Do you believe in Freedom of the press?

Do you believe in Freedom of speech?

Do you believe you should be protected from illegal search and seizure?

Do you believe in the right to own a gun?

Do you believe in Freedom of religion?

If you believe in these, then you believe in the Constitution of the United States of America.

And, although you may not like it, you must believe in the separation of church and state. You cannot divide up the Constitution. "United, we stand. Divided, we fall." You cannot accept one part of the Constitution while ignoring another.

The separation of church and state is what makes our country the greatest on Earth. If you need proof as to the perils the mixture of church and state can bring, you have only to look to the most extreme example, the Taliban.

The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution. "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'" -- 9th Circuit Court

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

If that is not an endorsement of a religion by government, then I don't know what is.

And before you ask, yes, the words "In God We Trust" on our money also violate the Constitution, and must be removed. The original motto of our country was Latin for "out of many, one." That is a far more beautiful sentiment for what our country means to us and to the world.

Only through total separation of church and state can we prove that our system is the greatest on Earth.

Only through total separation of church and state can we defeat the enemies of the United States, like the religious extremists, al Qaeda.

And most importantly, only through the total separation of church and state can we continue to guarantee religious Freedom.

He does this without any serious evidence. He has two pieces of film he loves to show. One is a film of an astronaut jumping around on the moon, speeded up to look like it takes place on Earth. He claims NASA slowed down the film to make it appear that they were on the moon. If he had any background in physics at all, he would realize that the moon had 1/6th the gravity of Earth, and therefore if you jump, it does in fact take longer for you to come down.

His next piece of evidence shows a flag being set up on the moon. The flag is supported on two sides, the left and the top, and the lower right corner is waving. He claims the waving is caused by the air conditioning in the studio. In fact, the flag is waving because there is an astronaut moving the pole, trying to get it into the ground. The tip of the flag is waving because the astronaut is imparting momentum to it, and without air on the moon, there is nothing to slow it down besides the friction of the fibers pulling against each other. If air conditioning were moving the flag, it would ripple, not wave back and forth in a regular pattern. I find it funny that you can see another astronaut moving in supposed "slow motion" in the picture, while the flag moves normally. (It is a trick that would have been impossible for 1960's television.)

Mr. Sibrel, if you are out there, you have obviously seen the movie "Capricorn One" a few times too many. You are doing an incredible disservice to humanity, to the United States of America, and to everyone who would believe the LIES that you are telling. It is reporters like you that give the breed a bad name. You deserved the punch in the face you got from Buzz Aldrin when you called him a liar to his face. In my opinion, you deserve a punch in the face from everyone who has ever heard you tell your lies. When our founding fathers came with the concept of Freedom of the Press, they did not mean people like you, they meant people who would report the truth. You are an un-American, unscrupulous LIAR, and I call on you to tell the truth, or shut up. The same goes for the FOX television network and their special on this matter. And Ralph Rene, author of that piece of trash book in the early 90's. People like him give book burning a good name.

I have long considered myself to be an environmentalist. I do not want pollution. I like forests (... as long as I have enough allergy medication with me ...) and I do not want Mr. Bush to drill for oil up in Alaska. I have four bird feeders and a squirrel feeder in my back yard. I used to have rabbits before I got a dog. (I have nothing against rabbits, mind you, but thanks to the dog, we are actually going to be able to harvest beans out of the garden this year.) The thing that bothers me about all of the latest environmental issues is the protesting about power generation. Let's get real for a minute. There are only three practical and cheap ways to generate electricity for mass distribution.

Number one: As far as the environmental movement is concerned, nuclear power is right out. Even though Yucca wherever near Las Vegas is a perfectly stable geological area with no ground water to contaminate, meaning that the waste could safely decay there for thousands of years, people seem to be against it. Even though with modern computers and monitoring equipment, the reactors could be made totally safe, people are against it. The best thing to do with a reactor is not to let humans control it. Both major nuclear accidents were caused solely by human error. By letting multiple computers independently monitor systems and decide what needs to be done, such a system could be made totally safe. Let humans monitor it, and have a big red button that says "Shutdown Immediately" on it, but never give them complete control. But still, there will always be those who are ignorant enough to be afraid of the word radiation without really knowing what it means, so for the moment lets assume that nuclear is not a viable alternative.

