Why did the Obama administration force regime changes in Egypt, Libya, Ukraine and now Syria, and arguably other countries?  Have the U.S. and its allies been making war, killing innocent people and changing regimes to protect the U.S. dollar and its debt-based banking system?  Is this change you can believe in?

In 2011 a coalition of NATO allies bombed Libya and supplied rebels there with weapons, helping to “liberate” the country from the grasp of Muammar Gaddafi.  Gaddafi was murdered in the street only months after meeting Obama and more than a dozen national leaders at the UN.  A cache of Libyan military weapons including hundreds of MANPAD surface to air missiles and heavy anti-aircraft guns (capable of bringing down helicopters, jet fighters or airliners) was captured by the Islamic rebels who were associated with various terror groups including Al Qaeda.  In 2012, the U.S. and other governments were secretly running guns through “liberated” Benghazi, Libya through Turkey to rebels trying to violently overthrow the Assad regime in Syria.  Thousands were dying in Syria.

The U.S./NATO-driven foreign policy fiasco was going very badly, culminating in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Stephens and at least three other Americans, sacrificed by the Obama administration during his re-election campaign to prevent voters from rejecting Obama and his failed policies.  BUT, 2012 presidential candidate Romney did not challenge Obama in debates in any significant way after the U.S. deaths in Benghazi, Libya.  Why?

Is the fighting among religious groups a battle pitched by western governments and banks as a diversion to allow them to change regimes which support an alternative currency and banking system?

Previously, the U.S./NATO-backed overthrow of Eqypt’s sectarian President Hosni Mubarak and replacement by Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood member.  Only one year later, Morsi was overthrown by huge marches of Egyptian people and coup d’état.  Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood were charged with crimes against humanity in courts in Egypt and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.  Separately, Egyptian Copts formally accused Obama with crimes against humanity.  Obama gifted Morsi during Morsi’s short rule (June 2012 – July 2013) with millions of dollars, many F16’s and other military equipment and was accused along with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood of murders and destruction of churches in Egypt.

Today, ISIS is taking over in Libya.  During Gaddafi’s rule, Libya had no international debt, and the Libyan bank reserves held gold and strong currencies.  Gaddafi and Mubarak actively lobbied national leaders to form a new currency, one not based on the U.S. dollar.  Gaddafi and Mubarak also aided western countries to track down and capture terrorists.  Russia, China and the group of countries known as BRICS led by Putin have created a new bank to bypass the IMF, U.S. Federal Reserve and western central banks, and they plan a new currency based on assets other than the debt-based U.S. dollars now used as reserve currency by western and global banks.  Meanwhile, the U.S. government is supporting rebels in Ukraine in their fight against Putin, following yet another U.S./NATO supported regime change in Ukraine, including providing more than $5 billion to the Ukrainian government and its relatively tiny economy from the U.S. State Department.

Find any news you can about this and pay attention.  Mainstream media is reporting that the Russian, China and BRICS economies are in shambles.  How then are they accumulating gold?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-15/brics-announce-100-billion-reserve-bypass-fed-developed-world-central-banks

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-libya-fears-militants-are-about-to-follow-up-their-brutal-successes-in-iraq-and-syria-by-expanding-into-the-unstable-north-african-country-10031391.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58297

IMF bailing out Ukraine bonds with debt, essentially supported by U.S. taxpayers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05/devaluation-edges-ukraine-closer-to-imf-aid-amid-merkel-visit

“Obama administration breaking the law, again. “The Obama administration has issued almost 5.5 million more work permits than Congressionally set limits allow according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). The report shows that, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data obtained by a Freedom of Information request, from 2009-2014 the agency issued 5,461,568 new work permits to immigrants, beyond the 1.1 million legal immigrants and 700,000 guest workers admitted to the U.S. each year.”  https://www.numbersusa.com/news/report-millions-work-permits-issued-shadow-system

“A public debate on the damage being done by climate change policy is long overdue.” http://www.thegwpf.org/…/20…/01/Unintended-Consequences2.pdf

A whiff of mendacity has clung to this administration since its beginning. A ghost-written memoir, vague and misleading statements about links to domestic terrorists, a non-existent legislative and academic record, a past shrouded in secrecy — it was easy to believe that the new president was more myth than man, with his greatest asset the ease with which he dissembled.

