Saudi Flag Above American at Colorado Public School?

This is with thanks to:

A Saudi flag has been placed above the American flag for some time in a Colorado Public School. Here is the photo, is it just some students “f’in” around or is it the teacher?

(Photo linked to Creeping Sharia’s story on it)

Per Greeley:

A Greeley Report reader recently snapped a photo during the opening days of school at Bauder Elementary in Ft. Collins, Colorado.  The lobby of the school is shown displaying two flags, side-by-side.  The U.S. flag was drooping, and another flag was elevated above it.  What is that flag?  According to the reader, it was the flag…of Saudi Arabia!  This is an outrage!  Their flag is placed above the U.S.  (See the photo below for proof.)  It shouldn’t even be on equal footing, on sovereign American soil.  But this shows how the indoctrination process continues without your consent or knowledge.

Ft. Collins has a growing muslim population.  They want to build one of the largest mosques in the West in this region, and undoubtedly have the support of the Saudi government in their endeavors (either covertly or overtly).  So they have to tell us that radical extremists are “nice people.”  They need to “educate us as to their nice culture.”  It’s bad enough that some of the idiot churches in the area are buying into the garbage.  Now some of the schools are, too.

Call Poudre Schools and complain.  Spread the word.  The 9.11 mosque in New York is only one of their advancing fronts.  Your neighborhood school is next.  Creeping sharia intends to control your life and the lives of your children.  Will we be a Judeo-Christian nation or will we be islamic?  You decide.

[….]

Greeley Report broke the story last week that Bauder Elementary in Ft. Collins was flying the Saudi Arabian flag with the U.S. flag in a subservient position.  Poudre Schools states this has been fixed, but refuses to provide photo verification.  Furthermore, they refuse to answer questions about how the flag got into this position despite their allegations in the Greeley Gazette article with Jack Minor (link here) that the flag was placed in this position before the school was opened to the public.  Which administrator or staff member made the U.S. flag bow?

One comment to a previous story alluded to the fact that the Saudi Flag ascribes the highest honor to Allah, the Islamic God.  This is both a national and a religious issue.  Also not shown in the photo is the sword on the Saudi flag.  How are these issues being handled?  How are the children in this multicultural school being taught about the national sovereignty of the United States and the daily pledge of allegiance to it’s flag?

Other organizations are now getting wind of the photo and the lack of answers provided by Poudre Schools.  Is the flag still there?  We don’t know, because they will not provide the evidence or the answers.

CERN Confirms Danish Theory on Global Warming ~ Ezra Levant

Some posts from a debate I had via FaceBook:

Firstly, whether it is getting warmer or cooler is a different question from whether man is a cause of this “climate change”.

Secondly, why do you say Fox News? They merely report what other news sites report. You seem to encapsulate your question with a bias I reject offhand:

❖ A NASA scientist says this will be the last year of heat: The upshot is chilling: “If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill states. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.” (Old link dead, new one added: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/suns-output-to-fall-leading-to-a-mini-ice-age.html; Also: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/) So Fox news is just reporting what MSNBC and CNN will not… differing views on which way the climate will go over the next decade.

(See more examples in regular media):

 ✔ http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
 ✔ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/
 ✔ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227869/global-cooling-chills-summer-2009/deroy-murdock#

You also have to realize what drives these reports of record heat. How are they recorded? Have you ever asked in what way these heat and cool waves are recorded? Or do you just accept as true — without question — what people tell you? I want you to read the following two posts on the matter (one is on my old blog), and ask yourself how this new information changes your view and why satellite data is superior.

1) http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/record-breaking-us-heat-wave-breaks.html
2) http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2008/03/too-hot-to-handle-or.html

Another post:

Firstly, I isolated a small part of a video you may enjoy… the info in it correlates with the info below (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/does-co2-drive-climate).

I know it’s tough to move with science as it evolves. But almost all researchers know Co2 doesn’t drive climate… and that the real debate is in the warming or cooling causing a greater effect on cloud cover, which will cause the catastrophic pictures a middle-school kid is brainwashed with via Al Gore. I cut and uploaded portions of an old interview so we can both talk to each other. The first audio has to do with the question of whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler (http://vimeo.com/28137108). You must get out of the myopic view you are used to seeing and look at a larger graph of temperature change (http://youtu.be/tTp5h9BuQtQ).

