CLIMATEGATE IS A DOUBLE-EDGED CAUSE, SO BEWARE

Update: Monday, December 07, 2009: 9:42:58 PM PST

The following video explains the context for the statements in the stolen so-called "Climategate" emails. When placed in context, those email statements don't mean anything remotely that the hysterical, greedy, self-centered, laissez-faire capitalists have been claiming they do.

I said those laissez-faire capitalists would end up being embarrassed. Will they have the sense of shame to admit they were wrong and misjudged the scientist's motives?


I want to go on record here sooner than later about this thing called Climategate. I am on record many times saying that it is not a question of whether or not 9/11 was an inside job but rather only a matter of how deep and wide. This thing called Climategate at best must be approached from the opposite direction. There are those who milk the Environmental Movement, but that movement is not the tool of the elitist bankers as much as those bankers would like it to be.

Watch this video: "Global Warming or Global Governance" 1:20:23

Then read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

Watch these clips:
Part 1 of 4

Part 2 of 4

Part 3 of 4

Part 4 of 4

Then read the rest of this post.

I'm going to make a point here that is extremely telling and important. There is a term that the anti-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming (AGW) Movement has coined. It's "Climategate," after the term "Watergate" that refers to the building complex and the Richard Nixon administration "scandal involving abuse of power by public officials, violation of the public trust, bribery, contempt of Congress, and attempted obstruction of justice." Those who are putting forth Climategate are accusing the leaders of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Movement, including its main scientists, of a huge conspiracy to disenfranchise all civil libertarians in the world and especially the United States.

The main and most vocal (loudest) proponents of this Climategate concept call themselves "patriots" and "Constitutionalists" and want to retain what they believe was "The Republic" of the United States. Most are what is referred to as libertarian capitalists. They want sovereignty at the most decentralized level (themselves as individuals) while not all being willing to obey the divine law that is ultimately unselfishness. They are a mixed group consisting of many apostates - those who are separated from God who is righteousness. In fact, all libertarian capitalists are such apostates by Christian definition. Coercive socialists are also apostates. This is made clear and plain further on in this post.

In a nutshell, this movement has its roots in anti-environmentalism. The same spirit fought against the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the Super Fund to clean up extremely toxic sites. They fought against environmental regulation and the tracking of toxic chemicals and waste. They rather wanted the peoples' government to be hands off about very nearly everything the polluters did and do. They want laissez-faire environmentalism. They wanted to be left alone further to ruin the environment.

Make no mistake about it. They were and still are ruining the environment that all the peoples of the world have no choice but to share. The air (atmosphere) is not contained above each person's property such that whatever he or she puts up there remains only above him or her. Even if it did, that would still impact his neighbors' "rights."

This movement usually points to the Club of Rome that identified the environment as a centrally shared issue (a natural commons, which it is and should be treated as such) as the issue around which the world could be brought together in a more unified spirit to reduce environmental damage and head off future damage. Now, it just so happens that there exist unethical types, greedy, selfish types, who look at the good intentions of various environmentalists as an opportunity to make personal, private, special profits in mammon otherwise known as filthy lucre, which it always has been and always will be in spite of the obfuscations of capitalists.

The fact that there are unscrupulous people who would twist environmentalism to their selfish advantage does not prove in the least that environmentalism, per se, is wrong. Environmentalism is actually a sacred obligation. It's called Creation Care by many of the more forward-thinking Christians for instance. It is no less than applying the Golden Rule, as what first party ought to want his neighbor to dump toxic substances on and in that first party's living quarters? Therefore, why be a hypocrite and pollute especially where it is so easy to cooperate with others in devising clean alternatives?

Yes, there are people high up in the mammon pyramid who conspire to keep and to increase their own so-called wealth, power, and control over all the rest. However, that does not mean that just because they do that and often using all means to dupe others, including the environmental movement, that the environmental movement is therefore inherently wrong, far from it.

So, this Climategate is currently revved up around many hundreds of emails that were illegally obtained from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, which emails were between and among various scientists wherein those scientists discussed what appears when taken out of the fullest context to be unethical tactics to avoid giving their opposition ammunition in the battle against the recognition of AGW.