Number two: Hydroelectric power long ago proved itself as a safe, clean and effective means of generating electricity. But if you try to build a dam for any reason these days, you will get protestors out the Ying-yang. Either it is going to flood a town that should have died out years ago, or it is going to flood out a town that DID die out years ago, but some idiot thinks it should be preserved for historic reasons. Or it is going to flood out a pet cemetery, and someone will lose the spot where they buried Spot twenty years ago. Or the habitat of some endangered species is going to get destroyed. Mind you, I consider myself to be an environmentalist, but if a species has reached the point where it can only survive in a single 100 square mile area that is prone to flooding, there may not be much of a point in preserving it. Sample its DNA for later resurrection and move on. The main problem I have with hydroelectric is that it does not generate enough power. It would take a mighty big dam to generate enough power for the city of New York... or Chicago... or Los Angeles. And you can't build them in earthquake zones. So, number two is eliminated from the running.

That leaves Number three: Coal. If you eliminate nuclear and hydroelectric, you must burn coal to get electricity. Do I like that it contributes to global warming? No, I do not. Well, maybe when it is 5 degrees with a wind chill of -30 I don't mind it so much. Coal has come a long way. I don't mind paying a little extra each month knowing that the extra is going towards maintaining the scrubbers that remove all of the toxins other than carbon dioxide.

This is where I think people need to get real. Can we survive without electricity? No. Our society is completely dependent on it. Personally, I would not be able to survive a single season without it. I need air at a comfortable temperature with no pollen in it to survive. We have to have electricity, therefore we have to burn coal. Stop protesting every time the power company wants to build a new plant. I would be willing to bet that each and every protestor out there uses air conditioning, furnaces, refrigerators, washers and dryers that are at least in some way connected to the electrical system. They can't deny it! If they read this page then they are using electricity to do it!

Now I know that someone out there is going to want to send me mail and says "What about solar? Solar is viable!" Well, no it's not. Spending $30,000 dollars on a solar system is not what we can expect everyone in the U.S. to do just to stop burning coal. You can buy a lot of coal-fired electricity with $30,000. Anyway, how would you suggest that people in the northern and central states keep snow off of the solar panels during the winter? If you put them on the ground, you have to chop down trees to get sunlight to the panels, and that's not very good for the environment, is it? Besides, solar panels will not function during the winter when we get two or three straight weeks of overcast weather. Adding batteries to the system only compounds the environmental issues, since the best batteries are made from either lead and acid or nickel and cadmium. This means that solar is not the nice, clean system that the fanatics out there claim it is.

Wind power? Give me a break. You would have to have a wind farm two or three times the size of Chicago to generate enough electricity for Chicago. Not to mention that one high pressure center stagnating the air over the farm could shut down power for days. Keeping the power stable even for one household requires batteries, so once again we have the contamination problem back.

Ocean wave power? Interesting, has a lot of potential, but the big problem is that it destroys the view from the beaches and would most likely destroy the ecosystem of the ocean around it. It doesn't sound as clean now, does it?

Fuel cells? Well, as long as the fuel is hydrogen, then this is a clean alternative. But again, the fuel cells are expensive to build, and the hydrogen fuel isn't real cheap to generate either. Plus there is that public fear of hydrogen. Most people immediately think of the Hindenburg explosion. What they don't realize is that hydrogen is less explosive than gasoline (or Petrol, if you are from outside the U.S.) or even natural gas. Ignoring the fact that it would never have gotten off of the ground, if the Hindenburg had been filled with gasoline instead of hydrogen, it would have flattened everything for miles.

So, basically what I am saying is quit bitching about what nuclear, hydroelectric and coal do to the environment and devote all of your misspent effort and money to finding an alternative that is cheap, clean and actually works for mass generation. But do keep them from drilling for oil in Alaska. We aren't that desperate for oil.

I urge my readers to see the universe as it really is. The universe is a vast playground where man can explore, enjoy and marvel at the wonders of existence. Mankind cannot be free and will not truly strive for utopia as long as ancient and outdated religions continue to pull us back towards the dark ages. I urge you to develop the intelligence to leave behind religion, to recognize that all of mankind is truly one species. Only by seeing the universe as it truly is can we eliminate bigotry, hate, pain and suffering.

I realize that for some time there will be those that will need their crutch of religion. I urge you to respect their needs and let them be free to practice their religion so long as it remains harmless. But when religion becomes and excuse to kill, conquer or subvert, it must be stopped, whatever the cost.

It is inevitable that some of the children born to people like Stanek will be more intelligent than their anti-freedom, anti-women's rights parents. So hopefully, she will lose that war after all.

Got a problem with any of this? If you can figure out my e-mail address, send me something. I used to have a nice little link to myself here, but the evil spambots kept grabbing it.