When Social Security was established the age of 65 was the minimum age and it was beyond life expectancy at that time. The government did not expect you to live to the eligibility age.
Choose a time in the future. Let's use age 25 as the age of child bearing. In 2005 a baby is born, in 2030 that baby is 25 and produces offspring. Beginning with those people born in 2030 and beyond the eligibility age is 5 years beyond whatever life expectancy is at that time. That age would be adjusted every 50 years. Beginning in 2055 people with an income, by work or by investment or by inheritance, of $30,000 over the poverty level at that time would not be eligible to receive any income from the Social Security program. That level would be evaluated every 50 years.
Social Security would not be used for any other purposes.
If you don't like those specific ages or amounts pick those you prefer, the principal is the same.
Monday, August 29, 2005
What the Constitution Says and Does Not Say
The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy was based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as the one that struck down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives. As a constitutional matter Roe v. Wade was absurd. Its trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.
Although the Constitution does not mention a right of privacy, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. In addition, it is said that a right of privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as: the 3rd Amendment, the 4th amendment, and the 5th Amendment.
The root of the problem is the inherent ignorance of the citizens of the United States of what the Constitution says and does not say. As long as the people remain ignorant their rights will continue to be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has broadened Roe v Wade to include all trimesters.
My guess is you think the Constitution contains statements such as: “separation of church and state”; “trial by a jury of your peers”; that it comments on “marriage”; talks about “judicial review” but it does not. All of those are man-made or shall I say lawyer-made. How about: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, no, the Declaration of Independance; or how about “of the people, by the people, for the people”, no again, Gettsburg Address.
Until the citizens of the United States educate themselves as to the duties and responsibilities of government, President, Congress, Judicial the elite will reign.
Referenced Constitutional Amendments:
3rd Amendment (1791) --- No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4th Amendment (1791) --- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment (1791) --- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time or war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
9th Amendment (1791)--- The enumeration in the Constituion, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
14th Amendment (1868) Process Clause of Section 1 --- No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Although the Constitution does not mention a right of privacy, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. In addition, it is said that a right of privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as: the 3rd Amendment, the 4th amendment, and the 5th Amendment.
The root of the problem is the inherent ignorance of the citizens of the United States of what the Constitution says and does not say. As long as the people remain ignorant their rights will continue to be infringed upon. The Supreme Court has broadened Roe v Wade to include all trimesters.
My guess is you think the Constitution contains statements such as: “separation of church and state”; “trial by a jury of your peers”; that it comments on “marriage”; talks about “judicial review” but it does not. All of those are man-made or shall I say lawyer-made. How about: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, no, the Declaration of Independance; or how about “of the people, by the people, for the people”, no again, Gettsburg Address.
Until the citizens of the United States educate themselves as to the duties and responsibilities of government, President, Congress, Judicial the elite will reign.
Referenced Constitutional Amendments:
3rd Amendment (1791) --- No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4th Amendment (1791) --- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment (1791) --- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time or war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
9th Amendment (1791)--- The enumeration in the Constituion, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
14th Amendment (1868) Process Clause of Section 1 --- No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
We The People, Need to Wakeup
It is not uncommon for people to think that whenever the military is used, our rights as citizens of a free country are at stake and that is not correct. The last time someone died for our freedoms was during WWII.
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8(11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton wrote, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.
The Constitution assigns the power to declare war exclusively to the legislature. Modern supporters of the doctrine of president-as-Caesar like to remind us that convention delegates changed Congress' authority from "make" to "declare" war, but they did so only to allow the president the authority to respond to a sudden attack. When Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, formally proposed giving the president the power to start war, Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, said that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war." Butler's motion was quickly rejected.
The reasoning of the conferees in opposing Butler's measure was simple. Virginia's George Mason explained, the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, observed that the new constitutional system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose."
Even Hamilton agreed with Jefferson on this point, which he rarely did, pointing out that the war powers of the president were "in substance much inferior to" that of the British king. And Hamilton supported this result even while backing strong executive power. As he wrote in the Federalist No. 75: The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.
This fundamental concern of the Constitution's framers — an unwillingness to trust "a single man . . . to involve us in such distress," in Wilson's words — has certainly been validated by American history. The manifold dishonest and secret machinations of this century's presidents, especially the "strong" ones so highly rated by historians, prove how dangerous it is to trust chief executives with minor grants of authority, let alone the power to take the nation into war. If requiring a legislative vote is no guarantee that the public will be protected from unnecessary and bloody national crusades, it does at least force a debate and more easily allow voters to ultimately hold someone responsible for their decisions.
Against this historical record there is no serious disagreement. George Bush, for instance, stated that "I don't think I need it" when asked if congressional approval was necessary before attacking Iraq. Why? "Many attorneys," he said, had "so advised me." He apparently did not bother to read the Constitution himself. Onetime law professor Bill Clinton offered no better justification. When it came to both Bosnia and Haiti in late 1993, Clinton said that he opposed "any attempts to encroach on" his prerogatives. He did, however, echo George Bush in saying that he would "encourage congressional authorization of any military involvement in Bosnia." As for Haiti, he stated last August: "I would welcome the support of the Congress and I hope that I will have that. But like my predecessors in both parties, I have not agreed that I was constitutionally mandated to get it." In short, the president desired a guaranteed affirmative vote. The Constitution, however, does not limit Congress to voting yes.
That the Constitution gives Congress the final decision as to war and peace does not mean that there are no gray areas. But the existence of some unclear cases does not mean that there are no unambiguous instances where congressional approval is required, such as defending South Korea from North Korea, spending a decade warring in Indochina, invading Panama and Haiti, transporting a half-million soldiers to the Middle East to attack Iraq, conquering Haiti, and intervening on Bosnia's side in the Balkans civil war.
What conceivable justification is there for ignoring the Constitution's straightforward requirement in cases such as these? Advocates of expansive executive war power — oddly enough, including those who claim to believe in a jurisprudence of "original intent" — have come up with a number of reasons to give the president virtually unrestrained authority to act. One is that the president has some undefined "foreign affairs power" that apparently overrides the war powers provision. Yet, the Constitution carefully circumscribes the president's authority in foreign affairs in a number of ways — the Senate must approve treaties and ambassadors, for instance. Both the House and Senate regulate commerce with other countries; establish the military; organize the militia; make decisions covering the use of these forces; and oversee the rules of war (by authorizing letters of marquis and reprisal, defining and punishing piracy, and so forth). All told, the constitutional provisions that laid the strongest foundation for a major executive role in foreign policy are more safely explained as a cautious reaction against the defects of exclusive senatorial control of foreign relations than as a bold attempt to convert the noble office of a republican presidency into a vigorous national leader in world affairs.
Note in the following speech the President quickly responds to provide for the common defense as written in the Preamble to the Constitution but asks Congress for a Declaration of War.
Recent Presidents do not know their place and we let them get away with it.
Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan
December 8, 1941
Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity NEED TO WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8(11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton wrote, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.
The Constitution assigns the power to declare war exclusively to the legislature. Modern supporters of the doctrine of president-as-Caesar like to remind us that convention delegates changed Congress' authority from "make" to "declare" war, but they did so only to allow the president the authority to respond to a sudden attack. When Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, formally proposed giving the president the power to start war, Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, said that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war." Butler's motion was quickly rejected.
The reasoning of the conferees in opposing Butler's measure was simple. Virginia's George Mason explained, the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, observed that the new constitutional system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose."
Even Hamilton agreed with Jefferson on this point, which he rarely did, pointing out that the war powers of the president were "in substance much inferior to" that of the British king. And Hamilton supported this result even while backing strong executive power. As he wrote in the Federalist No. 75: The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.
This fundamental concern of the Constitution's framers — an unwillingness to trust "a single man . . . to involve us in such distress," in Wilson's words — has certainly been validated by American history. The manifold dishonest and secret machinations of this century's presidents, especially the "strong" ones so highly rated by historians, prove how dangerous it is to trust chief executives with minor grants of authority, let alone the power to take the nation into war. If requiring a legislative vote is no guarantee that the public will be protected from unnecessary and bloody national crusades, it does at least force a debate and more easily allow voters to ultimately hold someone responsible for their decisions.