Now here's the point I want to emphasize here. The anti-AGW Movement contends that those scientists have been in on a fraud going back to at least the Club of Rome. However, those scientists' emails clearly show that they did not understand why the climate was not behaving closer to what those scientists' computer simulations expected. Now, pause on that and consider the implications in terms of whether or not those scientists had been in on a long-standing fraud. If they had known of a fraud, they would not have been surprised at the new data. They would not have expected their CO2 modeling to have been far off enough to feed into the doubt-movement of primarily the laissez-faire movement. (On doubt-spinning, see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-discovery-of-global-warming-update/#comment-15618)

That point alone shoots the conspiracy down at least where those scientists are concerned. Those scientists being heavily involved in the conspiracy going way back is central to the case made by the laissez-faire movement.

Understand that the laissez-faire movement is self-centered. Their entire ideology is built upon selfishness that is anti-Christ. They love to use the term Malthusian as a pejorative, as if there are no limits, no negative consequences to selfishness. It happens that the Club of Rome issued, "The Limits to Growth." That report is pointed to as the work of eugenicists. Now there are eugenicists and then there are eugenicists. Improving the breed, so to speak is not inherently evil. Killing off so-called undesirables is the Satanic version of eugenics. There truly are people of that ilk. I am not one of them; and just because someone believes that selfishness is evil, does not mean that one is a eugenicist of the evil variety, far from it.

Denying oneself is Christian. Curbing one's appetite is good and proper. Excess is death. Limiting one's offspring is not anti-God in spite of the words of the Old Testament that don't jibe with the New Testament. Is it right to speak out against the violent and coercive eugenicists? Yes, it is right. However, while doing so, it is wrong to not speak out for environmentalism. That's the main point here for those who are currently of the mundane Climategate Movement.

What is a cancer though but a selfish bunch of cells? Thomas Robert Malthus didn't understand the countervailing devices of the Satanic. That though does not render the ultimate truth that selfishness is evil whereas unselfishness is righteousness. We are speaking of ultimate conclusions here, not what one might seemingly get away with in his or her generation on this level of consciousness. Yes, in theory, human devising that is technology can seemingly endlessly countervail all "natural" attacks upon human selfishness. However, that's what the cancer cells think before humans eradicate them. This then becomes Satan casting out Satan, for there would be no such cancer in the first place were humanity to come clean. Humanity would not run the risk of being eradicated by the universe either. Yes, on that level, humanity is on the level of a cancer, an infestation, selfishness runs rampant. Some in the Climategate Movement can't fathom how any human could view apostate humanity as such. They refuse to see the evil of their own ways.

Do I call for the wrathful, suicidal eradication of vast parts of humanity or the whole of it? I do not. Doing so is anti-Christ. Are there those who do who make themselves my spiritual enemies in their own minds? Yes, there are such souls. However, they are no less the "enemy" planting the tares of falsehood than are the Climategate adherents who don't bother with sorting the truth of Creation Care, good and proper stewardship of the gift of this planet that is from God, from the banksters' fraud. "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way." (Matthew 13:24-25) Know who that enemy is and what he is sowing in your ranks. Speak clearly against the choking weeds that souls may be warned and not partake. The anti-Christs are leading many astray, conflating things that do not belong together. The Climategate Movement hardly speaks of the good Environmental Movement. They give it the tiniest nod as if to placate me. I am far from satisfied with this weakness. They need to speak just as loudly for good and divine environmentalism as they do against the bankster fraudsters. If doing so separates their ranks, then good. It is separating the goats from the sheep. So be it. Stop standing with evil against evil. Stand with pure righteousness against evil, as Jesus did and does. If you lose mammon on account of it, then good. Just speak the truth. Your brothers and sisters will do what they will toward you. Pray for them. Bless them regardless. Beware those New Agers who seek to destroy all limits on licentiousness. They call themselves libertarians of a type but are libertines in the worst sense, opening the gate of Hell on Earth.

