just rhetoric.

If Senate Republicans cared as much about the Constitution and the political direction of the country as they do about maintaining a cordial relationship with leftist Democrats and the lapdog media, they would to do a time-limited filibuster of Kagan until after the August recess to make her confirmation hearings as educational for Americans as Bork’s were for her.

A Missouri VA hospital may have infected veterans with hepatitis and HIV. A failure by dental technicians to clean instruments properly at a VA hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, may have exposed nearly 2,000 veterans to hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The John Cochran VA Medical Center recently notified 1,812 veterans that they could have been infected with hepatitis and HIV viruses after visiting the medical center for dental work.

Dr. Gina Michael, the association chief of staff at the hospital, said that some dental technicians neglected to properly sanitize dental equipment. According to Michael, the techs thought they were doing the right thing in protecting the delicate instruments by hand washing them in a sink with strong soap instead of following protocol and sending them to the hospital sanitizing and sterilizing department.

The hand washing of tools had been on going for over a year (February 2009 – March 2010) until discovered by a routine inspection from headquarters. Michael is urging those who were exposed to blood borne pathogens to get blood tests.

In a letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) called the issue “unacceptable” and asked for a formal investigation and a remedy so that the unfortunate issue “never occurs again.”

The VA health care system demonstrates the real-world effects of socialized medicine. For decades VA hospitals have mistreated veterans and only recently have made minor improvements in record keeping and medical care, yet serious deficiencies remain.

In the run-up to the government health care takeover, Carnahan was Brother O’s toady touting the efficiencies and surplus of a government-run healthcare system.

During a St. Louis Community College healthcare forum, Carnahan was asked, “If it’s so good, why doesn’t Congress have to be on it?” Carnahan ignored his constituent’s question. We can only hope his constituents return the favor and ignore him in November.

Related:

KSDK, St. Louis — St. Louis VA Medical Center dental infections: Nearly 2,000 at risk by Mike Owens

CNN — VA hospital may have infected 1,800 veterans with HIV

A Senate committee unanimously approved major cybersecurity legislation which would allow Brother O to shut down Internet networks, block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries, and force private websites to comply with broad cybersecurity measures.

Last Thursday the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee agreed to send the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 to the Senate floor for a vote. The Act will create a White House Office of Cyberspace Policy and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) center to adopt cybersecurity policies related to federal and private sector networks.

The legislation, crafted by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Tom Carper (D-DE) is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the federal government. Lieberman’s “Kill switch” bill parallels last year’s legislation by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) granting the government power to disconnect certain websites.

“We need this capacity in a time of war…. for the president to say, ‘Internet service provider, we’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country, or we have to put a patch on this part of it’.” –Joe (Droopy Dog) Lieberman on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley

Droopy Dog’s “Kill switch” bill would hand Brother O absolute power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight. His loosely worded bill also gives DHS’ new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) “significant authority” to monitor the “security status” of private websites, ISPs and other U.S. net-related business, and critical internet components in other countries.

“Companies would be required to take part in ‘information sharing’ with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that ‘relies on’ the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure’ would also be ‘subject to command’ by the NCCC under the proposed new law.” — Andy Chalk

Privacy and civil liberties groups fear that Droopy Dog’s “Kill switch” bill would grant Brother O the power to declare a “national cyber-emergency” at his discretion, which could force private Internet service providers and search engines to limit or cut off a whistle-blowing or political site’s connection to the Web for blaming or criticizing the Bread and Circuses administration.

“We have seen through recent history that in an emergency, the Executive Branch will interpret grants of power very broadly.” –Gregory Nojeim, from the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that promotes Internet freedom

“The way it seems to be worded, the bill could easily represent a threat to free speech.” –Wayne Crews, vice president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute

Droopy Dog is pushing his “Kill switch” bill “at lightning speed” because he says the country’s “economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from … cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”

“The need for this legislation is obvious and urgent.” –Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

“We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources.” –Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Ginning up fears to rush legislation helps to mask the “Kill switch” bill’s real purpose, which is to keep the alternative Internet media from exposing the mainstream media propagandists in their whitewashing of government favoritisms, cover-ups, and atrocities. After all, the fear card worked to rush through and hide the real agenda behind the Wallstreet/Automotive industry bailouts, the Porkulus package, and the ObamaCare bill.

