How to Reduce Dependency on Fossil Fuels, Reduce Pollution, Create Jobs and Undermine Terrorism…

I see three major priorities for the Obama Administration.

1. The economy - job creation and replacement
2. Energy Independence - reducing our need on foreign sources and fossil fuels
3. Transitioning to renewable and clean energy - addressing the issues of climate change/global warming and increasing pollution.
   

There are several ways to benefit Americans and address these three priorities all in one major policy decision along with some new laws and tax breaks to home and business owners. It will also be a chance for America to once again lead the world by example instead of the do as we say not as we do policies of our past.

I see a way to do this that involves creating jobs in the manufacturing and services sectors. Start by giving tax incentives to companies that create jobs designing and building cheap and affordable solar and wind power products for homes and small business. Help a new industry to be born. This would be an investment in our future. With the proper leadership and investment strategy this technology path could be the next technology boom.

Encourage development by creating a series of X-Prize type programs for development similar to our "race to the moon" programs to encourage innovation and invention. Just look around you and you cannot see something in your room or life that is not a direct result of the space program; Velcro, wireless communications or computers might ring a bell?

Design a model of business practices that encourages inventors and manufacturers to share patents and ideas in new clean energy while guaranteeing that they get financial compensation for their ideas and labor. This will allow for a greater, regionalized manufacturing resulting in less transportation and more affordable devices.

Make a federal law that requires all utility companies to buy back excess energy produced by solar, wind power or from any other clean energy source. Give the American public a chance to earn money generating power instead of becoming energy poor.

Provide a tax credit to homeowners and business owners that give them back 90% of their investment for having their own solar or wind power. You will also need to design a tax credit plan for proper maintenance of such equipment. This will greatly increase the demand for devices, increasing demand for manufacturing and increase demand for highly skilled labor to produce the devices and support devices during their lifetime of use. All of this will generate a windfall in taxable income from multiple sectors across the United States for as long as people need energy. There will also have to be a support structure in place to train people to work with and support such devices and services.

Give tax incentives to individuals and business that buy Hybrid vehicles and extra incentives for people to upgrade their vehicles to plug-in hybrid or expand battery capacity and don't allow car manufacturers to void warranties for an individual making such improvements to the vehicle as long as they use a certified service provider. Such improvements are for the greater good so a warranty for non-related parts should not be voided. This could help spur a cottage industry of hybrid upgrade specialist and create jobs supplying such innovators. It would also be wise to create a financial incentive with auto manufacturers motivate them to review such innovations and reward them and the inventors for incorporating changes that bring "significant improvement" to reducing emissions.

Try to imagine an America where a large percentage of the citizens drive Plug-In Hybrid Electric vehicles that they charged on power they generated at home. Can you imagine the impact that only 10% of America could make by doing that? Just imagine 20% or 50% - that is something we can all do given the right incentive and the right leadership.

All of these efforts will create jobs, generate income and help to clean up the environment. With the added bonus of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reduce funding to terrorist organizations every time someone buys a gallon of gas.

Essentially, President Elect Obama, you have a chance to address three major issues facing this nation right now by addressing one major policy - Localized Clean Renewable Energy.

Making cars safe for kids

Disclaimer: I did not write this article. It is my opinion that this information is too important to keep from the public. Stuart Ollanik is performing a great service for Parents and Children by writing this article:

Making cars safe for kids

Stuart Ollanik

People take safety precautions for their children, but auto manufacturers must follow suit and make safety changes. Regulations and laws should ensure that they do. It’s time for a national child auto-safety initiative.

When it comes to auto safety, children take a back seat. Our society claims to value its children above all else but fails to protect them from an epidemic of automobile-related deaths and injuries.

Automakers also claim that they value our children above all else. One major American auto company’s Web site proclaimed: “Child safety comes first.”¹ But lawsuits brought by injured consumers across the country reveal another story. Children have not come first, or even second or third. When it comes to auto safety, children have been an afterthought.

The neglect of child safety in automotive design is a national disgrace. It is time to change that and promote a national child auto-safety initiative.

The consumer behavior side of the child safety coin has landed heads up. Seat belt use rates have increased substantially in the past two decades.² Laws requiring belt use have been effective, and laws requiring child seats—and, more recently, booster seats for children who have outgrown their child seats—promise to reduce child injuries and fatalities as compliance increases.³

Older children are wearing seat belts more often. Graduated driver’s license requirements that restrict night driving for young, new drivers have been reversing the trend of deaths and injuries caused by teen drivers.⁴

But the equipment side of the coin is not so shiny. Information coming to light in lawsuits on behalf of children injured and killed in auto accidents show that car manufacturers make child safety their last priority.

For example,

• By 1974, the driver and front passenger seats in every new car were required to have lap and shoulder belts or passive restraints that provided similar protections, but children rode in back with lap-only belts. It wasn’t until 1990 that cars were required to have lap-shoulder belts in the left and right rear seats. Middle seat lap-only belts were still tolerated until the 2008 model year.⁵
  


• By 1998, all new cars were required to have air bags for both front seats.⁶ But auto safety researchers knew that full-powered air bags could pose a danger to children. Many children were injured or killed before parents were advised to put children in the back seat and new regulations required lower- or variable-powered air bags for light-weight passengers in front seats.⁷
  


• In the mid-1990s, many seat belts were equipped with adjustable upper anchors on front seats to help adults get a better shoulder-belt fit. But few cars have these in the back, where children sit and greater adjustability for smaller passengers is needed.
  


• Until the last few years, up to 90 percent of child seats were installed incorrectly.⁸ Parents were sometimes blamed for this, but even certified child-restraint specialists cannot properly install some child seats in some cars. There are issues of compatibility, complexity, and poor instructions. This problem had been solved in Europe by requiring standard mounting hardware for tethering child seats at the bottom and the top. But top tethers for child seats were not common in the United States until 2001, when regulations were changed to effectively require them, many years after they were standard equipment in Canada.⁹

Auto safety has advanced over the decades—lap belts were introduced in the 1960s, shoulder belts in the 1970s, antilock brakes in the 1980s, air bags in the 1990s, and electronic stability control in the 2000s. Hundreds of other safety innovations have come along the way, including efforts to provide child safety.

However, a broad divide between state of the art and state of the industry exists, and the record shows that child safety has been neglected. Change is needed in several areas.

Seat belts and seats
The most important area for change involves the most important safety component in the car: the seat belts. In 1990, one automaker appointed a committee to investigate how to best protect children in rear seats in frontal collisions, the most common type of crash. The committee issued two recommendations: Make seat belts fit, and make them perform well. These recommendations were not adopted then or even after subsequent committees reached the same conclusions.¹⁰

The need for good fit and performance was obvious. Experience with early shoulder belts in the 1960s showed that they do not fit even older children correctly unless they are designed with adjustable upper anchors to ensure good fit for passengers of many different sizes.

The consequences of poor fit are serious. Uncomfortable belts will not be worn. Nor will belts that fit in a way that appears dangerous. Some automakers advised parents that if the shoulder belt cut across a child’s neck, it should be placed behind the back. The federal government also gave this warning.¹¹ Safety experts now agree that shoulder belts should never be placed behind the back, but the practice persists, and some medical providers and public safety materials continued to repeat the outdated recommendation for years.¹²

Besides discouraging use and facilitating improper use, ill-fitting belts do not protect children properly. Belt effectiveness depends on the belt remaining on the hard bones of the body—the pelvis (hip bone) and shoulder bones—to transfer accident forces there and avoid vulnerable body parts like the head and abdomen. When a child is swimming in an oversized belt, it is too likely that in a crash the belt will not stay where it belongs.

Even when worn as intended, poor-fitting belts create two specific injury risks. “Rollout” can occur when children lean away from a shoulder belt that fits too close to their necks, or when the seat belt buckle is on a strap or stalk too long for child occupants so that the shoulder belt does not wrap all the way around the child’s torso. In such situations, a child can “roll out” of the shoulder belt—his or her torso rotates around the taut belt, which comes off the shoulder.

Rollout can result in severe organ damage as the belt slides down to the abdomen. It can also cause the child’s body to bend where it was never meant to bend, causing spinal injury and paralysis.

“Submarining” occurs when poor belt fit allows a child, whose pelvis is less developed than an adult’s, to slide under the lap belt. It can also cause disabling or fatal internal injuries or paralysis.

Rollout and submarining injuries are common and have been the subject of many lawsuits. Auto industry studies and other internal documents uncovered in litigation recognize these risks, but manufacturers still do not properly protect children against them.

The auto industry has known about the following solutions for well over a decade, but has failed to adopt them:

• adjustable upper anchors that can be moved down for children


• upper shoulder belts anchored to the “package tray” behind the back seat in a sedan, rather than higher up on the roof pillar


• anchors at the seat cushion placed close together to provide a more snug fit


• buckles mounted flush to the seat (buckles that are placed further along the belt webbing are fine for adults, but when children wear these, the lap-shoulder belt junction is too high on the child’s lap, encouraging both rollout and submarining)


• anti-submarining seat pans, that help keep the occupants’ buttocks from sliding forward.

These design alternatives make restraints safer for children sitting in car seats and in booster seats, and some cost almost nothing. The most expensive option costs about $4 per seat belt.

Engineers have tested, modeled, and recommended fixes for poor belt performance for children for over a decade. Two of these—pretensioners and web clamps—either tighten the belt or prevent spooling in accidents. A third option is to simply produce belts with less webbing.

Pretensioners usually are found on belts in the front seats, where adults typically sit. They cost about $7 each, according to documents uncovered in discovery—about the price of two McDonald’s Happy Meals.

Web clamps secure the belt immediately in an accident. They cost about $2.

Less webbing on the spool means less can pay out in a crash. Federal law requires that belts have enough webbing to fit 95 percent of the men in America, according to official sizing charts.¹³ That means that the largest men and women—under 3 percent of the population—would need to use a seat belt extender. Rather than inconvenience that 3 percent, some automakers add extra webbing, which increases children’s risk. Using no more webbing in the rear seat than the law requires is a no-cost improvement.

Quick belt engagement allows the passenger to take advantage of the crumple zone in the front of the vehicle—the part designed to buckle and fold in an impact, absorbing crash force rather than transmitting it to occupants. The crumple zone is one factor that helps “ride down” the crash impact for occupants—that is, increasing the duration of the crash, which reduces acceleration. When a child’s seat belt does not engage until a third or a half of the crumple zone is crushed, the child loses much of the ride-down and has an impact with greater force.

Those three design alternatives also protect children who are in booster seats. No booster seat will provide good protection if the belt does not work well.

When belt systems didn’t include pretensioners or web clamps, testing and modeling uncovered in litigation showed that forces on child-size dummies were sometimes greater with booster seats than without them. The research also showed that pretensioners reduce forces on child-size dummies with booster seats and without them.¹⁴

Integrated child seats are a wonderful solution to both fit and performance problems. These child-restraint or booster seats are built into the vehicle, eliminating the problem of improper compatibility or installation. They hold the child snug and fit properly, providing optimal child protection. Unfortunately, they are available in very few vehicles and have not been widely promoted or stocked when offered as an option.

While every child should use a child-restraint seat, then a booster seat when he or she outgrows it, this is an incomplete solution to the problem of restraining children. The design alternatives discussed here should be implemented to better protect children of all ages.

Because of the danger of air bags, nearly all children now sit in the rear seats. However, that placement also poses a serious danger that could be prevented with proper design. In a frontal collision, cargo from the trunk can collapse the rear seatback forward, injuring or killing a child seated there. Even loads under 100 pounds can push into the occupant compartment in an accident, endangering children in the back seats, including those in child seats. Standards for retention of cargo have been proposed but are not widely used by U.S. automakers, although they appear in some of their European and Australian vehicles.

In moderate-speed rear-end collisions, the front seatbacks of many vehicles on the road will collapse rearward, often with tragic results. A collapsing seatback poses risks for the front-seat occupant, as well as serious risk for infants in rear-facing car seats because their heads will be directly in the zone of the collapsing front seatback. Stronger seatback designs are available that can minimize this risk.

Crash testing

For decades, the federal government has required crash tests in which force levels on test dummies are required to be below federally established limits believed to correspond with severe injury thresholds. However, these requirements do not include the use of child-size dummies, and no crash dummy testing is required for the back seat, where all children are supposed to sit.

Discovery in one case revealed that a major U.S. automaker had conducted about 200 crash tests while developing one of the best-selling sedans of all time, the Ford Taurus. None of those tests included child-size dummies.¹⁵

Automakers say they do not have good data on safe injury levels for children and that this justifies the lack of crash testing. Where is the data, and when do they propose to conduct the research? We need to ask why the science for children and the requirements for ensuring their safety have lagged by decades behind that for adults.