The second has to do with how little C02 affects warming, and what and where the real debate is over, clouds (http://vimeo.com/28136890).

As the study and understanding of what drives this mysterious global phenomenon [clouds], and new studies are showing that the sun may be driving them as well (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/).

A final post:

✦ “What an interesting view you have on this subject Sean. I’m not sure how you have found a way to convince yourself that carbon dioxide is not related to temperature, but i would like to offer you an objective, non blog, non bias, and factual link. Are you ready for it?” (quoting Nick)

Well, just so your readers know, in that last post [above] there are links to ~ if you follow them: the second link is audio is Roy Spencer (bio already given below). The third is just a graph of temperature of 2500 years. The fourth is Roy Spencer again. The fifth references a scientific journal. The sixth is a NASA article. The seventh is a NASA filming of the sun. And in the first video link (the actual video that shows up in that last post) there are these people involved:

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center
• Tim Ball – Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Misidentified in the film as Professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Ball left his faculty position in the Department of Geography in 1996; the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology.)
• Nigel Calder – Former Editor, New Scientist from 1962 to 1966
John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Credited in the film as ‘Lead Author, IPCC’)
• Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Piers Corbyn – Weather Forecaster, Weather Action
• Paul Driessen – Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death
• Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen (who has since criticised the programme for fabricating data and not fully explaining his position on 20th century global warming).
• Nigel Lawson – Former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer
• Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.
• Patrick Michaels – Research Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
• Patrick Moore – Co-founder, Greenpeace
• Paul Reiter – Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, Paris
• Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• James Shikwati – Economist, Author, and CEO of The African Executive
• Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (Misidentified in the film as Former Director, U.S. National Weather Service. From 1962–64 he was Director of the National Weather Satellite Service.)[citation needed]
• Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award. Spencer’s research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29)
• Philip Stott – Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London
• Carl Wunsch – Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T. (who has since repudiated the programme)

So I will restate more clearly: C02 follows temperature change… it doesn’t lead it. That big giant ball-o’-flame in the sky has much more to do with climate change than Exxon… who has less impact on the enviro than volcanic activity (mankind that is).

I give evidence for history being hotter in the past than it is today by substantial degrees in a post that links to my blog. Since there are links out embedded in the below [at my blog], I give the link so you can follow them out from there if you wish… because they do not appear below:

(1) Mars (Uncommon Descent h/t) has had a bout of global warming… last I checked Exxon doesn’t drill there;

(2) In the 8th century AD, the Roman Empire grew grapes used for wine on the slopes of Salisbury Plain (about 80 miles southwest of London) in the United Kingdom;

(3) The Vikings raiding and traveling the seas was made possible by the now frozen “Greenland”actually living up to its name;

(4) NASA‘s “fact” that 1998 was the warmest year (used by Al Gore) was disproved by an amateur mathematician;

(5) In 1970′s, at the first Earth Day rally, scientists, meteorologists and politicians all pushed a theory that there was Global Cooling (Time magazine for instance). While this theory wasn’t as embedded in popular thinking and scientific literature as is global warming, it was still the dominant theory of that time;

(6) There is more ice now that 29-years ago; Antarctic sea ice more than in 1979;

(7) In the 1500′s till the late 1800′s passages that are now iced over allowed for what is termed as the Northwest Passage… Exxon or cars weren’t around then?

❖ “If you are like me and bit foggy on the Northwest Passage, here is a five cent refresher. The British coined the term Northwest Passage for the potential northern oceanic pass that would allow vessels to move between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The earliest explorations for the fabled passage were by Cortes in 1539. The late 1500′s were marked by British explorers, Martin Frobisher, Humphrey Gilbert, and John Davis. Several expeditions followed, all with little success of finding the passage but tempered by the acquisition of new lands. Some attempts lead to deaths of entire crews. Notable of these is the Sir John Franklin expedition in which all of the crew members were lost to starvation, scurvy, cannibalism, and lead poisoning from food sealed in tins. The first to transverse the Northwest Passage was Sir Robert McClure using a combination of both sledge and ship. Ironically this was done during the search for Franklin’s team in which McClure’s own ship became trapped in the ice for three winters. The passage was finally conquered entirely by sea by the Norwegian Amundsen in 1906.”

