Posts Tagged ‘Enron’

Ontario Hydro – The Future

April 28, 2009

This video spoof of BC Hydro should be looked at as a warning for people living in Ontario.

The “Green Cult” has too much say in the operation of our electrical generation system.

This must STOP!

Advertisements

Junk Science: the wind cries ‘bailout!’

July 10, 2008

Editor: Enron pulled the same scam.

Google-Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton to appreciate the origins of the wind scam

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens launched a media blitz this week to
announce his plan for us “to escape the grip of foreign oil.” Now he’s
got himself stuck between a crock and a wind farm.

Announced via TV commercials, media interviews, a July 9 Wall Street
Journal op-ed and a Web site, Pickens wants to substitute wind power
for the natural gas used to produce about 22 percent of our electricity
and then to substitute natural gas for the conventional gasoline used
to power vehicles.

Pickens claims this plan can be accomplished within 10 years, reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the cost of transportation,
create thousands of jobs, reduce our carbon footprint and “build a
bridge to the future, giving us time to develop new technologies.”

It sounds great and gets even better, according to Pickens. Don’t
sweat the cost, he says, “It will be accomplished solely through
private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or
government regulation.” What’s not to like?

First, it’s worth noting Pickens’ claim made in the op-ed that his
plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later,
however, he calls on Congress to “mandate” wind power and its
subsidies. Next, Pickens relies on a 2008 Department of Energy study
claiming the U.S. could generate 20 percent of its electricity from
wind by 2030.

Setting aside the fact that the report was produced in consultation
with the wind industry, the 20-by-2030 goal is quite fanciful.

Even if wind technology significantly improves, electrical
transmission systems (how electricity gets from the power source to
you) are greatly expanded and environmental obstacles (such as
environmentalists who protest wind turbines as eyesores and
bird-killing machines) can be overcome, the viability of wind power
depends on where, when and how strong the wind blows — none of which is
predictable.

Wind farm-siting depends on the long-term forecasting of wind
patterns, but climate is always changing. When it comes to wind power,
it is not simply “build it and the wind will come.” Even the momentary
loss of wind can be a problem. As Reuters reported on Feb. 27, “Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency.”

The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of
power to customers within 10 minutes. Wind isn’t a standalone power
source. It needs a Plan B for when the wind “just don’t blow.”

This contrasts with coal- or gas-fired electrical power, which can
be produced on demand and as needed. A great benefit of modern
technology is that it liberates us from Mother Nature’s harsh whims.
Pickens wants to re-enslave us with 12th century technology.

Then there’s the cost of the 20-by-2030 goal — $43 billion more than
the cost of non-wind assets, according to the DOE — and this doesn’t
include many billions of dollars more for additional transmission
lines. Could the 20-by-2030 goal even be accomplished?

By Steven Milloy

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He
is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct
scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Fox News

T Boone Pickens Has an Energy Plan for America- So Did Enron

July 9, 2008

T Boone Pickens has an energy plan for America.

Is everybody eating a big bowl of STUPID for breakfast every morning-or what?

Wind backed up with natural gas.
Where have I heard that before?

Oh ya I remember, it was an Enron scam.

Who was involved? Google Enron,Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton.

The Enron -global warming-wind energy scam reminds me of the old Eiffel tower scam.

The con artist convinced people he had a contract to sell the tower for scrap. The scam was so outrageous people believed him.
It worked so good the first time he did it again.

Enron scam repeated- paid for by taxpayer subsidy.

T Boone Pickens is smart, the public- dumb as a box of rocks.

Al Gore is going to save the world and T Boone Pickens is going to fix the energy crisis.

Right.

If you want the truth read Agenda 21-follow the link to Global green agenda.
Another must read is Cloak of Green.
Both found here

Enjoy the day and the scam, but be sure to  open up your eyes.

Enron and the Environmental Movement

March 25, 2008
Editor
Notice in the article where it refers to “some scientists” not a consensus Enron got the cap removed from gas and Enron got the first incentives for wind farms. Because wind farms are intermittent and they are backed up with gas Enron stood to make a fortune, as do players today. The worst part is that your tax dollars are subsidizing the scam. It’s now 2008, when does the scam get shut down.

Mention Enron and the response is always the same.

SCAM

So what is different today? NOTHING. Same scam different day. Enron on steroids is the only way to describe what is taking place today. Enron didn’t care about the environment and neither does Gore.
They care about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
and they are quite prepared to surround your house with wind turbines to get it.
It appears Gore liked what he saw from Enron and decided to carry on where they left off. You have to give Gore credit. He’s the only one I know that has managed to get both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for a scam. Good work Al.
Give Me Your Money – NOW
121707goreal.jpg

 

 

Enron and the Environmental Movement:
Global Warming Politics Makes for Strange Bedfellows

by Amy Ridenour January 2002


With a payoff worth tens of billions of dollars at stake, Enron Corporation laid out millions in campaign contributions in the 1990s apparently in part to persuade the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate to support the Kyoto global warming treaty.