Automakers do conduct sled tests with child dummies, but these are sorely inadequate. In a sled test, a car body is placed on a test platform and rapidly accelerated backward on a short track, simulating a collision. But a sled does not move like a real car in a real accident. It cannot roll, pitch, or yaw. It just moves backward. Sleds also include only some parts of the car.

In investigating one accident, it was discovered that the floor of the car bent upward and forward in a frontal collision at the point where the seat belt was bolted down and loaded with just the weight of a young child. In two real-life collisions, children belted into rear seats were paralyzed in frontal collisions no more severe than a crash test or sled test would measure. In the sled test for that vehicle, the seat belt was bolted to the rigid sled; the manufacturer never tested the vehicle to determine what would happen if a belt anchor was deformed by the crash.

Nontraffic accidents

Vehicles can pose grave dangers to children even when not on the roadway. The advocacy group Kids and Cars reports that since 2001, more than 1,400 children have been killed in nontraffic automobile accidents, including 232 in 2007.¹⁶ “The real tragedy is that all of these deaths could have been prevented with existing technology,” said the group’s founder, Janette Fennell.

The following features can be modified for child safety.

Automatic windows. Children have been strangled in automatic windows. One reliable solution is a sensing device that stops the window when it encounters resistance—a technology we have had for automatic garage doors for decades. At the very least, window switches should be designed to make it difficult to accidentally close the window; for example, recessed switches need to be pulled up to raise the window. Current federal regulations will finally require such switches by the 2009 model year.¹⁷

Trunks. Most cars made before 2001 did not have internal trunk releases, making the trunk a suffocation hazard. Retrofit kits are now available for many vehicles.

Rear visibility. Consumer Reports and other news sources have reported the lack of rear visibility in many vehicles, especially SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans.¹⁸ Tests measured “blind zones”—the distance behind the vehicle at which an average driver or a five-foot, one-inch driver could not see a 28-inch traffic cone. For the small driver, the blind zone behind one SUV was 69 feet. Only a handful of vehicles, including the Acura MDX, the Honda Pilot, the Lexus RX400h, and the Chevrolet Avalanche offered rear-view cameras as an option to eliminate the blind zone.¹⁹

According to Fennell, vehicles back over 50 children in this country every week.²⁰ There is great variation in visibility behind different vehicles, and their design should take this into account. Vehicles like pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs should be equipped with visibility-enhancing devices like rear-view cameras or rear-sensing devices that warn drivers if there is an obstacle behind them.

Some, but not all, vehicles have a “brake-shift interlock” mechanism that prevents a vehicle from being placed in gear unless the brake lever is depressed. Vehicles lacking these commonsense devices have been set in motion by children, injuring themselves and others.

Advocacy groups like Kids and Cars, Consumers Union, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and Public Citizen have worked to educate legislators about children and nontraffic accidents. As a result, the Cam­eron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 became law in February.²¹

Named in memory of a two-year-old victim of an SUV backover accident, the new law directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to implement child-safety regulations in several areas. It mandates new rulemaking on power window safety, rear visibility, and brake-shift interlock. It requires the agency to expand its accident databases to include noncrash injuries and deaths, and establishes a Child Safety Information Program to use this data to advise parents and others how to reduce the risks vehicles pose to small children.

Fennell is looking toward further legislative progress to address the epidemic of child auto injuries, and her group is investigating other fixes, such as requiring audible warnings when rear seat belts are not fastened, similar to those that already exist for the front seats. This technology would also alert parents who inadvertently forget a child is in the rear seat, an occurrence that results in hyperthermia deaths each year.

Nontraffic auto injuries to children present a shared responsibility. Drivers must be educated to walk all the way around a vehicle before backing out of the garage, every single time. Parents and other caretakers must be taught never to leave a small child unattended in a vehicle even for a moment. And automakers must be required to implement safety design changes that will minimize the incidence of accidental injury and death to children.

To protect against collision injuries, we need state laws requiring booster seats for children up to 80 pounds. We need laws on restraining children in cars that permit primary enforcement so that drivers can be stopped and ticketed solely for failing to have their children in proper restraints.

We need uniform, simplified educational materials for public health departments and private health care providers to distribute. These materials should address selection of child safety seats appropriate to the child’s size, proper use of seat belts, the dangers of lap-only belts, proper posture for children in seat belts, the need for top tethers for child seats, and proper installation instructions.

Automakers have responsibilities, too. Safety window switches, trunk releases, brake-shift interlocks, and backup sensors and cameras can prevent tragedy, and these safety features should not be considered as mere options or offered only on high-end vehicles.

We need fit and performance standards for seat belts for children, including testing and injury criteria for four- to eight-year-olds that must be achieved with and without booster seats. We need requirements and safer designs that eliminate delayed restraint and incorporate seat belt pretensioners and web clamps.

We need to either require or provide incentives for automakers to include the safest form of child restraints, integrated child seats. We need research on injury values for child-size crash test dummies, and crash test requirements for the full range of dummies.

And we need a different design ethic. Documents uncovered in litigation show that engineers have recognized and urged use of all the solutions recommended here for many years. We need management at leading automakers to follow through and make sure their engineers’ efforts to protect children are implemented.

It is up to us to protect our children in the cars we drive. We must make a conscious choice to put children first and enact statutes and regulations to ensure that vehicle operators and manufacturers act accordingly.

Stuart Ollanik is a partner with Gilbert, Ollanik & Komyatte in Arvada, Colorado. © 2008 Stuart Ollanik.

Notes:

1. See Ford Motor Co., Ford Vehicles: Helpful Guides—Safety, formerly at http://www.fordvehicles/. com/help/guides/safety (Sept. 22, 2006).


2. See Donna Glassbrenner & Tony Jianqiang Ye, Natl. Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin. (hereinafter NHTSA), Traffic Safety Facts, Research Note: Seat Belt Use in 2007—Overall Results, DOT HS 810 841, www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/announce/810_841. pdf (Sept. 2007).


3. See NHTSA, The Need to Promote Occupant Restraint Use for Children, Youth, and 16- to 20-Year-Olds, DOT HS 810 654, www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ people/injury/airbags/OccupantProtectionFacts/ restraint.htm (2004).


4. See Li-Hui Chen et al., Graduated Driver Licensing Programs and Fatal Crashes of 16-Year-Old Drivers: A National Evaluation, 118 Pediatrics 56 (2006), www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/ 118/1/56; Ins. Inst. for Hwy. Safety, Good News about Teen Drivers, 42 Status Rpt. 1, 2 (June 15, 2007), www.iihs.org/sr/2007.html.


5. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 49 C.F.R. §571.208 (2007).


6. Id.


7. See Matthew L. Wald, Keeping Children in Back Seat Cuts Road Deaths, Study Says, 159 N.Y. Times (Aug. 17, 2005), www.nytimes.com/ 2005/08/17/health/17cnd-baby.html; Charles J. Kahane, NHTSA, Fatality Reduction by Air Bags: Analyses of Accident Data through Early 1996 (July 1998), http://www.nhtsa.gov/ (search DOT HS 808 470).


8. See C.H. Taft et al., Child Passengers at Risk in America: A National Study of Car Seat Misuse (National SAFE KIDS Campaign Feb. 1999), www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_ item_id=2530&folder_id=680; Natl. Safety Belt Coalition, Why Child Safety Seats?, www.nsc.org/ traf/sbc/sbcchild.aspx (Dec. 12, 2002).


9. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard was amended to allow less forward excursion of dummies in child restraint seats, which caused automobile manufacturers to equip child restraint seats with top tethers. 49 C.F.R. §571.213 (2007). See Final Rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, 64 Fed. Reg. 10786-01 (Mar. 5, 1999).


10. This was revealed in discovery documents produced in Combs v. Ford Motor Co., No. 99-CI-00234 (Ky., Knott Co. Cir. 2002)(on file with author).


11. See NHTSA, Why Are Child Safety Seats Needed?, NHTSA DOT HS 805 174 (1982).


12. See e.g. N.C. Dept. of Transp., North Carolina Safety Belt Law FAQ: Can’t Safety Belts Actually Cause Injuries?, formerly at www.ncdot.org/ secretary/GHSP/ClickIt/sbfaq.html (Dec. 2005). This language has been replaced by a proper advisory to avoid putting shoulder belts behind the back. Both documents are on file with the author.


13. 49 C.F.R. §571.209 (2007).


14. Discovery documents produced in Combs, No. 99-CI-00234 (on file with the author).


15. See id.


16. http://www.kidsandcars.org/.


17. Pub. L. No. 110-189 (Feb. 28, 2008).


18. See ConsumerReports.org, The Danger of Blind Zones: The Area behind Your Vehicle Can Be a Killing Zone, www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/ car-safety/car-safety-reviews/mind-that-blind-spot-1005/overview/index.htm (Apr. 2008).


19. Id.


20. Id.


21. Pub. L. No. 110-189.

Why shouldn't Talibaptist be a relevant term?

I have got to wonder why it is that Wikipedia is afraid to or refuses to post this reference to the term Talibaptist. I have received two responses.
1) "...no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent"
2) "...serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity."

Talibaptist is a term derived from the combination of the words Taliban and
Baptist. The term is used to describe fundamentalist right-wing Christians that follow the teachings of extremist.

The term implies that the extreme Christian-Right has a similar goal to the Taliban in that they seek to enforce religious laws and create a theocratic state. They are often seen to be misogynistic, have a political agenda to control others by passing legislation to mandate their particular brand of faith and morality upon all people that may or may not share their religious beliefs.

Talibaptist is a term used to convey references to Dominionism also known as Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism while using the Taliban like reference to highlight the true nature of such extreme right-wing Christian political agendas.

Common Usage of the term:
Talibaptist: 728 references to the term on Google:
Jerry Falwell: And on Here
Old Radio Guy Blog
Medical Ethics
Talibaptist Jihad
Christian Right

Search Google - You will see that at the time of this post there were 728 references to the term Talibaptist. So that is 728 to 2. How can I be so wrong?

If the term Talibaptist is being used by a large number of people, is reflective of the current religio-political times and events then how can it not meet the criteria on Wikipedia?

I have to argue and declare that Talibaptist is relevant and timely. If GW Bush can make up ten new words a day, why can't we have our one new word?

One more ironic point here: "Unsalvageably" also appears to not be a real word either.

On Jerry Falwell, I Have To Say Good Riddance.

I have to say that Jerry Falwell's death is too little too late.

I hate to sound hateful, but this was a very bad man that did very bad things in the name of God.

The worst thing about his death is that his ministry will probably be taken over by his son. From what I can tell Falwell Junior is to Jerry as Uday was to Saddam. The children are far worse than the father.

I for one will not miss or mourn this bad person. This Talibaptist has done more harm to American Democracy than the Islamic Terrorist overseas could ever hope to achieve.

Larry Flynnt was very accurate in his description of Falwell as A.H.O.T.M., repeatedly.

This man has been one of the greatest architects at the conversion of America into a Theocratic State with Christian Laws that are much closer to Islamic Sharia Law than they are to American Traditions and Freedoms as spelled out in the Declaration on Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights..

I have to say, Good Riddance.

Try the test, I was rather surprised that I got 100%!
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Usama bin Laden have a lot in common. Take the quiz and see if you can identify statements by each of these "leaders."

Just a few sources:

Jerry Falwell on 9-11:

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. Rev. Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev. Pat Robertson agreed, quoted from John F. Harris, "God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." Rev. Jerry Falwell

I sincerely believe that the collective efforts of many secularists during the past generation, resulting in the expulsion from our schools and from the public square, has left us vulnerable. -- Rev. Jerry Falwell, after the 700 Club broadcast.