I'm not the only one who knows that the scientists' emails clearly show that they did not understand why the climate was not behaving closer to what those scientists' computer simulations expected. After writing what I just did above, I read this from Computerworld magazine http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141258/Global_warming_research_exposed_after_hack?taxonomyId=82 (quoting the RealClimate website on the issue http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/):

There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.

That's exactly my take on it.

Now on to some more aspects of what the laissez-faire types are alleging. It is often pointed out that during times of high CO2, vegetation is denser. That's sounds good in terms of growing more food. However, there are many variables involved, and no one save God knows exactly how easy a transition might be and what hidden disasters might and really do await. It's my understanding that increased CO2 is taken up by current types of vegetation at first, but then absorption levels off and even goes back down again leaving much carbon in the atmosphere. Perhaps that was a one-off study that has properly been refuted though. If not though, then it's all the more reason for caution with the commons.

Isn't it interesting that the laissez-faire capitalists point to what they call the "Tragedy of the Commons" as the reason why the giving and sharing political-economic model can't work when it is they, laissez-faire capitalists, who spoil that very commons. They are saying that the commons doesn't work due to souls of their own spirit. How ironic that is. They are saying that if it weren't for their own selfish spirits, the commons would work. How true that is. How shameful for them it is too. The article that made the phrase famous ("Tragedy of the Commons") makes the huge mistake of describing the irrational as rational. There is nothing rational in spoiling the commons. Also, the Commons were fine until the greedy overlords showed up to ruin it for selfish, evil, private gain.

Read the history of William the Conqueror to see this. He introduced feudalism and serfdom to the free English. He subjected them to tyranny. That's the spirit of the capitalists: feudal lords lording it over their employee serfs. It's not Godly.

Don't make the mistake of drawing parallels with certain of Jesus's parables in an attempt to justify capitalism. That's not the meaning of the parables. It's a misreading. There is more than one son of man and king and prince in his parables. Don't read them out of the fullest context of Jesus's whole Gospel message. His message is not one of selfishness but rather coming to know the real self who is God with whom we may join in spirit but never usurp.

Also, there are many other factors involved in CO2 increase besides just oil and coal burning. We must consider deforestation by over cutting and by burning to clear ground for cattle grazing for instance, which cattle actually increase methane in the atmosphere which methane, I'm told, has a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2. Cattle also provide much less food per acre than do crops for direct human consumption. They also cause more water problems and require more polluting mechanisms for refrigeration, etc.

Furthermore, what happens to the insect populations when warming occurs? Are we prepared for all the infestations that might occur? Are we ready for swarms that may eat our open-air crops? Will we grow everything indoors and be in a never-ending technological battle with all other life forms or could we be better off forgoing the hyper-selfish spirit to begin with? Will selfishness further destabilize the climate? Will heat and cold race about? I say they will if selfishness and competition continue as the prime spirits.

Most importantly though is the overall impact of the whole CO2-burning cycle and industries. If we reduce vigilance, won't CO2 burning, etc., dramatically increase? Wouldn't China and India and others be encouraged to increase coal burning? Wouldn't the U.S. and Canada do more with tar sands and oil shale? Won't alternative and definitely cleaner fuels and sources not be brought to the fore but rather the dirtier fuels be promoted? Why does anyone want that except for selfishness? Wouldn't it be better and best if cooperation were used such that everyone could have abundant, free, clean energy? The technology exists right now for that. The only think blocking it is evil that is sick selfishness.

Look at all the pollution associated with those dirty industries. Look at the huge damage done to Ecuador. Look at what has happened to Nigeria. Look at the Exxon Valdez and all the other spills.

Look at the damage done by acid rain from sulfur and nitrogen from electrical power plants fired by coal. The coal companies and coal-fired utilities would love for environmentalism to die so they could make as much money as they want and then die leaving the pollution behind. Little do they know.

The list of environmental damage done by unmitigated selfishness and greed, both capitalist and socialist, is legion. Even before the Industrial Revolution, there were pollution problems that the people had to deal with by collective and cooperative decisions to stop polluting. Things became much worse though with the Industrial Revolution even though other things improved. It's been a mixed bag ever since. For my part, I insist that everything done to improve life could have been done in spades without the selfishness and greed.

