Dear Sarasota Herald-Tribune Editorial Board,

Is it not time to put the good of Florida and the good of the United States above politics? Do we not all want "change"? Floridians and Americans are suffering under the extreme burden of high energy and gasoline costs. Isn't it time we look for solutions together regardless of party or ideology?

In your editorial, "On oil, the political vs. the practical" you restate what we Americans have been doing for the past 30 plus years. We have not drilled for our own oil in the Gulf of Mexico, even though China and Cuba can. We have not built new refineries or nuclear power plants in over 30 and 40 years respectively. We have created environmental regulations and an EPA bureaucracy that is stopping the building of solar power plants in the deserts of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. Congress has made it illegal to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and ANWR in Alaska. Congress and the 50 states are requiring over 45 different mixtures of gasoline to be produced to meet state and federal mandates on pollution. Finally, we are conserving our hearts out.

All of these self-imposed restrictions have gotten us in large measure to where we are. Is it not time for a change?

Is it not time for us to think outside the box? Let's not be afraid of "change". Here are some innovative ideas that local citizens and others have proposed to move Florida and America toward energy independence. Our state legislators and Congress need to consider each of them.

1. Select one environmentally friendly emission standard and mixture of gasoline, rather than the current hundreds of emission standards that require the production of 45 plus gasoline and diesel mixtures, and produce only that. This will have an immediate impact at the pump.

2. Cut federal and state taxes on gasoline, diesel and home heating oil. A tax cut has immediate short term and long term impacts on the economy and American's pocket books. Off set tax cuts with spending cuts. That is what Americans are doing.

3. Release one-third of our strategic petroleum reserves. That would have a short term impact on gasoline and oil prices.

4. Remove regulatory restrictions on the building of new petroleum refineries, solar power plants, clean coal plants, natural gas plants and nuclear power plants.

5. Challenge scientists and entrepreneurs to find immediate and long term solutions by using American innovation and developing new technologies. The $300 million challenge to create a new battery to power our cars is a just a start.

6. Look at the massive environmental damage and human suffering caused by biofuels like corn based ethanol and move to other biomass alternative fuels and technologies such as sugarcane based ethanol/alcohol, nitrogen power, and algae based fuels.

7. Provide regulatory and tax incentives to begin pumping oil from currently abandoned wells. These may become productive in the short term given current drilling technologies.

8. Stop placing blame and move to finding solutions. More hearings and talk do nothing. Action is needed. Attacking those who have spent their lives, time and treasure exploring for and drilling or mining for our natural resources is counter productive and drives up the price of gasoline. This would be a big "change" in attitude.

9. Drill in ANWR now. The plan for drilling in ANWR involves 2,000 acres of land in Alaska's far North Eastern border. Is that any more environmentally harmful than producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 from corn grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres)?

10. Explore and drill in the Gulf of Mexico and Outer Continental Shelf. It has been illegal to do so for 30 years. This would especially benefit Florida. According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil.

11. Recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves. The current high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

12. Require oil speculators to put up 50% of the dollar amount they bid in cash rather than working off lines of credit.

13. Instead of burying our trash let's burn it.

14. Let every American pledge to buy a car over the next 3 years that is more fuel efficient by 10 miles per gallon, whether new or used.

We would do all these things and continue to develop wind, solar and biofuels. We would all, of course, continue to conserve. However, we must recognize the limitations of wind and solar. For example to power New York city using wind power would require blanketing Connecticut (3 million acres) with turbines. To gain the maximum from solar we need to build plants in the America's deserts.

Let's work together to find solutions. Let's both agree that nothing is off the table. Let's demand that both Presidential Candidates on this 4th of July set a goal that America will be become energy independent in the next 10 years. Let's vow to keep the over $650 billion we send overseas to buy oil. Let's use that money to build new technologies, explore, drill and mine our own resources and best of all create jobs.

Let's join together and ask our readers to come up with more ideas on how we can become independent of foreign oil. No idea is to be rejected. All ideas will be submitted with forethought by the person making the suggestion. Let's pass these ideas on to our Florida Governor and legislature, our President and Congress.

Anyone with an idea on how to become energy independent please e-mail me at rswier@comcast.net.

Warm Regards,

Rich
Publisher, FromTheDuke Blog

Below are a series of pictures highlighting the size of ANWR, the size of the part of ANWR that Republicans want to drill in, what that small area really looks like during the summer and winter, and pictures of the existing oil rigs at Prudhoe Bay and what it looks like during the summer and winter.

This first diagram shows the size of ANWR and Alaska compared to the continental U.S. Clearly ANWR, while containing 19 million acres, is small when compared to the entire U.S.

This second diagram shows the actual proposed drilling area of 2000 acres.

These are a series of photos of that 2,000 acre area in ANWR in the summer and in the winter. Note the stark and desolate landscape in the area that is proposed for drilling. Pictures normally shown in the media are of areas of ANWR much further to the South.

The drilling area in the summer.


The drilling area in the winter.


These are pictures taken at the oil rigs located at Prudhoe Bay. Environmentalist were concerned that oil drilling in Prudhoe Bay would be an ecological disaster and harm the local animal populations. Clearly neither of these dire predictions came true.