Interestingly, the communist Chinese also claim the need to police and censor the Web to maintain security and combat cyber warfare, but the totalitarian government’s real agenda is to silence those who criticize it. It would appear that Droopy Dog, whom Glenn Beck heralds as a man of honor, wants to add a technological iron curtain to quell America’s ambiance.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.” –Lieberman told Crowley

First Iran shuts down the Internet to quash a revolution, then Pakistan shuts down Facebook and Google to blackout “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day,” and now members of the U.S. Senate are mimicking communist China’s censorship and coercion policies to stifle Internet media outlets and bloggers who are quickly displacing the statists’ mainstream press organs.

Lieberman, whom Sean Hannity embraces as a friend and a “good guy,” declares his bill is “not a big deal,” and that his critics are over reacting and “intentionally peddling misinformation.” According to the conscience of the Senate, the President already has the authority under the Communications Act to close any facility or station for wire communication, “So I say to my friends on the Internet, relax.”

In the wake of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) floating of the Drudge tax as a way to fund mainstream newspapers and to tax out of existence their competitors in the alternative media, George Orwell’s discernment might be better suited for Lieberman than either Hannity’s or Beck’s.

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Lieberman: China Can Shut Down The Internet, Why Can’t We (2:04 Video)

Competitive Enterprise Institute — Lieberman-Collins-Carper Bill Threatens Nation’s Cybersecurity

Matthew Simmons, one of the world’s foremost oil experts and former energy adviser to President George W. Bush, told interviewers that a small-bore nuclear device is now the only option that will stop the Deep Horizon oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Simmons believes BP has been withholding the facts of the spill from the American people, and he doesn’t think the company’s planned relief well will work because the well casing is gone and relief wells only work when the hole has a casing in it.

Simmons claims scientists aboard the NOAA ship Thomas Jefferson, America’s largest research vessel, have discovered a lake of very heavy oil 300 to 400 meters wide and 1100 meters below the surface that covers 40 percent of the Gulf of Mexico. Simmons points out that BP’s attempts to stop the leak have either failed or aren’t working well:

• First Attempt: Containment Dome resulted in failure
• Second Attempt: Top Hat resulted in failure
• Third Attempt: Insertion Tube resulted in failure
• Fourth Attempt: Top Kill resulted in failure
• Fifth Attempt: Cut and Cap not working well
• Sixth Attempt: Relief Wells to be completed in late August

According to Simmons, BP’s failures leave only two options: live with 120,000 barrels of oil a day poisoning the Gulf of Mexico and maybe the Atlantic Ocean for the next 25 or 30 years or put a nuclear device down the hole and detonate it.

“[I]t’s an open hole. And the only way we’ll ever put it out is detonating something that will fuse the rock right above the oil column into glass. And the only way that anyone’s ever done that is the four times the Soviets did that in the ’70s with a very small bore nuclear device. So I think that’s now our only option.” –Matthew Simmons

Watch Simmons Says Nuclear Device Only Option to Stop Oil Leak (5:43):

Watch Gulf Oil Spill: Matt Simmons @ MS-NBC: Leak could last 30 years, open hole with no casing in it? (6:17):

Related:

CNN Money — The Gulf Coast oil spill’s Dr. Doom, an Interview by Nin-Hai Tseng

As an oil and gas industry insider, Matt Simmons speaks with a bold voice and makes even bolder predictions. His 2005 book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, which argued that Saudi Arabia’s oil supplies are way more limited than most people think, raised his profile as an authority on the industry.

For more than 35 years, Simmons has run a Texas-based boutique investment bank, Simmons & Co., which specializes in the energy industry. At times, with his somewhat doom-and -loom-like take on things, there’s a hint of conspiracy theorist in his tone. But it’s hard to ignore that Simmons is deeply connected and has been pretty much right on in the past: When oil was $58 a barrel the year Twilight was released, Simmons predicted prices would be at or above $100 within a few years. By 2008, when Fortune profiled Simmons, the price of crude had hit $147 a barrel.

As a big believer that wind power is the way of the future, Simmons says the era of easy oil is over and that world oil production will eventually fail to meet expected future demands.

These days, Simmons has been weighing in on BP (BP) and the worst oil spill in U.S. history, following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. As BP struggles to permanently stop the gush of oil, Simmons has been warning that the scale of the spill is much bigger and that there’s a larger leak several miles away.

Simmons also thinks that perhaps the only way to seal the gush of oil is by doing what the Soviet Union did decades ago — setting off a bomb deep underground so that the fiery blast will melt the surrounding rock and shut off the spill.

Fortune caught up with Simmons this week to hear his thoughts on the Gulf Coast oil spill, the future of BP and what’s ahead for offshore drilling.

Experts forecast an active hurricane season this year. We know it could disrupt efforts to stop the spill, but how else do you think storms could impact the Gulf Coast?

