"I think. I think I am. Therefore I am, I think.

OF COURSE YOU ARE MY BRIGHT LITTLE STAR.
I'M MILES AND MILES,
BRIEF MILES OF YOUR FOREFATHER'S FRUIT.
AND NOW TO SUIT OUR GREAT COMPUTER,
YOU'RE MAGNETIC INK.

I'm more than that. At least, I think I must be.

THERE YOU GO MAN. KEEP AS COOL AS YOU CAN.
FACE PILES OF TRIALS WITH SMILES.
IT RILES THEM TO BELIEVE
THAT YOU PERCEIVE THE WEB THEY WEAVE,
AND KEEP ON THINKING FREE."

(The Moody Blues)

Among the many notable presentations listed was one titled The Case for a New Religion. The session synopsis from the conference brochure read as follows:

As Dan Hurwitz sees it, all of today's belief systems are "mixed blessings," embodying as they do both socially beneficial concepts and negative elements. He proposes then that a new, eclectic religion be established by updating and combining the best features of older systems. From traditional religion, the new system would extract: 1) the establishment of long lasting ethical standards, 2) the power to instill strong emotive sentiment, and 3) the ability to create a healthy sense of brotherhood among its followers. These would be buttressed by three precepts drawn from atheism's side of the aisle: 1) its rejection of myth, 2) its faith in the scientific method of analysis, and 3) its focus on the human condition. Finally, the presenter would organize these six points under the banner of evolution to offer the world community a universal, nature-inspired religion suitable to the new millennium.

Now we will turn our attention to the latter three precepts just as if atheism were to enjoy equal standing from across the aisle with a revealed religion of final value. While we applaud the scientific method, we have also studied the results of misplaced faith. We have seen this particular application of faith in Humanist Manifestos One and Two. The first manifesto, published in 1933, states that "Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life." And that "… through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life." The second manifesto, published in 1973, states that "In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration."

On September 1, 1853, an organization was formed in London, England. Its objectives were to spread the knowledge of the time and to foster the cultivation of the sciences, philosophy and the arts. From the statement of organizing principles we would extract the following: "In forming ourselves into a progressive religious body, we have adopted the name "Humanistic Religious Association" to convey the idea that religion is a principle inherent in man and is a means of developing his being towards greater perfection. We have emancipated ourselves from the ancient compulsory dogmas, myths and ceremonies borrowed of old from Asia and still pervading the ruling churches of our age."

As theists and non-theists alike engaged in biblical criticism, the liberal trends of Unitarianism, Universalism, the Ethical Societies, and Reformed Judaism produced a humanistic theism. It included people that kept theistic terms but redefined them, and it included people who held that evolution was simply God's method of creation. There were of course some who sought an inward retreat from reality or an escape from the struggle for social progress. And there were others for whom the Source of Ideals pointed to action in the outer world.

Issues came to a head in July of 1920 during the Harvard Summer School of Theology. The struggles had become a controversy that was characterized as a battle between the "God-Man" and the "No-God-Man." At the urging of evolutionary theists and theistic liberal ministers, the Unitarian Church extended freedom of the pew to include freedom of the pulpit. The professed creedlessness of the denomination was upheld. And, had it not been, there probably would have been a separate Humanist Church.

While Mr. Hurwitz put forth a proposal that may seem fresh from his present vantage point, it appears to be an after the fact rehash of what Manifesto One itself defines as "Religious Humanism." Evolutionary religion is, of necessity, augmented by revelation. In no way is an evolutionary, nature-inspired religion commensurate with the spiritual or intellectual development of human kind in the third millenium. The Banner of Evolution and the Humanist Manifestos are silent on the subject of wisdom. This is because its origin, adaptation and assimilation is illusory in the limited context of nature inspired religion. No mature person of abiding faith will forsake the personal experience of continuous revelation to accept a nature-inspired religion over a Spirit-inspired one.

As we turn our attention once again to that great experiment in democracy we see that, Establishment Clause denials notwithstanding, this is precisely the religion established by the direct actions of federal and state governments within the United States. In a country where Jeffersonian flourishes are permissible and Wesleyan not, there is such attention deficit that Humanism is not regarded as religion, even though it has clearly defined itself as such throughout its history and in the very first article of its first manifesto. It is unlikely that promotion of Humanism by that nation's governments will ever be declared unconstitutional by constructionist courts. They look for intention only when it suits their agenda and the American Civil Liberties Union is highly selective about which religions will be targeted in Establishment Clause cases, for they have their own agenda.

The separation question is itself a diversionary tactic. It was reintroduced in the early twentieth century for the purpose of imposing so-called secular values while obscuring an otherwise obvious violation of the establishment clause. Thus far the tactic has been successful. In most cases of law an agreement or declaration, as reduced to writing, is the one that governs.