Subsequent events have borne that out. If we like our plans we can keep them, the more credulous amongst us were conned into believing. Transparency would be the order of the day, said the most opaque executive in modern history. He’d bring the nation together, promised the master of racial, class, and political division. He knew nothing about (name your scandal), he endlessly claimed. But we’d know the truth as soon as he did, the great stonewaller assured us.

Here are my critiques of Romney positions on energy and environment based on his wiki campaign page.  The entire page is worth your review. Covers many more issues than these two.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

I inserted my comments in [brackets containing italics].  My comments indicate the parts that concern me and indicate where Romney is confused or receiving confused advice…waffling…flip flopping.  However, if tightened up, defined and formally proposed, then he could be in a position to bash Obama and in fact change the world for the better.   He needs advice urgently.    I would be happy to connect him to expert advice.

Energy 

Romney supports increased energy production and oil drilling in the U.S. He wants the U.S. to become independent of foreign sources of oil, [so far all good] and believes that the way to do that is a combination of developing alternative sources of energy such as biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, [ biodiesel and ethanol are wrong, misguided]  and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf.[40]   [ This part is good, but fracking on the continental shelf requires taking on California ….ruled by Democrats …largest block of Electoral College votes… where about 65% of the nation’s gigantic shale oil reserves rest beneath the continental shelf off California’s coast.  The oil seeps from the ocean bottom in California and lumps up on the beaches…millions of gallons. He needs help in California.  Californians need to know that this resource and the environment will be well managed, but Romney must cut through the environmental hysteria.]

“We’re using too much oil,” Romney said. [Not so.  Not good. Wrong.  Requires retraction.  We are not using too much oil.  That’s old thinking.  In reality, gas and oil are naturally renewing resources.]  “We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy — biodiesel, ethanol, [Totally wrong.]  nuclear power  [OK] — and we can drill for more oil here [yes].  We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy.”[41]  [Yes we can.]  [So you can see already that Romney is trying to speak to the environmentalists out of one side of his mouth.  They are a lost cause for him.  He will NEVER win them over most of them are not really about the environment.  Ethanol is a political calculus problem because farmers (e.g. Iowa, Nebraska) have become dependent on subsidized corn sales for ethanol.  Ethanol has been shown to help nothing while creating different environmental problems.  For example, ethanol combustion also produces CO2, but adds different pollutants (oxides) that do not occur when burning natural gas. ]

Romney has not formally published his proposals regarding energy policy, but his 2008 presidential campaign website included a 2-minute video of his response to a question about his energy policy position.[42]   

He would consider cap-and-trade only if part of a larger global plan.   He has not offered specific targets on energy efficiency. He does not support mileage goals as a stand-alone measure, but has indicated he would consider them only if they were part of a comprehensive energy plan. He supports nuclear power as part of an energy mix.[43]  [Nuclear power in the mix is ok.  But this is a common bait and switch strategy used by environmental special interests.  Sounds good, but the nuke plants never gets approved because of regulations and never ending environmental lawsuits, thus nukes become un-economic.  So, simply saying ‘nukes’ just kicks the can down the road.  It’s a cop-out if no defined plan changing the EPA and environmental argument is put forward.]