Alcoholism and Negroes:
"There are almost as many alcoholics as there are negroes."Rev. Jerry Falwell

America's Condition:
"I do not believe the Republicans or the Democrats have the solution to America's moral and spiritual dilemma. Only a pervasive and national spiritual awakening can prevent us entering the post-Christian era as we go simultaneously into the 21st century. I believe America is in imminent peril. We are rotting from within.Rev. Jerry Falwell "Rebuilding America's Walls," 7/6/97

Brainwashing:
"Somewhere in the past generation, we've lost our biblical mind and not arranged something better in its place. We need a spiritual brainwashing,"Jerry Falwell
Church and State: "The idea of separation of Church and State was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."Rev. Jerry Falwell

Feminist (Women):
"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their problem"Rev. Jerry Falwell

Homosexuality:
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status. Rev. Jerry Falwell, USA Today Chat, quoted from The Religious Freedom Coalition, "The Two faces of Jerry Falwell"
Human Failure:If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.Rev. Jerry Falwell

Jews:
I know a few of you here today don't like Jews. And I know why. He can make more money accidentally than you can on purpose.Rev. Jerry Falwell

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

Martin Luther King:
"I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations. Rev. Jerry Falwell

Marriage:
Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.Jerry Falwell, on CNN's Crossfire, May 17, 1997

Our Destruction:
"We are on the brink of our destruction, and if we do not awaken now, it will be too late. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders."Rev. Jerry Falwell
Politics and Religion:The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sermon, July 4, 1976

Public Schools:
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!Rev. Jerry Falwell, America Can Be Saved, 1979 pp. 52-53,

Supreme Court:
"Modern U.S. Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the founders had in mind in the First Amendment of the Constitution... [W]e must fight against those radical minorities who are trying to remove God from our textbooks, Christ from our nation. We must never allow our children to forget that this is a Christian nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours." Jerry Falwell, March 1993 sermon

Tele Tubbies:
"He is purple - the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol." Rev. Jerry Falwell

"As a Christian I feel that role modeling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children." Rev. Jerry Falwell

Timeline:
May 1979:
Jerry Falwell, a televangelist and Baptist pastor in Lynchburg, Va., is recruited by far-right activists Howard Phillips, Ed McAteer and Paul Weyrich to form the Moral Majority, a vehicle for bringing fundamentalist Protestants into the Republican Party with the aim of unseating President Jimmy Carter. The move was an about-face for Falwell, who advised his congregation
in 1965, "Preachers are not called to be politicians but soul winners."

March 1980:
MAJOR LIE # 1 Falwell tells an Anchorage rally about a conversation with President Carter at the White House. Commenting on a January breakfast meeting, Falwell claimed to have asked Carter why he had "practicing homosexuals" on the senior staff at the White House. According to Falwell, Carter replied, "Well, I am president of all the American people, and I believe I should represent everyone." When others who attended the White House event insisted that the exchange never happened, Falwell responded that his account "was not intended to be a verbatim report," but rather an "honest portrayal" of Carter’s position.

August 1980:
After Southern Baptist Convention President Bailey Smith tells a Dallas Religious Right gathering that "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew," Falwell gives a similar view. "I do not believe," he told reporters, "that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew." After a meeting with an American Jewish Committee rabbi, he changed course, telling an interviewer on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that "God hears the prayers of all persons….God hears everything."

1980-81:
After the election of Ronald Reagan, the Moral Majority begins advocating for constitutional amendments banning abortion and restoring school-sponsored prayer. The group also demands tax aid to religious education.

September 1982:
Falwell announces a drive to register 1 million new voters before the November elections.

July 1984:
MAJOR LIE # 2 Falwell is forced to pay gay activist Jerry Sloan $5,000 after losing a court battle. During a TV debate in Sacramento, Falwell denied calling the gay-oriented Metropolitan Community Churches "brute beasts" and "a vile and Satanic system" that will "one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven." When Sloan insisted he had a tape, Falwell promised $5,000 if he could produce it. Sloan did so, Falwell refused to pay and Sloan successfully sued. Falwell appealed, with his attorney charging that the Jewish judge in the case was prejudiced. He lost again and was forced to pay an additional $2,875 in sanctions and court fees.

November 1984:
Reports from the Federal Election Commission indicate that Falwell’s "I Love America Committee," a political action committee formed in 1983, was a flop. The PAC raised $485,000 in its first year—but spent $413,000 to do so.

May 1985:
MAJOR LIE # 3 Falwell apologizes to a Jewish group for seeking a "Christian" America. From now on, he says, he will use the term "Judeo-Christian."

January 1987:
Falwell holds a Washington news conference to announce that he is changing the name of the Moral Majority to the Liberty Foundation. The new name never catches on and is soon abandoned.

March 1987:
Falwell accepts control of the collapsing PTL from his friend and fellow televangelist Jim Bakker. The floundering PTL (Praise The Lord Network) and it’s Heritage U.S.A. evangelical theme park continued to fall into bankruptcy. Falwell was accused of forcing his Fundamentalist ideas on Bakker’s Presbyterian flock. Tammy Faye, the former wife of Jim Bakker said in her 1996 book, Telling It My Way, "Jerry Falwell conned Jim into giving the PTL to him. He got us at a time when I had just gotten out of the hospital. He knew we were at a down time in our lives. He came to California and he lied to Jim. He told Jim he wanted to help him and Jim believed him."

October 1987:
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR # 1 The Federal Election Commission fines Falwell $6,000 for transferring $6.7 million in funds intended for his ministry to political committees.

November 1987:
MAJOR LIE # 4 Falwell tells reporters he is stepping down as head of the Moral Majority and retiring from politics. "From now on, my real platform is the pulpit, not politics," he says at a news conference.

February 1988:
The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a $200,000 jury award to Falwell for "emotional distress" he suffered because of a 1983 Hustler magazine parody. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, usually a Falwell favorite, wrote the unanimous opinion in Hustler vs. Falwell, ruling that the First Amendment protects free speech.

June1989:
Falwell announces that the Moral Majority will shut down its offices and disband.

January 1991:
Siding with Americans United, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously rejects Falwell’s quest for $60 million in state bonds for his Liberty University. During the litigation, Falwell tried to camouflage the school’s rigidly fundamentalist character, telling the court that the school would no longer discriminate in hiring or force students to attend mandatory chapel (renamed convocation). All the while, Falwell assured his congregation that Liberty had not changed, insisting chapel will be mandatory "until Jesus comes."

1991:
Stephens Inc., a Savings and Loan institution from Arkansas forecloses the North Campus of Liberty University, which Falwell had put up as collateral on $72.3 million. Falwell was also involved in the eventual failure of the Lincoln Savings and Loan of California, after borrowing $32 million. The deed to Thomas Road Baptist Church was recovered from their vault and returned.

January 1993:
In the wake of Bill Clinton’s election to the presidency, Falwell mails fund-raising letters nationwide asking people to vote on whether he should reactivate the Moral Majority. He later refuses to say how much money the effort raised and tells reporters he has no intention of reactivating the organization.

February 1993:
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR # 2 The Internal Revenue Service determines that funds from Falwell’s Old Time Gospel Hour program were illegally funneled to a political action committee. The IRS forced Falwell to pay $50,000 and retroactively revoked the Old Time Gospel Hour’s tax-exempt status for 1986-87.

March 1993:
Despite his promise to Jewish groups to stop referring to America as a "Christian nation," Falwell gives a sermon saying, "We must never allow our children to forget that this is a Christian nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours."

September 1993:
Falwell announces he will not reactivate the Moral Majority but will instead do political work through a group called the Liberty Alliance.

March 1994:
Falwell announces the formation of a new group, Mission America, which he claims will mobilize like-minded clergy across the country. Falwell describes the group as a "personal ministry" and says it will have no budget or staff. Nothing more is heard from it.

May 1994:
Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Flame newspaper runs an article calling TV preacher John Hagee a heretic for saying Jews can be saved without accepting Jesus Christ. Falwell urges every pastor to "take this information to the podium next Sunday."

September 1994:
Falwell endorses former Iran-Contra figure Oliver North for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia. Falwell glosses over North’s legal problems, saying they happened "in the past."

1994-1995:
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR # 3 Falwell is criticized for using his "Old Time Gospel Hour" to hawk a scurrilous video called "The Clinton Chronicles" that makes a number of unsubstantiated charges against President Bill Clinton—among them that he is a drug addict and that he arranged the murders of political enemies in Arkansas. Despite claims he had no ties to the project, evidence surfaced that Falwell helped bankroll the venture with $200,000 paid to a group called Citizens for Honest Government (CHG). CHG’s Pat Matrisciana later admitted that Falwell and he staged an infomercial interview promoting the video in which a silhouetted reporter said his life was in danger for investigating Clinton. (Matrisciana himself posed as the reporter.) "That was Jerry’s idea to do that," Matrisciana recalled. "He thought that would be dramatic."

April 1996:
Farwell hosts a "Washington for Jesus" rally in the nation’s capital where he holds a mock trial of America for engaging in seven deadly sins: persecution of the church, homosexuality, abortion, racism, occultism, addictions and HIV/AIDS (acronym: PHAROAH). He declares the nation guilty "of violating God’s law."

June 1996:
Falwell joins Revelation Corp. and adds his mailing list of 5 million to receive coupons and catalogues from Revelation Corp. Revelation Corp. was started by James Lowery as a way for black churches to receive money off of insurance premiums from their congregation’s purchases. Churches make 30% of the money funneled into Revelation and 50% goes to a housing fund, 20% goes into church coffers and 2% goes directly into the pocket of Lowery through a profit sharing plan. Many black church leaders have expressed disdain in the Fundamental Falwell’s joining a system design to help poor black churches.

July 1996:
Falwell announces a series of "God Save America" rallies in evangelical churches to stop the United States from entering a "post-Christian" era.

February 1997:
Falwell sponsors a pastors’ briefing in Washington, during which he threatens to form a new political party if Republicans waver on abortion.

June 1997:
Falwell announces a plan to urge fundamentalist churches to intervene in partisan politics. He vows to send sample candidate endorsement sermons that pastors can read in their churches and says he has already done this in the Virginia attorney general’s race. Falwell drops the plan after being reported to the IRS by Americans United.

August 1997:
Falwell pleads for funds for a new group, the National Committee for the Restoration of the Judeo-Christian Ethic. In a fund-raising letter, he promises to "get back in the ring" and be a "spiritual George Foreman." He pledges to register 4 million new voters and mobilize 50,000 pastors. After publishing a couple of fund-raising letters, the group is never heard from again.

November 1997:
Falwell accepts $3.5 million from a front group representing controversial Korean evangelist Sun Myung Moon to ease Liberty University’s financial woes. The donation, and several Falwell appearances at Moon conferences, raised eyebrows because Moon claims to be the messiah sent to complete the failed mission of Jesus Christ, a doctrine sharply at odds with Falwell’s fundamentalist Christian theology. (In 1978, before the Moon money started flowing, Falwell told Esquire magazine, "Reverend Sun Myung Moon is like the plague: he exploits boys and girls, and he should be deported.")

February 1998:
Falwell accepts a $70-million donation from insurance magnate Art Williams, for his debt-ridden Liberty University. Falwell says the contribution will free him to focus on politics again.

April 1998:
MAJOR LIE # 5 Confronted on national television with a controversial quote from America Can Be Saved!, a published collection of his sermons, Falwell denies having written the book or had anything to do with it. In the 1979 work, Falwell wrote, "I hope to live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" Despite Falwell’s denial, Sword of the Lord Publishing, which produced the book, confirms that Falwell wrote it.

October 1998:
In a fund-raising letter, Falwell announces plans to expand his ministry and to "immediately rededicate myself to use my God-given skills as a national spokesman for morality and return to the moral/political arena....[W]ith God’s anointing and your prayerful support, you will soon think I am omnipresent."

January 1999:
Falwell tells a pastors’ conference in Kingsport, Tenn., that the Antichrist prophesied in the Bible is alive today and "of course he’ll be Jewish."

February 1999:
MAJOR LIE # 6 Falwell becomes the object of nationwide ridicule after his National Liberty Journal newspaper issues a "parents alert" warning that Tinky Winky, a character on the popular PBS children’s show "Teletubbies," might be gay. (Americans United was responsible for releasing the information to the national press.)

January 2000:
Falwell sues the White House for harvesting illegal FBI files on him and other televangelists. His accusation is that Bill Clinton has been compiling a list connecting televangelists to violence done to abortion providers called VAAPCON (Violence Against Abortion Providers CONspiracy), which includes personal details of Falwell’s political and real-estate ventures in violation of the Privacy Act. The White House has denied the accusation, and the FBI claims that it’s database contains no such information.

April 2000:
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR # 4 Falwell forms the People of Faith 2000, a campaign designed to mobilize Christians in the 2000 election. Federal tax laws clearly state that it is illegal for a tax-exempt organization to conduct partisan voter registration. Although Falwell claims his campaign is nonpartisan he admits, "It is my experience that most people of faith in the country vote pro-family, pro-life, and that will mean George W. Bush." He may also be accused of funneling tax-deductible donations made to his religious ministries into partisan political projects…. So what’s new?

The War On Christmas: The Evidence & The Lies.

Under Attack?

In America it seems that numerous Christian leaders claim that Christianity is under assault, in a war even. It would also seem this war is being fought on many fronts.

For example; The War on Christmas & the “Battle” against “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the forceful removal of “God from the public square” and the forced removal of “God from our public schools,” and of course the “Hidden Gay Agenda.”

Setting Standards:

Robert Meyer states in one of his articles the following:

“To call someone a liar, you must know something about the thoughts and intentions of the individual making the claim. In this era of reckless character assassinations, we have become impervious to the principle that if lying is despicable, then calling someone a liar gratuitously is proportionally as repugnant.11

It is with this in mind that I proceed.