Prudhoe Bay in the summer.

Prudhoe Bay in the winter. Note the similar desolation of Prudhoe Bay and the proposed drilling area. Neither is hospitable in winter.

As Paul Driessen of Townhall.com points out, "One of our best prospects is Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which geologists say contains billions of barrels of recoverable oil. If President Clinton hadn’t bowed to Wilderness Society demands and vetoed 1995 legislation, we’d be producing a million barrels a day from ANWR right now. That’s equal to US imports from Saudi Arabia, at $50 billion annually.

Drilling in ANWR would get new oil flowing in 5-10 years, depending on how many lawsuits environmentalists file. That’s far faster than benefits would flow from supposed alternatives: devoting millions more acres of cropland to corn or cellulosic ethanol, converting our vehicle fleet to hybrid and flex-fuel cars, building dozens of new nuclear power plants, and blanketing thousands of square miles with wind turbines and solar panels. These alternatives would take decades to implement, and all face political, legal, technological, economic and environmental hurdles.

ANWR is the size of South Carolina. Its narrow coastal plain is frozen and windswept most of the year. Wildlife flourish amid drilling and production in other Arctic regions, and would do so near ANWR facilities. Inuits who live there know this, and support drilling by an 8:1 margin. Gwich’in Indians who oppose drilling live hundreds of miles away – and have leased and drilled their own tribal lands, including caribou migratory routes.

Drilling and production operations would impact only 2,000 acres – to produce 15 billion gallons of oil annually. Saying this tiny footprint would spoil the refuge is like saying a major airport along South Carolina’s northern border would destroy the state’s scenery and wildlife.

It’s a far better bargain than producing 7 billion gallons of ethanol in 2007 from corn grown on an area the size of Indiana (23 million acres).

It’s far better than using wind to generate enough electricity to power New York City, which would require blanketing Connecticut (3 million acres) with turbines."

The Constitution states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in their editorial, "A gun right, with conditions" makes the argument that cities should have the ability to "infringe" upon our right to gun ownership and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Their argument is criminals have guns so we should not. They state, "Too many guns end up in the hands of felons, the mentally ill and violent criminals. Until that reality is reversed, U.S. deaths by firearm are likely to remain too high."

We and the National Rifle Association agree with the editorial board. Guns should not be in the hands of "felons, the mentally ill and violent criminals". That is why we support Florida's 10, 20, Life laws. We hope that all states pass such laws and that our courts enforce them.

The editorial board's opening comment, "Ah, the irony: Cities can ban unfenced backyard swimming pools, front-yard parking and spitting on the sidewalk. But a deadly handgun? That's constitutionally protected." is misdirected at best and wrong at worst. Cities can do these things but should they? We believe they should not.

We do not have the resources to enforce these bans nor are any of them so heinous that they need enforcement. The more resources we use to prevent spitting on the sidewalk or smoking on our beaches the fewer resources are available to deal with the real issue - drug trafficking, gangs and the gun related crimes that are linked to them.

The Herald-Tribune Editorial Board, "supports tough weapon regulation, but laws won't do much for public safety unless enforcement is strengthened." The Herald-Tribune wants to use precious law enforcement resources to enforce regulations against honest, law abiding gun owning citizens. They believe in "gun control", which means putting more restrictions on ordinary citizens as did Washington, D.C. The Washington, D.C. case was about a police officer who could posses and carry his handgun at work but could not take it home with him to protect his family. This fails the common sense test. Clearly common sense and the clear words of the Constitution were not enough for four Supreme Court justices.

The editorial board raises the number of deaths where guns were involved in some way. We know that guns don't kill people, evil people kill people. The weapon of choice for gangs, felons and criminals is guns. Let's focus on these evil people not honest citizens.

We wonder what would have happened on the Virginia Tech campus if one of the teachers, students, administrators or campus visitors had a gun in their vehicle. What if someone used the gun in their car or truck to defend themselves and those that died at the hands of a crazed killer? Maybe the outcome would have been more favorable for the unarmed innocents who where butchered.

Finally, we are struck by Senator Barack Obama's "change" of attitude on the right to bear arms and gun control. However, we remain skeptical given the fact he in 2004, voted against self-defense rights. "[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation." (Ryan Keith "Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics," The Associated Press, 1/17/07).

Here is a video on Senator Obama's "change" of view:



The right to bear arms is embodied in our Constitution as is the freedom of speech and of religion. With these rights comes personal responsibility. However, none shall be "infringed"

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (or "Big Green") is touting Governor Crist's proposal to buy 187,000 acres of land near the Everglades from U.S. Sugar for $1.75 billion dollars in their editorial, "An offer that's hard to refuse". This is really an offer that is hard to believe.

Big Green and our Governor are looking to take prime agricultural land that produces sugarcane off the market and put it under government centralized control and management. We believe the cost to Floridians will be much higher than the $1.75 billion, much higher. Big Green asks, "What becomes of U.S. Sugar's 1,700 employees and the South Florida cities like Clewiston whose existence is tied to cane farming?" What happens to all the tax revenue we Floridians lose forever, the jobs, the families, the cities?