Sure the framers debated separation, Thomas Jefferson discussed "separation" of church and state in communications with the Danbury Baptist Church. Then he himself attended "church" services in the U.S. Capitol building just two days after posting his now famous letter. The only thing truly relevant is the actual language of the carefully negotiated, carefully crafted amendment. And it did not include separation. The obfuscation tactics and ambitious policy making of the Supreme Court not withstanding, there has never been a constitutionally mandated separation.

While the separation clause does not exist within the United States Constitution, it does exist within the Constitution of the former United Soviet Socialist's Republic. Before you now is the relevant article. Please follow the text as I read aloud;

Article 52 [Religion]
(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

In the United States, atheistic propaganda now enjoys superior protection. Humanism is freely taught in the public schools while other religions are banned. Though not a religion of final value, humanism does embrace a system of values and as such is a religion in the most basic sense. The federal government and all the U.S. states are well afoul of the Establishment Clause. Amidst all the smoke, their clear intent is to ban one or more religions in favor of a state sponsored religion. Political correctness, humanism, esoteric values are promulgated through forms of religious persuasion with government sponsorship.

To say that the democracy of the United States is in trouble is serious understatement. Few U.S. citizens believe that they have a truly representative democracy and many believe that the democracy was systematically stolen from them many years ago. It is considered so high maintenance, requiring so much mind share that few are prepared to invest the energy required for fixing it. And so the classic American Blameshift begins.

Most blame the media for not maintaining the journalistic integrity necessary to fulfill its obligations as the watchdog. While media distrust is almost universal, people readily consume its product. It has adapted to the era of convenience food by providing pre-digested food for thought. Conservatives call it the liberal media and liberals' believe that it is almost wholly owned by conservative monoliths. Whatever the current breakdown most citizens agree this is where public opinion is bought and sold.

While the people resident on the planet are continually subjected to the new political orthodoxy and its attempt to supplant true religion, the religious values of the political and media elite lack the consistency to withstand close scrutiny even by the most modest of intellects. What is politely termed intellectual dishonesty often reflects a lack of integrity at a much more fundamental level and no amount of bad religion heaped upon bad fundamentals will serve to improve the human condition.

When Jesus told Peter "Get behind me Satan" onlookers were shocked at the stern rebuke. While Peter was a loyal follower, he was simply not intent on promoting what God wills but what pleases men. Jesus, by putting God's will first, was serving a larger humanity's long-term best interests. And, in this setting of practical activity, a fork in the road of human endeavor was rendered visible and distinct.

As for placing one's faith in science, various groups have made use of bad science or bad interpretations of science in promoting a variety of self-serving causes on the planet. While many in leadership are not themselves fooled, they are all too willing to accept and use the assertions of special interest groups to indulge, and thereby gain support from, any politically active and well financed constituency. Remember, politicians on the planet always have a finger to the political wind and an insatiable appetite for funding.

This is where the democracy implications of dollar skew become readily apparent to those with eyes to see. This is where well funded political action committees and multinational corporations have drowned out the individual voice and dwarfed the person voting. This is also where the consent of the governed is expressed as a voice filled with resignation or displaced by acquiescence.

One of the best and clearest examples of special interest power is the so-called gay movement of the late twentieth century. This group had its major impact in the wake of the 1969 Stonewall Riots. Since that time the movement has skillfully worked the media, health care, the education system and the political machinery to convert the languages, the sciences and the dominant culture of indulgences in support of its viewpoint.

Theirs is a nature inspired religion that avoids comparison with the higher orders of nature. Some see the raucous "gay pride" celebrations on the Stonewall anniversary as a parade of human failure, others as an occasion to be happy and gay. In a homosexual world the term bisexual is no longer used to describe unique reproductive abilities but to imply sexual preferences. And, in the realm of science, a study of behaviors within prison populations of male criminals gets applied to the general population in an attempt to "prove" that ten percent of the larger population is homosexual.

The once prestigious American Psychiatric Association (APA) rendered its soft science even softer by declaring, without the benefit of scientific evidence, that homosexuality is not representative of any "mental disorder." The idea of a genetic substrate supporting homosexuality is promoted through popular arguments focusing on "the twins." A study revealed that if one twin displays homosexual tendencies, the other is more likely to share that sexual orientation. This is seen as conclusive evidence that homosexuality is beyond the control of the individual, that it is instead, predetermined by nature.

Of course if this same nature yielded a predisposition for violence or substance abuse, society's expectation would favor therapy with a goal of individual self-control. In these latter cases nature is not seen as something to which we aspire, but something to be overcome in favor of something higher.

Furthermore, homosexuality, while lacking a natural avenue for the self-perpetuation imperative, not only avoids the nature argument in this case but rather promotes homosexual adoption as an end run around nature. Homosexuality is a politically charged issue motivated by self-gratification and justified by self-maintenance. Self-perpetuation remains an open question.