Religiosity in America:

America is a religiously diverse country, with one clear majority.

Jews:

Approximately 1.4 % of Americans are Jewish while approximately 0.22% of the world is Jewish.1&2

Muslims:

Approximately 0.6% of Americans are Muslims while 21% of the world religions are some form of Islam. 1&2

Hinduism, Buddhism, Chinese traditional & Primal Indigenous:

The World Report shows that these religions collectively account for 32% of the world population and approximately 1% of the United States population. 1&2

Agnostics Atheist Humanists, Theist & Jedi Knights3:

Based on the World Report about 8% of people world wide have no religion or are atheist/agnostic and 8% are theists, meaning they believe in a god or gods with no revelation while they are less than 1% of the American population. 1&2

Christians:

According to Adherents.Com 33% of the world’s Population is some form of Christian. While the U.S. Census approximates that 80% of Americans are some form of Christian. 1&2

Who is really waging a war on who?

The easiest way to identify a “war monger” is by their own pro-war rhetoric.

Pat Robertson:

"There will be Satanic forces... We are not... up just against human beings, to beat them in elections. We're going to be coming up against spiritual warfare."

Pat Robertson, Road to Victory, 19917&8

Robertson named his enemies in a 1992 newsletter, Pat Robertson Perspective. The list includes, among others, the National Organization for Women, the National Education Association, the National Council of Churches, the Gay-Lesbian Caucus, as well as People for the American Way, and Americans United for a Separation of Church and State. They are lumped together as the "Radical Left." 7&8

"The strategy against the American Radical Left should be the same as General Douglas Macarthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific... Bypass their strongholds, then surround them, isolate them, bombard them, then blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat. The battle for Iwo Jima was not pleasant, but our troops won it. The battle to regain the soul of America won't be pleasant either, but we will win it."

Karl Rove:

"We need to find ways to win the war" Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, and deputy chief of staff told a gathering of the Family Research Council in March, 2002. 7&8

Tim LaHaye:

Reverend Tim LaHaye co-authored Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millennium, published in 2000. The best-selling book issues a call to arms for evangelical Christians to battle against secular humanism. Mind Siege declares that secular humanism is a "religion," and issues marching orders to evangelical Christians to gear up for an all-out battle to root secular humanists out of public life; their bottom line is that "No humanist is fit to hold office." 7&8

Paul Weyrich:

Paul Weyrich said in a talk, "The real enemy is the secular humanist mindset which seeks to destroy everything that is good in this society." 7&8

James Dobson:

“Children are the prize to the winners in the second great civil war. Those who control what young people are taught and what they experience – what they see, hear, think, and believe – will determine the future course for the nation.” 7&8

Children At Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids, Word Publishing, 1990, p. 35

Jerry Falwell:

“One day, I hope in the next ten years, I trust that we will have more Christian day schools than there are public schools. I hope I will live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”

America Can Be Saved!, (Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tenn.) 1979, p. 52-53

“[T]he only hope for the inner city is vouchers, so that all the churches can go in and plant Christian schools in the inner cities and capture these fatherless young people for Christ and teach them biblical discipline and so forth. It’s either God or it’s ruin for our country, I do believe.”

“The 700 Club,” Sept. 3, 1996, (reported in Church & State, October 1996, p. 19)

D. James Kennedy:

“This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God’s help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on earth can stop us.” 7&8

Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1997)

“God forbid that we who were born into the blessings of a Christian America should let our patrimony slip like sand through our fingers and leave to our children the bleached bones of a godless secular society. But whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: God has called us to engage the enemy in this culture war. That is our challenge today.” 7&8

Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1997) 7&8

"How much more forcefully can I say it? The time has come, and it is long overdue, when Christians and conservatives and all men and women who believe in the birthright of freedom must rise up and reclaim America for Jesus Christ." 7&8

Tom Crouse:

Crouse called on the church to stop worrying about appearing tolerant and start proclaiming the truth, saying that Jesus was the most intolerant person in the world. 7&8

Christian Citizens regarding the Christian Terrorist Eric Rudolph:

Crystal Davis:

"He's a Christian and I'm a Christian and he dedicated his life to fighting abortion," said Mrs. Davis, 25, mother of four. "Those are our values. And I don't see what he did as a terrorist act." MURPHY, N.C., May 31, 2003 20

Betty Howard:

Changed the sign in front of her diner from "Roast Turkey Baked Ham" to "Pray for Eric Rudolph." Mrs. Howard said she was going to start an Eric Rudolph legal defense fund. Many customers have already said they would chip in. 21

"Bless his heart," Mrs. Howard said. "Eric needs our help." 21

I challenge you to find similar, verifiable rhetoric, from the Secular Left. I couldn’t find any. In fact, my searches only found vast fonts of rhetoric from the Religious Right.

Common Sense & Simple Math:

The “War on Christmas”, the vast conspiracy by the “Secular Left” engineering the death of Christianity in America and the numerous other claims made by the “Religious Right” just do not add up.

Here is why:

Let’s do some fairly simple math:

Approximately 80% of Americans are Christian. Approximately 8% of Americans are secular if you include, atheist, agnostic & theist. That is a 10:1 ratio. It just doesn’t add up that such a small minority could hold so much influence over such a vast majority. This would require a far greater amount of resources per person amongst the minority to be able to exert such a disproportionate influence.

Let’s exercise some common sense:

If there has been a war on Christianity in America it has been a greatly sustained war and appears to have started in the 1948 in the McCollum v. Board of Education case where religious education in Public Schools was first struck down by the Supreme Court.18

We should consider how much money it takes to wage war. If there is one thing we American’s should be acutely aware of, it is that war is not cheap. War costs money, a sustained war costs even more money.

When it comes to fund raising we should consider some things about the “Secular Left” versus the Religious Right. It is fairly safe to assume that the Religious Right is one of the most effective fund raising machines in the world. The sources to validate such claim are so vast it would take a book about the size of Encyclopedia Britannica to track them all.

Where’s the organized effort by the left?

Where are the meetings? How can you have a war without meetings and organization? I have never been invited to one, I have never seen a Death to Christmas handbook, nor can I find one. There are no leaders or organizers in the “War on Religion.” How can you go to battle without a clear chain of command? The only document we have is the U.S. Constitution while the Religious Right has the Wedge Strategy.

Let’s consider some of the problems with the “Secular Left”:

1. They are too fragmented, the left’s greatest weakness is that they go in too many directions at once and can almost never agree on a single cause. It is either, save the whales, save the trees, save the owl or save the (Fill in the blank).
2. A lot, not all, of the extreme left are financially disorganized and don’t do as good of a job at raising money as the Religious Right.
3. They are an extreme minority, with a 10:1 ratio they have a much smaller base from which to raise funds. The point being, it is far easier for the Religious Right to raise money to fund a war simply because a vast number of Americans are Christian.

The question then is how can a sustained and expensive war be waged by the Secular Left? No Money, No War.

Let’s consider some of the problems with the “Religious Right”:

The tactics actively utilized by the Religious Right are themselves evidence of the fact that they don’t have a legal leg to stand on. They know their actions are unconstitutional.

Thus the Religious Right’s only approach is:

a. To create their own theistic law schools where teaching falsehoods and granting law degrees to people that have been indoctrinated into a false belief system about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the primary goal. 13&28

a. As Falwell himself states” "We are unabashedly proactive," "We are on a mission to return America to her religious heritage. We're hoping we are training the lawyers who can turn the legal profession back to the right." 28

b. In an interview with the Associated Press, Falwell added, "We want to infiltrate the culture with men and women of God who are skilled in the legal profession. We'll be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left."28

b. To create a public campaign of disinformation which: 13

a. Promotes the false idea that The United States of America was founded as a Christian Nation. 13&14

b. Redefines Science, the Scientific Method & Scientific Theory to include the supernatural as a plausible explanation as cited in the Discovery Institutes own document appropriately titled “The Wedge Strategy.” 13&14

c. Uses lies and deception, intentionally marketing falsehoods about science,13 education,13 birth control, abortion, stem cell research, the War on Christmas, etc…

d. Uses hateful rhetoric, even alluding to calls for violence, such as prayers for the death of people such as Pro-Choice participants, Supreme Court Justices and other “Activist Judges.”

e. Raises funds to mount the criminal defense of people that commit acts of terrorism by murdering doctors and nurses that perform abortions, or planting bombs at abortion clinics. 19

f. Commits terrorist acts to promote a fundamentalist agenda. 16&19

g. Attempts to legislate away the intended checks and balances as defined by the Constitution and using false claims about Activist Judges that are “legislating from the bench” as a means to undermine the law.

h. Promotes laws that undermine the very essence of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our Democracy by silencing free speech.

i. Intentionally undermines and degrades public education by promoting a theistic agenda that is designed to force a single religion and world view upon the children of America regardless of their families’ belief system.

The Lies:

War On Christmas:

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "it's all part of the secular progressive agenda ... to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square." He then added: "[B]ecause if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually." 4

The War on Christmas as some like to call it is far from a reality. Though I can actually find one group that is opposed to Christmas, it is not the Secular Left:

“There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s Day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued.” The Directory for the Public Worship of God Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. 25

Kevin Reed offers this summary of the Puritan opposition to Christmas: 25

“(1) No time of worship is sanctified, unless God has ordained it; (2) unscriptural holy days are a threat to the proper observance of the Lord’s day because these holy days tend to eclipse the sanctity which belongs only to the Lord’s Day; (3) the observance of unscriptural holy days tends toward the superstition and innovation in worship which is characteristic of Roman Catholicism.” (Christmas – An Historical Survey Regarding Its Origins And Opposition To It) 25

What would our godly forefathers think of the nonsense that goes on at this time of the year, in and out of public worship? We can only imagine what they would have thought of Santa Clause – ‘who sees and knows all about little children’. That some Christians even lie to their children, telling them that there is a Santa is almost incredible – their children may well ask when older, ‘Is God fictional too, just like Santa and the Tooth fairy?’ We plead with you not to try to put Christ ‘back into Christmas’ for he was never there, nor does he belong there. We ask you instead to stand apart – though admittedly this is very difficult, and you will be vilified for it – and emphasize God’s weekly Holy Day all the more. 25

The reasoning for this Christian opposition to Christmas is based on the historical evidence that the real origins of the Christmas holiday are in fact rooted in pagan and non-Christian traditions. According to these Christians, the act of celebrating Christmas is actually an affront to God and his son.

The ignoble nature of the origins and customs of Christmas can be found in many standard reference sources; therefore, we will not dwell on them in great detail. It is appropriate, however, to mention a few highly significant facts pertaining to the origins behind Christmas. 24

…

The transition from festivals commemorating the birth of a sun god to a celebration ostensibly for the Son of God occurred sometime in the fourth century. Unable to eradicate the heathen celebration of Saturnalia, the Church of Rome, sometime before 336 A.D., designated a Feast of the Nativity to be observed. 24

The only references to an actual organized effort to eradicate Christmas and remove references to Jesus from Christmas are solely by Christians for Christian purposes.

Of course I am not saying there are not any members of the secular left that advocate or even call for the end of religion. There is Richard Dawkins who is very outspoken about the damage that has been done to society in the name of religion. There most certainly are others like him, however, this does not constitute an army nor a major organized force against religion.

The Assaults on Christmas:

• In Saginaw, Michigan it was alleged that Township schools opposed red and green clothes and prohibit singing Christmas songs.26
• In Watchung, N.J. it was alleged that the city council passed a policy to start calling the Christmas tree a “Mitten Tree” replace all references to Christmas with the word “Holiday.” 26
• In Plano, Texas, the school allegedly told the students they could not wear red and green because they were Christmas colors. 26&27
• At Glendale-River Hills School District in Wisconsin it was alleged that the schools prohibited any song close to the Christmas holiday from having any religious “motive or theme,” yet they would still allow secular and Hanukkah holiday songs. 26

Gays will Destroy Marriage & The Earth:

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson warned those attending the Friday afternoon rally at Oklahoma Christian University that the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman must be protected. ... "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage," Dobson said. "It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.” Activist Judges: The Whitehouse has a Statement by G.W. Bush;

The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate. I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today. 10

The Truth:

War on Christmas:

As reported in USA Today in December of 2005: Last December, a group called Public Advocate for the United States (which claims to defend America's traditional family values) sent some Christmas carolers over to sing in front of the ACLU offices in Washington.

Carrying signs reading "Merry Christmas" and "Please Don't Sue Us!" — they also seem to have carried with them some rather strange imaginings about an assault on Christmas.

To tell the truth, the ACLU is not often serenaded by Christmas carolers. So it was with some excitement that the staff went outside and joined in the singing. They brought with them cookies and warm drinks to share. One staff member, who is an ordained Baptist minister, did a little witnessing about his faith to some astonished proponents of family values.