Romney has supported a $20 billion package for energy research & new car technology. [OK]  He opposes a unilateral US global warming policy and believes that worldwide solutions are optimal. [Indicates big trouble in Romney’s policy tent.  Global warming is an international scam now running over 3 decades, as I and many others have explained elsewhere at length.  Romney’s  position here is a copout at best, and leaves the door open for the UN global warming scammers. ]   He has stated that large oil companies should reinvest profits in clean technology for oil refineries. [Well that’s OK, except no refineries have been built here for many years due to restrictions and many have been closed.  So really it’s just another copout kicking the can down the road if no defined plan changing the EPA and environmental argument is put forward.]  He supports the popular measure of drilling in ANWR as short term measure to help the US achieve energy independence. [ ANWR is not a “short term measure!”  It MUST be part of a complete about face in energy and environmental policy.]  As Governor, Romney supported clean environment initiatives.[21][44]

Environment 

See also: Governorship of Mitt Romney#Environment

In 2003, Romney as Governor of Massachusetts, said in a press release “If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts . . . I will always come down on the side of public health.”[45]Insisting that a coal power plant meet tough emissions standards even at the cost of losing jobs, Romney announced “I will not protect jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people.”[46]   [The recently proposed EPA standards for coal plants must be aggressively rejected by Romney or else he loses the election.  The CO2 standards in that EPA proposal are wrong, unachievable even if they were right.  The mercury standards are overdone and unnecessary.  Today’s coal plants emit very little mercury, most plants are below the new standard already, but the pseudo-environmentalist lunatics and media hysterically promoted mercury damage to children’s lungs in massive TV ads.  Romney needs help or he loses unnecessarily the votes from the coal-powered states…not to mention the jobs from all the coal-powered energy plants and mines.] 

Romney opposes Cap and Trade and opposes regulating carbon emissions. [Perfect.  But why all the other confusing signals?]  In July 2011, while speaking in Derry, New Hampshire, Romney stated that he mostly supports the Environmental Protection Agency’s mission, but he does not think it should regulate carbon emissions. [ He said something sensible.  There MAY BE hope!]  Romney said “We have made a mistake…in saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions” and “I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies”.[47]  [ He said something sensible.  There MAY BE hope!]

Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, initially supported regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures, but eventually rejected it. He issued a 72-point Climate Protection Plan. His staffers spent more than $500,000 negotiating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI—pronounced “Reggie”), which Romney praised in November 2005, saying “I’m convinced it is good business.” As plan details were being worked out, Romney began pushing for a cap on fees charged to businesses who exceed emission limits, citing concerns of increased consumer energy costs. He stated: “New England has the highest energy rates in the country, and RGGI would cost us more.” This ongoing disagreement eventually led Romney, in December 2005, to pull out of RGGI.

In his March 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. […] I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”[48]    [Yes, humans contribute, but it’s minor.  Yes, climate is changing as it always has done.  There are thousands of scientists/experts who will be pleased to help Romney correct his position here.  The human contribution to climate change is statistically insignificant, meaning the human contribution cannot be distinguished from the noise in the measurement process.]

In June 2011, Romney stated in New Hampshire he did, “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”[49][50] (In response, Rush Limbaugh announced over the air, “Bye bye nomination.”[50]) In the same month, Romney said that “[the U.S. should] reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”[48]   [So here you see Romney’s problem…he is flip flopping and he needs help urgently. As I said before, there are thousands of scientists/experts who will be pleased to educate him. ]

In August 2011, Romney said, “I think the earth is getting warmer . . . I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”[48][49]  [So here you see Romney’s problem…he is flip flopping and he needs help urgently. As I said, there are thousands of scientist/experts who will be pleased to educate him. ]

Speaking at the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh in October 2011, Romney said, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.  And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”[48]

Questioned in that month about these series of written and spoken words, a Romney spokesperson said that “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”[48]  [Romney has been consistently inconsistent.  He needs help urgently.  Understanding CO2 is the key!]

Romney has further elucidated that U.S. action on climate change must be seen in a global context:  [The only action U.S. needs to take globally is to withdraw U.S. support from the UN IPCC and similar international entities and programs such as UN Law of the Sea Treaty, which is mostly driven around the UN’s environmental mission.  But, inside the U.S., we must have a complete overhaul of EPA, DOE and DOI policy with regard to CO2 and energy.]  “By the way, they do not call it America warming, they call it global warming. [U.S. action] loses jobs for Americans and ultimately it won’t be successful, because industries that are energy intensive will just get up and go somewhere else.”[48]  [Correct and happening massively as I write this.  For example, Obama already guaranteed loans to Brasil for developing THEIR offshore oil and promised to buy from them.  Good bye American jobs and guarantee of higher prices for everything.  Why doesn’t Romney take Obama down for this?] 