As the movement defends itself against discrimination in various forms, it denies that such discrimination would probably not exist to such a significant degree were it not for the movement running on impulse to parade its sexuality.

Society has a right to discriminating tastes in the areas of human endeavor and behavior as well as fine wines. It has a right to discriminate between domestic partnerships and those marriage covenants designed to facilitate child development. It has a right to its values and a right to hold that the healthiest nurturing infrastructure for children and the highest social order are best supported through the societal preference for heterosexual monogamy.

The biggest accommodation to this special interest group, the greatest modern indulgence has been the public's apparent willingness to apply coercive labeling to anyone who doesn't share the movement's values. "It's surely homophobia," they say. To the movement there is no such thing as reasonable people disagreeing, only the phenomena of unreasoned fear. Any rejection of the movement's values package is automatically interpreted as a "homophobic reaction" and "promoting hatred."

What now? If individuals are not free to accept or reject a value proposition, if public opinion is so easily manipulated with shallow argument, if the dominance of mediocrity is so easily achieved and if the abnormal fear of light, photophobia, cannot be overcome, what are the long-term democracy implications?

We've never promoted democracy as a panacea, for in its simplest form, it is much like three wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. But the twenty first century North American adaptation has pretty good minority protection built in. In the hands of skilled and ethically challenged political activists though, these protections can be exploited to gain wildly disproportionate representation.

As their second manifesto indicates, humanists have no quarrel with religion that is "at its best." And, like the rest of us, they object to what happens when religion becomes politically charged. As it is with religion, so it is with science.

In the early 1970's the New York branch of the American Psychiatric Association authorized a task force to study homosexuality. After two years of study and deliberations the group, headed by Dr. Charles W. Socarides, issued its report. The group was unanimous in declaring that homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development. Fearing the potential political fallout however, the Executive Council of the APA's New York District Branch shelved the report.

This was a time when the homosexual movement employed militant tactics. It was a time when any psychiatrist presenting clinical findings on homosexuality was subject to public attacks, hate mail and threatening phone calls.

In 1970 the APA's annual convention was held in San Francisco. Protesters disrupted a panel on transexualism and homosexuality by shouting insults at the speakers. There were also demands, one of which was that homosexuals be represented at the APA's annual conventions.

In 1971 activists were able to force, through the threat of violence, the removal of a display on techniques for the treatment of homosexuality. In 1972 ad homonym invectives were hurled at prominent psychiatrists who characterized homosexuality as a disorder.

By 1973 the APA had surrendered to various demands and granted homosexuals an official panel and a hearing before the APA's Nomenclature Committee. A committee member with little experience studying sexual deviation was made Chairman of the Nomenclature Task Force on Homosexuality. His name was Robert Spitzer.

A critique on the classification of homosexuality as a disorder was submitted by Charles Silverstein of the Institute for Human Identity, a homosexual counseling center. This critique, in the form of a proposal, was submitted by Spitzer to the APA Board.

On December 15, 1973 the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Second Edition (DSMII). The decision cascaded through the soft-science fraternities with the American Psychological Association adopting the position in January of 1975.

The National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics and a host of others have adopted the complete package and issued statements against reparative or conversion therapy. The scientific community has abandoned even the ego dystonic, those homosexuals in conflict with, disturbed by or wishing to change their sexual orientation. When DSMIII was revised by the APA in 1987, Ego Dystonic Homosexuality was deleted as a separate diagnostic entity because, and I quote "In the United States almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic."

We would submit that almost all people who are drowning first go through a phase in which they are gasping for breath. If this should happen to you, don't expect a life ring from any card-carrying member of the APA.

In 1973 the APA membership was twenty five thousand. Only two hundred signatures are required to force a referendum. Two hundred and forty three members motivated by a desire to end persecution of and discrimination against homosexuals requested the referendum. After an intense lobbying effort by the National Gay Task Force, one quarter of the APA membership submitted ballots for a final tally of sixty percent for the change.

In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were randomly polled. Sixty eight percent of those replying held that homosexuality was "usually a pathological adaptation (as opposed to normal variation)." Still, mental health and social service organizations continue on as if the science is well settled and Humanists continue to vest their faith in science.

Homosexuals have been handed a few victories by the courts on the anti-discrimination front. But society at large, from adolescents to young adults, has resisted the creation of any special status for this group.

Of course homosexuals are not the only special interest group that uses these tactics. Any time the voting public is willing to settle for a pre-manufactured conceptual model lacking coherent symmetry, the political landscape changes.

Another early third millenium Earth controversy centers on the issue of abortion. Advocates for the procedures characterize themselves as pro-choice, opponents as pro-life. In light of the Divine Admonition "I set before you life and death, therefore choose life," few could argue against the banner points. And, in a time where voters are widely regarded by politicians as having short attention spans and little depth of perspective, banner points often suffice.