Fox News did broadcast the event (as a part of its "war against Christmas" campaign). Although the visiting singers were shown, the cameras failed to include any footage showing that everyone had participated in the caroling. Rather than reporting the facts, the anchor preferred the propaganda: "We believe the ACLU heard the message loud and clear, but they don't care." 5

What about all of the reported claims where the Secular Left is attacking Christmas?

The majority of incidents I have been able to find thus far that are reported to be evidence of this alleged “War on Christmas” by the Secular Left have, in fact, been proven to be hoaxes. I prefer to call them what they are, lies.

• In Saginaw, Michigan it was alleged that Township schools opposed red and green clothes and prohibit singing Christmas songs. The fact is that the official school color is green and that no such policy ever existed. 26
• In Watchung, N.J. it was alleged that the city council passed a policy to start calling the Christmas tree a “Mitten Tree” replace all references to Christmas with the word “Holiday.” In response Mayor Albert Ellis said the “Tree of Lights” is sponsored by the local rescue squad as a fundraiser. The town has been doing so for 15 years. The town has a holiday display policy negotiated with the two local churches. The policy allows private citizens to erect holiday displays. 26
• In Plano, Texas, the school allegedly told the students they could not wear red and green because they were Christmas colors. The district has responded by saying this is not true and never has been true. The Superintendent has expressed frustration that this story continues to circulate and instructed its attorney to write to Bill O’Reilly, requesting a correction. 26&27
• At Glendale-River Hills School District in Wisconsin it was alleged that they prohibited any song close to the Christmas holiday from having any religious “motive or theme,” yet they would still allow secular and Hanukkah holiday songs. The district responded by saying this is not true. In fact they do recognize the Christian religious tradition with songs being sung that include “Angels We Have Heard on High” and “I Saw Three Ships.” 26

Lying, by omission, is still lying. To intentionally report only half the truth in order to promote false claims is unconscionable, especially from someone who is expected to report the truth as a member of the forth estate. The members of the press have an obligation to report the whole truth.

With these blatant attempts at misdirection the agenda becomes clear. This is another attempt at creating a wedge issue designed to separate the Christians from the “liberal left” and manipulate the moderate independent voter.

Isn’t it ironic that these self proclaimed Christians have to bear false witness in order to manipulate the public? After all doesn’t their own God order “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

Secular Legislation:

Where is all of this legislation that is being pushed through that allegedly strips Christianity from America as many have claimed? Where are all of the “activist decisions” by the courts that have left religion lying in a pool of its own blood about to expire?

It doesn’t exist, these false claims and misdirection are designed to keep America from seeing what is really going on.

Take witness;

[S]ince 1989...more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation, covering topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. New breaks have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch.

One result is that religious institutions participating in essentially secular business ventures now enjoy financial and other advantages over their secular competitors. And, a greater tax burden falls on ordinary citizens.12

The Courts:

The distinction that the press fails to make over and over is that the ACLU and other groups are trying to hold the government accountable to the First Amendment which prohibits the government from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There are numerous examples of the ACLU defending Christian Americans and their right to express their faith in the public square.

For example, in 2006 alone:

1. The ACLU has helped a New Jersey student’s right to sing “Awesome God” in a voluntary after school program. 6
2. In Louisiana the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Christian man who was protesting Wal-Mart based on his religious beliefs. Wal-Mart had the man chased away for carrying a sign that read “Christians: Wal-Mart supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don’t Shop there.” 6
3. The ACLU of Rhode Island filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of an inmate who was barred from preaching during Christian religious services, as he had done for the past seven years under the supervision and support of prison clergy. The prisoner, Wesley Spratt, believes his preaching is a calling from God. Prison officials cited vague and unsubstantiated security reasons for imposing the preaching ban on Mr. Spratt. The ACLU argued that the ban violates the religious freedom guaranteed to Mr. Spratt under federal law. 6
4. The list goes on, and on, and on…..

The ACLU lists approximately 80 such cases defending religion in places like the public square and public schools over the last 5 years. The alleged war on Christmas is what generates ratings - the truth, apparently, does not.

The media continuously fails to point out the vast number of cases where these groups that are “determined to exterminate religion in the public square” and kill Christmas have expended vast resources to protect the very thing they are being accused of trying to destroy.

Traditional Values?

Individuals are free to preach on the street corner, that is their right under the Constitution. They just aren’t allowed to use tax payer dollars to fund their preaching. The government is prohibited from endorsing that person, or stopping that person. It is so very simple yet there is a huge percentage of Americans that chose to believe the exact opposite and demand that their government do the same. How patriotic is it to ignore the Constitution and force un-American values on Americans?

The attacks on the courts and several attempts to pass legislation that strip the courts of their Constitutionally defined duties are as un-American as Stalin.

Using the law to deny rights or to silence dissenting political opinion is the warning bell that danger lies ahead. To silence political free speech and dissent is more in line with policies of the Red Coats.

If these anti-democratic actions are allowed to get a foothold, it will be the beginning of the death of America and the birth of another giant theocratic government or dogmatic dictatorship.

The same people that are screaming “Beware of Burning Flags and Marrying Fags.” are the exact people that are attempting to yank the Constitution and the Bill of Rights right out from under us all.

The Religious Right has been very affective in their campaign of terror. They are constantly running around and bellowing at the tops of their lungs about the DANGER AMERICANS FACE, the DANGERS AMERICAN CHILDREN FACE, the DANGER MARRIAGE FACES, and on and on and on. They distract the average person from real issues through fear and erode their rights while they look the other way. Didn’t anyone learn from the story of Chicken Little or the Little Boy that Cried Wolf?

There is further irony in the fact that the Religious Right has the highest divorce rate in America.9 How can it be that the righteous, who are waging the war against homosexuals in God’s name, have the highest divorce rates? I thought the Gays were destroying marriage?

If the Religious Right are the saviors of Marriage in America, then how is it that “90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been ‘saved?’ 9

Look at how the Religious Right entertains their children with the new computer game “LEFT BEHIND: Eternal Forces”. 29 This game is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that these Religious Right groups preach. They protest and demand new laws to protect their children from games that depict street violence or emulate warfare unless that game promotes their world view to “Conduct physical & spiritual warfare : using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world.” 29 The game takes place in New York City after the rapture. The objectives of the game include creating Christian militias in order to roam the streets of New York City. Simulate Christian conversion of non-believers while killing those who will not convert. After large scale and violent battles players must use prayer to recharge their "soul points" which are drained by all the killing. Doesn’t this just sound more like “Grand Theft Auto: The Rapture?”

Then we can mention the sexual misconduct by the conservative religious leaders, both liberal and conservative, but all Christians.

Wake up people. This is like having Michael Jackson telling you how to protect your children from sexual predators!

What’s the Point here?

There most certainly is not a war on Christmas, much less religion. There is no great conspiracy by the Secular Left nor is there some hidden “Gay Agenda.” These are fabricated lies designed to divide Americans with fear.

Inversely, there is definitely a great and vast conspiracy by the Religious Right to gain control of the United States and its government, to pass laws that reflect their values, and to revoke rights that our Constitution currently protects. I don’t have to make this stuff up, they have said so in they own words and in writing thereby making their thoughts and intentions perfectly clear.

There are those that would argue, “80% of America is Christian; the majority rules.” That is also completely and utterly wrong. The United States Constitution was drafted with a specific intent of protecting the minorities from majority rule, which is clearly explained quite eloquently on the United States Senate’s website:

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality…17

What to do?

We should all be more vigilant in protecting our Constitutional rights. We should all get offended when our tax dollars are used to proselytize or build houses of worship. Religion, like people, should be able to stand on its own two feet and be funded by its believers. If welfare for people or corporations is not good for America, why should we remain silent about welfare for religion? 22&23

The only people that can hurt Christianity are the Christian extremists. If you fear that religion is falling in numbers in America like they did in Europe then stop the Religious Right’s zealous venture towards theocracy in the United States.

The reason religion has failed in Europe is solely because they have or had state-sponsored and state-funded religion. The Europeans have seen the horrors of that sponsorship and they remember them.

Europeans also greatly resent their tax dollars being used to support a religion that they themselves may not subscribe to. Therefore, they stopped going to church and stopped believing the myth.

So to close;

The preponderance of evidence shows that we need understanding and tolerance to grow, not fear and not war. There is absolutely no way our tiny little minority can harm Christianity or kill Christmas. After all…

1. We still like getting presents.
2. We still like the days off from work.
3. We still enjoy the extra time with family and the big dinners.
4. We aren’t organized enough to pull it off.
5. We don’t have the money to pull it off.
6. We don’t care enough about it to even try to pull it off.

Oh yeah,

1. The majority of my fellow liberals, they are Christians too.

I predict that the harder the Religious Right pushes their agenda to achieve their theocratic goals the harder individuals that are liberal and moderates in this country will push back.

America is the land of the free.

Remember that one person’s religion is another person’s mythology; to each his or her own.

Sources:
1) Religions in the U.S. – Wikipedia collection from U.S. Census Bureau.
2) Adherents.com - ("membership/adherent statistics and congregation statistics for over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc")
3) The Telegraph U.K. – Jedi Knights
4) Media Matters – Bill O’Reilly & The War on Christmas, Religion out of the public square & Secular Progressives.
5) Fictional War on Christmas: USA Today
6) ACLU – The ACLU has numerous examples of where it defends religious liberty.
7) Theocracy Watch – A Religious Right watchdog group.
8) Americans United for the Separation of Church and State – The Religious Right in their own words.
9) Religious Tolerance – Divorce rates are slightly higher for Born Again Christians than Atheists or Agnostics.
10) Statement by the President – Activist Judges
11) Renew America – Calling Someone a liar
12) Rational Radical – Podcast #65
13) Wedge Document (PDF file), a 1999 Discovery Institute fundraising pamphlet. Cited in Handley P. Evolution or design debate heats up. The Times of Oman, 7 March 2005.
14) Dover Trial - Full text of Judge Jones' ruling, dated December 20, 2005 (PDF File)
15) Killing Policeman was a gift - http://judicial-inc.biz/Horsley.htm
16) Refuse & Resist – Anthrax Threat letters sent to 250 Abortion Clinics
17) Majority Rule – U.S. Senate Website
18) McCollum v. Board of Education
19) Eric Rudolf – Christian’s raising funds for Abortion Clinic Bomber
20) NY Times – Run, Rudolph, Run June 31, 2003
21) NY Times – Sympathy for bombing suspect may cloud search for evidence – June 2, 2003
22) March, 2004, issue of Church and State - "Faith Czar" Jim Towey announced $40 billion dollars was now available to religious charities.
23) NY Times - Lawsuit Challenges Use of Federal Aid for Bible-Based Counseling 09/13/2006
24) Christians against Christmas - http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/Xmas_ch2.htm
25) Puritan & Reformed against Christmas
26) American United – The Religious Right's Phony 'War on Christmas': Mything in Action
27) Plano Independent School District – Public Statement
28) Find Articles - Jerry Falwell Opens Law School To Train 'Radical' Attorneys
29) Left Behind: The Game – PC Game that is based on the left behind series of books.

Traditional American Values?

Having recently been a candidate I was exposed to meeting a lot of different and interesting people.

I made it a point to be honest with people about who I am what I believed in. Believe it or not the most negative responses I got were not about my having had deferred adjudication when I was 17, but rather my lack of religious belief.

I was actually a bit shocked about the number of “looks” I got when I told people I am an atheist. Although people seemed to get over it pretty quickly after discussing my stand on religion and religious tolerance. But it was that initial “look” that really surprised me.

Now I have a good idea as to why.

A new study was just published:

Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study
What: U of M study reveals America’s distrust of atheism
Who: Penny Edgell, associate professor of sociology
Contact: Nina Shepherd, sociology media relations, (612) 599-1148
Mark Cassutt University News Service, (612) 624-8038

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/20/2006) --
American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

I have found it important to make an effort to understand other cultures and beliefs. I have delved into learning about different faiths and religious history because we do have a rich diversity of religious and cultural difference in this country.

I value religion and especially the freedom of religion this country has. Other parts of the world, like Afghanistan, have strict Islamic law where right now a man is on trial for converting to Christianity and is facing the death penalty. A person such as myself would also be executed for my lack of belief.

I am bringing this topic up because I believe that people are basically good and tolerant. That awareness is a key to understanding and that by raising awareness I believe some of these prejudices can be overcome.

After all, we are not so different.