[Abundant and affordable fossil fuels are the engine of the economy.   

“Petroleum isn’t just at your local Gas n’ Go station. It’s found in virtually every product that you buy, own and use. Be it your shoes, your Starbucks coffee cup, or the computer on which you are reading these very words.  And I’m not just talking about transportation from the factory to the stores where goods like these are purchased and consumed. I’m talking about the petroleum used in making the product itself and, more importantly, the petroleum needed for the technological breakthroughs that made these products a possibility. 

Chew on this:  

• To construct the average car, approximately 27 to 42 barrels of oil, or 1,100 to 1,700 gallons, will be consumed.  
•  Making average desktop computer requires more than 10 times its weight in fossil fuels.  
• Every calorie of food eaten in the U.S. requires roughly 10 calories of fossil fuels.”  (www.energyandcapital.com) ]

[P.S.  I have no connection to oil, gas, coal or the energy sector except to be a user of their products.]

The oceans are dying and that will mean the end of life as we know it.  It is not too late to stop it.  But it is a profound disaster for the human species to waste billions of dollars chasing the wrong answers to this crisis…or any crisis.  SEPP (see ref 5 below) estimates that the U.S. government alone has spent over $165 billion on climate change programs, all based on the the hypothesis that human produced carbon dioxide causes extraordinary and dangerous warming and many negative consequences including acidification of the oceans and bleaching of coral reefs.  But abundant scientific evidence contradicts that hypothesis.  Yet proponents of that failed CO2 hypothesis carry on wasting resources to chase the wrong problem.

The ocean acidification story is just another twist of the global warming/climate change fraud. It is impossible for CO2 to turn the oceans acidic, and even more impossible for the relatively minor amount of CO2 (about 3%) which is the human contribution to the total CO2. At least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 comes from non-fossil-fuel sources.

We don’t fully understand why the coral reefs and the oceans are dying.  I have been scuba diving around the world since I was 18.  I have been diving here in Hawaii for 30 years. Sadly, the reefs here and in many places are dying and the most other sea life is visibly less populous than when I first began diving here.   For example, I have utmost respect for  scientists like Dr. Sylvia Earle, a famous ocean botanist, a woman I have followed since I was a teenager, who has spent her life intensely studying ocean life (See http://www.mission-blue.org) and philanthropists like Gordon Moore (more below).  I agree about most of the problems Earle relates in her recent biographical movie and her TED talks, but not about one of her claimed causes, specifically not the hypothesis of significant warming caused by human-produced CO2.

On the other hand, over fishing of pelagic fish, shark, swordfish, marlin, mackerel, the large species of tuna as well as capture of fishes and other sea life from coral reef for aquariums is killing coral reefs.  Catching or eating these species today is equivalent to burning down a section of rain forest in the Amazon or Africa.  We are killing the oceans and that will kill us if we don’t stop it.

Directing resources to the wrong cause produces many incorrect and even harmful solutions.  It also wastes precious resources that could save the oceans.  I am not alone.  There are many thousands of scientists in addition to thinkers and concerned conservationists, including the founders of Gaia theory, Greenpeace, the network of weather monitoring satellites and The Weather Channel, who agree with me.  The number of studies contradicting the failed CO2 hypothesis would fill a library (see Climate Change Reconsidered at ref 4 below).  We humans do not have the time or the resources to waste on chasing politically correct but scientifically incorrect causes and solutions required to save the oceans on this planet.

Coral reefs are like the rain forests and wetlands in many respects which are critical  to life on this planet.  Serious conservation has begun to show results with rainforests and wetlands (see Ducks Unlimited below 2).  But coral reefs are much less visible to humans.