The debate has assumed greater depth lately though, due to a couple of situations that keep reappearing in the news of the realm. One of these involves a technique known as partial birth abortion. In this case the child actually begins its journey through the birth canal and meets its demise by a puncture wound to the brain. The other recurring situation involves a number of young mothers who, having delivered their babies, simply disposed of them as soon as possible after birth.

The argument that the latter example constitutes murder and the former is a lawful surgical procedure is increasingly recognized by the public as a legal distinction without much of a difference. In fact, few of the classic arguments in favor of abortion would seem to apply with respect to the partial birth variety.

The life of the mother can hardly be seen as "in jeopardy" in such a case. Vaginal delivery is in all respects normal with the exception of the infant's greeting. The viability of the infant no longer seems to be of concern to those intent on placing the rights of one individual over the rights of another.

For politicians the choice is simple. A woman's right to choose not to have her own life plan altered, is more important than a child's right to life itself. After all, that child would never be able to vote during the political lifetime of the candidate anyway. Changing the political imperative involves changing the language and culture so that snuffing out a life becomes a widely accepted surgical procedure in the best traditions of "Do no harm.".

At issue during the Nuremberg trials was the clinical detachment and efficiency with which millions were exterminated. These victims too, had been classified as less than human by another integrity challenged government. But in those trials, the Defendants claimed that they were acting under orders. No such claim has or can be asserted here with respect to the abortion issue for those facilitators operating within Earth's Western Hemisphere.

Abortionists volunteer. Politicians pander. They, along with other mercenaries work for money, votes, career advancement and material comforts. So, with the "under orders" defense gone, how do abortionists justify their actions and their advocacy? How do abortion proponents balance the inconvenience of carrying a child to term against the life of the child? They don't. And, as long as it's considered politically incorrect to have an honest debate, they won't.

An unwanted pregnancy is seen as disruptive to the life of a mother and inconvenient to others. No greater justification is needed or offered in a culture where self is considered supreme. But in the thinking of abortion proponents, only the woman is allowed to be self-indulgent while immune to criticism.

It takes two to conceive a child. Though only one has absolute legal power over the life or death of that child. The mother can decide for any reason, including reasons of personal economics, to end the child's life prior to birth. But if she carries the child to term and paternity is proven, the father can be compelled to provide ongoing financial support for the mother as well as the child.

Conversely, assuming he were informed of the pregnancy, a father has no cultural or legal standing to protect his child from an abortionist even if he is prepared to raise the child unwanted by the mother. And, as various courts continue to strike down parental notification laws, grandparents are also deprived of any opportunity to intervene on behalf of a child in jeopardy.

No judge is forced to support immoral precedents. But most are more than willing if it means careers and prestige remain intact. Such moral cowards are returned to the bench year after year due to the moral ambivalence and indifference of the voting public. One would expect religionists to get in the game but the people of God have largely abdicated any responsibility for defining the arena, the language and the terms of engagement.

These particular special interest groups, the homosexual movement and the abortion movement, are generally rooted in what could be described as individual lifestyle choice. Pandering politicians can, with the same depraved indifference, usually count on these movements for some walking around money. But, the big support for politics comes from big business.

At this juncture we should pause to again consider the "consent of the governed." Did the governed ever consent to the influence big business exerts within government? When consumers buy products, should they consider how their suppliers use profits" When investors fund companies, should they take the company's performance, with respect to social responsibility, into consideration? Should they take a company's assertions at face value, or is some due-diligence in order?

At this period in its development, Earth is largely dependent on fossil fuels controlled by a powerful few. Consider the shell game that took place during the year of 2000. Oil prices suddenly rose, making it more difficult for people of modest means to obtain the fuel necessary to power the vehicles used to move to and from their places of employment. As one might expect in a realm of limited virtue, there was lots of finger pointing.

When the U.S. government pointed to decisions by a consortium of oil producing nations as the triggering event, it was then called to explain why the U.S. was no longer an oil-producing nation. When asked to explain how national security was served through a decades long de-emphasis of alternative energy and an increased dependency on foreign oil, elected representatives answered in their trademark gibberish.

When some people then asked why the government was effectively subsidizing the oil supply by picking up much of the tab for defense of the oil producing nations, the shell game should have come to a spectacular end. But it didn't, due to the failure of the media with respect to its mission.

While the rest of the citizenry waited patiently for the traditional media to start asking the promised "tough questions," ones that were to insure continued relevance of the press, the oil companies blamed the government for regulations mandating additives. The companies never had to account for the savings accrued by cutting the petroleum content of their product by as much as ten percent. Instead the government held that the additives used to make ethanol blends such as gasohol, though derived from renewable resources such as domestically produced corn and wheat, were too expensive. At any rate, for informed citizens the questions linger, were the additives used to cut the oil more expensive than the oil? And, which politicians are wholly owned and operated by big oil?

