The Freddie Mack, Fannie Mae mortgage market collapse was partially (perhaps the biggest, but certainly not the only factor) a result of certain politicians creating a housing bubble through a system of social welfare (housing for people that could not afford to purchase), and rewarding their constituents. In other words what we have here is, “I get votes through social welfare and campaign contributions, my buddies get rich, and the tax payers foot the bill.” As one economist pointed out, “We privatized the profit, but socialized the risk.”

However, the US economy was turning down before this financial collapse, and not just because of the war in Iraq. The cost of energy was creating an economic downturn. This excessive cost, as in the case of the financial crisis with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, was a result of political actions, which in tandem with additional pressure from environmental activist have stopped virtually every effort to develop this nations natural resources.

The US consumes about 7 billion barrels of oil each year. The cost of oil has of late consistently been over $100 per barrel. If the US in particular and the free market economies of the world in general had a less obstructed energy policy what would the per barrel cost of oil be? Would $40 to $60 dollars US be a reasonable estimate? If the international cost of oil was $40 to $60 ppb would this mean that the current $100 plus ppb is a drain to the US economy of 280 to 420 billion dollars annually?

On a microcosmic scale, in the US about 200 million people are paying $75 to $100 more per month for gasoline then they did two or three years ago.

Additionally how much inflation has the cost of oil indirectly added to the US and world? Many companies now charge a 2% petrol surcharge on services and products so as to reflect the additional cost of transportation and producing their products?

Of course carbon credits and trading reflect additional cost on the worlds societies.

Government subsidies in alternative energy certainly reflect greater cost to tax payers and the economy, obviously off set to a degree by the jobs they produce. But the negative to the economy must be based on what the true cost of the alternative energy is against the assumed cost of oil, clean coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro in a less restricted economy. What would these costs be in a less restricted environment?

And if these traditional sources of energy were less restricted then certainly a reasonable portion of these savings would and should go directly into dealing with known environmental problems such as land use, palatable water, particulate pollution, etc.

At this point then would the development of renewable energy and cleaner conventional energy and nuclear energy, such as generation 3 and 4 plants, continue at a reasonable pace?

Would the societies of the world then have more resources to deal with the actual effects of Climate change, human caused or not?

Are energy efficient and prosperous societies environmentally cleaner then less advanced societies? Do more developed societies have far less population growth? Does this benefit the environment?

Economically speaking, how much is the potential damage of AGW reduced by the fact that most of the warming takes place at night?What economic and environmental disasters will be averted by the current energy policies if China and India do not follow the same Kyoto calls for action?

The world is facing economic crisis, and AGW alarmism may make it impossible to overcome the problems. Some economist say WW II pulled the US out of a recession. WW III is not however a good option. Only a war on economic self destruction due to unwise environmental activism will prevent this.

Bill Maher has produced his comedy documentary “Religulous” It is an apt expression of the extremely negative view towards religion many of the “elite” in this country feel. The far left has worked very hard to convey this view point to mainstream America, and recently in particular toward Sarah Palin. This viewpoint of the liberal elite is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both religion, and the nature of humanity.

The terrible crimes and wars committed in the name of religion are, in the vast majority of cases, not to be blamed on religion, but on the individuals who in group perpetuated the despicable power hungry acts. The word religion comes from the Latin “religar” which means to bind. The question is bind what to whom? Whatever the professed values and practices of an individual are, they can, in this broadest sense, be said to be one’s religion. We always “bind” ourselves to that which we show our devotion (efforts made) Regardless of a person’s proclaimed values, it is trumped by their actions.

Human nature has a dark and a light side. The dark side of an individual will express itself in a evil actions regardless of formal religious belief, or lack thereof. Witness for instance the history of “democide” (death by government) perpetuated on 36 million in China, or 20 million in Stalin’s Russia, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or the aftermath of Vietnam, or the actions of North Korea. All these acts were perpetuated by those with no formal religious view. They were practicing the religion of Greed, Selfish Power and Self-centered Wealth. The outwardly religious who committed similar crimes were in fact practicing the very same religion of Self-centered Greed, Power and Wealth. That fact that these groups had different outward names is only a disguise to hide their true religion.

The founding Father’s of the Unites States were correct to separate Church and State, and to do all possible to limit the power of government and emphasize personal freedom and responsibility. In this they tried to protect society from the dark side of mankind when it forms any group expressed in both religious and non religious ways.

This is not however to ignore the value of religion which has produced a Mahatma Gandhi, a Mother Teresa, a Christ, a Buddha and countless other individuals and their acts of kindness and charity. These individuals, regardless of their outward label, practice the same religion of universal compassion and selfless acts of service. What really demonstrates one’s religion is their acts, not their theology.

In addition the “elite” feel that “religion” is inherently irrational. They like to call it “magic” My next two paragraphs, cogent to debunking this idea, are paraphrasing the writings of a man I deeply admire.

From the east we learn that the physical world operates under one fundamental law of Maya, the principal of relativity and duality. Newton’s law of motion is a law of Maya: “For every action there is an equal and contrary reaction… Electricity for example is a phenomena of repulsion and attraction, the atom, like the earth it self, is a magnet with positive and negative poles. The entire phenomenal world is under the inexorable sway of polarity.

Physical science then cannot formulate laws outside of Maya. The great scientist Marconi stated this admission of scientific inadequacy before the absolute: “The inability of science to solve life’s mystery is absolute.” Science then remains in a state of flux, fit indeed to discover the laws of an already existing cosmos, but powerless to detect the law framer and sole operator.

I have yet to see a logical solution to this problem of cause and effect, which is in and of itself, self contradictory as the humane mind cannot conceive of something from nothing, but if something always was, then that something had no cause. Stated another way something cannot come from nothing, yet it did, or else one must admit that it always was, which in and of itself defeats the fundamentals of science. The fact that anything at all is, is “magic.” Those that practice religion are not therefore irrational, they are simply trying to understand the mystery of life. Science and religion are in this sense two different fields.

Bill Maher’s movie is an expression of his anger at the religion of greed, power and selfish wealth. He is upset at the dark side of humane nature. If all outward religion was somehow abolished, then these ignorant acts of humane nature would continue unabated. One can easily argue that they would in fact be worse, as formal religion is for many the ambassador for ideals of selfless love and compassion, and these ideals are the inspiration for their life’s that have enriched us all.