But here is the real kicker. Big Green loves ethanol, except the corn based kind of course. Guess what sugarcane is a great source of? Ethanol and alcohol, both of which can be alternative fuels to replace Big Oil. So Big Green is taking fertile sugarcane growing land away from Floridians that could be used to produce ethanol and get us off of Big Oil.

Let's look at what sugarcane bagasse can produce. The fibrous material left over from pressing sugarcane is called bagasse. Bagasse is 35% of the chemical energy stored in sugarcane.

Brazil has since 1973 moved to producing ethanol and alcohol from sugarcane bagasse to fuel their cars and power plants. Here are some facts about their production of sugarcane based alternative fuels:

According to Wikipedia, "Part of the bagasse [in Brazil] is currently burned at the mill to provide heat for distillation and electricity to run the machinery. This allows ethanol plants to be energetically self-sufficient and even sell surplus electricity to utilities; current production is 600 MW for self-use and 100 MW for sale. This secondary activity is expected to boom now that utilities have been induced to pay "fair price "(about US$10/GJ or US$0.036/kWh) for 10 year contracts...The energy is especially valuable to utilities because it is produced mainly in the dry season when hydroelectric dams are running low [Florida gets 1% of its power from hydroelectric plants]. Estimates of potential power generation from bagasse range from 1,000 to 9,000 MW, depending on technology. Higher estimates assume gasification of biomass, replacement of current low-pressure steam boilers and turbines by high-pressure ones, and use of harvest trash currently left behind in the fields. For comparison, Brazil's Angra I nuclear plant generates 657 MW."

Brazil is a great success story and has reached energy independence by using ethanol and alcohol produced from sugarcane coupled with cars that use biofuels.

So Big Green wants us to not grow sugarcane which can produce ethanol, alcohol, and provide excess electrical power because they want us to preserve the Everglades. They do not want us to drill for oil and natural gas off of Florida's Gulf coast because it would damage the environment. They do not want us to use nuclear, coal, oil or natural gas fired plants because they harm the environment. However, they want us to use alternative fuels like ethanol but don't like corn based ethanol.

That leaves solar, wind and who knows what to fuel our transportation industry. Oh, I know we can conserve our way out of this self-imposed mess.

Does anyone else see the insanity of Big Green's ideology and the lack of vision of Governor Crist? We must as a state and nation become energy independent. Nothing can be off the table as we move toward that goal. It is a national security issue.

We have heard calls for change but the Sarasota Herald-Tribune calls for America to do the same things we have been doing for over 30 years that do not work.

In their editorial, "Offshore pandering" they argue against drilling off-shore because it is a vote getter. That is putting pure politics against the best interests of the nation. That is the height of partisanship and not change. We must put the good of the Country above political party.

As I explained in detail in my column yesterday, we have been doing exactly what the Democrats, liberal left, environmentalists and media have wanted. As the Sarasota Herald-Tribune points out there has been a 27 year moratorium on off-shore drilling. They state, "So, instead of supporting realistic solutions -- such as more conservation; better fuel efficiency in cars, industry and buildings; and incentives for developing alternative energy sources -- these elected officials are pandering to voters' fears."

But we have been doing all of these things for over 30 years.

Since 1980 we Americans: Haven't drilled for our own oil. We haven't built new refineries. We have significantly increased regulatory requirements on the production of gasoline to reduce carbon emissions. We have taken lead out of gasoline to reduce pollution and added ethanol to our gasoline. Via market pressures we have increased the efficiency of our cars. We have forced the production of 45 different grades of gasoline to meet EPA and state laws on pollution levels. We have heavily subsidized solar and wind power and ethanol production at both the national and state levels. We do build more energy efficient homes and buildings. And finally of course - we have conserved.

What has this gotten us? Higher prices for gasoline, oil, and natural gas. What does this mean for Gulf states like Florida? It means a direct hit on our economy. An economy that is already reeling from the shocks of a mortgage meltdown.

According to America's Power Florida gets 29.2% of our power from coal. We get 16.9% from petroleum, 38% from natural gas and 0.1% from hydroelectric. If we had our own supply of natural gas from the Gulf we could eliminate totally our use of coal and oil. Florida power is the 13th highest in the U.S. We could become one of the lowest with our own resources lying a few miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

For every one cent increase per KwH of electrical power that is $2 billion out of our economy.

Let's look at the arguments put forth by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which match those of Democrats and some Republicans:

Argument #1 - "Even if new offshore areas were leased for drilling today, it would take 10 years to bring their oil or gas to market." If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. The "not bring relief immediately" mantra is simply designed to reject today's reality of high gas prices in favor of doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.

Argument #2 - "The United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves." According to Investor's Business Daily, "In this country alone there is at least 118 billion barrels of recoverable but untapped oil, a bit more than Iraq's estimated reserves. The latest forecast indicates that there are 3.7 billion barrels of oil that are recoverable from the Bakken Formation [located in the Williston Basin that stretches through Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan]. However, there is much more liquid crude there. The speculation begins at 500 billion barrels and goes as high as 2 trillion barrels."