Look at the problems with plastics made from oil. There's a huge floating island of plastic garbage in the middle of the Pacific Ocean now. Who's going to clean that up before the plastics break down and cause even more problems? Look at all the other toxic chemicals made by the petrochemical industry.

Yes, certain aspects of human life improve when taken in isolation, but we can improve without also causing so much harm. We simply need to overcome the self-centered spirit that is at the heart of laissez-faire without a conscience. Laissez-faire when one is compelled to care about others first is wonderful, but that's not what the laissez-faire capitalists promote in the end. They promote dog-eat-dog in the end. It's anti-Christ, and those of the anti-AGW Movement need to see it for what it is: inherent evil.

Furthermore, the idea that CO2 is not the most powerful greenhouse gas has long been known. We haven't been talking about it as if it's more impactful than water vapor or methane, etc. We are talking about human activity tipping a balance too quickly and radically such that humanity is incapable of coping without huge losses on many fronts that would otherwise be averted. Sure, study and think and plan and develop; but do so in a thoughtful way and not with a reckless abandon to be the first to patent and market while hiding the downsides, which many major corporations have done repeatedly.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the supercomputer models don't have it right. I've written for years that the computer modeling would be embarrassed. The greedy, selfish-based spirit doesn't have it right. It's inherent.

Al Gore is promoting taxes as a means. His main adversaries offer no solution for global pollution (aside from excess CO2) but rather seek to undermine the environmental movement and Creation Care regardless. They only want to focus on stopping their vision of what they believe is at the heart of the NWO. However, everyone doesn't have the same idea of what should be or will be the New World Order. There will be a New World Order. The question is what kind. Will the first one be bad and need to be scrapped? Yes, humanity won't get it right the first time. Eventually though, according to my understanding, humanity will get it right. It will be the New Earth with the New Heaven conflated. In that order, the Commons will be everything. The laissez-faire capitalist spirit will be no longer, and thank God for that!

As for Al Gore's tax as a disincentive and to generate revenue for research and development of clean alternatives, I'm anti-tax; but then again, I have a completely different political-economic system in mind from selfish, greedy capitalism or coercive socialism. I see the current situation as two evil systems fighting it out rather than people turning to the right system that isn't even offered up as an alternative by the mainstream right or left.

Do punitive taxes work? In the mundane, coercion seemingly works; but its shortsighted - not the ultimate solution. Why bother with less than the full solution? Overcome the selfish spirit. That's the solution. That's the real Christian message. Everything Jesus said and did points to it.

The Cap and Trade plans stinks, and many environmentalists were against it from the start. It's not something that was devised by hardcore environmentalists but rather capitalists. Yes, I differentiate the two as being ultimately mutually exclusive. Cap and Trade is just another stupid layer of transactions upon which traders and speculators, etc., may make selfish profits from wasted fees and other things. It's a finance-capitalism bubble waiting to cause more problems.

The "Global Warming or Global Governance" video shows that some models say the "hockey stick" chart is wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy).

The video also states that some say that warming comes before CO2 increases. Well, I haven't delved into it, but I would want to know whether or not it is proper to rule out reasons why heating might trail off before increases in CO2 would start to fall. I'd have to watch the video again too to look closer at what part of the graph it focused on. If memory serves, the focus is on the upper part and not which came first at the bottom: heating or CO2 starting to increase.

The video further states that some say that the upper atmosphere should be warmer if CO2 is the culprit.

Finally, the video shows that some claim that human-caused CO2 is only some 1% of greenhouse gases. Where "human-caused" starts and stops is an arbitrary decision on their part. What's their full definition? If they are true to form, they are ignoring things that are under human control that humans are doing that is increasing CO2. They have a penchant for ignoring the down-sides of selfishness that is capitalism.

It's early in the game. If we just say forget about it and burn all the carbon we want, what will happen though. That's the issue. Do we curb and turn the trend or not?