(9) Acid rain scares of the 1980′s were mostly unfounded and not man-caused;

(10) On the northern side of Mammoth (in California), there are tree-lines that were preserved by a volcanic eruption in A.D. 1350. In this preserved tree-line there were seven species of tree that grew well above the current tree-line in this mountainous range. The Earth would have to be 3.2 degrees warmer (Celsius) in order for these particular trees to grow in this higher altitude.

The above, believe it or not, actually is from one of my blogs on same-sex marriage and involved wine and beer filled discussion between friends at Halloween: “Same-Sex Matters (Race and Gender in Marriage)”: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/same-sex-matters-race-and-gender-in-marriage/#ixzz1VvcHwnKG

Excerpts of Hoffa Jr. Remarks Before Obama’s Detroit Speech ~ Violent Sermon to Union Workers with Stamp of Approval by Obama

The Daily Caller notes Herman Cain’s response to this Union boss’s threats:

Presidential candidate Herman Cain struck back Monday against abrasive comments made by Teamsters union President Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. attacking the tea party and congressional Republicans at a Labor Day event in which President Obama later delivered a speech.

Appearing on Fox News Channel, Cain said the reason Hoffa and others resort to vitriolic rhetoric to bash conservatives is because “they have no plan, they have no ideas.”

“The one reason the president and his administration don’t have an idea that’s going to work is they keep forgetting the business sector is the engine that drives growth,” Cain said.

“He [Obama] is offering the same old stuff so all he and others can resort to is name calling,” Cain continued. “That’s all they have to intimidate folks. When he mentioned about working people, tea party people work, too. The fact that the president made his remarks and didn’t offer one constructive idea about how he’s going the get this economy going and the reason is simple. He doesn’t have any. Zero job growth [in August] and I’m looking Thursday for another zero in that speech that he’s going to give.”

Hoffa Jr. said during his speech that unions need to fight a “war” against tea partiers and congressional Republicans.

“President Obama, this is your army,” he declared. “We are ready to march. Let’s take these sons of bitches out and take America back to where America we belong.”

Though Obama wasn’t present when Hoffa Jr. made his incendiary remarks,….

…however, he later praised them! So much for Obama creating an air of bipartisanship and communal attitude for the betterment of our country.

He Was Against Banks Before He Was Against Banks

In his early activist days, Barack Obama the community organizer sued banks to ease their lending practices. Now his administration is suing banks for issuing risky mortgages.

State Sen. Barack Obama and Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest in Chicago in January 2000. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000) Breaking on FOX News…

The Federal Housing Finance Agency announced late this afternoon that it had sued 17 large banks for risky mortgages.

…(read more)…

Steven Crowder Talks Gas ~ Plus an Import from My Old Blog on Gas Prices

Many believe that the gas companies are gauging us… this is just not the case. For EVERY gallon of gasoline sold to Americans from Exxon, Exxon makes $.09 profit (yes, you read that right, nine-cents!)! I recently had a discussion with a democratic co-worker whom had the same idea about Exxon gauging us. For every gallon of gas we buy the government puts a total of $.50 of tax on it. We argued some about the total amount of tax, but I decided that I wouldn’t push the point… so I agreed that we will use the tax rate as posted on California pumps.

Which is $.18. So I said that if Exxon is making nine-cents ($.09) profit on a gallon of gas and there is a eighteen-cents ($.18). Let’s assume that the 8.4 billion dollar profit for Exxon last quarter was only from Americans, then the government “profit” is 16.8 billion. I asked my Democrat co-worker if we were to compare “SOCIAL CAUSES” between Democrat policies and Republican policies… which party has more “social programs” (welfare, universal health care, Medicare, school lunches, and the like), he agreed with me that the Democrats would support more of these types of programs.

I then asked how these programs are paid for. He realized his mistake now, but answered anyways… taxes. So I said he should be happy that the government has made “windfall profits,” maybe California can be in the black for once. I then made another point. I asked him what is the best way to make something increase in value? He answered that one would make it scarce – like diamonds, or the Federal reserve controlling inflation by letting more or less dollars into the market. He asked what that had to do with gas. I then answered by asking a question:Who is more beholden to environmental groups and causes, the Democrats or Republicans?