As atheist we believe in things like:

• Peace, happiness, community, truth, goodness, beauty, and liberty; these are attributes of human awareness. We must fight for and protect them.
• Marriage, family and commitment.
• Religious liberty and freedom.
• The Separation of Church and State.
• Justice and forgiveness.
• Fairness and competition.
• Hard work and just reward.
• Helping others by giving a hand up, not a hand out.
• Education and continuous learning.
• Science and the Scientific method.
• We believe in Government for the People by the People.
• Humankind must protect the elderly, children and foundlings, or they will not be protected.
• Man must hear and help man.
• We are accountable for and must face the consequences of our actions.
• Life is a struggle against preventable and unpreventable situations.
• Cooperation of humankind is the only hope of the world.
• We must work to achieve our personal goals now or never.

Again, are we so different?

Hopefully this will help to raise awareness and help bring about more understanding. By having a dialog we can continue to have and increase the mutual respect and tolerance that all humans deserve.

What They Aren't Telling You About The eSlate (...continued)

When I originally wrote this article it was more of a personal quest in understanding what is going on with eVoting and the eSlate equipment. I have heard dozens upon dozens of personal accounts and hear say about what is wrong, the things that go wrong and tales of inaccurate accounts or people being denied access to voting because of computer errors with eSlate.

I could find no one single source for information nor could I validate that the information was in fact accurate. So I took it upon myself to research this issue from the perspective of someone that has spent half of his life in Information Technology.

The following article and supplemental follow-up material are the result of that search to date.

This follow-up is in four parts:

1. The original Article (March 2006)
2. Q&A With Steve Raborn - Fort Bend County Election Administrator (March 2006)
3. Comments on recent Articles in the News regarding "problems" with eSlate
4. The Smell Test regarding Hart Intercivic - Follow the Money.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1:

What They Aren't Telling You About The eSlate

When it comes to the issue of eVoting & eSlate, the voter is not getting the whole story.

There have been numerous claims of security vulnerabilities, concerns over exclusive access to the systems and a plethora of rumors of past exploits of the eSlate system.

I have personally spent close to 20 years in information technology. I have a total of nearly 10 years’ experience in security-related processes from credit card fraud control to intrusion prevention.

Is there really anything to be concerned about regarding the Hart InterCivic eSlate system?

According to several information technology publications that specialize in security, Hart InterCivic is testing its own equipment and refuses to participate in third-party peer-reviewed security testing to validate its claims.

In a recent article in Computer World magazine, Marc L. Songini wrote:

“… That’s about whether the verification and validation processes these machines go through are woefully inadequate or not. The e-voting companies aren’t volunteering their systems for independent audits and analysis.”

Is the security in e-voting up to the standards that business executives would demand in their applications? “No way.” “Definitely not.” “Five years ago, yes, but in the current climate, no.” “These guys are betting their critical business processes on software.” “They need to consider who might do harm to that system.” “This level of rigor isn’t applied to e-voting systems.”

I contacted Hart InterCivic and spoke with Gary Gandy, the sales representative for Texas and Fort Bend County, about some of the issues that have been raised about the company’s systems.

What efforts have been made to provide affordable printers for the eSlate systems?

Gary Gandy responded: “The printers are currently available,” adding, “several other states already require a paper trail by law.”

A paper trail in Texas is an issue that has to be addressed by the secretary of state. Legislation was previously drafted but never went anywhere. Because Texas does not require the paper trail, the printers can not be purchased. The state of Texas has also failed to require the latest version of eSlate software that will allow for printing and better security.

Gerry Birnberg, Harris County Democratic Party Chairman, stated “I also do not understand the point about counties not being able to purchase Hart printers. While they are not required to do so at the present time, there is no legal prohibition against their doing so if they want to and if Hart InterCivic’s is willing to sell them to them. A county can use systems which provide voter verifiable paper trails if it wants to, even though the Texas Legislature has not yet required that it do so.”

Convention Strategy Chair John Behrman of Harris County stated “Hart’s VVPAT (voter verifiable paper trail) ‘solution’ only works with its v6 software, which is neither available nor certified for use in Texas. In any case, no elected official from either party has challenged any of Hart’s commercial misrepresentations or monopolistic practices. Hart is the darling of Democratic elected officials who have, simply, no understanding whatsoever of the technical or economic dimensions of procuring, using, maintaining, depreciating, or replacing engineered goods.”

How much would the printers cost?

Mr. Gandy did not know off the top of his head but stated approximately $1,000 to $1,200 each.

What other efforts are there to allow for independent audits and recounts?

Gandy stated “Harris County has previously done this. We would have to talk to Harris County about how that recount was performed.”

Birnberg stated “From my perspective, there is, effectively, no such thing as a recount of electronic voting machine tallies not accompanied by a voter verifiable paper trail. It amounts to no more than asking the machine to regurgitate the figures it previously spit out, but there is no way to check or ‘recount’ the accuracy of the tally at that point – without a paper trail.”

Behrman stated In the two most recent instances of probable cause to investigate first-degree felony vote-tampering in Harris County, the technique of “recovering” cast vote records that were corrupt or unreadable at the Central Counting Station also removed the possibility of forensically examining those records as originally recorded. If the votes had not been tampered
with before, they had been after county officials hastily “recovered” them.

Behrman went on to state “In any case, without VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail), there simply is nothing of an original nature to recount. What you see vanishes the moment you press the red button unless you take a camera into the voting booth – a crime in Texas. “

Birnberg stressed the importance that the “Jimmy Carter/Jim Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform specifically recommended retrofitting electronic machines with printers and requiring them on all electronic machines in the future. Also, this is not that partisan an issue – the platform of the Republican Party of Texas specifically calls for a prohibition on all electronic voting machines and systems which do not include a voter verifiable paper trail.”

What has been done to resolve some of the issues seen in 2004?

The problems of reliability with entire daisy chains of systems freezing when one system hangs:

According to Gary Gandy “This is possible but interruption would be brief. Just remove the offending node, reset the system (reboot), the interruption should be very slight and brief, a few minutes at most.”

Malfunctions that deprived voters of their votes:

According to Gary Gandy, “this is not possible; the voter enters an access code (PIN). If the unit malfunctions and a reset is required the system automatically prints what nodes (eSlates) are attached by serial number and lists ‘aborted access codes,’ then the person could re-vote.” These interrupted votes are called “Spoiled Ballots.” The voting judges are fully trained on this issue and the process to allow re-votes. The system is real-time and all activity is recorded. If a voter has a spoiled ballot they need only compare their access code with the automatic print out after a reset to be allowed to vote.

Has the eSlate been through any independent third-party security testing?

Gary Gandy answered this question “yes.” This was done by Symantec @stake Consulting Services and a copy of the report can be downloaded from Hart InterCivic. The consulting started in the fall of 2003 and according to the report itself it is dated as being published on Dec. 7, 2004.

Unfortunately, back in 2004, many of the issues and concerns about security and paper trails were too difficult to implement by the November elections. Some of the concerns allegedly appear to have become reality in that election.

While those concerns appear to have been true in 2004 why are we in 2006 where the same concerns still exist? Hart InterCivic has had two years to develop solutions to the problems and some progress has been made. If concerns about paper trails and auditing are still valid, where are those solutions today?

In my conversation with Gary Gandy, I learned the responsibility lies with the Texas Legislature and the Texas Secretary of State. They failed Texas voters in getting legislation passed that would require a paper trail. Without validating the Version 6 of the eSlate and proper legislation, Hart InterCivic can not sell their solution in Texas.

In the executive summary section of the report it is noted “Symantec @stake consultants advised Hart in making significant changes to the latest version of the eSlate system code and the Hart development process.” In the overview documentation it is stated “The media attention and conflicting expert commentary make the task of securing a DRE voting system particularly challenging.”

The security is challenging, not impossible. The report cites some excellent examples of high-level recommended security practices. If these practices are in fact in place it would seem to be a good process. The problem I see with the report is that they were engaged by Hart InterCivic a year before the reported problems back in 2003. The problems were reported about six weeks before the report was published.

The report is also centered around security design in the development phase of the software. When it comes to security testing, Symantec basically recommended self-testing and internal processes.

This security testing is in fact not a report on testing results, nor is it a documented testing procedure. This report reveals that there is no independent third-party testing of the products for security vulnerabilities, nor does it recommend independent third-party testing.

The “About Hart InterCivic” section on the last page of the report sounds far too much like marketing. The report states, “Hart InterCivic’s name stands for exceptional expertise, absolute accessibility, and trusted transactions. Hart InterCivic is a leader in providing products and services that help redefine the relationship between state and local governments and the citizens they serve.”

For information on how all of this applies to Fort Bend County, read this question-and-answer session with county Elections Administrator Steve Raborn.

Steve Raborn has provided a highly detailed document that provides information about security procedures in Fort Bend County.

What is the final tally?

E-voting is the way of the future. Therefore it is essential to have a system that can be audited by a paper trail. Americans have the right to vote and the government has the responsibility to provide a system that allows for everyone to vote, can be audited and allows for recounts that are separate from the electronic system.

According to Marc L. Songini “There should be much more severe security-testing requirements. The key is, you need to raise awareness that these vulnerabilities do exist and can be exploited, and you need a way of measuring security.”

Based on my conversation with Raborn and others, the Fort Bend County Office of Elections is doing the best job that it possibly can with what equipment it has and the laws and rules that it has to operate under.

The fact is that the secretary of state and our Texas Legislature have failed us in not passing legislation requiring a VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail). As long as these requirements do not exist, a lot of the vulnerabilities of the electronic voting system will remain in place with no method for proving or disproving the validity of the system.

The legislature must pass a bill requiring a VVPAT for elections, and require independent third-party security testing of eVoting systems that passes an independent peer-reviewed security testing procedure that evolves with the technology. The state of Texas has failed to approve Version 6 of the eSlate softwhere, which supports printers and is more secure; without that approval no county in Texas can purchase the latest version of eSlate.

Hart InterCivic has a good testing process on paper. It is strictly a high-level internal process with no outside or independent validation of these processes. This is like the fox writing the security procedure for the hen house. The procedure is nice, but is without an independent
third party audit to validate that those procedures in fact work and the results can be measured.

Until Hart InterCivic volunteers its equipment for independent testing, no one will ever know if the eSlate system is in fact secure. Until there are changes in the testing procedures and our state representatives take care of our voting concerns, no one can claim for certain what votes were in fact cast.

Part 2:

Steve Raborn Answers Questions About Fort Bend County's E-voting System

Fort Bend County Election Administrator Steve Raborn participated in a recent question-and-answer interview about the county’s eSlate voting system, with Prescott Small, a Stafford information technology professional.

Q: Have you heard of some of the complaints that occurred in Travis and Harris Counties?

A: Vaguely aware of some of the issues reported but not fluent in them. The machines are specifically designed so that ballots could not be lost.

Q: Does your office train polling place operators on how to handle “Spoiled ballots” in the event of a malfunction?

A: We prefer to call them Cancelled booths. Spoiled ballots are a legally defined term. Reasons for canceled booths are wrong precinct or wrong party (primary) . As long as the ballot is not cast the booth can be canceled.

Q: What is the current version of the software of the eSlate voting system that Fort Bend County has?

A: Fort Bend County uses System Version 3.3.

Q: Could you tell me some about why Fort bend has to use the eSlate voting system we currently have and not the version 6 that is currently available?

A: Any time a new version is released the system needs to be certified on a national level. Texas typically will not certify before a version is certified on a national level. The new versions can not be used until the state of Texas approves them. Til then it is illegal.

Q: Are you aware that sversion 6 supports printers and allows for a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you personally have any concerns about the systems?

A: I have no concerns about security, accuracy or reliability. There is room from improvement for the ease of use in setup at the polling place, since a lot of the polling judges are not as comfortable with computer equipment and set-up as some other people. The serial port plugs also can be a problem because pins can get bent requiring repairs or replacement, and can cause
delays in getting a polling opened.

Q: Do you have any further comments you would like to share?

A: Even though versions of the eSlate system are currently available that allow for VVPAT, the state of Texas would not be able to legally use such a system. Even if we had the paper trail today, those pieces of paper could not be used in a recount because Texas law would not allow for it. The laws of the state of Texas has to change before any type of paper trail could be allowed.

Overall satisfaction with the product is high. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being excellent, Steve Raborn rates the eSlate system an 8.5.

Steve Raborn’s county has in place a system for monitoring progress and reliability in the eSlate system. They log every call regarding the eSlate system and categorize them. They have reviews of the calls, analyze what went well and what could be done better. They implement those changes and then repeat the monitoring process the next time, Raborn said.

The measurement of their success is that they saw a significant decrease in call volume this last primary because of the changes they made and enhancements in the training for the setup of the systems.

Part 3:

Comments on recent Articles in the News regarding "problems" with eSlate:

Recently there was more news that is current and challenges the credibility and reliability of the eSlate system from Hart InterCivic as well as other eVoting systems.