Argument #3 - "...the damaging effects drilling could have on the state's economy and environment," Actually drilling in the Gulf will reduce the possibility of an oil spill because all the oil spills in the United States to date were from tankers, not off shore drilling platforms. There are 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico today and 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. There have been no oil spills from an offshore oil platform in the Gulf, none. Even during hurricane Katrina, when over 1,000 platforms were displaced, not one drop of oil was spilled. Actually, studies by Louisiana State University have found that abandoned oil rigs in the gulf become artificial reefs and cause marine life to explode.

Argument #4 - "Energy companies already hold leases for 90 million offshore acres, but only about 20 million -- less than 25 percent -- are being tapped for oil." Like anything else you go for the oil that is easiest and cheapest first based upon market demand. By opening up ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico we can get to bigger deposits, cheaper and faster. This means it gets to the market faster. More supply to meet the demand and you have lower prices. If ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico were opened to exploration and drilling by Congress tomorrow, futures traders would suddenly bail and the oil bubble would burst sending prices tumbling.

The rights to the oil and natural gas off the shores of Florida belongs to Floridians. There are in fact billions of barrels of oil and billions, perhaps trillions, of cubic feet of natural gas just 50 miles off of our shores. We Floridians have the right to this off-shore property and the right to exploit those resources contained there in. We all understand that we must extract this precious resource in an environmentally sensitive way but we must extract it.

Finally, China and Cuba can explore and drill for Florida's oil right now. Why can't we?

Congress, and our state legislators need to get it like Governor Crist and we Floridians get it. This is a pocket book issue and impacts our ability to put food on our tables, get our kids to school, keep our homes, and run our businesses.

What is that saying, doing the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity. We can no longer afford this insanity.

The editorial, "How to cut foreign oil imports" by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is a masterful piece of propaganda straight from Barack Obama's talking points.

There are key questions that the editorial board doesn't ask like: How did we get to this point? How did we become so dependent on foreign oil? How is it that we are annually sending over $650 billion overseas to buy oil from those who want to kill us? How is it that Cuba and China can drill in the Gulf of Mexico and we can't. Why does gasoline cost so much?

The answer: We have been doing exactly what the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their environmentalist friends have wanted!

Since the late 1970s we Americans: Don't drill for our own oil. Don't build new refineries. We have increased regulatory requirements on the production of gasoline to reduce carbon emissions. We have taken lead out of gasoline to reduce pollution and added ethanol to our gasoline. We have increased the efficiency of our cars. Forced the production of 45 different grades of gasoline to meet EPA and state laws on pollution. And finally of course - we have conserved as pointed out in the editorial.

All of these liberal strategies have made us energy independent, right? Wrong.

We have done exactly what the environmentalists, their Democratic allies in Congress and the media have wanted and here we are with gasoline at $4.10 for unleaded regular. Do you know why? Because that is what they have wanted all along.

Environmentalists, the liberal left and the media want our gas prices high! Stop using gasoline, that is their goal. For you see fossil fuels are evil. Oil companies are evil. Moms driving SUVs are evil. We are evil because America "consumes 25 percent of the world's supply [of oil]".

Maybe it is time for a slightly different strategy?

How about we continue to do what the environmentalists want, even though it hurts us economically, but also do the following: What if we lift the ban on drilling for oil in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico? What if we explore and drill for our own oil at a greater pace? What if we begin mining the trillions of gallons of liquid oil contained in the shale in the Bakken Formation? What if we build new refineries to produce more gasoline?

If we did these things we would increase supply! When you increase supply the price comes down.

We would stop sending our money overseas and create jobs and wealth here in America rather than in Saudi Arabia and Iran. We would stop being held hostage to the whims of OPEC. We would stop supporting Communist regimes like that of Hugo Chavez. We would begin to tap our oil in the Gulf of Mexico, which Cuba and China have already agreed to do. We would buy ourselves time while we stop using oil to fuel our power plants and move toward nuclear, clean coal, solar and wind power. We would buy ourselves time as we look at alternative fuels for our transportation industry like biofuels that do not pollute more than oil.

I say we do it all. Clearly the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their allies only want half of the pie. I say we take the whole pie because we have already paid for it. What do you think?

Did you ever wonder where the ideas of abortion, civil unions, birth control, and eugenics came from? They came from the socialist left.

What is eugenics? Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.

Sounds wonderful in its intent but its "intervention" outcomes are deadly for the human race.

In practice it has killed over a hundred million innocent men, women, children and the unborn in the name of the purity of race by the secular left. You know the names of those who have wanted to create a Utopian society - Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and of course our own Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who created abortion on demand to "Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them." Margaret means those poor unwashed masses.

Bet you didn't know that H.G. Wells was one of the most outspoken advocates of eugenics, did you?

According to Michael Coren of Canada's National Post, "The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man. He argued in best-selling books such as Anticipations and A Modern Utopia that the world would collapse and from this collapse a new order should and would emerge."