My co-worker said the Democrats. I then said that in the past almost FORTY YEARS we haven’t built a refinery to make crude oil into gas… I then asked him if he knew why? He didn’t. Mostly because environmental groups like the Sierra Club and others have successfully stopped us from building them. I asked if he could answer that with the growth of China’s infrastructure and shift towards industry, as well as India’s shift towards the same, if just those two countries alone (comprising half the worlds population) have increased exponentially their demand for “fossil” fuels and the companies that supply that need cannot increase production – that “that” will naturally – at some point – bring up the price of not only fuel, but any good to be sold, who’s fault is that????? (I put fossil fuel in ” ” because I do not believe that oil is a fossil fuel, research is showing that it is “a-biotic,” and that the earth is producing it always as part of the natural inner-working of the planet. The real red-hearing is making us believe that it will run out, which is another belief that has kept the prices high. So environmental “Doomsday” predictions about a limited supply of “fossil” fuel are “fueling” the hype and price as well… no pun intended.)

Exxon’s fault? Or the same people – liberal democrats – who stopped us from drilling in ANWAR a decade ago which could have produced enough barrels each day to match what we get from Venezuela? It seems funny to me that the people bitching about the problem now are the same ones that caused it to begin with. I then zinged my co-worker about his belief (which mirrors Al Gores) that fossil fuels are hurting our Earth via “Global Warming.” I asked him what the best way to get people to conserve or look for alternative fuels would be. By now he was catching up to me, he said somewhat sheepishly “to make the prices higher so people are forced to look elsewhere.”

So Stop Bitching!!! I would be more pissed at our inept politicians about drilling and building refineries in “The 48” rather than demand Exxon stop making a profit and socialize them like many other now defunct nations (U.S.S.R. and NAZI Germany) have tried, and like they are once again trying in South America.

Who’s to blame for high gasoline prices?

San Francisco Chronicle

Brian P. Simpson

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Gasoline prices are at record highs again. Many think oil companies are to blame. A Field Poll from May 2004 showed that 77 percent of Californians believed this to be true. But this just shows that people are misinformed about who’s causing high gas prices. Investigating a few clues can help find out who’s responsible.

One thing is certain: Oil companies are not the culprits. In California, where gas prices are among the nation’s highest, the oil industry has been repeatedly investigated yet no evidence of “price manipulation” has ever been found.

Though other factors cause high gas prices, such as high taxes and increasing world demand, environmental regulation is among the primary reasons. For example, environmental regulation has significantly restricted drilling for oil in Alaska and on the continental shelf. More drilling will increase the supply and thus lower prices.

Furthermore, 18 different gasoline formulations are in use across the United States, making it much more costly to produce and distribute gasoline. These blends aren’t needed due to requirements of automobile engines, nor are they required by oil companies. The blends, including different ones used at different times of the year and in different geographic areas, are imposed by environmental regulations. Among other things, the regulations force refiners to incur greater costs in switching from the production of one blend to another. They also force refiners to produce a more costly “summer blend,” which is partially responsible for the rise in price.

The situation is worse in California, where environmental regulations are strictest. For example, California was one of three states to require the removal of the octane booster MTBE in January 2004. This reduced the gasoline supply by almost 10 percent, because MTBE accounted for about 10 percent of the volume in the old gasoline formula. Using corn-based ethanol as a replacement doesn’t help much, because California’s strict emissions regulations require the removal of almost the equivalent in other gasoline components to accommodate ethanol. Ethanol must also be shipped from the Midwest in trucks, because it cannot be produced in refineries and doesn’t travel well through pipelines.

As a result, gas prices were predicted to increase by 35 to 40 cents per gallon. Given that the average price in 2004 was almost 30 cents higher than in 2003, these predictions weren’t too far off.

Additionally, California required gasoline stations to install double- walled underground tanks, which forced many stations to rip perfectly good single-walled tanks out of the ground. California also imposes the harshest emissions requirements in the country, necessitating the use of a more costly, special blend of gasoline not produced anywhere else. It’s no accident that gas in California is generally 30 to 40 cents above the national average.

From drilling to refining to distribution, environmentalists have done everything they can to raise gas prices.

The above raises a question: Why do environmental regulations exist?