As published on March 9th in the Star Telegram from Fort Worth, TX:

An undetected computer glitch in Tarrant County led to inflated election returns in Tuesday’s primaries but did not alter the outcome of any local race, elections and county officials said Wednesday.

The error caused Tarrant County to report as many as 100,000 votes in both primaries that never were cast, dropping the local turnout from a possible record high of about 158,103 voters to about 58,000.

Because the errors added votes equally for each candidate, the glitch did not change the outcome of Tarrant County races but narrowed the margin of victory in some statewide races. In the close Republican primary race for Texas Supreme Court, for example, incumbent Don Willett edged past former Justice Steve Smith by only about 1 percentage point with the corrected vote tallies.

Also according to John Covell, a vice president with Hart InterCivic:

The problem stemmed from a programming error by Hart InterCivic, which manufactured the equipment and wrote the software for the local voting system. The system is designed to combine electronic early voting results and totals from paper ballots on Election Day.

The error caused the computer to compound the previous vote totals each time the election totals were updated throughout the night, rather than keep a simple running total, officials said.

“The system did what we told it to do,” said John Covell, a vice president with Hart. “We told it incorrectly.” The program was designed specifically for Tarrant County, and no other counties reported similar problems, elections officials said.

How do we know those votes that were tallied were as the voter intended?

What definitive proof is there?

Granted Fort Bend County uses a different system than Tarrant County and the outcome was “not affected.” This clearly shows that Hart InterCivic’s software is not full proof.

This issue isn’t only about Fort Bend County and eSlate. These problems exist all over the United States and with all of the eVoting equipment manufacturers. There are hundreds of reported incidents across the United States, including reports of successfully hacked systems.

When the votes exist solely as 1’s and 0’s inside the hardware of a computer system how can an audit be valid?

If the system repeatedly gives the same results that does not validate the intent of the voter, it only validates what is inside that system.

Let’s use a 5 pound box of apples analogy:

You have a Box labeled as being 5 pounds of apples. So you count the apples and come out with 25 apples. I can not be certain that I have 5 pounds of apples without a scale. The count is irrelevant without a proper means of validating the intent. In this scenario the intent was to have 5 pounds of apples in the box. The count of what is in the box is irrelevant because we do not have an external method of validating that the intent of 5 pounds was met and recounting has no value

These problems have occurred over and over while Hart InterCivic states that the machines are designed to not allow for errors. Yet we have a specific example where errors have occurred because the machines are "designed to work this way."

…The conventional wisdom was all wrong,” said Wagner, a member of the panel that reviewed the Diebold machines. “It was possible to subvert the memory card without detection.”

No one can not decisively prove voter intent.

My biggest concern is If we have a situation where there is one big error at the wrong place and wrong time causing major negative affects in an election it could completely destroy voter confidence in electronic voting.

The public trust is earned very slowly over time, yet that trust can be completely forfeit overnight. All that the voters demand is confidence in the electoral system. If the Voters loose confidence it will take many years to earn that trust back

As long as these reports of over-votes, lost votes and such continue to arise people are going to be concerned. While I definitely have some doubts in the quality of programming of the equipment I do not have any major concerns about the hardware, other than what Steve had previously pointed out about the cable connections and ease of use in setup and break down.

The integrity of the software is what is at the “heart” of the issue.

Until there is a state mandated VVPAT and independent 3rd party auditing of the equipment and the software then voter confidence will not be very high and could be subject to continuous decline.

With this additional knowledge I have even less confidence in the Hart InterCivic system. They have sold the State of Texas millions of dollars worth of equipment, our tax dollars. They admit it is buggy and yet we can not get the software updated because the legislature has to approve it and certify it first. So most counties are operating with software that is years out of date.

This incident is just more proof that we need a VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail).

To answer Steve Raborn’s question: Who are “They”?

That would be Hart InterCivic (and other EVoting companies), the Secretary of State, the Mass Media, the Texas State Legislature.

Personally I don’t think Steve Raborn has held anything back. In fact he will communicate quite freely when asked questions.

One of the bigger problems seems to be that people don’t ask the questions that need to be answered.

Part 4:

The Smell Test Applied to eSlate:

The smell test is still a great and valid method for seeing is some things should be questioned.

It is just amazing the information that can be found:

RES Partners, which invested in Hart’s second and third rounds, is an entity that represents Richard Salwen, retired Dell Computer Corporation vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary, who had also worked with Perot Systems and EDS. Salwen is a heavy contributor to George W. Bush and the Republican Party. (1)

Maximus Inc. is a gigantic privatizer of social services. It cuts deals with state governments to handle child-support collections, implement welfare-to-work and oversee managed care and HMO programs. A Wisconsin legislative audit report found that Maximus spent more than $400,000 of state money on unauthorized expenses and found $1.6 million that Maximus couldn’t properly document. These unauthorized expenses included a party for staff members at a posh Lake Geneva resort; $23,637 for “fanny packs” to promote the company, with the bills sent to the state; and entertainment of staff and clients by actress Melba Moore. Maximus settled for $1 million. (2)

Maximus jumped into the smart-card business and soon afterward entered the elections industry through an alliance with Hart InterCivic.

Tom Hicks, the biggest investor in Maximus/Hart InterCivic, whose voting machines are used in Orange County, bought the Rangers from Bush for many millions more than was paid for the team a few years before by the soon-to-be governor and president, thus in effect financing his various political campaigns. Until recently, Hicks has had an office at the Longworth Building in D.C. close to GOP allies. (3)

(1) – Austin Business Journal, 8 November 2001; “Investors cast $7.5M vote for Hart InterCivic.”

(2) – Global Energy Business, 1 August 2001; “CAES: Ready for prime time” 34 Vol. 3, No. 4”

(3) – CBS News, December 14, 1999; “Stars owner Hicks to buy Rangers for $250 million”

Politicians, Illegal Aliens, Billions of Dollars and a Truckload of Bull

In December the house passed a bill that Senator Bill Frist endorses. They now want to escalate the status of Illegal Alien to a Felony offense.

The bill they have been referring to is HR 4437, otherwise known as The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.

The text as referred to Senate Committee:

I am confused. How does changing the degree of an existing crime help anyone?

If illegal aliens are already illegal, how does making them MORE illegal change anything?

I could not find an answer for this one in the bill.

Will it provide the funding to enforce existing laws that currently aren't enforced?

According to the bill they will assess civil penalties of between $500 and $20,000 against employers for each illegal immigrant they hire and criminal penalties of up to $20,000 per illegal immigrant hired and up to six months in jail for engaging in a pattern of employing illegal workers.

Will it provide for more man power (funding again) that doesn't currently exist?

According to the bill a total of 15,400 people will be added: 4,400 Border Patrol agents over six years to the 10,000 Congress provided for in the intelligence reform law passed in 2004, and 1,000 more immigrant smuggling investigators over the next five years.

The bill includes the “One Face at the Border” initiative which is aimed at unifying the inspection process that travelers entering the United States have to go through. Instead of making three stops – an Immigration Inspector, a Customs Inspector and an Agriculture Inspector – travelers would meet with a single primary inspections officer who was specially trained to do the job of all three.

In my opinion this sounds more efficient and a way to reduce cost. The question I have is how it will be implemented? I have been through customs in our airports more times than I care to count. I could say that I definitely like a single stop a lot more than 3 stops after spending 9 or 12 hours on a plane the very last thing I want to do is stand in line for 30 minutes to 1 ½ hours. While I understand that security is necessary – your level of understanding degrades rapidly while standing in that line.

Another thing I see throughout the bill is the phrase:

“Secretary of Homeland Security shall, as expeditiously as practicable, develop and implement _____________”

Develop and Implement?

As expeditiously as practicable?

What about the money?

Let's spell this out real simple. I want you to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible on TASK A. I am giving you no money to do it.

How much do you think will get done?

At least they have provided for ‘accountability”. Well if you consider only worrying about things that cost more than $20,000,000 accountability that is:

“Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall review each contract action related to the Department's Secure Border Initiative having a value greater than $20,000,000…”

Did you know that this bill specifies that the Department of Homeland security will be responsible for reimbursing owners of private property that have their property damaged by illegal aliens along the boarders?

SEC. 112. REPAIR OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE ON BORDER

Subject to the amount appropriated in subsection (d) of this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reimburse property owners for costs associated with repairing damages to the property owners' private infrastructure constructed on a United States Government right-of-way delineating the international land border when such damages are--

(1) the result of unlawful entry of aliens; and

(2) confirmed by the appropriate personnel of the Department of Homeland Security and submitted to the Secretary for reimbursement.

(b) Value of Reimbursements- Reimbursements for submitted damages as outlined in subsection
(a) shall not exceed the value of the private infrastructure prior to damage.

That’s right, the “conservative” federal government is taking on the responsibility of basically insuring private property at tax payer expense. Remember Bill Frist and Tom DeLay have been touting the importance of this bill.

See for yourself how your elected official voted.

They are providing for the detection of radiological materials at ports, sort of.

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall deploy radiation portal monitors at all United States ports of entry and facilities as determined by the Secretary to facilitate the screening of all inbound cargo for nuclear and radiological material.

Authorization of Appropriations - There is some funding authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection (a) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007

Now remember this means that it will only be detected after it has already arrived at and is sitting in a major U.S. port facility. Also, it is only funded till the end of 2007.

While I do not in anyway dispute this statement: “The United States is engaged in a Global War on Terrorism.” I adamantly believe it to be true. However, by placing this exact statement in a bill that would be signed into law could be a legal problem that needs careful consideration.

Would this statement as drafted in SEC. 118. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS of HR 4437 in fact act as a legal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress in compliance with the War Powers Act?

That this would give the extremely broad powers of placing the United States in a Declared State of War with whomever the Whitehouse feels it is at war with? This would in turn suddenly grant very broad powers to the President?

While this vast bill has some useful recommendations there seems to be very little provisions for funding in it. The only funding provisions are what I listed above. So it once again comes down to what good are laws if they are not funded nor enforced.

You can write tougher laws, but a bluff is just a bluff. Without taking actions on existing laws, writing new ones does nothing but waste money, time and paper. This legislation has some areas that really concern me, some that seems logical and the rest is all election year hot air. The good parts of this bill could probably be reduced to 1 or 2 pages.

A Closer Look at Definitions:Conservative Vs. Liberal

One definition of conservative is that it means to favor traditional views and values. But it also means having a tendency to conserve; preservative.

Liberal tends to mean not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. It also means to be generous in amount; ample.

The democratic party is liberal in the sense that we are progressive and forward thinking. We think about the future and plan for tomorrow.

The Democratic party wants to reduce federal spending while the Republicans have continuously increased spending and raised the amount of debt the nation is allowed to have.

How is that “conservative?” Is this a “traditional value?”

The Republican party has grown federal government to a size larger and more expensive than it has ever been in American history.

How is that “conservative?” Is this a “traditional value?”

The Democratic party wants to reduce the amount of debt the Unites States has, particularly with China and India.

How is that “liberal?” Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

The Democratic party wants more CONSERVATIVE use of natural resources like timber, coal, oil & gas. We want more fuel efficient cars and less pollution in the air. We seek sustainability and independence.

How is that “liberal?” Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

The Democratic party seeks to reduce the amount of dirty money and the corruptible influence by lobbyist and corporations that contribute huge sums of money to campaigns in both parties for access and undue influence.

How is that “liberal?” Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

Democrats hold the traditions of our founding fathers and the constitution inviolate and seek to protect those rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those same rights that every American soldier has fought for and some even died for.

How is that “liberal? Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

The democratic party believes in a strong military that is properly trained, properly equipped and has the resources they need and deserve if they ever have to go to war to be able to fight without worry about the welfare of their spouses and children being properly taken care of, that they will have the best possible medical care in the world if needed, they will have the benefits to care for their needs if disabled in combat or service to their country and their families will be properly cared for if they are killed in the line of duty.

How is that “liberal? Isn’t this a “traditional value?”

We demand that our government officials not commit felonies in their day to day activities or use their political offices for personal gain. We ask that they do not lie to us nor steal from us.

How is that “Liberal?” Are lying and stealing considered to be “traditional values?”

The democratic party wants to improve the quality of education and healthcare for children.

How is this “liberal?” Is this some new non-traditional value?

On a personal note we subscribe to a 100% renewable green energy company to provide our electricity and drive a hybrid vehicle to reduce the amount of gasoline we consume.

How is that “liberal?” We are conserving resources and reducing pollution by reducing our Co2 footprint.

People use liberal like it is a dirty word. Maybe we should be using conservative like it is a dirty word. After all by definition a conservative is resistant to change. If what we see today in the Republican Party is what they demand we keep for “conservative values” then the only answer is change.

I am a democrat and considered a liberal.

Why?

Because I am progressive and not bound by traditional attitudes?

