Let me see if I've got this straight, and please stick with me.  The United States Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that "the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."  (Justice Hugo Black- majority opinion Engel v Vitale)  To this, North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin said "I should like to ask whether we would be far wrong in saying that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that God is unconstitutional and for that reason the public schools should be segregated against him?  The following year (1963), the Court ruled jointly in Murray v Curlett and Abington School District v Schempp that with "religious freedom, it has long been recognized that government must be neutral and, while protecting all, must prefer none and disparage none."  (Majority Opinion, Justice Tom Clark)  In the 1992 case of Lee v Weisman, the Court held "the principle that government may accomodate the free exercise of religion does not supercede the fundamental limitation imposed by the Establishment Clause.  It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.  (Majority Opinion, Justice Kennedy)

Now, aware of all this legal precedent, public schools are very careful not to end up in legal jeapordy in reference to religion right?  No school district in its right mind would risk such jeapordy; assuming that there is in fact at least one public school district in our Nation in its right mind.  They are aware that matters of faith, you know any commonly held belief like, oh jee, I don't know, a belief in God or man made global warming that can't be readily tested and proven falls under the auspices of being a religion.  Both are widely believed, but both are also matters of faith.  Schools know the legal tightrope they walk in regard to religion, and would never violate the Establishment Clause by coercing anyone to support or participate in religious exercise, right?

The answer is NO!  HELL NO!  Why do they feel it is acceptable, nay mandatory in some districts to show Al Gore's work of fiction 'An Inconvenient Truth'?  Why is this youth indoctrinating swill of garbage based on a total FAITH in faulty computer models of pre-determined future weather phenomenon allowed to be seen in public schools?  Ask any weatherman what the specific weather will be 9 days from now and that he'll get a thousand bucks if he's right but have to pay 500 if he's wrong, and he will never take the bait; unless he's a retarded fool.  Global warming HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE CAUSED BY HUMANS!!!  How can other planets in our solar system currently be experiencing global warming?  Are there suvs on Mars?  Or is it duhhhh, the sun?

As a part of the Environmentalist Religion, Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' violates the Supremen Court's legal precedent regarding prayer, or state promotion of religion and must be challenged.  Beyond Gore, the whole coerced and mandatory study of human caused global warming in school must be abolished to be in compliance with established Court precedent.  I hope beyond hope that some angry parent out there sees this dissertation and uses it to ban Gore and mandatory humans are bad global warming curriculum from the schools.  According to the Supreme Court, such activity violates the so-called separation of church and state, and could thus be successfully challenged in a court of law all the way up to the Marbury v Madison boys and girl.  That, or they could allow prayer in schools again as it is a violation of the 14th Amendment to favor one religion over another.  SOMEBODY CHALLENGE IT!

With regard to the Democrat congressional decision to drop The War On Terror as an official name, and simultaneously recognizing that yes we are indeed engaged in a global war on terrorism, I have come up with a fitting jingle to expose their idiocy.  It is set to the tune of America's "Horse With No Name."  Enjoy!

On the first day of our journey,
we lamented at all the life.
There were Muslim wackos crashing planes,
to fulfill fatwas insane.
The first thing we did was to cry out and pray,
asking why, gathered round.
The Muslim crowds cheered and we asked why,
the War On Terror was found.

But now we're going to the desert to a war with no name.
It feels so weird and hard to explain.
In the Congress, they struck down the old name,
'cause War On Terror made Bush harder to blame.

La, La, La, Lala, La, La
La, La, La, La

In a few weeks, it will settle down,
and people will start to forget,
why terror's war name was struck down by clowns,
to assuage anti-warriors great fret.
Then they'll tarry and toil to blame the war on big oil,
and our freedom they'll try to sublet.

You see we're going to the desert to a war with no name.
It feels so weird and hard to explain.
In the Congress, they struck down the old name,
'cause War On Terror made Bush harder to blame.

La, La, La, Lala, La, La
La, La, La, La

After the name's slain, they want to cut, run and flee,
have our troops out by land, air and sea.
There'll be a slaughter then like none seen so far,
and al Qaeda will be an oil Czar.
There's an ocean of oil under Iraqi soil,
that al Qaeda will gain as war prize,
and the liberals then they'll regret their great toil,
and all humans will see evil skies.

Now we're going to the desert to a war with no name.
It feels so weird and hard to explain.
In the Congress, they struck down the old name,
'cause War On Terror made Bush harder to blame.

La, La, La, Lala, La, La
La, La, La, La