Government subsidies in the form of a blender's tax credit for the production of Gasohol have been controversial from the time of their inception. Especially since among the main beneficiaries are a few large agribusiness conglomerates. However, the accounting authorities within the federal government have once again denied the voting public any basis for comparison.

The major portion of petroleum continues to flow from the least stable region on the planet. The defense of the foreign oil pipeline, with human lives and military budgets, represents not only a subsidy, but a huge and largely unaccounted for subsidy like no other. Those fuels long considered "not viable" alternatives look pretty good when the true cost of oil is taken into account. But it won't be considered if the oil industry has anything to say about it. The federal government has demonstrated that it cannot be counted upon for an honest accounting that reflects the true cost for each component of the ethanol blends. Institutional self-perpetuation as a cardinal precept is not compatible with truth where the constituent profit motivations govern.

Since the oil embargoes of the early 1970's the people of the United States have become more dependent on foreign oil not less. Since that time both major political parties have enjoyed extended terms in power with no coherent energy policy from either side. There is a paralysis due to the self-serving interests of politicians effectively bought and sold by big business.

In addition to Gospel Quash and the Shell Game there is another game with a similar objective. This one is called AcquiSquishin'. Here a company will target or acquire an innovative upstart or a promising new technology for the purpose of squishing it like a bug. It is not unlike the game played decades ago when bus manufacturers bought trolley companies to put the latter out of business. But in the more modern variation, these new technologies are usually disposed of before they gain the public's attention.

For example, a major manufacturer's co-generation system promised to produce electricity enough for a single family home from natural gas. Where did it go? Stirling engine powered generators and home freezers, hydrogen-power, anything that might help the consumer cut the public utility umbilical is deemed impractical. Not because of any insurmountable problem with technical viability but because of acquisquishin' and an artificial barrier to market entry.

Let's examine the barrier to hydrogen power. Do you remember when Ben Franklin flew a kite during a storm to learn about lightening? That famous experiment concerning the electric potential of an object in the sky was duplicated on the 6th of May in 1937. As mooring lines were dropped to ground a "high docking" dirigible, the giant electric charge collector burst into flames over Lakehurst, New York.

The silver airship Hindenburg was built with Third Reich funding. It was run by the Nazi Minister of Propaganda and displayed giant swastikas on the tail section as it crossed the Atlantic twenty one times. Loudspeakers made Nazi propaganda announcements over cities and thousands of small Nazi flags were dropped to float down like tiny parachutes, thrilling school children and others that watched the giant Zeppelin pass. On the evening it burned, the Hindenburg carried ninety-seven persons. Thirty-five people died that night.

The Airship featured an 813-foot long aluminum frame. It used a Goodyear-formula for its gelatin-latex membrane cemented between two layers of woven fabric that contained 7,200,000 cubic feet of hydrogen in 16 bags. Its commanding silver appearance was due to a surface varnish of powdered aluminum in a paint formula that resembles the chemistry of modern, solid, booster rocket fuel.

Hindenburg investigator and electrical engineer Otto Beyersdorff posted a handwritten letter in German on June 28, 1937. Translated from German the letter states "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature ..." NASA investigator Dr. Addison Bain later verified this finding through scientific experiments that duplicated the vigorous ignition by static discharge to the aluminum powder filled covering material. Dr. Bain noted that the particular type of aluminum powder particles, which are flake like in shape, are particularly sensitive to electrical discharge.

Dr. Bain concluded that the Hindenburg would have burned and crashed even if helium would have been used as the lifting gas. And if the Hindenburg had carried the equivalent energy potential in the form of gasoline, the loss of life would have surely included many more of the crew, passengers, and the 200-member landing team.

In 1916, twenty one years before this Nazi propaganda machine burst into flames, Louis Enricht sold his hydrogen formula for powering cars to the Maxim Munitions Corporation for a reported one million dollars. A spokesman for Maxim announced that "experiments up to this time prove conclusively that this invention, when fully perfected in some of its minor details, will be revolutionary in character."

In 1965 Roger Billings modified a Model-A Ford to run on hydrogen. A 1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo operated on hydrogen stored in either cryogenic or metal hydride containers. That prototype was used during 1974 for demonstrations in California, Utah, and Washington, D.C. The cryogenic system was developed by Beech Aircraft Corporation. Laboratory tests simulated over 200,000 miles of driving. The iron-titanium hydride container was developed by Billings Energy Research Corporation and was located in the area of the car previously occupied by the gasoline tank. The two storage systems could be operated independently but, as they were configured for the demonstration, blow off from the cryogenic tank was transferred to the metal hydrides and saved for later use.

In 1977 Billings drove a hydrogen-powered Cadillac in President Carter's Inauguration parade. Billings demonstrated the safety of the hydride container by firing into it from a high powered rifle. Salts ran out of the holes but nothing else happened. By passing the hydrogen gas into a tank of metallic hydrides, the free H was locked. When needed it could be released through an increase in temperature. There were some engine related problems with corrosion and compression but the Wankle with its aluminum block and variable compression would solve both. The next advances however, would necessarily take place in countries without a well entrenched, progress retarding, energy lobby.