Against this historical record there is no serious disagreement. George Bush, for instance, stated that "I don't think I need it" when asked if congressional approval was necessary before attacking Iraq. Why? "Many attorneys," he said, had "so advised me." He apparently did not bother to read the Constitution himself. Onetime law professor Bill Clinton offered no better justification. When it came to both Bosnia and Haiti in late 1993, Clinton said that he opposed "any attempts to encroach on" his prerogatives. He did, however, echo George Bush in saying that he would "encourage congressional authorization of any military involvement in Bosnia." As for Haiti, he stated last August: "I would welcome the support of the Congress and I hope that I will have that. But like my predecessors in both parties, I have not agreed that I was constitutionally mandated to get it." In short, the president desired a guaranteed affirmative vote. The Constitution, however, does not limit Congress to voting yes.
That the Constitution gives Congress the final decision as to war and peace does not mean that there are no gray areas. But the existence of some unclear cases does not mean that there are no unambiguous instances where congressional approval is required, such as defending South Korea from North Korea, spending a decade warring in Indochina, invading Panama and Haiti, transporting a half-million soldiers to the Middle East to attack Iraq, conquering Haiti, and intervening on Bosnia's side in the Balkans civil war.
What conceivable justification is there for ignoring the Constitution's straightforward requirement in cases such as these? Advocates of expansive executive war power — oddly enough, including those who claim to believe in a jurisprudence of "original intent" — have come up with a number of reasons to give the president virtually unrestrained authority to act. One is that the president has some undefined "foreign affairs power" that apparently overrides the war powers provision. Yet, the Constitution carefully circumscribes the president's authority in foreign affairs in a number of ways — the Senate must approve treaties and ambassadors, for instance. Both the House and Senate regulate commerce with other countries; establish the military; organize the militia; make decisions covering the use of these forces; and oversee the rules of war (by authorizing letters of marquis and reprisal, defining and punishing piracy, and so forth). All told, the constitutional provisions that laid the strongest foundation for a major executive role in foreign policy are more safely explained as a cautious reaction against the defects of exclusive senatorial control of foreign relations than as a bold attempt to convert the noble office of a republican presidency into a vigorous national leader in world affairs.
Note in the following speech the President quickly responds to provide for the common defense as written in the Preamble to the Constitution but asks Congress for a Declaration of War.
Recent Presidents do not know their place and we let them get away with it.
Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Japan
December 8, 1941
Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity NEED TO WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Friday, August 26, 2005
What to Expect When Big Oil has Friends in Government
In the 1970’s when oil prices went through the roof -- and oil profits soared – oil companies were viewed as public enemy Number One and were treated as such by congress and the president.
Today, oil companies are again reporting increased profits as international crude oil prices hit new highs; yet congress has just handed them anywhere from $1.4 billion to $4 billion in tax breaks in the new energy bill and the people have said nothing.
Isn't there something wrong when oil companies profit from the misfortune of the U.S. economy and American consumers or is it just the American Way?
The drain on the average American's pocketbook has been a gusher for the big oil companies. Just look at the financial statements issued at the end of July. Exxon Mobil Corp.'s second quarter earnings climbed 35 percent from the second quarter of 2004. BP PLC said its net income increased 29 percent. At Royal Dutch Shell PLC, second-quarter profits rose 34 percent. ConocoPhillips reported a 51 percent jump in earnings.
When oil prices rise, petroleum companies that have long-term contracts or own oil reserves get a huge windfall; after all, they might have invested and developed those oil fields when prices were anywhere from $10 to $25 a barrel. Suddenly prices skyrocket and the companies are swimming in profits.
Prices for North Sea Brent crude oil averaged 46 percent more than the average a year earlier. In the United States, crude oil prices have been running about five times as high as 1998 levels.
If those companies that refine crude oil and market gasoline experience an increase in their raw material (oil), shouldn't that squeeze their earnings? One might think 'yes' but not this year. We haven't changed our driving habits, so the oil companies have just raised the price at the pump without worrying about losing business.
More than half of Exxon Mobil’s profit increase came from bigger earnings on the 2.5 million barrels a day of oil and 8.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas that Exxon Mobil produces itself. Exxon Mobil as well as other oil companies boosted margins for operations of retailing and refining. Profits in those operations were up 47 percent from 2004 while the amount of petroleum products the company sold rose less than 3 percent.
Exxon Mobil’s sales in the second quarter were at a rate that would make its revenues larger than the gross domestic product of all but 18 or so countries.
Today, oil companies are again reporting increased profits as international crude oil prices hit new highs; yet congress has just handed them anywhere from $1.4 billion to $4 billion in tax breaks in the new energy bill and the people have said nothing.
Isn't there something wrong when oil companies profit from the misfortune of the U.S. economy and American consumers or is it just the American Way?
The drain on the average American's pocketbook has been a gusher for the big oil companies. Just look at the financial statements issued at the end of July. Exxon Mobil Corp.'s second quarter earnings climbed 35 percent from the second quarter of 2004. BP PLC said its net income increased 29 percent. At Royal Dutch Shell PLC, second-quarter profits rose 34 percent. ConocoPhillips reported a 51 percent jump in earnings.
When oil prices rise, petroleum companies that have long-term contracts or own oil reserves get a huge windfall; after all, they might have invested and developed those oil fields when prices were anywhere from $10 to $25 a barrel. Suddenly prices skyrocket and the companies are swimming in profits.
Prices for North Sea Brent crude oil averaged 46 percent more than the average a year earlier. In the United States, crude oil prices have been running about five times as high as 1998 levels.
If those companies that refine crude oil and market gasoline experience an increase in their raw material (oil), shouldn't that squeeze their earnings? One might think 'yes' but not this year. We haven't changed our driving habits, so the oil companies have just raised the price at the pump without worrying about losing business.
More than half of Exxon Mobil’s profit increase came from bigger earnings on the 2.5 million barrels a day of oil and 8.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas that Exxon Mobil produces itself. Exxon Mobil as well as other oil companies boosted margins for operations of retailing and refining. Profits in those operations were up 47 percent from 2004 while the amount of petroleum products the company sold rose less than 3 percent.
Exxon Mobil’s sales in the second quarter were at a rate that would make its revenues larger than the gross domestic product of all but 18 or so countries.
Why Government Should Not Be In The Gasoline Business
Gasoline itself has become less expensive because the marketplace has dictated that the industry become more efficient. The pump price is (relatively) higher because government has also become more efficient at picking the pockets of consumers.
In March, the Environmental Protection Agency suggested it would grant waivers exempting 2 states from clean-air rules requiring the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG). Gasoline futures immediately plummeted in the mercantile exchanges, illustrating the role played by federal regulations in jacking up gasoline prices.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1990, passed with the emphatic support of the Bush (41) administration, the EPA was given the power to mandate the use of RFG blends that include oxygenates such as ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). The assumption is that the use of such blends, which would reduce gasoline evaporation and help gasoline burn more thoroughly, would reduce smog in certain cities. However, a 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that "commonly available ethanol and MTBE blends do little to reduce smog." In fact, MTBE has infiltrated the groundwater of many communities, causing health hazards and imposing hugely expensive clean-up and recovery efforts. Of course, the media pundits and pencil-pushing bureaucrats will blame the market system for this, not the government’s own meddlesome regulations.
Bloomberg wire service reported on April 1, "RFG mandates have helped boost the average retail price of [gasoline] to an all-time high," in large measure because the costs they impose on our already overburdened refining sector are passed along at the pump. The rules also create needless shortages. For example, the report noted, "Fuel for New Jersey cannot be sold in New York … because New Jersey is still using MTBE to meet the federal rules. Most ethanol is shipped by rail or barge from the U.S. Midwest, raising the possibility of supply disruptions." Granting RFG waivers would give refiners "the flexibility to meet demand."
12 states have statutory minimum gasoline prices, a form of government-sponsored seller collusion. 1 state has the "Unfair Sales Act" — which is meant to describe what would supposedly happen if gas prices were permitted to fall to market levels.