“Mineral buffers in the sea constitute an infinite buffer capacity (ref: Stumm & Morgan 1970), making carbonate destructive ocean acidification from anthropogenic CO2 impossible.” The oceans are an infinite sink for CO2. The oceans could never be acidified (i.e. reach a pH less than 7) by CO2. Why? Because there is not enough carbon on Earth to offset the larger amounts of several buffering elements.  CO2 in the oceans would have to increase by 100 times in order to decrease the pH (i.e. increase acidification) enough to dissolve CaCO3 (calcium carbonate, limestone see 1 below) at 25 degrees C.  But the global warming believers are now changing their focus to ocean acidification as their next cause célèbre, no doubt in part because earth’s temperature is contradicting their warming hypothesis and, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars in research and advertising on supposed negative effects of CO2, the public now ranks global warming at the bottom of a long list of priorities.

So, what is happening instead? CO2 dissolved in ocean water is continuously combining with calcium ions in ocean water to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3, i.e. limestone, marble, dolomite. CaCO3 is a common substance found in rocks in all parts of the world, and is the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, coral, pearls, etc.) The long term geological record revealed by dating layers of stone on the continents and sea bed proves that this plating out of CaCO3 (i.e. CO2 which has combined with CA to form CaCO3 rock) has been occurring for millions of years. The chemical reaction that forms this CaCO3 releases energy into the oceans. To reverse that chemical reaction and instead release the CO2 and Ca back into the ocean water and atmosphere requires the presence of very high heat, such as a volcano, to break down the CaCO3.

Furthermore, Ca is only one of the ions available in the ocean to buffer CO2. There is also Chlorine, for example, which also combines with CO2 in water.

Earth, in contrast to both the solar system and the universe, has more abundant Calcium (Ca) than Carbon (C). And, earth’s oceans contain much more (14 times) Ca than C, about 0.04% Ca vs 0.0028% C by mass. Ocean water contains 50 to 60 times more CO2 than atmosphere (see Henry’s Law). Life on this planet will run out of Carbon first, not Calcium.

Ultimately, all life on Earth gets its Carbon – the building block element of life as we know it – from the atmosphere, i.e. from the air. Essentially, it is a suicide mission to attempt to restrict CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is only present at trace level (400 parts per million by volume – ppmv) in air, a level barely above the 200 ppmv required to keep plants alive. Satellite studies show that Earth is becoming greener.  Part of this greening of our planet may be attributed to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere resulting from increasing population of humans and animals and combustion of fossil fuels.

To attempt to restrict atmospheric CO2 is to attempt to break the natural carbon cycle on this planet. Yet, global warming alarmists, including the UN, President Obama and John Holdren, Obama’s chief science advisor, other politicians, a relatively small number of  scientists, crisis-and-ratings-craving media outlets and ‘green’ NGO’s are attempting to break the natural carbon cycle that enables life on this planet…though that is not their intention.  Citizens must resist their own government to stop this fraud.  Or else governments will continue to steal from citizens to enlarge governments and enrich their crony elites while killing the oceans and the planet.  Reality is mostly opposite what government is telling you about the environment and fossil fuels, and you are paying for the studies and propaganda in your taxes and inflated prices for anything that requires energy.

To review the huge amount of funding that is being wasted by the U.S. government on ocean acidification, see this report.  http://www.nmsfocean.org/files/OA_Report.pdf   This report is also sponsored by The Gordon Moore Foundation and the government. Gordon, the founder of Intel and Moore’s Law, a man I admire, lives here on the Big Island. I once met him briefly at a Keck Foundation meeting. I hope to speak with him about the misinformation his foundation is funding.

References here:

1. http://www.co2web.info/
2. Calcium carbonate is a chemical compound with the formula CaCO₃. It is a common substance found in rocks in all parts of the world, and is the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, coal balls, pearls, and eggshells. Wikipedia

   3.  http://www.ducks.org/conservation

   4.  http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

   5.  http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2014/TWTW%207-12-14.pdf

   “Based US government reports, SEPP calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.”