We’ve got to stop the gusher first. Then we have to deal with the other issues. There’s a lake at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico that’s over 100 miles wide and at least 400 to 500 feet deep of black oil. It’s just staying there. And only the lightest of that is what we’re seeing hitting the shores so far. If a hurricane comes and blows this to shore, it could paint the Gulf Coast black. We should have been pumping this oil out onto other tankers weeks ago.

How do you think the U.S. government should handle this disaster?

I think the government should ask BP to leave the United States and turn its operation over to the military. Put the U.S. Navy in charge. Have all the contractors report to the Navy — the cleanup efforts, the whole nine yards. Because as long as it’s in BP’s hands, they’re going to spin the information as long as they can.

What do you think is in store for the future of BP?

They have about a month before they declare Chapter 11. They’re going to run out of cash from lawsuits, cleanup and other expenses. One really smart thing that Obama did was about three weeks ago he forced BP CEO Tony Hayward to put in writing that BP would pay for every dollar of the cleanup. But there isn’t enough money in the world to clean up the Gulf of Mexico. Once BP realizes the extent of this my guess is that they’ll panic and go into Chapter 11.

There’s currently a ban on new deepwater oil projects for six months to prevent other disasters. What lies ahead for offshore drilling?

First of all, to the industry’s credit, we went 41 years in the United States without an oil spill. In a minor sense, this is what happened to the Challenger. We had so many successful shuttle takeoffs that the space station got kind of casual about this. But this is worse. BP was so certain that there wasn’t any risk that three years ago they thought the insurance industry was ripping them off, so they’re self-insured on this. How stupid! It was the best thing that ever happened to the insurance industry.

How do you think the Gulf Coast oil spill will change the energy business, if at all?

Profoundly. We’re going to have to go back and re-examine all of our regulatory rules and realize the easy stuff is imminent and the rest of the stuff we do is really risky. We have to start questioning whether it’s worth the risk, and do we need to get really serious about developing some alternative energy sources? Now I’m working on a big project in mid-coast Maine called the Ocean Energy Institute, and we’re hoping that within the next year we can actually create 50 megawatt offshore wind turbines — one every five miles a part — and turn that offshore electricity into desalinated sea water and liquid ammonia. It could replace motor gasoline and diesel fuel.

What are the lessons learned from this environmental disaster?

That oil peaked. The easy stuff is over. We have to continue drilling in shallow water, but we probably need to take a deep breath and step back. Until we develop a new generation of equipment that can respond to these accidents, just don’t go into the ultra-deep water and deep formations because it’s just too risky.

or, Converting an Environmental Crisis into an Environmental and Economic Catastrophe.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar altered a signed report submitted by seven experts who had been advisors to Brother O on offshore drilling safety following the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The Chicago-way practitioner added two paragraphs to the final report calling for an immediate halt to drilling operations and a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs. 

“The experts … involved in crafting the report gave … their recommendation … It was not their decision on the moratorium. It was my decision and the president’s decision to move forward” [with the moratorium. --Ken Salazar

But Salazar submitted the report without notifying the experts that he had added the moratorium recommendation. He then reported to Brother O that the panel of experts had “peer reviewed” his recommendations for the moratorium. 

“None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report. What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation.” –Ken Arnold, one of the seven oil experts

The experts, who had been recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, wrote a letter to Salazar complaining that he had misrepresented their opinions and that the moratorium on drilling was a bad idea for the following reasons:

• Shutting down a rig is much more dangerous than continued drilling; the Deep Well Horizon exploded while being shut down.
• Floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide; they won’t simply sit idle in the Gulf for six months; they will move to the North Sea and West Africa and won’t be back to resume drilling for years. 
• The best and most advanced rigs will leave first, leaving the older and potentially less safe ones operating off of the U.S. coast.

To compound the environmental consequences of the spill, Brother O and Salazar released an altered report to justify an economic shut down to huge parts of the Gulf region. Brother O’s moratorium on deepwater drilling affects 33 platforms, each one employs between 180 and 280 jobs, and each one of those jobs directly supports at least four other industry related jobs. 

The moratorium is hurting the people in the Gulf states. More than 120,000 jobs could be lost in the region if the drilling ban continues. The ban will keep the country dependent on foreign oil, cause energy prices to skyrocket, and add an economic disaster to an environmental crisis.

What is more, in the middle of the unfolding catastrophe, Brother O remains aloof from the clamor of the devastation in the Gulf. Spellbound by a grandiose sense of self-importance, America’s false messiah stands naked before the world, a dithering master of empty platitudes gushing hot air to the dirty, itching ears of the fools who elected him. 