In March, the Environmental Protection Agency suggested it would grant waivers exempting 2 states from clean-air rules requiring the use of reformulated gasoline (RFG). Gasoline futures immediately plummeted in the mercantile exchanges, illustrating the role played by federal regulations in jacking up gasoline prices.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1990, passed with the emphatic support of the Bush (41) administration, the EPA was given the power to mandate the use of RFG blends that include oxygenates such as ethanol and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). The assumption is that the use of such blends, which would reduce gasoline evaporation and help gasoline burn more thoroughly, would reduce smog in certain cities. However, a 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that "commonly available ethanol and MTBE blends do little to reduce smog." In fact, MTBE has infiltrated the groundwater of many communities, causing health hazards and imposing hugely expensive clean-up and recovery efforts. Of course, the media pundits and pencil-pushing bureaucrats will blame the market system for this, not the government’s own meddlesome regulations.
Bloomberg wire service reported on April 1, "RFG mandates have helped boost the average retail price of [gasoline] to an all-time high," in large measure because the costs they impose on our already overburdened refining sector are passed along at the pump. The rules also create needless shortages. For example, the report noted, "Fuel for New Jersey cannot be sold in New York … because New Jersey is still using MTBE to meet the federal rules. Most ethanol is shipped by rail or barge from the U.S. Midwest, raising the possibility of supply disruptions." Granting RFG waivers would give refiners "the flexibility to meet demand."
12 states have statutory minimum gasoline prices, a form of government-sponsored seller collusion. 1 state has the "Unfair Sales Act" — which is meant to describe what would supposedly happen if gas prices were permitted to fall to market levels.
Monday, August 22, 2005
George Barnard Photographer
As photographer of the Military Division of the Mississippi George Barnard wanted to capture Atlanta with his camera so he followed Sherman’s army as it moved south from Chattanooga in 1864. Barnard expected Atlanta would provide elaborate fortifications and war-scarred ruins.
At the end of the war he published a book of sixty-one large photographs. Reception in the North was as expected, Barnard was lauded for his “care and judgment in selecting the point of view, for the delicacy of execution, for scope of treatment, and for fidelity of impression.”
In the South, reaction was equally as high, but entirely different in nature. Ex-Confederates saw the photographs as indisputable evidence that Sherman had destroyed Atlanta as had no other military leader in any other city.
One photograph was of railroad iron piled on crossties, soon to be set afire so the rails could be bent into “Sherman neckties’. Another showed the ruined roundhouse of the Atlantic & Western Railroad, while a companion photograph portrayed a bank building gutted beyond recognition.
The photograph people found to be the most compelling showed iron wheels and axles of railroad cars against the background of a burned-out factory. As far as could be seen, the desolate wreckage stretched along the track. Those first to see this photograph concluded, that it clearly proved, Sherman had destroyed anything and everything he couldn’t take with him.
There was no doubt about it, Barnard had captured the Atlanta campaign as no other photographer captured any other campaign. His caption for photograph no. 44 was quite accurate also, “Destruction of Hood’s Ordinance Train.”
But what Barnard did not say, because it is thought that he assumed everyone knew it, was that General John B. Hood, C.S.A., not Sherman, was responsible for the destruction Barnard had captured. Records show that on the evening before pulling out of Atlanta, General Hood ordered his troops to burn or to blow up everything the enemy might be able to use. When his men fired his own eighty-one–car ammunition train, explosions set the nearby Atlanta Gas Works on fire, a scene of destruction later brought to life in the movie Gone With the Wind.
Had Barnard not been along to document the destruction and had he not failed to label it as the work of the Confederates, Sherman would still be hated in the South, but possibly not so vehemently.
As we know photographs are subject to interpretation from the standpoint of the viewer .
At the end of the war he published a book of sixty-one large photographs. Reception in the North was as expected, Barnard was lauded for his “care and judgment in selecting the point of view, for the delicacy of execution, for scope of treatment, and for fidelity of impression.”
In the South, reaction was equally as high, but entirely different in nature. Ex-Confederates saw the photographs as indisputable evidence that Sherman had destroyed Atlanta as had no other military leader in any other city.
One photograph was of railroad iron piled on crossties, soon to be set afire so the rails could be bent into “Sherman neckties’. Another showed the ruined roundhouse of the Atlantic & Western Railroad, while a companion photograph portrayed a bank building gutted beyond recognition.
The photograph people found to be the most compelling showed iron wheels and axles of railroad cars against the background of a burned-out factory. As far as could be seen, the desolate wreckage stretched along the track. Those first to see this photograph concluded, that it clearly proved, Sherman had destroyed anything and everything he couldn’t take with him.
There was no doubt about it, Barnard had captured the Atlanta campaign as no other photographer captured any other campaign. His caption for photograph no. 44 was quite accurate also, “Destruction of Hood’s Ordinance Train.”
But what Barnard did not say, because it is thought that he assumed everyone knew it, was that General John B. Hood, C.S.A., not Sherman, was responsible for the destruction Barnard had captured. Records show that on the evening before pulling out of Atlanta, General Hood ordered his troops to burn or to blow up everything the enemy might be able to use. When his men fired his own eighty-one–car ammunition train, explosions set the nearby Atlanta Gas Works on fire, a scene of destruction later brought to life in the movie Gone With the Wind.
Had Barnard not been along to document the destruction and had he not failed to label it as the work of the Confederates, Sherman would still be hated in the South, but possibly not so vehemently.
As we know photographs are subject to interpretation from the standpoint of the viewer .
War in Iraq; Status quo at home; Won't work.
There is a tendency to downplay the teaching of military history - perhaps in the hope that if we don't teach about war, it will go away. But military history is important.
There is only one way to make war. You have to hurt somebody. If war is worth fighting in the first place, then it is worth winning. We cannot win unless we fight; if we fight, our soldiers will die. If more of the enemy dies, then we will win. It has nothing to do with governments or what is barbaric and what is civilized. If our soldiers don't fight and die, if we don't make the enemy quit by destroying their will to fight and by destroying their army, then the only other choice is to walk away.
One percent of the American population died during the American Revolution. If we were to lose one percent of our population today, the toll would be more than 3 million dead. Estimates of battle deaths:
Revolutionary War: 4,400
Civil War combined Union and Confederate: 204,000
WW I: 116,000
WW II: 410,000
Viet Nam: 50,000
Iraq: 1800+
What is temporarily changing Iraq's government worth?
Our Constitution was adopted by a convention of the States on September 17, 1787, and subsequently was ratified by:
Delaware, December 7, 1787;
Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787;
New Jersey, December 18, 1787;
Georgia, January 2, 1788;
Connecticut, January 9, 1788;
Massachusetts, February 6, 1788;
Maryland, April 28, 1788;
South Carolina, May 23, 1788;
New Hampshire, June 21, 1788.
Ratification was completed on June 21, 1788.
Subsequent ratifications:
Virginia, June 25, 1788;
New York, July 26, 1788;
North Carolina, November 21, 1789;
Rhode Island, May 29, 1790; and
Vermont, January 10, 1791.
During that time we were civilized enough to live together in peace.
And now we expect Iraq to do in a few months what it took us years to do. Their history shows they are not civilized enough to live together in peace.
We are wasting our time and the lives of our military....
There is only one way to make war. You have to hurt somebody. If war is worth fighting in the first place, then it is worth winning. We cannot win unless we fight; if we fight, our soldiers will die. If more of the enemy dies, then we will win. It has nothing to do with governments or what is barbaric and what is civilized. If our soldiers don't fight and die, if we don't make the enemy quit by destroying their will to fight and by destroying their army, then the only other choice is to walk away.
One percent of the American population died during the American Revolution. If we were to lose one percent of our population today, the toll would be more than 3 million dead. Estimates of battle deaths:
Revolutionary War: 4,400
Civil War combined Union and Confederate: 204,000
WW I: 116,000
WW II: 410,000
Viet Nam: 50,000
Iraq: 1800+
What is temporarily changing Iraq's government worth?
Our Constitution was adopted by a convention of the States on September 17, 1787, and subsequently was ratified by:
Delaware, December 7, 1787;
Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787;
New Jersey, December 18, 1787;
Georgia, January 2, 1788;
Connecticut, January 9, 1788;
Massachusetts, February 6, 1788;
Maryland, April 28, 1788;
South Carolina, May 23, 1788;
New Hampshire, June 21, 1788.