It's now my understanding that people were sitting on (and were discussing hiding and/or destroying) the data upon which they've come up with their charts and graphs used in policy development and application, such as tax law. That was bad on their part. Data used to undergird taxes ought always to be completely public. In that, I agree with the naysayers completely. Al Gore and the others should always demand that all data used in formulating public policy be completely transparent. Perhaps he has.

Regardless, raping the planet is not a good idea, but that's what has been happening. The finance and industrial capitalists and socialist have been responsible for it.

It isn't that the Earth can't handle more CO2 by a factor of ten or more. It's whether humanity can handle the sudden changes and should have to. What with the way people are so callous toward each other now, why would anyone think that the rich would come to the aid of the poor and displaced, etc.

Al Gore thinks tax monies could be earmarked for research and development of clean, alternative energy industries. They could be, but would they be? Are taxes the best approach? No, there are better ways to do things; but then again, I'm against the whole filthy lucre, mammon, usurious (interest on debt), banker system.

There was a volcano that slowed warming. The depression has slowed the increase. The ocean La Nina had an impact. Chemtrails could have changed things too. Take away a future timely volcano, speed up the economy in a boom cycle, bring in El Nino, and things would look different. Of course sun activity has a major impact too. The variables are beyond human tallying yet.

Let me wrap up for the time being here by adding that I am also not putting forth that everyone who is lined up with the laissez-faire capitalists is directly in the pocket of the monopolists. I am saying though that those of the monopolist spirit do provide the seed money to get movements rolling.

I found the following Wikipedia articles interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Causes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe That's Jim Inhofe, the U.S. Senator from the still Big Oil state of Oklahoma. The article says: "The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars." Inhofe is the main Senate global warming denier. Is there any wonder why? This man is pro-torture too, and yes, that speaks to his level of integrity concerning everything. He was offended that people were offended by what went on at Abu Ghraib on the part of the U.S. Military, U.S. so-called intelligence, and U.S. so-called intelligence contractors and others, including psychologists. Of course, the depth of depravity and width of official and high-up involvement and sanctioning has nearly all gone whitewashed while Barack Obama has done nothing about it but turn his back. Inhofe is far from the only problem child in high places.

What's more, Inhofe claims to be a Christian. Let me tell you. He's no Christian. No Christian wasn't outraged by Abu Ghraib. No Christian excuses torture. Jesus Christ was tortured to death on the cross, Jim. Wake the Hell up! That's right. He's asleep in Hell. He couldn't care less about the environment since that's not the cause or movement that's buttering his fleeting bread. It doesn't pay him. Big Oil pays him directly in many ways and indirectly through contributions, etc. The only god Inhofe is hearing is Satan. He's mixed up. He is a man seeking and employing partial-truths only. May God bless him with the whole truth that he will repent and atone before it is too late for him to escape much greater negative consequences than he's already faced.

Inhofe is also what is called a Christian-Zionist, which is an oxymoron. He believes that those secularists and atheists calling themselves Zionists, though they aren't, have a God-given right violently to take ("ethnically and religiously cleans") the land that was known as Canaan and then Palestine.

In addition to those things, even though Inhofe claims Christianity, he's for using the power of the violent, secular state to coerce homosexuals and other misguided people. Jesus Christ doesn't condone or promote sin, but sin includes violence. This is where tolerance lies. Jesus doesn't use sin to fight sin. Satan casting out demons causes his own house to fall. "And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" (Matthew 12:26) Jesus isn't Satan. Jesus knows better than to slip into Satanism. Jesus is only about righteousness. His vision is fixed on that. "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matthew 6:22) He doesn't deny Satan's existence. He warns others though that Satan is the spirit of everything including violence that is not pure, not without sin. This all introduces paradoxes that those of the truth face head on. Jesus did and still does. Jesus had a difficult time with people while he imparted the difference between the spirit of God and the spirit of Satan.

In Christianity, it is the most difficult thing there is. People refuse to comprehend. They are stubborn. We are resigned to it. So be it. "But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (Matthew 15:13-14)

Why is this difficult to comprehend? I have no difficulty in it at all.