For more information on the altered report and the effects of the moratorium in the Gulf region, see

Washington Examiner — Injunction notes that Obama admin manipulated experts’ opinions in moratorium decision by Joel S. Gehrke Jr.

The Foundry — Jindal vs. Obama: Time to End the Drilling Moratorium by Mike Brownfield

Fox News — Experts Say White House ‘Misrepresented’ Views to Justify Drilling Moratorium

Democrat Party officials, politicians, labor leaders, and left-wing organizers have adopted a strategy to drastically transform America’s electorate through illegal immigration that will guarantee one-party rule and a socialist dictatorship.

The Curley Effect strategy reduces the political clout of the middle class by reshaping the American electorate. The strategy is named for Irish-American Mayor James Michael Curley, who transformed Boston from a city of poor Irish-Catholics and white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) into an all-Irish city that would keep reelecting him.

Curley effectively drove the WASPs away by adopting government policies to confiscate their wealth and fiery rhetoric to increase his base among the poorer Irish.

The Curley Effect is a conscious effort to shape the demographics of an office-holder’s electorate by adopting destructive policies aimed at opposition voters, even when such policies cause an economic downturn for the political jurisdiction. The Curley Effect occurs when the incumbent does everything to ensure the probability of reelection and disregards the economy of the jurisdiction as the crucial determinant for reelection.

The Curley Effect happened in Detroit under Mayor Coleman Young and in Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe. During 24 years as mayor of Detroit, Young drove white residents and businesses out of the city, yet he remained popular among blacks who kept reelecting him, in spite of the city’s deteriorating economic base.

The Curley Effect also happened in Zimbabwe when President Robert Mugabe mistreated white farmers and openly encouraged their emigration despite the huge cost to the country’s economy.

Democrats know their party doesn’t do well nationally among white voters, compared to Republicans, but they do extremely well among black and poorer Hispanic voters, which is why they oppose Arizona’s enforcement of immigration law and promote comprehensive immigration reform.

Although Democrats claim to support mass immigration for “humanitarian” or “moral” reasons, their objective is to transform America’s electorate by granting millions of poor, low-skilled illegals immunity and citizenship to solidify their political base and ensure their power in perpetuity.

If the Democrat strategy succeeds, not only will America’s racial and cultural composition be forever changed, but also its political and religious liberties will be extinguished in the embrace of communitarianism.

For additional information about the Democrat plan to use the The Curley Effect to achieve political power by reshaping America’s electorate, see The Immigration Plot by Jerry Woodruff.

Iowa Republican Steve King broke with the leadership and agreed that Texas Congressman Joe Barton was right in calling Brother O’s strong-arm tactics to force BP to create a $20 billion escrow account for victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill a “shakedown.”

“Joe Barton was spot-on when he called it a ‘shakedown.’ If you look at all they have nationalized during this administration … it should tell you, they want to swallow up as many Fortune 500 companies as they can.” –Representative Steve King

Pantywaist Republicans, which include Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, Alabama Representative Jo Bonner, and Florida Representative Jeff Miller, have joined the Democrat chorus to denounce Barton’s remarks. Bonner and Miller even threatened to strip Barton of his House Energy and Commerce Committee position if he didn’t apologize for the apology he made to BP for the White House’s “shakedown” of the oil producer.

The three Republican lawmakers chose to pander to their outraged constituents rather than uphold the rule of law and fight the Constitutional breach by the would-be dictator. What Brother O did to BP was nothing short of a Chicagoland mob-style “shakedown” in forcing money from the hands of a private business. At the behest of Brother O, BP

1. agreed to pay $20 billion over four years to an “independent” party;
2. identified $20 billion in U.S. assets that could be liquidated should BP not be able to pay on time;
3. received no assurances that the ultimate economic damages would not be higher;
4. remained liable for all individual and state claims in court;
5. kept the fund completely separate from any environmental damages, which the Bread and Circuses administration says could top $30 billion;
6. paid $100 million to workers who are unemployed because of Brother O’s moratorium on offshore oil drilling; and
7. received no assurance that Brother O would not ask for more money if the ban becomes permanent.

All that BP got in return was a statement from Brother O saying he didn’t want to drive BP into bankruptcy, a response suggestive of an “Empty yer pockets and maybe I’ll let ya live” thugocracy.

The Constitution does not give the President dictatorial powers to ensure victims get what’s coming to them. The Executive Branch does not house a Cosa Nostra Don, and the United States is not some banana republic with a ruling dictator who can intentionally ignore its Constitution and arbitrarily step outside the laws and procedures of its judiciary.