Ratification was completed on June 21, 1788.
Subsequent ratifications:
Virginia, June 25, 1788;
New York, July 26, 1788;
North Carolina, November 21, 1789;
Rhode Island, May 29, 1790; and
Vermont, January 10, 1791.
During that time we were civilized enough to live together in peace.
And now we expect Iraq to do in a few months what it took us years to do. Their history shows they are not civilized enough to live together in peace.
We are wasting our time and the lives of our military....
Sunday, August 21, 2005
MLB versus Little League
I was watching the Little League World Series and I saw a ball hit to the warning track where it was caught for the 3rd out. If the little boy was using steroids the ball would have gone into the stands for a home run. Instead of an out they would have had a run with the possibility for additional runs. In other words it would have had a far ranging affect on the game.
It occurred to me that in MLB as long as there is a hint of steroids every game is artificial and meaningless. It is no longer a baseball game; it is no longer a sport; it is a contest of which team can cheat the most and get away with it. Players using steroids have destroyed the game of baseball at the professional level and anyone watching is watching a fraud. Records are a fraud and cannot be relied upon as truth. The what-if will rule and your opinion is as good as mine but neither of us knows the real truth of what would have happened if the game had been played fairly.
What-if the pitcher had thrown the ball at 88 mph instead of 98 mph? What-if the outfielder threw to the cutoff player instead of all the way to the catcher and the result was an out instead of a run? What if the throw from the catcher had arrived at second base too late to get an out instead of having a possible run on second? What-if the ball had not gone that extra 25 feet into the stands or just over the head of the outfielder and was caught for an out instead of allowing a run or runs? What if the player who came in second in the number of homeruns hit that season had come in first and received an extension on his contract that kept him on the team instead of going to another team which could have caused other players to move to other teams as well? Steroids affect statistics which affect awards and contracts which affect team makeups which affects managers. See how what-ifs rule? Who knows? Your "opinion" is as good as mine but neither of us "know". If you can't believe what you see on the field what you see is meaningless and the game is a figment of your imagination.
Players knowing of or suspecting steroid use and not reporting it to the owners and leaders of the players union are as guilty of destroying the game as the users. Their records are meaningless also because of the what-ifs.
It occurred to me that in MLB as long as there is a hint of steroids every game is artificial and meaningless. It is no longer a baseball game; it is no longer a sport; it is a contest of which team can cheat the most and get away with it. Players using steroids have destroyed the game of baseball at the professional level and anyone watching is watching a fraud. Records are a fraud and cannot be relied upon as truth. The what-if will rule and your opinion is as good as mine but neither of us knows the real truth of what would have happened if the game had been played fairly.
What-if the pitcher had thrown the ball at 88 mph instead of 98 mph? What-if the outfielder threw to the cutoff player instead of all the way to the catcher and the result was an out instead of a run? What if the throw from the catcher had arrived at second base too late to get an out instead of having a possible run on second? What-if the ball had not gone that extra 25 feet into the stands or just over the head of the outfielder and was caught for an out instead of allowing a run or runs? What if the player who came in second in the number of homeruns hit that season had come in first and received an extension on his contract that kept him on the team instead of going to another team which could have caused other players to move to other teams as well? Steroids affect statistics which affect awards and contracts which affect team makeups which affects managers. See how what-ifs rule? Who knows? Your "opinion" is as good as mine but neither of us "know". If you can't believe what you see on the field what you see is meaningless and the game is a figment of your imagination.
Players knowing of or suspecting steroid use and not reporting it to the owners and leaders of the players union are as guilty of destroying the game as the users. Their records are meaningless also because of the what-ifs.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Some Things Don't Change
The other day I was watching a program about Viet Nam on the History channel. They mentioned that the United States found that a conventional army could not defeat an unconventional enemy no matter how poorly armed or undisciplined they may be. One of the many problems the United States faced was there was no "front" line and the enemy could not be differentiated from the friendlies. Also, the enemy was willing to lose 10 of their soldiers to kill just one of our soldiers. Sound familiar?
Later the History Channel had a program about the last days of WWII and Iwo Jima specifically. The Japanese had a tunnel system on Iwo Jima making them "invisible" to their enemy. The tunnel was the length of the island; high enough to enable a person to stand up; wide enough to accomodate traffic in both directions; contained a 400 bed hospital; 750 concrete bunkers; food and other supplies plus 21 million rounds of ammunition. The tunnel was built by Korean slave labor. During the fighting the Japanese would quickly move their dead and wounded into the tunnel and the United States Marines were never sure of the affect they were having. Sound familiar?
One marine said they could not understand the Japanese willingness to die; they, the marines, wanted to live. Sound familiar? .
As someone said those that don't know our history are condemned to repeat it. My guess is our President and the leaders of our military did not do well in history.
Later the History Channel had a program about the last days of WWII and Iwo Jima specifically. The Japanese had a tunnel system on Iwo Jima making them "invisible" to their enemy. The tunnel was the length of the island; high enough to enable a person to stand up; wide enough to accomodate traffic in both directions; contained a 400 bed hospital; 750 concrete bunkers; food and other supplies plus 21 million rounds of ammunition. The tunnel was built by Korean slave labor. During the fighting the Japanese would quickly move their dead and wounded into the tunnel and the United States Marines were never sure of the affect they were having. Sound familiar?
One marine said they could not understand the Japanese willingness to die; they, the marines, wanted to live. Sound familiar? .
As someone said those that don't know our history are condemned to repeat it. My guess is our President and the leaders of our military did not do well in history.
Friday, August 19, 2005
The United States Saudi Arabia and Oil
When Saudi Arabia and the United States established diplomatic relations in 1933, Standard Oil of California was given a concession to explore for and to produce oil. Oil had been discovered in Iran around 1908 and in Iraq 1904.
In 1938, while searching for water, United States geologists in Saudi Arabia found the largest known source of oil in the world. Needing people who knew how to develop and operate oil fields, U.S. oil companies were invited to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government was criticized by those who thought inviting foreigners to the kingdom was un-Islamic. The monarchy held on to practicality and set up a joint enterprise with a number of U.S. oil companies. In 1939 oil flowedto a naval oil-tanker, and in 1944 the joint enterprise was renamed the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco).
During World War II the United States wanted assurance from Saudi Arabia concerning supplies of oil, needed to wage war. In February 1945, following the conference with Stalin and Churchill at Yalta in the Crimea, President Roosevelt and King ibn Saud met aboard a ship docked in the Suez Canal. There, Roosevelt and King Saud concluded a secret agreement in which the U.S. would provide Saudi Arabia military security - military assistance, training and building a military base at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia - in exchange for secure access to supplies of oil.
We need to be sure Saudi Arabia keeps their end of the bargain.
In 1938, while searching for water, United States geologists in Saudi Arabia found the largest known source of oil in the world. Needing people who knew how to develop and operate oil fields, U.S. oil companies were invited to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government was criticized by those who thought inviting foreigners to the kingdom was un-Islamic. The monarchy held on to practicality and set up a joint enterprise with a number of U.S. oil companies. In 1939 oil flowedto a naval oil-tanker, and in 1944 the joint enterprise was renamed the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco).
During World War II the United States wanted assurance from Saudi Arabia concerning supplies of oil, needed to wage war. In February 1945, following the conference with Stalin and Churchill at Yalta in the Crimea, President Roosevelt and King ibn Saud met aboard a ship docked in the Suez Canal. There, Roosevelt and King Saud concluded a secret agreement in which the U.S. would provide Saudi Arabia military security - military assistance, training and building a military base at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia - in exchange for secure access to supplies of oil.
We need to be sure Saudi Arabia keeps their end of the bargain.
Eminent Domain Power
5th Amendment -- nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
14th Amendment -- nor shall any State deprive and person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Link http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html
14th Amendment -- nor shall any State deprive and person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Link http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html
And thus it began, Gaza and the Gaza Strip
The oldest sources on Gaza tell that it was the residence of the Egyptian governor to Canaan.
13th century BCE: Arrival of the Philistines, making Gaza (City) into an important coastal city.
7th century CE: The Gaza territory comes under Muslim rule.
1947: By the partition plan of the UN the territory of Gaza is projected to become part of an independent Arab state.