During the next quarter of a century if you wanted tangible evidence of alternative energy progress you would have to look outside the United States. The metallic hydride system would be further developed by Mitsubishi resulting an a fifty times improvement in weight to power ratios. Mercedes used the same elemental principles to develop its WasserWagon. Ballard Power Corporation of Canada supplied Engines, based on its zero-emission proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, to Europe's Fuel Cell Bus Project, to the public transport authorities in London and for the public transport system in Perth, Western Australia.

Speak of hydrogen power and the American media will revert to its film archives, and the only thing it can produce on a budget with any certainty, a flaming and fear invoking Hindenburg. During 2003, the same year that President George W. Bush announced a paltry 1.2 billion dollar set-aside for research into hydrogen powered cars, one could drive the USA from coast to coast and see fewer fuel efficient cars on the road than in the city of Dubai. And Dubai is located within the oil rich United Arab Emirates.

On June 12, 2003, the President of SmartCar Research, Marc-Henry Grau, posted a letter on the company's web site. The banner headline read: "The Daimler Chrysler MCC Smart Car from Germany will not be coming to the USA despite all our efforts and research." In his letter Grau asserts that agencies of the U. S. Government had " already made the ultimate decision and evaluation that the Smart Car can not be modified for the US-Roadways and they will not let me prove it!"

Grau poses just one question in his public statement: "If the Car has not had crash tests; How you can say that it DOES NOT qualify for modification for the US-roads. We had a plan to show it does, exceeds your standards." He continues: "Thanks for not permitting me to bring one in to prove it after you said I could bring one in for testing and certification."

The SmartCar has impressive fuel efficiency of approximately 48 miles-per-gallon city and 67 for the highway. Contrast this to the consumption rate of popular sports utility vehicles and one can only conclude that the Government of the United States is not sincere in its calls for energy conservation.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) bases much of its planning on projections that it will have wealth for the next hundred years. And that is because it estimates its oil reserves will last for about one hundred years. One could argue the law of supply and demand. But, in the area of energy conservation and despite its rhetoric, the United States of America has demonstrated the self control of a heroin addict. That is why people in the Arab world and elsewhere cite the fossil fuels legacy of the US Administration as they doubt its sincerity and its justifications for invading Iraq.

One of the US Administrations great detractors has been President Jacques Chirac of France. History will likely record Chirac as a great enabler of Saddam Hussein. How did Iraq come to owe France so much money in the age of UN embargoes? Why wasn't Saddam able to dig a better hole for himself with all of that great French tunneling equipment? Should countries that impeded efforts to liberate Iraq share in the rebuilding of Iraq?

These are the questions Americans ask. And they are good questions. But they should also be asking if post-war contracts to rebuild Iraq will inure to the benefit of American workers just because they are awarded to American companies? And if not, is there any justification for corporate welfare in America to continue? Should voting Americans continue to enable the kind of corporate behavior they've witnessed?

Some young Americans have begun to treat their forebears as if fossil fuel had been redefined to mean any combustible retirement aged person. Adolph Hitler was quoted as saying "The bigger the lie the more people will buy it." And these people have bought the same lies about "energy independence" for well over three decades. While the US Government wants to restore faith in the integrity of American Corporations, post Enron. The people of the United States have no more confidence in their government's numbers than they have in WorldCom's.

Acquisquishin' would dictate that the well entrenched elitists of legacy energy in the USA should reinforce the market entry barrier, slow the progression, diddle with the numbers, manipulate the market forces, starve or acquire the competitors and buy time for assuming control of any new technology.

The problem is that these hoarders are sinking the USA by having operated at the expense of an entire country's competitiveness. The US Government's long hiatus from alternative energy development was courtesy of politicians wholly owned and operated by big energy. And US competitiveness has been severely damaged by a rearview outlook that is a matter of national policy.

One can not understand world dynamics through an isomorphic view of the United States. This is a time when Americans will have to burst through their circumscribed world view. It is when they are being forced to make a choice between nationalism and internationalism, between geocracy and democracy. It is when they are agonizing over decisions about off-shoring, outsourcing, immigration and employment at home.

It is time for us to transition or shift our focus from the industrial age to the building of technology infrastructure. Let's see how history repeats itself within the Information Technology (IT) sector. As we move on now from energy to information technology, we will see how entrenched monopolies operate to reinforce barriers to entry within yet another "free enterprise system." And, as it requires no moral fiber whatsoever to champion the cause of the rich and powerful, we will also examine how some integrity challenged government officials go with the flow to become enablers. In this case remember US District Judge Colleen Kollar, quoting Shakespeare, as she characterizes the case brought by the US Justice Department against Microsoft Corporation as; "much ado about nothing."