Enron hoped to cash in on the Kyoto treaty by masterminding a worldwide trading network in which major industries could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide – the inert gas that some scientists and most environmentalists believe contributes to global warming.

The Houston firm’s lobbying push appeared to be on the verge of success when Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol in November of 1998.

There was a fly in the ointment, however. Ratification of the treaty would have required the U.S. to cut back its CO2 emissions levels by seven percent from 1990 levels, while the treaty allowed major emerging nations such as China, India and Indonesia a free hand in developing industries that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The Clinton Administration’s interest in obtaining an international agreement to fight global warming meshed with Enron’s dream of huge profits from new investments in natural gas utilities and pipelines. Ratification of the Kyoto treaty would have played into Enron’s greed by forcing the U.S. to switch from coal-fired power plants to ones fueled by cleaner-burning natural gas. The trading surge in emission credits thus would have funneled an ever-increasing flow of cash into its coffers.

As overseer of a global trading network, Enron almost certainly would have leap-frogged ahead of many older, established companies that actually produce far more energy than Enron, essentially an energy broker.

When the Senate took a hard look at the potential overall economic impact of the Kyoto proposal, it quickly voted 95-0 to urge the White House not to send it any treaty that would have an adverse impact on the nation’s economy.

Indeed, the Clinton Administration, although pressured heavily by Enron and such unlikely company allies as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Two studies by impartial third parties show why: The Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Energy Department, found that meeting the Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent, and decrease our national gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 percent.

A study by Dr. Stephen Brown, Senior Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas, found that under a best case scenario, reducing CO2 emissions seven percent below 1990 levels – as required under the Kyoto accord – would represent a loss of between three percent to 4.3 percent of U.S. GDP. That comes out to $921 to $1,320 per person and $3,684 to $5,280 for a family of four. Under a worst-case scenario, meeting the Kyoto mandate could cost the average family of four $6,400 a year.

When it became apparent that the Kyoto treaty had little chance of Senate ratification, Enron’s well-heeled lobbying corps began seeking ways to implement the treaty provisions most favorable to them through backdoor means.

As part of the strategy, CEO Kenneth Lay signed Enron onto the Business Environmental Leadership Council of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, a left-leaning think-tank headed by Eileen Claussen, a former Environmental Protection Agency and State Department official in the Clinton Administration.

The Pew Center has waged an expensive propaganda campaign over the past few years aimed at convincing journalists that global warming is a dire threat.

Other companies joining Pew’s Business Environmental Leadership Council also stood to gain vast sums if federal regulators imposed strict new limits on carbon dioxide emissions, including such powerhouses as Boeing, British Petroleum, International Paper, Lockheed-Martin, Maytag, 3M, Toyota, Weyerhaeuser and Whirlpool.

Lay, a close personal friend of leading Republicans and Democrats, also joined two far-left environmental groups – the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council – in calling for new curbs on emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Enron might well have been successful in its latest campaign to persuade the Bush Administration to announce far-reaching restrictions on CO2 if the company’s apparently devious financial machinations hadn’t plunged it into collapse.

Its intricate involvement in, and financing of, a national campaign to ratify the Kyoto global warming treaty and impose carbon caps on much of American industry raises important questions that Congressional hearings likely will explore in the weeks ahead. Among them:

* How much of the campaign was financed by money from Enron’s coffers? In spreading it around did the company violate federal election and lobbying laws?

* How duplicitous were the environmental groups that joined Enron in its crusade for Kyoto? Did these organizations financially benefit from their strange bedfellow alliance with giant energy company?

* Did federal and state lawmakers and federal officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations intentionally violate campaign or fraud laws by accepting gifts, gratuities or future high-level positions in return for supporting the company?

Interesting questions all, and the answers likely will determine just how far the unfolding net of the Enron scandal travels and whom it ensnares. The public deserves complete and comprehensive answers to those questions, no matter whose illusions are shattered.

# # #


Amy Ridenour is President of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Comments may be sent to aridenour@nationalcenter.org.

Source nationalcenter.org

Protest Earth Day

FLICK ON

The Fluid Envelope – A Case Against Climate Alarmism

February 11, 2008

Source EcoWorld

Editor’s Note: Our charter to report on clean technology and the status of species and ecosystems seems to always bring us back to one overriding distraction – global warming alarm – and small wonder. We are in the midst of one of the most dramatic transformations of political economy in the history of the world – and nobody is watching. “The debate is over on global warming,” goes the consensus, and even if that were a healthy or accurate notion, why has this consensus translated into hardly any vigorous debate over what would be a rational response?