"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias [Elijah] did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man [that one named Jesus] is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save." (Luke 9:54-56) Many never got it. Many still don't. They give up trying. Inhofe doesn't get it. The Pentagon doesn't get it. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney don't get it. They are all lost and refuse to be found. They turn their backs and run away from the truth. The Muslims turn their backs and run away too. Many Hindus and Buddhists also do it. Those who don't turn and run convert and leave idol worship and Godlessness behind. Many Buddhists remain in limbo where they believe in God and Jesus but can't let go of the Buddha's ultimate anti-Christ humanism. Why that is, is ego that they so claim to despise. They can't just let truth be truth regardless of bloodlines. The truth is for all bloodlines if they will but receive it.

Jesus cleans the temple in a way that most assume was violent and coercive. The temple is a place of voluntary presence. He didn't drag anyone in. If you are to abide there, then you are to keep the rules of the place. The moneychangers were not keeping the rules. They were in violation and were not allowed to remain. That's the nature of Heaven. What we allow here is how our Heaven is and vice versa. This is "as above, so below," but it is also "as below, so above." "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19) The Satanists use it too not for Godly righteousness' sake but for ignorant, short-sighted, self licensing to iniquity: libertinism, lawlessness where righteousness is the one and only real law. Everything else leads to death of the soul that is pain and suffering.

Jesus came to show the way out. It takes patience and perseverance. Many are called. Few last. "For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14) "Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended." (Matthew 13:21)

I realize that people have difficulty with the divine logic of Jesus. That's not my fault. It's not Jesus's fault. It's Satan's. The anti-theistic and the anti-metaphysical more so have a particularly difficult time of it. They are not communicated with (don't perceive) by the immaterial become physically perceptible. They do not interpret as Jesus interpreted. They have little to nothing to interpret in their own estimation or ignorant so-called certainty. Therefore, they deny the existence of spirit. There is no showing the blind in this sense. No sufficient "evidence" will satisfy. They demand more than they merit, but they mark that up as a convenient trick on the Christian's part. It is not convenient. I assure you. It is something that a Christian accepts and is resigned to since there will be separation of necessity of the proverbial goats from the sheep and also conflation of the real host of Heaven (those sheep of God) around pure righteousness. Hallelujah.

Some other links:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=en&hs=yow&newwindow=1&q=related:www.realclimate.org

Now, the capitalists insist that it is capitalism that has brought so much prosperity and eliminated so many evils; however, that's looking only at the seeming positive side while also ignoring that an unimpeded alternative would have resulted in vastly better by now.

My 4 comments on YouTube on the video, "Global Warming or Global Governance," were not allowed there:

1)

What's with the Ratings being disabled? [They were subsequently enabled.]

Freedom of speech doesn't give anyone the right repeatedly to yell in a Borders bookstore (private property but open to the civil public). There's a time and place, but who among you even attempted to contact Al Gore through channels? Now you are marked. You've mark yourselves as being too disruptive for normal discourse.

2)

I'm for 9/11 Truth, but this "Climategate" argument is just conflating things where there's no where near the justification, if any.

There really is air pollution. Tobacco really does cause lung cancer (Cato Institute/Koch Industries liars). Either greenhouse gases exist or they don't. Either CO2 is a greenhouse gas or it isn't. [I dealt above with the low percentage attributed by the "deniers" to human activity.]

Just because there are sunspots doesn't mean there is no greenhouse-gas problem. [from human activity and especially unmitigated carbon-fuel burning]

3)

Al Gore's statements include that there are oscillations in the short-term cycle of heating and cooling. You act as if he's never said it. I'm not an Al Gore fan, but you can't win an argument simply by being the loudest yeller.

I hate Cap and Trade. I hated it the first time it was mentioned. I'm against the banking plutocracy, but environmentalism with you people is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

4)

You are way premature and wrong. You're mesmerized and taking knee-jerk-reaction marching orders from Alex Jones, whom I don't hate but who doesn't always think enough before rallying the troops. You'll be embarrassed.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.