Guilty as charged, and proud of it.

It seems to me that Republicans are really the Neo-Bourgeois, while Democrats are really more Progressive onservative.

For Education: The Writing is on the Oil Well

By Prescott E. Small

American education has to become more competitive yesterday.

As published in Discover Magazine, January 2006:

The performance of U.S. students in middle and high schools on international math and science exams is below the average of 38 other countries. Even advanced American math and physics students score near dead last among students in 20 tested countries, the panel reported. Since 1990 the number of bachelor's degrees in engineering has declined 8 percent; in mathematics, 20 percent. While 32 percent of U.S. students graduate with degrees in science and engineering, the figure in China is 59 percent.

With the American economy so dependent on oil and oil related products it is absolutely imperative that America stop lagging behind in education and take the lead once again.

With countries in the Middle East like Qatar having vast oil and natural gas deposits making a huge effort today to start the transition of their economy from an oil based one to a knowledge based economy should be a significant warning sign to the United States. These people have some of the largest oil reserves in the world and they are aggressively planning for an economy not based on oil.

As was stated in April 7, 2006 issue of the journal Science “This small Persian Gulf emirate is preparing for life after oil and gas by pouring wealth into education and research”

For example:

In Education City in Qatar the RAND-Qatar Policy Institute has helped Qatar to make tremendous changes in the country's educational institutions. And Qatar Science and Technology Park will be an incubator where private companies can partner with government agencies and academic institutions, developing research into commercial applications and driving Qatar and the region toward a diversified, knowledge-based economy.

What American Institutions are participating?

Prominent signs indicate the presence of educational heavyweights, including Weill Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, and Texas A&M.

It is also noted in the journal Science that “Qatar's primary and secondary schools, which have begun to dispense with traditional rote learning, Al-Hajari reports, replacing it with curricula designed to stimulate creative and independent thinking. And it extends to Qatar University, which was founded in 1977 and is independent of Education City.”

Why should we as Texans, or Americans for that matter, worry about Qatar?

The fact is that America is ranked 39th world wide in math and science education. Consider that Texas was just ranked, as a state, 24th in a country that was just placed as 39th.

Countries like Qatar, Singapore, China & India are readily getting some of the best researchers that have been educated and trained in America to relocate to their countries.

For example the Journal Science Reports that:

Texas A&M is setting up joint research with the oil industry and studies related to clean air, while Weill Cornell will concentrate on biomedical projects relevant to local health problems. (Diabetes Research)

To accelerate the process, (Qatar) plans to bring interested scientists from Weill Cornell's New York base and recruit postdocs. For his part, (Qatar) hopes to lure back expatriate Arab scientists currently flourishing in the West. "Many diaspora researchers are interested in going back if the infrastructure is there," says Hassan. To capitalize on the research, the Qatar Foundation is building the Qatar Science and Technology Park right next door to Education City.

Already, big players in industrial R&D, including GE, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil, have signed up and are waiting to move in.

What is happening?

• Foreigners are coming to America and getting education and training and then exporting that knowledge and experience out of the country.
• American researchers and educators are leaving America to be able to do the research that they are either denied or do not have funding for in the United States.
• The drain is affecting the quality of education and research in America.
• America is loosing it’s competitive edge in a global economy in the area of research to product development.
• The quality of educational facilities in the United States is falling below that of the competitive countries, as are the salaries and benefits which lure our leading researchers away.

These well funded research facilities are in countries that do not hold back development and research in controversial areas like Stem Cell Research. In fact they encourage it and fund it. These countries are leaving the United States behind and will reap the financial rewards and the health benefits of such research before the United States. They will generate jobs and wealth. The Unite States will just lose.

In an article from February 24, 2006 in the Journal Science:

“At an elite science high school in Dallas, Texas, President George W. Bush told the assembled students that the United States "needs a workforce strong in engineering and science and physics" to remain the world's top economic power. His words would seem to bode well for precollege activities funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the only federal agency with an explicit mission to improve science and math education. But 3 days later, the president unveiled a 2007 budget request that would cut--for the third straight year--a 4-year-old program at NSF aimed at doing exactly that.”

"If the (Education and Human Resources) EHR budget stays flat, there's no hope of accomplishing what corporate America says is needed to improve the U.S. workforce,"

In his Sate of the union Address on January 31, 2006 President Bush Stated:

"And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science."

However, on February 27, 2006 President Bush comes out and announces his plans for the budget: (Washington Post By Mike Allen and Peter Baker 02/07/06)

"President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents."

These problems that are highlighted above are at the heart of the problem.

Now get into the “No child Left Behind” program which has altered public education and forced it into a rote learning model by demanding testing performance at the sacrifice of building critical thinking skills.

According to Wikipedia Rote Learning is defined as: a learning technique which avoids grasping the inner complexities and inferences of the subject that is being learned and instead focuses on memorizing the material so that it can be recalled by the learner exactly the way it was read or heard. In other words, it also means learning just for the test.

For a Texas school to achieve the academic acceptable rating (the lowest passing standard)

According to the TEA's own 2005 Accountability Manual:
Schools must have passing rates of:
50% percent in Reading Tests
50% in Writing Tests
50% in Social Studies
35% percent in Math tests
25% percent in Science tests

The aspects of learning that involved critical thinking and questioning what is being taught are dieing on the vine so that we reflect an acceptable passing rating as defined by the TAKS test standards for Texas.

I find it horrifying that such low standards are required of students to pass the TAKS test in order to get an academically acceptable rating for the entire school.

No single student would be allowed to pass a single test with a 60%, 40% or 35% grade. The Government is telling us Schools are getting better and more schools are meeting the acceptable rating than they were two years ago. The only reason that is true is because they have lowered the standard and created loop holes that specifically allow for test scores of minorities to be excluded in the reporting.

Our schools are being forced onto a path of intentional failure by placing the appearance of demands and accountability without funding. The current administration in Washington and our representatives across the United States all talk about how important education is but their actions of undermining those initiatives by cutting the money out of education only speak to their real agenda of forcing public education to fail so that they can privatize education.

This agenda is being achieved at the sacrifice of this generation of children that are in school today. The damage that is being done will take decades to repair. Our economy will suffer and the quality of life for your children might actually be less than yours for the first time in American history.

As a nation we need to stop wasting time with foolish projects like School Vouchers and we need to stop spending money and resources on trying to get intelligent design into science classes. These distractions only drain valuable resources and time from the educational system while exasperating the problems at the expense of the education of our children. We need to fix the problems – not create new ones.

We need:

1. To hold elected officials accountable for sacrificing education.
2. Better pay for teachers.
3. More Teachers.
4. Better resources for education.
5. Properly fund “No child Left behind”
6. Modify “No Child Left Behind” to promote critical thinking.
7. Abandon the method of Rote Learning.
8. Increase funding for “Head Start”.
9. More involvement of higher learning institutions through the entire educational life of a child.
10. To spend more money on students per year than we do on prison inmates. ($13,000 per prisoner vs. $6,000 per student)
11. Stimulate more research in higher education.
12. Open up Stem Cell research and other programs to lure the leading minds.
13. Restore incentives to bring the brightest and most talented researchers to America.
14. To be number 1 in education world wide.
15. For Texas to lead the United States in education as well.

I can think of no greater investment for our future than our children and their education.

Intelligent Design and the Decline of American Education

Intelligent Design and the Decline of American Education

Intelligent Design is not a theory:

"One requirement of science is that it makes specific predictions, which can be tested in a laboratory." states geologist Robert Hazen "Another requirement is that it does not rely on supernatural or miraculous processes."

The primary case that intelligent design promotes is that life and the universe have systems that are so complex that they can only be explained by a creator. The very essence of that theory is completely un-testable. The only test that stands up is if we can not explain complex systems scientifically then they must have been designed by some form of intelligence.

If it was designed by "a creator" a single being or entity; whether that be God, an Alien or the Giant Spaghetti Monster then we are left without testing. The implied protocol for testing is to give up and stop researching because the answers to the question are to difficult to explain.

It is this conclusion that brings me to the "bigger problem" that Intelligent Design is just a symptom of.

Why continuing to push this non-theory on public education is irresponsible:

While this attitude and the answers themselves are unacceptable they do bring attention to the bigger problems in public education.

The problems we are faced with in our schools is the declining quality of education that our children receive today. The entire history of our Country has been built on the foundation that the children had a better life than their parents.

This was reflected in:

• The child would have a better education than the parents.
  
• The child would have better health care than the parents.
  
• The child would have a better, safer job than the parents.
  
• The child would have a nicer house than the parents.
  
• etc...

These things are no longer true of this generation coming out of our High Schools today.
The whole concept of "No Child Left Behind" is false and misleading at best. The children are now receiving training to pass a test that measures progress. The bar for that progress was only getting lowered so that the appearance was that children are improving when, in fact, they were not.

Only recently have demands for more stringent testing been met in Texas. The TAKS test has been made more difficult in recent years and as a result we can see where the quality of education was really heading.

According to an article in the Dallas Morning news dated December 15th, 2005:

The Texas Education Agency identified 821 campuses across the state Thursday where students will have the right to leave if their parents are dissatisfied. That's nearly double the number of campuses last year – 420.

...

The state's annual school performance ratings in August showed the number of "academically unacceptable" schools nearly quadrupled this year based on poor TAKS scores. A handful of factors were cited for the lower test scores and lower school ratings, including that students had to get more answers correct and, for the first time, special education students' test scores were included in overall passing rates.

Large numbers of students had trouble with the science and math sections of the exam even though only a minority of students – 25 percent in science and 35 percent in math – were required to pass those sections for their school to be considered academically acceptable.

If what we are seeing is true, then the idea of further decreasing the quality of education, especially in the sciences, is not only irresponsible it is immoral.

According to an article being published in the January 2006 issue of Discover Magazine:

The performance of U.S. students in middle and high schools on international math and science exams is below the average of 38 other countries. Even advanced American math and physics students score near dead last among students in 20 tested countries, the panel reported. Since 1990 the number of bachelor's degrees in engineering has declined 8 percent; in mathematics, 20 percent. While 32 percent of U.S. students graduate with degrees in science and engineering, the figure in China is 59 percent. Fewer grads means less research.

Science Watch, a review of the Web research tool Essential Science Indicators, found a decline in U.S. representation among the world's published scientific papers, dropping from 38.5 percent in 1990 to 33.3 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, the Asian-Pacific share increased and "will likely outstrip that of the United States in six or seven years." Such declines may be reflected in the business of science; the National Academies reported the U.S. share of global high-tech exports fell during the last two decades from 30 to 17 percent, and its share of manufactured goods dropped from +33 billion in 1990 to –24 billion in 2004.

I believe America is a first rate country with more rights and privileges than just about any country in the world. There is no excuse for us to be ranked 39th in the world for education. As an American the idea that there are 38 other countries with a better quality of education just infuriates me.

What have our government officials been doing that they have fallen down on the job to such a degree?

We can not just blame one political party for this. For our educational system to have become so badly damaged has taken years if not decades of neglect to get to this point. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat this issue needs to be a top priority in America starting yesterday.

In order to fix the problems we need to focus on the real issues. We need to stop talking about Intelligent Design and focus on what needs to be done to get the best quality of education in the world for our children.

How can we do it?

We need to change our priorities. If our children are truly what is important then we need to put our money where our brains are going to be tomorrow.

• Instead of taxing the citizenry to build bigger and better sports arenas, how about using that money to build bigger and better schools?
• How about increasing teachers salaries so that the income of a teacher is appealing to the most talented people?
• How about tax or financial incentives for retired or semi-retired professionals to come and teach our children?
• How about increasing the financial rewards for students that do well in school and actually paying for them to attend college?
• How about looking at the 38 countries that have us beat in the quality of education to see what they are doing right?

There have to be a few thousand other things we can do to help our children get the best education possible. In my opinion all we have for education these days is excuses.

The other big question that I have is what will happen to our economy in 30 years if American becomes 50th in education worldwide? Who will own America then?

No Fair, Trial for Tom DeLay

I have to say that Tom DeLay’s attorney is right. Tom DeLay will not get a fair trial.

However, I have to disagree with his logic.

The reason Tom DeLay is not getting a fair trial is because of the unfairness and inequity that is being forced upon the citizenry of Texas and the United States.

For example:
If you or any other person in this county were charged with a felony you and your family would have to come up with our own money while making significant sacrifices to get a decent attorney.

In order to hire a big gun Like Dick DeGuerin – The majority of us would have to sell our homes and still come up short of funds.

How many United States citizens would have Vice President Dick Cheney travel across half of the country to aid in a legal defense fundraiser?

Tom DeLay’s Trial is definitely not fair – it is not fair to Texans or any other American.

Prescott E. Small
Stafford, TX