"People throughout the world whose minds were adapted to the big-scale conditions of the new time. A naturally and informally organized educated class, an unprecedented sort of people." A strict social order would be formed. At the bottom of it were the base. These were "people who had given evidence of a strong anti-social disposition", including "the black, the brown, the swarthy, the yellow." Christians would also "have to go" as well as the handicapped. Wells devoted entire pamphlets to the need of "preventing the birth, preventing the procreation or preventing the existence" of the mentally and physically handicapped. "This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved."

The people of Africa and Asia, he said, simply could never find a place in a modern world controlled by science. Better to do away with the lot. "I take it they will have to go" he said of them. Marriage as it is known would have to end but couples could form mutually agreed unions. They would list their "desires, diseases, needs" on little cards and a central authority would decide who was fitted for whom.

Population would be rigidly controlled, with forced abortion for those who were not of the right class and race. Religion would be banned, children would be raised in communes and all would be well. The old and the ill would, naturally, have to be done away with and doctors would be given the authority to decide who had a right to live, who had a duty to die."

Sound familiar? Today we have traditional families and marriage under attack by the left and their Democratic government allies. We have gay marriage, abortion on demand, cloning, civil unions, birth control pills, the morning after pill, and finally massive government support for organizations like Planned Parenthood, now a $1 billion dollar business.

What the elitist left doesn't want you to know is that they hold us ordinary humans in disdain. They want to control our population in the name of a woman's right to choose. The elitist left argues that we must give children as young as 12 years old contraceptives. The elitist left wants civil unions and therefore supports gay rights, gender equality and no fault divorce.

The elitist left is controlling the birth rates to such an extent that entire populations are nearly disappearing. We now face a birth dearth in the West. According to "Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family", "Worldwide, birth rate[s] have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world's population with below replacement fertility. Finally, we have the Global Warming movement which directly pits "human procreation" against "mother earth".

Get the picture? Frightening isn't it?

Below are excerpts from an excellent article by Michael Coren from Canada's National Post titled, "Socialists made eugenics fashionable".

"An exhibition of the history of those scientific ideas that gave a grimy intellectual veneer to the Nazi genocide opened recently at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. The collection centres on eugenics, the notion that humanity can be improved and perfected by selective breeding and the elimination of individuals and groups considered to be undesirable. Entitled Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race, it reveals how it was not thoughtless right-wing thugs as much as writers and scientists, the intellectual elite, who led the movement.

Playwright George Bernard Shaw, English social democrat leader Sydney Webb and, in Canada, Tommy Douglas were just three influential socialists who called, for example, for the mass sterilization of the handicapped. In his Master's thesis The Problems of the Subnormal Family, the now revered Douglas argued that the mentally and even physically disabled should be sterilized and sent to camps so as not to "infect" the rest of the population.

The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man.

In the United States socialist writer Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the mother of the abortion movement, called for a radical eugenics approach as early as the first years of the 20th century. She wrote of the need for "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization."

For more visit www.michaelcoren.com.

I sent the following e-mail to Governor Crist, the Florida Cabinet and Sarasota County Legislative delegation. Perhaps you will consider doing the same. It is worth your time to ensure our economic future.

Dear Governor Crist,

As a Floridian I commend you for your support of off-shore drilling. As you prepare for your environmental summit I ask you to consider the following:

As you know Florida, like the United States, imports its oil, natural gas, and gasoline. Additionally we currently have a significant electrical power deficit and buy power from other states. Floridians pay dearly for our energy. Florida has the 13th highest energy costs in the U.S. With the rising price of oil and natural gas and 54.9% of Florida's power plants dependent on these two fuels our energy costs will only rise, and rise dramatically.

I ask that you continue your efforts to allow off-shore drilling because it is best for Florida economically. Florida needs to become energy independent. We can do this in an environmentally friendly way. We must look at all forms of energy production, with nothing being off the table. Wind, solar, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and biomass are all worthy of study. Those that make the most sense for Florida should be allowed to develop in a free market system and compete in that market to provide Floridians with cheap and reliable power.

Florida and America depend on cheap and reliable power and gasoline. That is what makes our economy run. Without it our economy will collapse.

As for gas prices, Florida needs to take advantage of our own resources and stop importing refined petroleum products from other states. We must drill and build refineries now for the economic future of our children and grandchildren.

I was most shocked when Senator Dennis Jones was recently quoted as saying there were "a hell of a lot" of oil spills. There has been one major oil spill in Florida in 1976. This spill was not from an oil rig but rather from a tanker. Tankers carrying oil into the Gulf are a greater threat to our beaches and environment than are off-shore oil rigs of which there are over 3,700 in the Gulf already.

Some in the Florida legislature have raised concerns about our military having to fly around oil rigs in the Gulf. In terms of the military flying around oil rigs off -shore, they can do that. The Gulf is big with lots of air space. Its much better from a national security perspective to drill for our own oil than to send billions of our dollars off-shore to fund radical Islamist terrorists and rogue nations.

I have provided below three of my articles [articles are here, here and here] on drilling off-shore and the negative impact of recent "green" policies on our electrical power industry.

I hope you will take the time to read these three articles and think about the future of Florida and America and fight against the "green" lobby.

I will do all that I can to support you. I look forward to your reply to my e-mail.