   “Much of the remaining 89% of funding goes to goes to government agencies and industries claiming they are preventing global warming/climate change, even though they do not understand the natural causes of climate change and, likely, far overestimate the influence of CO2. These entities have a vested interest in promoting the fear of global warming/climate change.
   It is time for the government to stop funding irrational fear of global warming/climate change based on a concept of climate that is not substantiated by the physical evidence. If we are to progress in our understanding of climate change, the paradigm must be changed from one that earth’s temperatures are largely controlled by atmospheric CO2, to one which recognizes that climate change is normal and predominately natural. Human CO2 emissions have little, if any, influence on temperatures and other climate trends.”

Tomorrow, President Obama is expected to announce his next illegal abuse of prosecutorial discretion. He plans to open up U.S. jobs to 5 million or more foreigners who have overstayed their U.S. visas or entered the country illegally. Like his illegal action on “Dreamers”, Obama will be creating new categories of exemptions from deportation that do not exist in current law. His sworn duty as President is to faithfully execute the law, he would be failing to perform his duty.  Obama himself has said multiple times that such action by the President regarding illegal immigration would be illegal.  “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case…. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” ~ March 28, 2011, interview with Univision. Then again Sept. 28, 2011, at the Hispanic Roundtable at the White House: “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true…. We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

By Yuri Tuvim   Norwood Heights, (Gloucester), MA

So, the elections are over. Republicans are happy preparing to argue Obamacare, tax code, immigration, Keystone Pipeline, foreign policy etc.  Democrats are licking their wounds, reading for fight. The political squabbles will proceed as usual and America will continue to slide — albeit slower for the next two years.

Hold your emotions. I will explain what I mean.

The health of the economy is based on a set of laws of the country. The laws are the product of a political process and politics is a derivative of culture. In short: culture is the basis and politics is the superstructure.

A short list of today’s economic indicators: 47% of the population receive some sort of government help, middle class wages have been stagnant for a few decades, 14 trillion debt is hanging over the heads of our not yet born grand, grandchildren and the gap between the super-rich and poor is widening.

In politics, we have growing polarization between parties, very low approval rating of Congress and the President, and a diminishing role of our country in the increasingly dangerous world.

The root of all this is a decay of America’s culture. The accelerating transformation of our culture began in the 60’s. Counterculture, hippies, drugs, political correctness, gay marriage, declining role of family and religion, substitution of common sense with legalistic sophistry, alienation… you name the rest.

A glaring illustration of how far our culture has drifted from its origins is the following. Last week Harvard University hosted “Sex Week” including a workshop “What, What in the Butt: Anal Sex 101.” Promising to cover, “anal anatomy and the potential for pleasure for all genders; how to talk about it with the partner; basic preparation and hygiene; lubes, anal toys, and safer sex; anal penetration for beginners, and much more!” Students can expect to learn, “why people do it and how to do it well”.

Why are you shocked? Isn’t that just a logical outcome of our increasingly pornographic cinema and TV?  We live in a free country… An erosion of ethics and decency leads to revision and rejection of other societal norms.

So, in order to stop the cultural, political and finally economic collapse of our country we must address the core– culture. We all have to do that in every possible way every time when the occasion arises. Unfortunately, the leading role belongs to people with a microphone – politicians and the President. I am not sure that Obama is fit to do it but newly elected senators and representatives might be able to recognize the danger of cultural decay. I call on them to address this issue.

However, my best hope lies in one individual, Dr. Ben Carson. I hope he will run for president. Read his books to discover his philosophy.

Yuri Tuvim   Norwood Heights, (Gloucester), MA

“Liberals should be the angriest. Not only were they personally deceived, but the administration’s dishonest approach to health care reform has helped make Obamacare unpopular while undermining the public’s faith in an activist government. A double blow to progressives.” ~ RON FOURNIER in this article at National Journal.    http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obamacare-s-foundation-of-lies-20141112

White House Press Secretary: Obamacare Passage Was ‘Extraordinarily Transparent’

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/white-house-press-secretary-obamacare-passage-was-extraordinarily-transparent-video/