One might think they exist to protect consumers, but the evidence doesn’t show this. For instance, MTBE was banned based on claims that it causes cancer. However, it has never been shown to be a danger to humans in the amounts to which they are typically exposed, according to a study by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Claims that it “causes cancer” are based on experiments in which mice were fed doses almost 70,000 times larger than to what humans are typically exposed. No scientist worthy of the title would make claims based on that extrapolation.

Environmentalists are not actually concerned with the well-being of man. Their real motive is to sacrifice man to nature by stopping industrial activity. For instance, Adam Kolton of the Alaska Wilderness League states, “Drilling the wildest place in America is objectionable no matter how it’s packaged.” David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, states, “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have … more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them.”

Oil companies deserve praise for producing an abundance of gasoline despite the massive burden of environmental regulations foisted upon them. To increase the gasoline supply, we need to start by eliminating needless environmental regulations, including drilling bans and prohibiting certain octane boosters. If the government makes the choice to protect people’s freedom, gasoline prices below a dollar-per-gallon won’t be just a relic of the past.

Brian P. Simpson is an assistant professor of economics at National University in San Diego and author of the upcoming “Markets Don’t Fail!” (Lexington Books).

 

Gas-price controls backfire in Hawaii Cost of fuel rises faster under new law, while drivers pay less in other 49 states

February 19, 2006 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Hawaii’s gas price controls, imposed last fall when the cost of fuel was hovering around $3 a gallon in many parts of the U.S., have actually triggered much higher costs for consumers.

As of Friday, Hawaii drivers were paying the highest per-gallon costs in the nation, with record-setting prices of as much as $3.39. A year ago, consumers in Hawaii were paying nearly $1 a gallon less. The national average today is $2.24 a gallon.

The price controls were set by the state Public Utilities Commission Sept. 1. The idea was that the limits would bring Hawaii’s gas prices in line with the mainland, which has traditionally had lower prices on many goods because of the transportation costs involved in delivering product to the islands.

Now there are moves afoot in the Hawaii legislature to scrap the price controls.

Hawaii’s current controls base limits on per-gallon charges by averaging wholesale gas prices in New York, Los Angeles and the Gulf Coast. The PUC then adds a 4-cent “location adjustment” fee and another 18 cents as a market margin factor. Then a few cents more are added for transportation costs to various islands. Wholesale prices are set by the bureaucrats every Wednesday and go into effect the following Sunday.

In a recent check Hawaii’s average cost per gallon was $2.84, followed by New York at $2.57, California at $2.53 and Connecticut at $2.47. The least expensive gas in the country is in Utah at $2.13.

Before the gas cap law, Hawaii paid an average of 44 cents more per gallon than the rest of the mainland. Since the law went into effect in September, however, the differential has increased to more than 50 cents per gallon.

Still, the proponents of the gas cap insist that prices would be even higher without the limits. Rep. Marcus Oshiro, an advocate of the gas cap, claims the new law has actually saved islanders $33 million. But even he is having second thoughts.

He said this week Hawaii has “achieved price parity with the mainland and in that sense, the law has been working.” But he also notes that “oil companies have posted record profits during this period and without greater transparency, we are unable to determine whether the cap has allowed unreasonable profits.

“Basically the implementation of the gas cap was not as we expected,” said Oshiro, the House majority leader. “The enforcement was not as vigorous as we thought it could be.”

Three House committees in Hawaii this week approved a proposal to suspend the gas cap as of July 1, while mandating the PUC to closely monitor data on the petroleum business in Hawaii, including new standards for the kinds of confidential business information the industry needs to provide to the PUC.

One of the gas cap’s key supporters is Senate Consumer Protection Chairman Ron Menor, who said he will do everything he can to make sure the cap stays in place.

“I cannot support a repeal because I think that would really be caving in to the oil industry that doesn’t want to be regulated,” Menor said.

Menor is proposing changes to the cap which he says could save drivers an extra 16-cents per gallon.

“Instead of talking about a repeal or suspension, legislators ought to be seriously considering strengthening and improving the law so we can provide even greater savings to consumers,” Menor said.

Meanwhile, free-market advocates say retailers charged the maximum allowable under the limits to compensate for the threat of not being able to profit in the future.