1948 May: Egyptian forces move up along the Palestinian coastline in an attempt to reach Tel Aviv. Being pushed back by Jewish forces, a British cease fire agreement stops the Jewish troops while the Egyptians still hold the Gaza territory. Soon after, large groups of Palestinian refugees are coming in to Gaza.
— During the Egyptian occupation little was done to improve the conditions on the Gaza Strip and the borders between Egypt and the occupied strip are virtually closed. The Gazan population does not receive any citizenship, and large parts of the population survive on UN relief schemes.
1956: As part of the Suez-Sinai War, Gaza Strip is occupied by Israel, but Israel leaves as a result of international pressure.
1967 Israel captures the Gaza Strip, in addition to the Sinai peninsula near Egypt and the Golan Heights in Syria in the Six Day War. Since then, Israel has been building, funding and supporting disputed Jewish settlements on occupied lands.
Israel’s population is growing but the neighborhood trend helps to understand why Israel's leaders have concluded that they have no choice but to trade land for peace.
The fertility rate among Palestinians in Israel is 4.5 children per woman; on the West Bank, 5.5 children per woman; in Gaza, 6.6 children per woman. If demography is destiny, Israel is in an existential crisis that can only be exacerbated by continued military occupation and expansion of settlements. Consider the projections.
In the year 2000 there were 6.2 million Israelis and estimates are by the year 2025 there will be 8.3 million. In the year 2000 in the rest of the Middle East, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia there were 116.2 million growing to 178.4 million by the year 2025. In the next twenty-five years, Israels population (Jewish and Arab) will grow by 2.1 million, while her Arab neighbors will increase by 62.2 million.
Now consider Israel’s “Palestinian Problem.”
In the year 2025 projections indicate there will be 6 million Jewish Israelis and 16 million Palestinians with 2 million within Israel. By the year 2050 there will be 7 million Jewish Israelis and 3 million Palestinians inside of Israel.
In 2025 Palestinians in Israel, West Bank, Gaza and Jordon will number 16 million and in 2050 , 25 million.
13th century BCE: Arrival of the Philistines, making Gaza (City) into an important coastal city.
7th century CE: The Gaza territory comes under Muslim rule.
1947: By the partition plan of the UN the territory of Gaza is projected to become part of an independent Arab state.
1948 May: Egyptian forces move up along the Palestinian coastline in an attempt to reach Tel Aviv. Being pushed back by Jewish forces, a British cease fire agreement stops the Jewish troops while the Egyptians still hold the Gaza territory. Soon after, large groups of Palestinian refugees are coming in to Gaza.
— During the Egyptian occupation little was done to improve the conditions on the Gaza Strip and the borders between Egypt and the occupied strip are virtually closed. The Gazan population does not receive any citizenship, and large parts of the population survive on UN relief schemes.
1956: As part of the Suez-Sinai War, Gaza Strip is occupied by Israel, but Israel leaves as a result of international pressure.
1967 Israel captures the Gaza Strip, in addition to the Sinai peninsula near Egypt and the Golan Heights in Syria in the Six Day War. Since then, Israel has been building, funding and supporting disputed Jewish settlements on occupied lands.
Israel’s population is growing but the neighborhood trend helps to understand why Israel's leaders have concluded that they have no choice but to trade land for peace.
The fertility rate among Palestinians in Israel is 4.5 children per woman; on the West Bank, 5.5 children per woman; in Gaza, 6.6 children per woman. If demography is destiny, Israel is in an existential crisis that can only be exacerbated by continued military occupation and expansion of settlements. Consider the projections.
In the year 2000 there were 6.2 million Israelis and estimates are by the year 2025 there will be 8.3 million. In the year 2000 in the rest of the Middle East, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia there were 116.2 million growing to 178.4 million by the year 2025. In the next twenty-five years, Israels population (Jewish and Arab) will grow by 2.1 million, while her Arab neighbors will increase by 62.2 million.
Now consider Israel’s “Palestinian Problem.”
In the year 2025 projections indicate there will be 6 million Jewish Israelis and 16 million Palestinians with 2 million within Israel. By the year 2050 there will be 7 million Jewish Israelis and 3 million Palestinians inside of Israel.
In 2025 Palestinians in Israel, West Bank, Gaza and Jordon will number 16 million and in 2050 , 25 million.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
World Population Christian Muslim
At the beginning of the seventh century, the Mediterranean world was Christian. But, within fifty years of Muhammad’s flight to Medina in 622, the armies of Islam had swept over the southern coast of the Inland Sea. Early in the eighth century, Arabs and Berbers brushed aside weak Visigoth resistance, overran Spain, and crossed the Pyrenees into France, where on of the decisive battles of history was fought. At Tours, the “Hammer of the Franks,” Charles Martel defeated the Muslims, who withdrew back over the mountains. Except for the tiny kingdom of the Asturias, which would be the base camp of the Spanish Reconquista, Islam dominated the Iberian peninsula for centuries. Not until 1492 did Ferdinand and Isabella finally drive the Moors out of Spain.
Indicators everywhere suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and to assist Chechen rebels fighting in Russia. In March 2001, Taliban ruler Mullah Muhammad Omar ordered all religious statues smashed, including the seventh-century Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, declaring, “These idols have been gods of the infidels.”
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in German. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe, and Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. The correlation between religious faith and large families is absolute. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Years ago, when the film The Prophet came out, in which the face of Muhammad was shown, an act of blasphemy to Islam, theaters refused to run it for fear of violent retaliation. When Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses, a novel judged an obscene insult by Islam; he spent years hiding from the fatwa (Islamic religious decree)., a death sentence imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. While fatwas and fire bombings are not the American way, Americans must be prepared to live with them.
In 1900 world population was made up of 26.9% Christian and 12.4% Muslim. By 1980 Christians were 30.0% and Muslims 16.5%. When the year 2000 rolled around Christians had dropped to 29.9% while Muslims had increased to 19.2%. Projections are that by the year 2025 Christians will number 25% of the world population and the Muslims, 30%.
Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:
Indicators everywhere suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and to assist Chechen rebels fighting in Russia. In March 2001, Taliban ruler Mullah Muhammad Omar ordered all religious statues smashed, including the seventh-century Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, declaring, “These idols have been gods of the infidels.”
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in German. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe, and Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. The correlation between religious faith and large families is absolute. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Years ago, when the film The Prophet came out, in which the face of Muhammad was shown, an act of blasphemy to Islam, theaters refused to run it for fear of violent retaliation. When Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses, a novel judged an obscene insult by Islam; he spent years hiding from the fatwa (Islamic religious decree)., a death sentence imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. While fatwas and fire bombings are not the American way, Americans must be prepared to live with them.
In 1900 world population was made up of 26.9% Christian and 12.4% Muslim. By 1980 Christians were 30.0% and Muslims 16.5%. When the year 2000 rolled around Christians had dropped to 29.9% while Muslims had increased to 19.2%. Projections are that by the year 2025 Christians will number 25% of the world population and the Muslims, 30%.
Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:
- 0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
- 0.817 billion, The Universal Almanac (1996)
- 0.951 billion, The Cambridge Factfinder (1993)
- 1.100 billion, The World Almanac (1997)
- 1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) (1999)
At a level of 1.2 billion, [in1999] Muslims represent between 19.2% and 22% of the world's population. It has become the second largest religion in the world. Christianity has slightly less than 30%.
Islam is growing about 2.9% per year which is faster than the total world population which increases at about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population.
The number of Muslims in North America is in dispute: estimates range from under 3 million to over 6 million. The main cause of the disagreement appears to be over how many Muslim immigrants have converted to Christianity since they arrived in the US.
Statistics Canada reports that 253,260 Canadians identified themselves as Muslims (0.9% of the total population) during the 1991 census. Some estimated that there were as many as 500,000 Muslims in Canada. Today (.2001) there are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Canada.
Demographics
In the Northwestern Africa between 1965 and 1990, the population rose from 29.8 million to 59 million. During the same period, the number of Egyptians increased from 29.4 million to 52.4 million. In Central Asia, between 1970 and 1993, populations grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent in Tajikistan, 2.6 percent in Uzbekistan, 2.5 percent in Turkmenistan, and 1.9 percent in Kyrgyzia. In the 1970s, the demographic balance in the Soviet Union shifted drastically, with Muslims increasing by 24 percent while Russians increased by only 6.5 percent.