Despite ongoing rhetoric to the contrary from virtually every environmental nonprofit in existance, the United States has been an extraordinarily responsible nation. We listened to our environmental movement; we institutionalized it. On every front there has been huge progress over the past 30-40 years. Our air and water are orders of magnitude cleaner even though our population has doubled. Our landfills our ultra-safe. We have set aside vast tracts of wilderness, rescued countless endangered species. Our food supply is scrupulously monitored. And every year our technology and our prosperity delivers new options to eliminate more pollution and live healthier lives. So what happened?

In the rest of the world there is also reason for great optimism, despite some discouraging challenges that continue to grip humanity. Human population is voluntarily leveling off, so that within 25-30 years the number of people on planet earth will peak at around 8.5 billion – and every time the projection is revisited, that estimate drops. At an even faster pace, humanity is urbanizing – and this voluntary movement is taking people out of the vast and potentially endangered forests and other biomes faster than population increase replaces them. Land is becoming abundant again. So what’s wrong?

Technology promises abundant energy within a few decades, using clean fossil fuel as we systematically replace it with solar, nuclear, run-of-river hydroelectric, enhanced geothermal, wind, possibly biofuel. Technology promises abundant water within a few decades, as we learn how to recycle every drop of water used in the urban environment, convert many crops to drip irrigation, and develop massive desalination capacity. So why don’t we get to work?

The reason is because of global warming alarm. The bells of warning are ringing so loud that CO2 is all that matters anymore. Want to stop using petroleum? Then burn the rainforests for biofuel. Want to stop using coal? Then forget about installing affordable scrubbers to remove the soot that billows from coal fired power plants across burgeoning Asia – why clean up something that needs to be shut down? Want to save allegedly scarce open space? Then cram everyone into ultra-high density “infill” and destroy every semi rural neighborhood in the western world. Make housing unaffordable, then mandate taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing. And do it all in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.

Today, after reading two documents from the website of the Attorney General of California, “Mitigation Measures,” and “Global Warming Contrarians and the Falsehoods they Promote,” I became so alarmed at what we are willingly, blindly bringing upon ourselves because of all this CO2 alarm that I contacted Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has already contributed two lengthy articles to EcoWorld, “Current Behavior of Global Mean Surface Temperature,” and “Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?” I asked Dr. Lindzen if he still held the views he does. He replied emphatically in the affirmative, and sent me the article that follows. Dr. Lindzen, along with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., with whom EcoWorld recently published the exclusive “Interview with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.,” are both internationally respected atmospheric scientists. And both of them, in somewhat different ways, are quite concerned about the overemphasis on CO2.

Anyone who is championing extreme measures to reduce anthropogenic CO2 should attempt for themselves to understand the science. As Dr. Lindzen wrote me earlier today, policymakers such as Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger “can be excused given the degree to which the environmental movement has taken over the professional societies.”

“Science” has become the trump card that drowns out reason – what great irony. And the scientific establishment itself has become politicized. And if you read the mitigation measures being proposed, just imagine if there was nothing we could do to affect global warming – which even some of the lead authors of the IPCC studies themselves acknowlege – and see if you want to live in the brave new world we are leading ourselves into by our own gullible noses.

Dramatic and positive global economic and technological developments, along with voluntary and irreversible global demographic trends, are about to deliver us a future where we enjoy unprecedented environmental health, abundance and prosperity. But to do this we need to preserve our economic and personal freedoms. Will the measures being proposed – especially in trendsetting California – fruitlessly combat a problem that doesn’t exist, crush economic growth and trample on individual freedom, and rob humanity of this hopeful destiny?
– Ed “Redwood” Ring

The Fluid Envelope – A Case Against Climate Alarmism
by Dr. Richard Lindzen, February 2008

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
What will be his legacy?

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the Goebbelian substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and previous warm periods appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages.

Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we dont fully understand either the advance or the retreat. For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface.

Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man. This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising. According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man.

This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no significant global warming for the last ten years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UKs Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCCs iconic attribution. Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past decade is acknowledged.

Whether or not someone is a climate alarmistᅠshould have no
bearing on the strength or purity of their environmentalist convictions.
(Read “Global Warming Questions“)

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished.

However, the really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind.

The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal. Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring is almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts: famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more.

This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

Given the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 2 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue.

California Attorney General
Jerry Brown
What is his dream?

The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power and influence are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true.

After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for saving the world. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further.

The case of ENRON is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities . The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to ones carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant.

The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (Americas largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol is already leading to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

About the Author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(http://web.mit.edu).