Warm Regards,

Rich

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune using their best Rachel Carson scare tactics is worried about children exposed to lead 30 years ago in their editorial, "Lead's criminal connection".

We all know that the U.S. government banned lead paint and solder in 1978 and 1986, respectively. By 1996, leaded gasoline had been phased out. These efforts resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of U.S. children with blood lead levels considered "of concern" (from 13.5 million in 1978 to 310,000 in 2002). We clearly have a very successful program reducing children's exposure to lead.

Now we have a Cincinnati study of 250 adults that says lead leads to criminal behavior. You have to wonder if defense attorneys paid for this research study. I can see it now, "My client is not guilty because he was exposed to lead at an early age".

So why is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and other liberal media up in arms about lead? Of course. In the environmentalist mind set they favor nationalization, central planning, and control. They want more regulations, more oversight and more bans of what you and I can and can't do. Today lead is their target.

But wait. There is a greater evil out there than lead. It is synthetic estrogen.

Synthetic estrogen is found in "the pill" and the "morning after pill" in large quantities. So how much are humans ingesting daily of synthetic estrogen? Brace yourself. The medicines used in hormone therapy contribute about 3,350 micrograms per day. The birth control pill contributes about 16,675 micrograms per day. The morning after pill contributes a whopping 333,500 micrograms per day.

So why should we worry about synthetic estrogen?

Estrogen according to a seven-year study funded by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the American Chemistry Council published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found, "Estrogen that goes down Canadian toilets -- some naturally from women, some from birth-control pills -- is enough to make entire fish species too feminine to reproduce."

Fish scientist Karen Kidd, who conducted the study, dripped small amounts of estrogen into a clean lake in northwestern Ontario over several years, just as if urine with the female hormone were running in via sewage from a nearby city.

This constant hormone bath made male minnows produce eggs in unnatural, part-female sex organs. And even after she stopped adding estrogen and the water turned clean again, the minnows almost completely disappeared for several years. Even small concentrations of estrogen can decimate wild fish populations, the University of New Brunswick biology professor concludes, even at levels found in some Canadian waters. She would not name individual rivers.

And while the minnows were prone to fast extinction because of their short lifespan (about two years), she says bigger fish such as trout or pike might also be hurt if they are exposed for long enough.

The first dramatic news of "feminized" fish came from British rivers in the 1990s where male fish near sewage plants were producing eggs and carrying reproductive organs that were partly female.

"A lot of follow-up studies showed it was the natural estrogens that women excrete and then the synthetic estrogens in birth control pills that were the main causes of feminization in male fish," Ms. Kidd said.

"The Pill is one of the most heavily prescribed pharmaceuticals in the world. There are over a million women on it in Canada."

In 2004 researchers on the Potomac River downstream of Washington, D.C., found large-mouth bass that in most respects were males, but who had eggs in their sexual organs. This phenomenon is called "intersexuality". Scientists from the University of Colorado in 2005 examined the trout and other fish that populate Boulder Creek. They netted 123 fish down stream of Boulder city's sewage plant and found a tremendous imbalance: 101 female, 12 male and 10 intersex fish. One researcher told the Denver Post, "Its the first thing I've seen as a scientist that really scared me."

So why isn't the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their environmentalist bed fellows raging mad about this clear and present danger to our fish populations and humans? Why aren't they calling for the banning of the use of estrogen? Why hasn't the EPA banned estrogen as dangerous to our environment and fishing industry? Why isn't the Sierra Club up in arms?

According to Iain Murray in his book "The Really Inconvenient Truths", "By any standard typically used by environmentalists, the pill is a pollutant. It does the same thing, just worse, as other chemicals they call pollution." Murray shows in his book that the EPA inexplicably refuses to consider the impacts of contraceptives because "pharmaceutical regulation is a function of the Food and Drug Administration". That is like the EPA saying I won't deal with lead paint poisoning in homes because homes are a function of the Federal Housing Administration.

Murray states, "So government bureaucrats, the enforcement wing of liberal environmentalism, officially refuses to do anything about the contraceptive pollution issue in the United States. All this in marked contrast to the United Kingdom's Environmental Agency, which at least has the decency to label the contraceptive pill a pollutant, even though it appears powerless or unwilling to do anything about it."

So what about environmental groups like the Sierra Club. Surely they must be concerned about the destruction of our fish population and its effects on us humans, right? Wrong.

Iain Murray points out, "The current head of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, was once political director of the group Zero Population Growth."

Back in 1970, the Sierra Club adopted the following resolution which states in part: "Be it resolved by the undersigned organizations...That we must find, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time the necessary policies, attitudes, social standards, and actions that will, by voluntary and humane means consistent with human rights and individual conscience, bring about the stabilization of the population of the United States and then of the world..."

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune and their ilk will not attack synthetic estrogen because they are attacking their own. Feminist organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, Zero Population Growth and the World Wild Life Fund which states on its web site that, "We should supply contraceptives to all those 180 million people in the developing world...even if there is no population problem".

You see humans are the enemy not the environment. We must control the number of humans who are themselves "pollutants". By reproducing we are harming mother earth. So synthetic estrogen, which is destroying our fish populations and humans, is good because we are preventing more humans.