Previously the trial judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, described how such a barrier to entry has worked to the detriment of consumers. Upon the conclusion of the trial phase in The United States versus Microsoft, Judge Jackson ended his one hundred thirty page Findings of Fact with the following paragraph:

"Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest."

All over the planet, there are still companies rushing into relationships of increased dependency and entrusting their business futures to so-called information technology professionals who have never even read these critical findings. Instead they accept, at face value, the words of a politically appointed federal judge, absent for the relevant testimony, who later characterized the case as "much ado about nothing." Judge Kollar has reinforced the harmful message that the United States is not a safe place to innovate.

To see how Judge Kollar's opinion, assuming for the moment that it was really hers, is so out-of-touch, one just needs to read international news. The European Union considered the same questions, Brazil and China have made Linux a matter of national policy effectively turning their backs on Microsoft. China is a market once described by General Motors as a market second only to the United States. Can the company that rode IBM's coattails into affluence and prominence, with such ingratitude and having burned so many bridges of goodwill, afford to lose China as a market?

Money is an interesting thing. Most small business owners will confide that: "It wouldn't take a very big wave to swamp my boat." Of course, once the wealth of a person or company has reached a certain critical mass, it's really hard to screw up fast enough to lose it all. Although the government of the United States may be able to squander money and opportunity fast enough.

The big problem there is that citizens as stakeholders may not find out the true condition of their country until it's all over. How can they ever get an honest accounting from their government? Or as stockholders how do individuals assess the wisdom, judgment and experience of their management? What motivates those citizens refusing a decennial census? Where do the voters who care go to get good information when media biases are so readily apparent? What would you do if you were on Earth during these trying times?

Within the context of the "New World Order," built in accordance with Darwinian principle, one doesn't have to engage in rabid McCarthyism to identify the enemy within. For the enemy is anything that diminishes the health, well-being and general competitiveness of the individual, family, tribe, company, group, nation, continent or the planet. The abusive parent or spouse, the executive drawing wildly disproportionate compensation and the give-away artist in public office are stealing from our children's future.

We are called to be good stewards of all that entrusted to us. Parents are certainly not helping their children by raising them to expect every indulgence. And, as civilization progresses, the strong, truth loving elements of society will undoubtedly purge the self-absorbed along with those who incline towards excesses and brutality from any position of honor and trust. But first, people must come to grips with the fact that there is more to defending nations than the macho stuff, attention must be paid to other credible threats.

Knowing what you know, you would probably keep certain basic principles foremost in your mind. For example it has long been recognized that there are four cornerstones of civilization. These include the taming of fire, the domestication of animals, private property and the enslavement of captives. This is as true on Earth today as it was when the first humans appeared.

What humans often fail to realize is that there are modern and post-modern variations on each of these basic themes. The taming of fire applies to Bunsen burners, combustion engines and space shuttles as well as campfires and the family hearth. The family pet is as important to many as the beast of burden. Private property consumes modern court time just as it prompted the regulated fistic encounters of old. But cornerstone four is the one most relevant to our discussion of Earth's present dilemma.

The tax slave, the slave to fashion with credit card debt and the wage slave have largely replaced the slave in irons. If you are Earth bound, and want to get to work to support your family, even if the gas price doubles, you have little choice but to buy it and work extra hours to pay for it. If you want food, you will see the value of competition in the price of breakfast cereal while devoting less time to your family and more to your employer. When you buy clothing you can't help but wonder if you are supporting forced child labor.

And of course you will need shelter. For those who lost their retirement savings due to the fraudulent accounting practices of some major corporations, there is concern about how they will live out that retirement. Some will have very limited choices. Will they be sleeping under a railroad trestle or will they have a nice new appliance carton to sleep in? Others will at least have difficult decisions concerning quality of life and even these will have to be secondary to maintaining some production capability. Otherwise they will enter into a variety of dependency relationships with the state.

There are those that would maintain the illusion that their government is of, by and for the people. And there are those that would call the bluff and, without maintaining the illusion, recreate government to fulfill the promise. The latter is not a matter to be played out in the context of short attention span theatre. And it is unlikely to succeed without invoking the divine wisdom.

From this wisdom we have learned that if true liberty and inalienable rights are to be enjoyed, then predatory groups must be prevented from interfering with the realization of these divine gifts. When this is considered in the light of the whole history of humankind, we may confidently conclude that the best government is the one that governs least. Only then may we begin to appreciate that the high purpose of government is to prevent government.

When government becomes an organic phenomenon, when it develops appetites of its own, it cannot leave the individual free. The best government is that government that prevents the most government and it is wholly compatible with an energetic, enthusiastic and service-minded constituency. It is incompatible with the secularization hypothesis for it depends on the inculcation, encouragement, realization and appreciation of the Fatherhood of God as well as the Brother and Sisterhood of Human kind.