In countries, such as Tanzania and Macedonia, the Muslims will become a majority within twenty years.
Largely through immigration, the Muslim population of the United States grew sixfold between 1972 and 1990.
Last year, seven percent of babies born in European Union countries were Muslims. In Brussels, the figure was 57 percent. Islam is the second religion of almost every European state - the only exceptions being those European countries such as Azerbaijan and Albania where it is the majority religion.
If current trends continue, then an overall ten percent of European nationals will be Muslim by the year 2020.
Conclusion
If the west's population is top-heavy, (i.e., the ratio of youth to elderly is low) that of Muslim populations is the opposite. For example, today more than half the population of Algeria is under the age of twenty and this situation is similar elsewhere. These young populations will reproduce and perpetuate the increase of Muslims on a percentage basis well into the next millennium.
North America and Europe have increasingly aging populations and one of the most disturbing social issues of the new millennium will concern a more efficient means of disposing of the elderly. (For example, witness the new euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, and the ongoing debate in many countries about this issue.) Medical advances can assure an average life span in the high seventies, although active life spans have not grown as fast. In the early 1900s, a westerner could expect to spend an average of the last two years of life as an invalid. Today, that figure is seven years. Studies have shown medicine prolongs life, but can not prolong mobility nearly as well. Aging populations with their increased healthcare costs are considered a more extensive socio- economic burden to society. The UK Department of Health recently announced that a new prescription drug for Alzheimer's Disease was available on the National Health Service - but its cost meant that it was only available to a small minority of patients. An aging population tends to be introspective and sluggish, whereas a young population is more likely to be vibrant and energetic. This may or may not bode well for many countries depending on whether their political structure is fragile or not.
Where Secularism Triumphs Populations Begin to Shrink and Die
At the beginning of the seventh century, the Mediterranean world was Christian. But, within fifty years of Muhammad’s flight to Medina in 622, the armies of Islam had swept over the southern coast of the Inland Sea. Early in the eighth century, Arabs and Berbers brushed aside weak Visigoth resistance, overran Spain, and crossed the Pyrenees into France, where one of the decisive battles of history was fought. At Tours, the “Hammer of the Franks,” Charles Martel defeated the Muslims, who withdrew back over the mountains. Except for the tiny kingdom of the Asturias, which would be the base camp of the Spanish Reconquista, Islam dominated the Iberian Peninsula for centuries. Not until 1492 did Ferdinand and Isabella finally drive the Moors out of Spain.
Indicators suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and assisted Chechen rebels fighting in Russia.
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in Germany. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe the Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. There appears to be a correlation between religious faith and large families. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Indicators suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and assisted Chechen rebels fighting in Russia.
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in Germany. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe the Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. There appears to be a correlation between religious faith and large families. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Islam Remembers What the West Forgot
At the beginning of the seventh century, the Mediterranean world was Christian. But, within fifty years of Muhammad’s flight to Medina in 622, the armies of Islam had swept over the southern coast of the Inland Sea. Early in the eighth century, Arabs and Berbers brushed aside weak Visigoth resistance, overran Spain, and crossed the Pyrenees into France, where on of the decisive battles of history was fought. At Tours, the “Hammer of the Franks,” Charles Martel defeated the Muslims, who withdrew back over the mountains. Except for the tiny kingdom of the Asturias, which would be the base camp of the Spanish Reconquista, Islam dominated the Iberian peninsula for centuries. Not until 1492 did Ferdinand and Isabella finally drive the Moors out of Spain.
Indicators everywhere suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and to assist Chechen rebels fighting in Russia. In March 2001, Taliban ruler Mullah Muhammad Omar ordered all religious statues smashed, including the seventh-century Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, declaring, “These idols have been gods of the infidels.”
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in German. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe, and Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. The correlation between religious faith and large families is absolute. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Years ago, when the film The Prophet came out, in which the face of Muhammad was shown, an act of blasphemy to Islam, theaters refused to run it for fear of violent retaliation. When Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses, a novel judged an obscene insult by Islam; he spent years hiding from the fatwa (Islamic religious decree)., a death sentence imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. While fatwas and fire bombings are not the American way, Americans must be prepared to live with them.
In 1900 world population was made up of 26.9% Christian and 12.4% Muslim. By 1980 Christians were 30.0% and Muslims 16.5%. When the year 2000 rolled around Christians had dropped to 29.9% while Muslims had increased to 19.2%. Projections are that by the year 2025 Christians will number 25% of the world population and the Muslims, 30%.
Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:
Indicators everywhere suggest Islam is rising again. An Islamic secessionist movement is active in the Philippines. Muslim troops battle Christian secessionists in Indonesia. From Palestine to Pakistan, street mobs cheered the slaughter at the Pentagon and World Trade Center. For years, the Afghani Taliban gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cells and dispatched holy warriors into the old Soviet republics of Central Asia and to assist Chechen rebels fighting in Russia. In March 2001, Taliban ruler Mullah Muhammad Omar ordered all religious statues smashed, including the seventh-century Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, declaring, “These idols have been gods of the infidels.”
In Turkey and Algeria, elections in the 1990s brought to power Islamic regimes, which were removed by methods other than democratic. In Egypt, Muslim militants have renewed the persecution of Christian Copts. Islamic law has now been imposed on ten northern states in Nigeria.
In Europe, Christian congregations are dying, churches are emptying out, and mosques are filling up. There are five million Muslims in France, and between twelve and fifteen million in the European Union. There are fifteen hundred mosques in German. Islam has replaced Judaism as the second religion of Europe. As the Christian tide goes out in Europe, and Islamic tide comes in. In 2000, for the first time there were more Muslims in the world than Catholics.
While the ideology of “Islamism” has failed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan to create a modern state that can command the loyalty of its people and serve as a model for other Islamic nations, the religion of Islam has not failed. In science, technology, economics, industry, agriculture, armaments, and democratic rule, America, Europe, and Japan are generations ahead. But the Islamic world retains something the West has lost: a desire to have children and the will to carry on their civilization, cultures, families, and faith. Today, it is difficult to find a Western nation where the native population is not dying as it is to find an Islamic nation where the native population is not exploding. The West may have learned what Islam knows not, but Islam remembers what the West has forgotten: “There is no vision but by faith.”
How does one sever a people’s roots? Answer: Destroy its memory. Deny a people the knowledge of who they are and where they came from.
In the Middle Ages, Ottoman Turks imposed on Balkan Christians a blood tax—one boy out of every five. Taken from their parents, the boys were raised as strict Muslims to become the fanatic elite soldiers of the Sultan, the Janissaries, who were then sent back to occupy and oppress the peoples who had borne them. George Orwell in the party slogan of Big Brother gave the formula for erasing memory, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
As Christianity began to die in the West, something else occurred: Western peoples began to stop having children. The correlation between religious faith and large families is absolute. The more devout a people, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, the higher its birth rate. In New Square, New York, in the first wholly Orthodox Jewish community in the United States, the average family has ten children. In Kostroma, Russia, Vladimir Alexseyev, father of a poster family of sixteen children, and his pregnant wife have a home full of icons. In the Baptist state of Texas, the birthrate among whites is higher than among white folks in sybarite California. Wherever secularism triumphs, populations begin to shrink and die.
Years ago, when the film The Prophet came out, in which the face of Muhammad was shown, an act of blasphemy to Islam, theaters refused to run it for fear of violent retaliation. When Salman Rushdie published Satanic Verses, a novel judged an obscene insult by Islam; he spent years hiding from the fatwa (Islamic religious decree)., a death sentence imposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. While fatwas and fire bombings are not the American way, Americans must be prepared to live with them.
In 1900 world population was made up of 26.9% Christian and 12.4% Muslim. By 1980 Christians were 30.0% and Muslims 16.5%. When the year 2000 rolled around Christians had dropped to 29.9% while Muslims had increased to 19.2%. Projections are that by the year 2025 Christians will number 25% of the world population and the Muslims, 30%.
Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:
- 0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
- 0.817 billion, The Universal Almanac (1996)
- 0.951 billion, The Cambridge Factfinder (1993)
- 1.100 billion, The World Almanac (1997)
- 1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) (1999)
At a level of 1.2 billion, [in1999] Muslims represent between 19.2% and 22% of the world's population. It has become the second largest religion in the world. Christianity has slightly less than 30%.
Islam is growing about 2.9% per year which is faster than the total world population which increases at about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population.
The number of Muslims in North America is in dispute: estimates range from under 3 million to over 6 million. The main cause of the disagreement appears to be over how many Muslim immigrants have converted to Christianity since they arrived in the US.
Statistics Canada reports that 253,260 Canadians identified themselves as Muslims (0.9% of the total population) during the 1991 census. Some estimated that there were as many as 500,000 Muslims in Canada. Today (.2001) there are an estimated 650,000 Muslims in Canada.
Demographics
In the Northwestern Africa between 1965 and 1990, the population rose from 29.8 million to 59 million. During the same period, the number of Egyptians increased from 29.4 million to 52.4 million. In Central Asia, between 1970 and 1993, populations grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent in Tajikistan, 2.6 percent in Uzbekistan, 2.5 percent in Turkmenistan, and 1.9 percent in Kyrgyzia. In the 1970s, the demographic balance in the Soviet Union shifted drastically, with Muslims increasing by 24 percent while Russians increased by only 6.5 percent.
In countries, such as Tanzania and Macedonia, the Muslims will become a majority within twenty years.
Largely through immigration, the Muslim population of the United States grew sixfold between 1972 and 1990.
Last year, seven percent of babies born in European Union countries were Muslims. In Brussels, the figure was 57 percent. Islam is the second religion of almost every European state - the only exceptions being those European countries such as Azerbaijan and Albania where it is the majority religion.
If current trends continue, then an overall ten percent of European nationals will be Muslim by the year 2020.
Conclusion
If the west's population is top-heavy, (i.e., the ratio of youth to elderly is low) that of Muslim populations is the opposite. For example, today more than half the population of Algeria is under the age of twenty and this situation is similar elsewhere. These young populations will reproduce and perpetuate the increase of Muslims on a percentage basis well into the next millennium.
North America and Europe have increasingly aging populations and one of the most disturbing social issues of the new millennium will concern a more efficient means of disposing of the elderly. (For example, witness the new euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, and the ongoing debate in many countries about this issue.) Medical advances can assure an average life span in the high seventies, although active life spans have not grown as fast. In the early 1900s, a westerner could expect to spend an average of the last two years of life as an invalid. Today, that figure is seven years. Studies have shown medicine prolongs life, but can not prolong mobility nearly as well. Aging populations with their increased healthcare costs are considered a more extensive socio- economic burden to society. The UK Department of Health recently announced that a new prescription drug for Alzheimer's Disease was available on the National Health Service - but its cost meant that it was only available to a small minority of patients. An aging population tends to be introspective and sluggish, whereas a young population is more likely to be vibrant and energetic. This may or may not bode well for many countries depending on whether their political structure is fragile or not.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Embryos and Stem Cell Research and Freezing
We hear a lot about stem cell research and how it requires the destruction of embryos. Some folks are convinced that "life" begins at conception which means at the embryo stage and that embryos are living human beings. Thus they believe destroying embryos is destroying "life". These same people consider it permissible to freeze these human beings and put them into limbo while they decide if they will permit them to join the ranks of the "born". Kind of a God decision isn’t it? These people believe that for embryos to be destroyed to provide raw materials for stem cell research is bad but that it is ok to freeze these same embryos even though there is a high probability some will be destroyed or is it die? Would they be willing to freeze the “born” members of their family with the possibility they would die from the experience?
When we talk about stem cell research and raw materials and embryos and “life” we need to define the type of life we are concerned about and for what reason. I am not in favor of abortion and have questions about stem cell research but there are a lot of inconsistencies in the arguments.
The same president who is unwilling to permit the sacrifice of embryos in an attempt to improve the lives of American citizens is willing to sacrifice the lives of American citizens, some against their will, in an attempt (futile as it is) to improve the lives of people who hate us and hate those being sacrificed. So far he has been willing to sacrifice over 1,800 lives of American citizens why not 1,800 embryos?
Regardless of when life begins who is willing to emotionally and financially care for the life once it is saved? We don’t hear from the “Pro Life” people when it comes to orphans and wars. Why don’t we? Isn’t a living breathing walking around life as important as life in a dish in a uterus? Why save an embryo just to sacrifice it later? Why save an embryo just to let it be sexually molested, killed by the mother’s boyfriend, left in a car during the summer heat and to be cooked to death, be starved, be passed through a school system without being educated, sent to a far away country to die for the greedy?
To discuss only killing embryos is an oversimplification of the problem and is just one of the issues to be considered.
It appears that pro-life is really just anti-abortion. And it appears pro-life people don’t want abortions to be done and they don’t want embryos destroyed unless they deem it necessary for their own purposes.
When we talk about stem cell research and raw materials and embryos and “life” we need to define the type of life we are concerned about and for what reason. I am not in favor of abortion and have questions about stem cell research but there are a lot of inconsistencies in the arguments.
The same president who is unwilling to permit the sacrifice of embryos in an attempt to improve the lives of American citizens is willing to sacrifice the lives of American citizens, some against their will, in an attempt (futile as it is) to improve the lives of people who hate us and hate those being sacrificed. So far he has been willing to sacrifice over 1,800 lives of American citizens why not 1,800 embryos?
Regardless of when life begins who is willing to emotionally and financially care for the life once it is saved? We don’t hear from the “Pro Life” people when it comes to orphans and wars. Why don’t we? Isn’t a living breathing walking around life as important as life in a dish in a uterus? Why save an embryo just to sacrifice it later? Why save an embryo just to let it be sexually molested, killed by the mother’s boyfriend, left in a car during the summer heat and to be cooked to death, be starved, be passed through a school system without being educated, sent to a far away country to die for the greedy?
To discuss only killing embryos is an oversimplification of the problem and is just one of the issues to be considered.
It appears that pro-life is really just anti-abortion. And it appears pro-life people don’t want abortions to be done and they don’t want embryos destroyed unless they deem it necessary for their own purposes.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Our Leaders as Well as the Iraqi People Don't Appear To Understand How to Act In a War Zone
Does it ever boggle your mind when you hear or read reports concerning insurgent attacks on the United States Military or on Iraqi citizens how many times Americans are quoted as complaining about the insurgents not fighting fairly? The insurgents wait on the side of the road until one of our military trucks go by and then they detonate a bomb or shoot from behind a bombed out truck? Like we expect the insurgents to warn us before they ambush us.
I heard one of our military explain how he lost a leg. He was the driver of the second truck in a convoy and they came upon a group of men working on the road. The soldier explained how after the first truck made it past the work area he felt better but when he drove over the area it exploded. What are our leaders thinking, sending a convoy down a road that has not been secured?
Then there was the soldier killed when he drove his vehicle under a bridge and was shot and died. Since when do you drive under a bridge in a war zone that has not been secured?
It was reported today that four Iraqi policemen were killed while they were sleeping in their car. According to the news report they had been on duty all night and were waiting on their replacements. Their weapons were in the back of the vehicle. Excuse me!!! You are in a war zone your weapons are in your hands at all times. You do not sleep unless you have someone on guard. Never! Never!
Apparently neither our military or the citizens of Iraq know what it means to be in a war and have other people looking to kill you at all times. There is no place for Rest and Relaxation in war zone.
The United States is so far superior to any other military from any other country our leaders both civilian and military appear to believe we are invulnerable. Our military leadership are careless in their thinking and sloppy in their performance and as a result more people are dying than would be expected in similar situations.
Part of the blame falls on the citizens of the United States. We permit our leaders to use our military as pawns in useless situations while we, citizens, carry on as if nothing is happening. And then complain when one of our soldiers does something that we consider unacceptable although we were not there and have never faced similar situations. We, citizens of the United States, are more than willing to send an 18 or 19 year old boy to Iraq, arm him to the teeth, put him in a situation where he does not know who is on his side and who is the enemy, and then condemn him for trying to stay alive or for losing his temper or for being scared and acting scared or for acting like an 18 or 19 year old boy. Our Constitution allows our Federal Government to govern America, not the world. It is not our responsibility to determine how other folks govern themselves. One columnist wrote " One would have to be a moron or entirely ignorant of the Muslim world to expect that you could impose that system on Iraq at gunpoint." The term system refers to our installing our form of government which is a Republic not a Democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't know about you but deliver me from "I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help."