Does anyone else see how sick this ideology really is?

Iain Murray from the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a most revealing book titled, "The Really Inconvenient Truths, Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want you to Know About - Because They Helped Cause Them".

The book is easy to read and drives home the point in the subtitle that the Environmental Movement has killed tens of millions of humans, done serious environmental damage, is a greater threat to endangered species, and threatens the health and well being of hundreds of millions of humans, primarily the poor, all in the name of helping "mother earth".

But how can this be you ask? Well it is actually so simple as to be obvious. According to Iain, "American values like property [rights], enterprise, and freedom work well to protect the environment; and that the environment suffers when these values are replaced by contrary values like nationalization, central planning, and control."

Iain's premise is straight forward. Historically, we humans take care of our land and its resources better than government.

Environmentalists, their supporters in Congress, at the State level and even those in our counties and cities believe that more nationalization, central planning and control is needed to protect us from ourselves. Environmentalists in the end place a higher value on "the environment" than on the humans who have domain over it. You probably have programs in your county to buy "environmentally sensitive" land. Ever asked is this really the best way to protect that land? Ever questioned whether it is better to have that land in the hands of a private owner who has a vested interest in keeping it valuable? When the government owns land, it and all that is on it is worth zero.

Iain uses a great example of protecting tigers in Africa and Asia. On government land a tiger is worth nothing so poachers take the animals for nothing, they just must avoid getting caught. A tiger skin is worth tens of thousands of dollars on the black market. The poacher has no sunk costs because the tiger was free. He just had to capture or kill it.

Now if someone owned those tigers, breeds them and sells them for a profit there is a vested interest in protecting and growing the population of tigers because they now have real market value. The free market system actually increases the population of an endangered species because the value of the species, in this case a tiger, is at the market rate. Good for the tiger, good for those wanting tiger products, good for the government who gets taxes from the sale of tiger products, and good for the entrepreneur who profits by raising tigers. Its a win, win, win for tigers. Its a lose, lose, lose for poachers.

But you see liberals and environmentalists despise businesses that use public land to make a profit. Substitute the word "tree" in the above example for "tiger" and you get the point.

Iain presents seven clear cut examples of ecological disasters that are directly linked to liberal movements and environmentalism. Some you may know about, some you may not. Many know about how the ban on DDT worldwide led to a dramatic increase in mosquito born malaria which killed tens of millions of innocent men, women and children, primarily in Africa.

However, did you know that the Feminist Movement and their Planned Parenthood allies push for birth control and the "morning after" pills containing estrogen is causing male fish across America to develop female sex organs? Funny how "pro-choice" and "environmentalist" liberals never talk about that.

I highly recommend Iain's book. It is an awakening to the real damage caused by those professing to protect the environment.

The editorial in today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SH-T), a New York Times Company, titled, "Drilling for votes" is stereotypical liberal lies. The editorial boards environmentalist roots are showing and they just can't help themselves.

Environmentalists (read the SH-T) always put the "environment" above the good of the humans who have domain over it. In fact environmentalist policies have killed millions and done more harm to the environment than any other political movement in America. Iain Murray in his book "The Really Inconvenient Truths" points out, "American values like property [rights], enterprise, and freedom work well to protect the environment; and that the environment suffers when these values are replaced by contrary values like nationalization, central planning, and control."

A Federal ban on off shore drilling is nationalization, centralized planning, and control to the highest degree.

The rights to the oil and natural gas off the shores of Florida belongs to Floridians. There are in fact billions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas just 50 miles off of our shores. We Floridians have the right to this off shore property and the right to exploit the resources contained there in. We all understand that we must extract this precious resource in an environmentally sensitive way but we must extract it.

China and Cuba can explore and drill for Florida's oil right now. Why can't we?

Now for the lies.

SH-T Lie #1 - "the United States can't drill its way out of its dependence on foreign oil."

Truth - Yes we can! America may hold more oil than Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Venezuela - but it is closed off to exploration by our own government. According to Senator Jim Inhofe, "Oil and gas exploration and production are currently prohibited on 85 percent of America’s offshore waters. Among industrialized nations with shorelines, the United States is the only one not actively seeking new offshore oil and gas deposits. Canada allows offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes. Additionally, Cuba is also looking to expand drilling to within 45 miles of parts of Florida and with technology that may be much less environmentally sound than that used by American companies. Exploration and production activities are currently prohibited in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Outer Continental Shelf, which hold an estimated 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of gas. This is equivalent to more than 25 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia."

SH-T Lie #2 - "The simple fact is that even if the ban were lifted, the United States has just 3 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves."

Truth - According to Investor's Business Daily, "In this country alone there is at least 118 billion barrels of recoverable but untapped oil, a bit more than Iraq's estimated reserves. The latest forecast indicates that there are 3.7 billion barrels of oil that are recoverable from the Bakken Formation [located in the Williston Basin that stretches through Montana, North Dakota and Saskatchewan]. However, there is much more liquid crude there. The speculation begins at 500 billion barrels and goes as high as 2 trillion barrels."