If America continues to operate as a criminal enterprise, it will soon lose its hard earned reputation in the world as a responsible country and become just another rogue state ruled by a despotic regime.

The Republican leadership either no longer knows or has forgotten the importance of adhering to the underlying authority of the Constitution and following the rule of law. Patriots need to remind them in November by electing representatives like Steve King and Joe Barton who will stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law even when it’s not popular to do so.

Two months into the Deepwater Horizon oil catastrophe and the cleanup in Louisiana and the other Gulf Coast states is starting to show signs of a bureaucratic SNAFU. It’s tough sledding when several agencies have absolute veto power, but nobody’s in charge.

“[E]very time you talk to someone different … you get a different answer.”–Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Governor

Jindal spent over ten days appealing for common sense remedies to bureaucrats and brass who possess neither common sense nor remedies.   Jindal has been fighting desperately for oil sucking barges to siphon crude from Louisiana’s oil-laden waters.  And when he finally got them out in the Gulf sucking oil from the water…

“The Coast Guard came and shut them down. … men on the barges … have been told by the Coast Guard, ‘Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.’”–Bobby Jindal

Although the barges were sucking up thousands of gallons of oil, they were shut down and sat idle for over 24 hours because the Coast Guard brass couldn’t reach the people who built the barges to confirm whether the vessels had fire extinguishers and life vests.

Jindal said he didn’t have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard brass, so he took his problem to some bureaucrats in the Bread and Circuses administration. The barges were finally sent back to work, but it took more than 24 hours for the order to come down. 

“They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible.”–Bobby Jindal 

Alabama Governor Bob Riley said that he’s also had problems with the Coast Guard brass. Riley requested an ocean boom that would handle large waves to protect the coastline. The Coast Guard found a boom in Bahrain but deployed it to Louisiana instead of Alabama.

Although the governors and the Coast Guard have developed a planned course of action for the cleanup, the problem is how to cut through EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service redtape to carry out the cleanup action efficiently. 

“It’s like this huge committee down there, and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power.”–Bob Riley, Alabama Governor

Perhaps a few camera-starved Democrats in Congress will summon a couple of these faceless agency bureaucrats before one of their show-trial tribunals as they did BP chief executive Tony Hayward and give them a couple of turns on the spit regarding mismanagement, incompetence, and wasted resources in the Gulf cleanup effort.   

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF OIL SPILL CLEANUP? (3:11 min)

Tail wag: Hope n’ Change Cartoons

The idea that renewable green energy produces no pollution or no environmental impact is laughable. The immutable laws of thermodynamics apply to renewable green energies too, which means energy cannot be created; it can only be converted from one form to another, causing pollution or loss depending on the energy source.

For example, to convert the energy in sunlight or the energy in wind to a useable form requires a system to harness the energy, and building the system is where the greatest amount of the pollution is generated.

A lot of energy is used and a lot of pollution is generated in the production of solar panels, which use polysilicon. The highly toxic silicon tetrachloride is a byproduct of polysilicon production. Silicon tetrachloride poses an environmental hazard; wherever it is dumped or buried the land becomes infertile. Recycling it requires vast amounts of energy and generates even more pollution.

The panels also use nitrogen triflouride (NF3) gas in their solar cells, which is 17,000 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. NASA reports that nitrogen triflouride levels in the atmosphere have quadrupled and are increasing at a rate of about 11 percent per year.

“Unfortunately, [people in general] don’t consider the effects of manufacturing when they see a wind turbine turning without a smoke stack, or a solar panel operating seemingly without environmental effect, or a hydrogen fuel cell converting electricity with water and steam appearing to be the only byproducts. This gives a false impression as to the true environmental cost of the technology.”—Chris J Kobus

To fully grasp the consequences of adopting wind and solar energy, it’s necessary to examine their footprints. For example, it would take a wind farm with at least 500 tall windmills spread over 30,000 acres to generate the same amount of electricity produced by a 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant. For solar power, it would take over 250 of Colorado’s most productive utility-scale 8.2 MW solar-power plants and 20,000 acres to replace just one 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant on less than 40 acres of land.

Until someone makes a major breakthrough in the storage of high-density electricity, a problem vexing scientists for more than a hundred years, promoting renewable green energy as a viable alternative to fossil fuels is more about wishful thinking than actual science.

For more information on the myths and realities of renewable green energy, see Renewable Energy: There Ain’t No Free Lunch by Chris J. Kobus and Energy Myths and Realities by Keith O. Rattie.