I heard one of our military explain how he lost a leg. He was the driver of the second truck in a convoy and they came upon a group of men working on the road. The soldier explained how after the first truck made it past the work area he felt better but when he drove over the area it exploded. What are our leaders thinking, sending a convoy down a road that has not been secured?
Then there was the soldier killed when he drove his vehicle under a bridge and was shot and died. Since when do you drive under a bridge in a war zone that has not been secured?
It was reported today that four Iraqi policemen were killed while they were sleeping in their car. According to the news report they had been on duty all night and were waiting on their replacements. Their weapons were in the back of the vehicle. Excuse me!!! You are in a war zone your weapons are in your hands at all times. You do not sleep unless you have someone on guard. Never! Never!
Apparently neither our military or the citizens of Iraq know what it means to be in a war and have other people looking to kill you at all times. There is no place for Rest and Relaxation in war zone.
The United States is so far superior to any other military from any other country our leaders both civilian and military appear to believe we are invulnerable. Our military leadership are careless in their thinking and sloppy in their performance and as a result more people are dying than would be expected in similar situations.
Part of the blame falls on the citizens of the United States. We permit our leaders to use our military as pawns in useless situations while we, citizens, carry on as if nothing is happening. And then complain when one of our soldiers does something that we consider unacceptable although we were not there and have never faced similar situations. We, citizens of the United States, are more than willing to send an 18 or 19 year old boy to Iraq, arm him to the teeth, put him in a situation where he does not know who is on his side and who is the enemy, and then condemn him for trying to stay alive or for losing his temper or for being scared and acting scared or for acting like an 18 or 19 year old boy. Our Constitution allows our Federal Government to govern America, not the world. It is not our responsibility to determine how other folks govern themselves. One columnist wrote " One would have to be a moron or entirely ignorant of the Muslim world to expect that you could impose that system on Iraq at gunpoint." The term system refers to our installing our form of government which is a Republic not a Democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't know about you but deliver me from "I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help."
Monday, August 08, 2005
Was It Just a Coincidence or Did Our FBI and CIA Overlook the Obvious?
If letter bombs were routinely delivered in yellow envelopes one would be wise to treat a yellow envelope received in the mail cautiously.
Bring anything to mind?
1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40.
At the 1972 Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
Not to mention what happened in New York on September 11, 2001.
Now how many 80 year old grandmothers do you suppose we will have to search before we discover a terrorist?
Bring anything to mind?
1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40.
At the 1972 Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
Not to mention what happened in New York on September 11, 2001.
Now how many 80 year old grandmothers do you suppose we will have to search before we discover a terrorist?
Friday, August 05, 2005
Government's Polices for Afghanistan and Iraq Are Doomed to Failure
The conflicts* in Afghanistan and Iraq are futile. When the United States puts troops on the ground in the Middle East we doom those troops to failure and death; wasting the lives of our Military for no good purpose. Anyone familiar with the Middle East will tell you that in the long run, the insurgents will be there and we will not and there will be a civil war and it will as if we had never been there.
We are too high-tech to win. The insurgents know that to fight a high-tech arem is with low-tech tactics and weapons. We proved that reasoning during our Revelutionary War and saw it succeed again in Viet Nam.
The United States has not experienced casualties of any meaningful numbers since WWII. Those who support the war in Iraq support the possibility of our military experiencing casualties. In Viet Nam we wasted about 200 lives a week and now people want to have diplomatic relations with the people who killed our soldiers. If 50 dead marines in a month is disturbing remember the Normandy invasion? War means casualties. Don't be concerned with dead marines but instead be concerned with the policies of our government that cannot succeed.
One of policies of our government prohibits the use of embryos in research designed to improve the lives of American citizens and at the same time sacrifices the lives of American citizens in the futile attempt to improve the lives of people who hate us? Now that is something that causes concern.
*Congress has not Declared War so according to the following article of our Constitution what is happening in the Middle East is unconstitutional.
Article I, section 8
The Congress shall have the Power...
To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than Two Years;
We are too high-tech to win. The insurgents know that to fight a high-tech arem is with low-tech tactics and weapons. We proved that reasoning during our Revelutionary War and saw it succeed again in Viet Nam.
The United States has not experienced casualties of any meaningful numbers since WWII. Those who support the war in Iraq support the possibility of our military experiencing casualties. In Viet Nam we wasted about 200 lives a week and now people want to have diplomatic relations with the people who killed our soldiers. If 50 dead marines in a month is disturbing remember the Normandy invasion? War means casualties. Don't be concerned with dead marines but instead be concerned with the policies of our government that cannot succeed.
One of policies of our government prohibits the use of embryos in research designed to improve the lives of American citizens and at the same time sacrifices the lives of American citizens in the futile attempt to improve the lives of people who hate us? Now that is something that causes concern.
*Congress has not Declared War so according to the following article of our Constitution what is happening in the Middle East is unconstitutional.
Article I, section 8
The Congress shall have the Power...
To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than Two Years;
MLB Has No Credibility
Organizations such as MLB (owners and players) develop the mind set that they have control over public opinion and that the public will accept whatever they say and everything will be alright. They appear to believe by spouting their company policy that they can make everything OK. They cannot. On occasion you can force people to do what you want them to do but you can never force people to think the way you want them to think.That said, MLB's penalties show how disingenuous the MLB owners and players are. If and that is a big IF, they are serious about eliminating criminal behavior from their league and restoring some validity to their statistics, the penalties would be much stiffer. Instead of days the offenders would be penalized games. Instead of 4 chances there would be one. No matter what MLB claims the public knows they are posturing and if the media and congress were not on their back they would allow any behavior no matter how immoral, illegal, or unethical. As with all "stars" if the public knew them on a personal basis they wouldn't like them. MLB needs to understand the public believes MLB's owners and players are a joke and the statistics, considered by MLB as holy grail are meaningless. Their "best" players cannot compete without cheating. Why should anyone care what a league does where the management, owners, and the players admit to the world they don't have the ability to play the sport without cheating. This eliminates any credibility MLB may have had in the past. They need to get past "company policy" and clean up their league. To-date their efforts are too little too late.
The "positive" effects appreciated by steroid users remain long past the time steroids can appear in tests. Players who use steroids should be suspended for however long those "positive" effects are present.
The "positive" effects appreciated by steroid users remain long past the time steroids can appear in tests. Players who use steroids should be suspended for however long those "positive" effects are present.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Lou Holtz and South Carolina and 10 NCAA Violiations
The trend continues. As teams are willing to accept criminal and unethical behavior by their players and ESPN is no different. Lou Holtz left South Carolina to suffer because of his willingness to violate NCAA rules and ESPN hires him. ESPN tolerates unethical behavior the same as Universities and Professional teams. Great example! Congratulations. Sports and those associated with sports apparently are generally unethical, dishonest and willing to cheat and tolerate people who do.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Steroid Use Tolerated by MLB
MLB acts as if steroid abuse is a challenge and not illegal. Players who use steroids are telling the world they cannot make the grade. They are not as good as the other players unless they cheat. If any user of steroids is allowed into any Hall of Fame or is allowed to remain in any Hall of Fame it testifies to the meaninglessness of the respective Halls of Fame. Steroid use is not a challenge it is illegal just like murder, child abuse, DUI etc. Steroid users are criminals not stars. When MLB tolerates illegal behavior they are aiding and abetting criminals and are guilty after the fact.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT!!
Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely comprised of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.
This idea of America, being a multi-cultural community, has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! ENGLISH. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, and political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, of Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is and always will be part of our culture.
If the Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. Remember, "Delta is ready when you are and they can have you there by nightfall".
This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But, once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
This idea of America, being a multi-cultural community, has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! ENGLISH. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, and political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, of Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is and always will be part of our culture.
If the Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. Remember, "Delta is ready when you are and they can have you there by nightfall".
This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But, once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)