SH-T Lie #3 - "Florida's waters and coastal areas are both environmentally fragile and economically vital. They would be threatened by new drilling not only off Florida but in the waters of neighboring states."

Truth - Florida's waters and coastal areas would not be "threatened by new drilling". Actually drilling in the Gulf will reduce the possibility of an oil spill because all the oil spills in the United States to date were from tankers, not off shore drilling platforms. There are 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico today and 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. There have been no oil spills from an offshore oil platform in the Gulf, none. Even during hurricane Katrina, when over 1,000 platforms were displaced, not one drop of oil was spilled.

Also, according to Humberto Fontova of Human Events, "Oil companies have left in place in the Gulf of Mexico platforms from played out wells at the request of fishermen. Marine life had EXPLODED around these huge artificial reefs. Louisiana produces one third of America's seafood. In fact a study by Louisiana State University shows that 85% of Louisiana offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures and that there's 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding Gulf bottoms. Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries -- because of, not in spite of, these platforms."

SH-T Lie #4 - "Lifting the moratorium would not bring relief from today's high gas prices. It would take seven to 10 years to bring any new sources to market."

Truth - If President Clinton hadn’t vetoed legislation allowing environmentally sensitive exploration on the Coastal Plain of ANWR ten years ago, today we would have one million additional barrels of oil coming from ANWR each day, which would mean lower gas prices for consumers and more energy security right now. ANWR is estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil -- about 15 years’ worth of imports from Saudi Arabia. The "not bring relief immediately" mantra is simply designed to reject today's reality of high gas prices in favor of doing nothing. Doing nothing is not an option.

SH-T Lie #5 - "The mirage of drilling our way to energy independence only distracts us from pursuing more promising efforts, such as conservation, energy efficiency and alternative sources."

Truth - No it doesn't. Nothing should be off the table. Nothing. Wind, solar, geo-thermal, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, conservation, energy efficiency and alternative fuels all must be on the table. What is true is that energy efficiency historically leads to more energy use. According to the Manhattan Institute, "The history of the twentieth century is one of gigantic increases in efficiency—and even larger increases in consumption. The American economy has experienced massive efficiency gains: for each unit of energy, we produce more than twice as much GDP today than we did in 1950. Yet during that period of time, our national total energy consumption has tripled. Paradoxically, when it comes to energy, the more we save, the more we consume."

SH-T Lie #6 - "McCain seeks political advantage in offering false hope."

Truth - According to Investor's Business Daily, "The biggest obstacle to putting more domestic oil in the pipeline is not economics or technology hurdles...It is the pro-OPEC, Democratic-majority, maddeningly irrational U.S. Congress."

Here is the bottom line. Florida is an energy importer, like the United States. We import our gasoline and electricity from other states. If we had our own oil and natural gas supply and our own refineries we would become energy independent and help America do the same. We would gain financially with royalties paid by oil companies, as does Louisiana. We would protect our beautiful beaches from tanker oil spills by piping in our oil and natural gas on shore. Fish would thrive in artificial reefs provided by tapped out oil rigs.

Off shore drilling is a win, win, win for Florida and America.

Tell your Congressmen, Senators and Florida legislators so. Tell them to drill off shore now and make Florida and America more energy independent. We must for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

This is an alert from Florida's Yes2Marriage.org campaign:

Last night at 5:01pm, so called "gay marriages" started being performed in California for the first time. Unlike in Massachusetts where homosexual marriages are limited to the recognition of residents from just that state, now same sex couples from all over the country will rush to California to try and get "married." They will then return to states like New York to try to force recognition of these illegitimate unions. This kind of radical social change could easily happen in Florida over just the next 9 months.

By Early 2009, Florida's Supreme Court Will Completely Change
With the recent resignation of Jeb Bush appointees Florida Supreme Court Justices Raul Cantero and Kenneth Bell, coupled with the mandatory retirement ages of Justices Charles Wells and Harry Lee Anstead in early 2009, the makeup and membership of the Florida Supreme Court will undergo a total change in well under 12 months. We hope and pray that Governor Charlie Crist will do what he promised to do in his campaign, namely appoint judges who will "strictly interpret the law, not expand upon it or legislate from the bench." Time will tell. However Florida voters will not have to wait around to see which direction the court goes in order to protect marriage thanks to the Yes2Marriage.org Campaign.

The People-- and Not Judges Should Decide This Issue
By voting "Yes" on Amendment 2 on November 4, 2008, Floridians will simply take the existing state marriage law and place it into the state constitution, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Unlike most amendments, Amendment 2 does nothing new but merely protects something timeless, longstanding and precious. The people-- and not activist judges should decide the future of marriage in Florida. Homosexual opponents of Amendment 2 have been whining for months with the curious observation that Amendment 2 is supposedly not necessary because "Florida law already prohibits gay marriage". What is happening in California right now runs a locomotive through these disingenuous arguments.

Legalizing Gay Marriage Forces Thousands of Other Laws to Also Be Changed
The innocent-sounding idea of gay marriage has wide spread and far reaching consequences to the transformation of law, culture and society. When marriage is legally redefined, it simultaneously changes th