When the grand democratic experiment was new, there were stark contrasts to a world of tyranny. Today there is still contrast as well as subtle gradation in the place of contrast. As the self-sacrificing people of the new world have laid down their lives for their fellows, have helped, throughout their history, to beat back human oppression on foreign shores then to help their former foes rebuild, there was termite activity on the home front.

The moral relativism, the secularization, the misplaced faith, and the situational ethics have not served to improve the human condition. Without Truth augmentation reason becomes simply the means to follow appetites. Just prior to the birth of the United States, David Hume summed it up this way: "Reason is, and only ought to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

There is a story about a man in the dry-cleaning business. It was his habit to go through the pockets of all the clothes prior to putting them in the machines. He would remove sharp objects, ink pens and anything else that might damage the garments or the machines. One day he discovered a one hundred dollar bill in the coat pocket of a patron. "Hmmm," he said. "This puts me in the throes of an ethical dilemma." And so he wondered, "Should I share this with my partner?"

Sometimes, when man engages in self-referencing, denies the absolutes and tries to go it alone, the results can be very disappointing. When Frank Lloyd Wright set out to create Unity Temple, he declared he was building a "temple to man." And so he did. And now others have compared what he built to "a Mayan handball court." Today, Humanism is trying to build a temple to itself, one that is in danger of falling from its own pretentious weight. It reminds us of the kid who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court saying: "Have pity on me, I'm just a poor orphan child."

The humanist religion features many redeeming and progressive qualities. It's rejection of the Creator, Controller and Upholder however, is not among them. In the wake of recent terrorist attacks on the United States, "God Bless America" signs started popping up all over that country. People want God's blessings, protection, catering, military guidance and favor. They don't want His prescription, holiness, discipline or justice.

Humanists view the sciences as mostly progressive and religions as largely unprogressive or stagnant. It took time for certain religionists to accept that the earth is not the center of the universe. And then it took time for scientists to discover and then accept that the sun was not the center. After a while, philosophers began to look for the meaning as science and religion played their ongoing game of evolutionary leapfrog, and as belief systems on both sides were continually challenged.

Matter, mind and spirit are universal realities comprehended by humans as thing, meaning and value. Study gives rise to their respective disciplines of science, philosophy and religion. Each is indissolubly linked to the others. The vulnerabilities of an unbalanced science and religion without philosophy are seen in materialism and fanaticism.

Most of what passes for invention on earth is more a matter of reverse engineering a designer universe. Before one places all of their faith in science, they should pause to consider the following:

Suppose you have a raging fire. You want to put it out. But the only material you have on hand is gaseous hydrogen, which will freely burn, together with gaseous oxygen, an element that supports combustion. Without deconstructing an intelligent universe that was in operation billions of years before your internship even began, how would you ever predict or conclude that these two gaseous elements could be combined to create a liquid that would serve to smother the fire?

Most of what prevents some religionists from considering evolution as one of God's creative methodologies is human pride in the divine dignity of man. Before one places their full faith in the traditions of their forbears, they should also consider this:

When the Creator of this Universe descended to walk among those he created, he then washed the feet of those who had ascended from the condition of single-celled organism to achieve dominion over their world. Christ humbled himself for these children that had been tested in ways the angels never were, and his children possess the potential for eternal life.

There has been prolonged debate here about precisely when the planet should be restored to the constellation. That process has now begun. The quarantine of earth has been lifted tentatively so that the people of that planet may have the benefit of these celestial broadcasts. Our hearts are with the good people of Earth and we are sympathetic to their plight. They were long ago given dominion over their world and later their onetime Prince tried to wrest dominion from them. Christ, Our Sovereign, as their Vicegerent Prince, has fully restored what was rightfully theirs. It is now time to also restore the full view for these evolutionary humans of divine dignity. The big picture shall serve those with eyes to see that they might comprehend the cosmos as it really is.

We have focused on the United States because it was the first modern nation and it has been the model of democratic/representative government that other nation builders on that planet have studied so intently. We have used earth as our case study in these arguments both because of the rebel activity and because Our Sovereign chose to sojourn there to bring about an end to the rebellion.

Earthers have a tremendous amount of work ahead of them and are understandably suffering from some confusion But they will receive abundant help from their celestial associates. They will soon discover that the best way to advance is to borrow the best from each other's religion, to stake out the common ground, and to pursue necessary changes, to the extent possible, through peaceful persuasion.

They should forsake the religions of ritual and punishment in favor of those reality-centered faiths that inspire awe and wonderment. They should support good science and learn to reject the bad. And they should embrace the higher philosophies, discerning true meaning, while gleaning from experience. At that point they will become even more aware of being aware. They will walk with Divine favor. And, even though their world is now in chaos, the Heavenly minded still see the beauty in the ashes. We are confident that, before too long, the people of earth will be enjoying an era of light and life on a global scale.