Source

Perception is Reality – Not

February 6, 2008

 Editor:
Read the article below, understand what it says, now think.  The wind industry, renewable energies and global warming are all based on perception, not reality. Got it.
This article written in 202 says that the idea of perception being reality is being toppled. Unfortunately we’re not there yet. The bull you are being fed by your govt., media and industry continues unabated. You, Joe public can change that. Give it a try.

Enron may be gone, but the players and the game that was Enron is alive and well.

You are being had big time 

 Published on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 by Common Dreams

Perception is Reality – Not

by Bill C. Davis
 
The expression that seized the modern consciousness – “Perception is reality” – is being toppled – it seems. I read a related and almost equally chilling quote recently about Enron during its heyday – “It’s not such a good company but it’s a great stock.” “Perception is reality” is a mantra that has seduced susceptible participants to abandon critical faculties and to disconnect from the three-dimensional universe. Those who are selling and those who are buying make a contract with the vapors. Some callous observers accuse Enron stockholders of being stupid or of simply being losers in the great capitalist game of musical chairs. I think they’re victims of a creeping and pervasive hypnosis. Instead of a pocket watch swinging in front of their trusting gaze the overt and subliminal message that perception is reality has snaked its way into every corridor of their reasoning – and ours. The collapse of Enron has said loud and clear that perception is not reality. A greater force has snapped its fingers and the trance is broken – the sleepwalker looks around and wonders why he is lying horizontally in the air. He crashes to the floor. The only things that have kept him afloat were the need to believe – the denial of facts – the evasion of truth and looking the other way. These were also the favors that the Bush administration gave Enron, which they were more than willing to give since they need the same things to survive. The Bush administration controls the stocks they are selling and we are in a lockdown – short of impeachment we can’t get out of this investment. We need to believe so we are asked to evade the truth, deny the facts and look the other way.

To build a company or a government on a weave of fabrications and hollow claims is to challenge universal laws. Those laws can be kept at bay for just so long. It makes perfect sense for people to make money from what they actually contribute to a vital society. No one should begrudge an honest and fertile profit. But a deceptive and inflated profit based on parlaying a perception is theft. Where is the California energy crisis that Bush and Cheney floated as reality while Enron cashed in? As the price of a mega watt hour in California went from thirty-one dollars to nine hundred dollars Bush did nothing. He claims his hands-off disposition was based on his philosophy of free market. But this free market seems to have had a price of its own paid to a government perceived to be by the people and for the people. The present administration, in reality, is neither.

One year ago there were massive protests at the inauguration of a president whom many did not accept as real. An election based on racism, purged voting lists, confusing ballots and nepotism is like Enron stock. A war on terrorism that kills thousands of civilians and claims to be eliminating evil in the world as it creates more of the same is also like Enron stock. However the war or the election is being sold, the fact it is being sold waves a red flag. If someone is working overtime to create a perception about anything then there is obviously a reality they are trying to hide which they are either scared or ashamed of or which they feel we, like children, are not equipped to handle.

Rove and Rice are very clear about perception being reality. They have whipped the media into shape much the same way Enron executives flew to New York to chide the Wall Street Journal for printing an editorial from a reporter who said Enron was in trouble. Didn’t the Journal know what kind of effect that could have on their stock? If we all just continue to pump up the perception it will be real and we will all benefit. The Wall Street Journal capitulated. They know better than most that perception is reality. Perceive the condition you want and then sell it as something real. Say it often enough and you might believe it yourself. But there is that weird unavoidable finality of universal truth. It’s like oxygen or water seeking its level – it is inevitable. The inevitability is less painful when it hits if we insist on perceiving reality instead of perceiving perception.

Although he is not officially a dictator George believes that things would be “a heck of a lot easier” if he were. A dictator is allowed to force his citizens to accept his perceptions as reality. It appears as though George has moved lock stock and barrel into the structure of his perceptions all based on “sound science” and he is legislating accordingly. And while he does we just have to hold on to our stock – and hope.

We can also dream and imagine and we can use elements of the real world to build things wonderful and true. The elements of the real world are more fantastic and remarkable and life-affirming than anything that thieves try to conjure for the sake of their stock – political or economic. To build an empire with the raw material of perception-management is to invite collapse.

The best we can do is to resist. Take this massive symptom of Enron that has unraveled before the eyes of a perplexed nation and expand its lessons to the global machinations that are trying to absorb our individuality and common sense. Before they can convince us of anything they have to convince us that perception is reality. Perception is not reality. We have to decline the invitations and manipulations of a corrupt and deluded board of directors and put our money and our essential energies into a solid foundation and an expanding legitimate reality.

Bill C. Davis is a playwright http://www.billcdavis.com/