Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

From the Christian Science Monitor earlier this year

Posted By: WAKE UP, AMERICA! on 2005-10-06
In Reply to:












from the March 16, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html


For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.


By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.


For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at reclaiming America for Christ. The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.


We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them, Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.


Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. Some speak of restoring a Christian nation. Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.


In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.


This is the 10th conference to spread this cultural mandate among Christians, and although the church's pastor couldn't speak due to illness, others presented the message intended to rouse the conservative faithful, eager to capitalize on gains won during the November election.


This melding of religion and politics, Christianity and patriotism, makes many uneasy, particularly those on the other side of the so-called culture war, who see a threat to the healthy discourse of a pluralistic society.


This is an effort to impose a particular far-right religious view, and political and social policies that result from that, on others, says Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a group that advocates for a diverse society. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to adopt their views, but [Dr. Kennedy's] effort is also to use the levers of government to force changes.


An energetic pastor who built Coral Ridge into a 10,000-member megachurch with far-reaching radio and TV audiences, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy regularly calls the US a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders.


Some critics suggest these views reflect far-right Presbyterian thinking, some of which extends to the realm of theocracy, the belief that God - or His representatives - should govern the state.


Frederick Carlson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, he is certainly a dominionist, one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.


Kennedy is not in the theocratic camp, says John Aman, Coral Ridge spokesman. He does believe that Christians should not sequester themselves inside their stained-glass ghettoes, but seek to be 'salt and light' - apply biblical moral truth and the Gospel - to every area of society.


It's apparent that those who've traveled here from 40 states are eager to do just that. Many of them say they are most motivated by signs of moral decline in America, concern for their children's future, and what they see as an effort to keep God and religious speech out of public life.


The country is getting further away from Christian values, and we're being stifled, says Debbie Mochle-Young, of Santa Monica, Calif. Other nationalities are coming to live here and say, 'We want our beliefs,' but they don't let you have yours. Nathan Lepper, an Air Force retiree active in politics in Florida, says he has a personal passion to help America turn back to its moral and ethical bases.


Some are already involved in their communities - in antiabortion actions, in trying to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo, or in efforts to oppose same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.


Gabriel Carpenter, from Dryden, N.Y., works at a local crisis pregnancy center and is a coordinator for the now-required sexual abstinence program in New York public schools. He and his wife, Penelope, say they hope to learn more about how to share America's Christian heritage with others.


Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing patriotic concert. Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)


David Barton, a leading advocate for emphasizing Christianity in US history, deftly selects quotes from letters and historical documents to link major historical figures such as George Washington to a Christian vision, and to suggest that the courts and scholars in the last century have deliberately undermined the original intent of the Founding Fathers.


Critics, including historians and the Baptist Joint Committee, challenge the accuracy of some of Mr. Barton's work, including what he calls the myth of separation of church and state.


In Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America, religious historian Randall Balmer of Columbia University writes that a contrived mythology about America's Christian origins has been a factor in the reentry of evangelicals into political life, helping sustain the conservative swing in American politics. Barton and others say they are recapturing truths hidden behind a secularist version of history, while critics say they are producing revisionist history that cherry-picks facts and ignores historical evidence.


But Barton is clearly a favorite speaker, with a theme buttressing the identity and purpose of those eager to reform the country. And there's plenty for them to do. Coral Ridge's Center for Reclaiming America is building a grass-roots alliance around five issues: the sanctity of life, religious liberty, pornography, the homosexual agenda, and creation vs. evolution.


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


Taking back is a major theme - taking back the schools, the media, the courts.


It's time to take back the portals of power, and particularly those of commerce, because commerce controls all the gates - to government, the courts, and so on, says businessman Michael Pink in a workshop. Recounting his own business success based on in-depth Bible study, Mr. Pink says he's now urging wealthy Christian businessmen to start using their earnings to purchase such prizes as ABC and NBC.


Interspersed between worshipful singing, prominent activist leaders tout recent successes. Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has led the charge in the states against same-sex marriage, talks of victories in Ohio and California and the phalanx of 800 lawyers now trained for the fight across the US. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association highlights growing impact on the entertainment industry, from spurring FCC regulatory actions against broadcast indecency to causing major companies to pull their ads from TV programs.


Yet it's the most combative language that brings the crowd to its feet in applause: Judicial activists are running rampant and a God-free country is their goal.... All means to turn the tide must be considered, including their removal, urges the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which mobilizes patriot pastors across the US.


SBC's Dr. Land, credited with helping to turn out evangelical voters in the 2004 election, says Kennedy's conferences have an impact: No one has been more important in helping Christians of every denominational persuasion understand first, their evangelistic responsibility ... and then their responsibility to be salt and light in the world.


Others suggest that among evangelicals as a whole - whose numbers are estimated to represent at least 25 percent of the US population - the appeal and influence of such religio-political activism are limited.


This is more right wing and religiously politicized than the majority of evangelicals, says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most would not make the kind of 'take back America' statements in such an overt way.


In an in-depth national study published in 2000 under the title, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Dr. Smith explored the views of a remarkably diverse group, with many holding conflicted views on political involvement and the issues and methods of activists.


Still, the 2004 election confirmed a growing mobilization of conservative Christians. And in a recent Barna survey of American pastors about their choice for the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, Dr. Kennedy made the top 10, sharing the final spot with three others, including Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson and President Bush, each winning the vote of 4 percent of the clergy.







www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email
Copyright




 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

An earlier poster stated that about 76% of this nation is Christian
This, proportionately, means that 76% of what you see, read, watch, or are "bombarded with" is at least 76% done by Christians (feel free to make the Jew media comment, but they get their Commandments in the same place you do).

Therefore, it can be taken away that there are Christians who do not believe the same thing you do. Do you want to silence them, too?
Just participating in a Christian church does not make you a Christian (sm)
Everyone who goes to a Christian church is not automatically a Christian. Only God knows if you truly are or not. He could easily still have Muslim values and attend a Christian church. Does he? I have NO IDEA. I really don't know. What I DO KNOW is that the Christian church he attended did not teach what God wants to be taught. I know that from the Bible because we are not supposed to preach hate or damnation, yet that is what his minister preached, LOUDLY.
Science? Guess we don't need it any more....

Poll: Give Bible story of creation equal time


Laurie Goodstein,  New York Times
August 31, 2005 RELI0831











 





In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly 66 percent of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.


The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold strict creationist views, agreeing that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.


In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time; of those, 18 percent said that evolution was guided by a supreme being, and 26 percent said it occurred through natural selection.


In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.


The poll was conducted July 7 to 17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people; the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.


The poll showed 41 percent of Americans want parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who say teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who say school boards should.


Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. Those who believe in creationism said they were very certain of their views (63 percent), compared to those who believe in evolution (32 percent).


The poll also asked about religion and politics, among other things. Respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44 percent agreed), and that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent agreed).


ARROGANT? The Decider had that down to a science!
Landing on that aircraft carrier with his fake package - hahahahaha - Mission Accomplished all right! See ya in the soup kitchen!
A "theory" is not SCIENCE anymore than the

theory of evolution is science.  Science is a repeated study in the laboratory that produces the same result over and over. 


Gravity is not a theory.  You jump 100 floors, you die.  Repeated over and over with same results, inside and outside the laboratory. 


So much for your public education. 


facts, evidence, science, and reason
Hasn't worked so well lately, has it?
This is not rocket science. If Americans have access to
it creates a win/win situation for us all. If they open that plan to such a broad base, they would be able to essentially write their own ticket in terms of policy and coverage. As the plan stands now, it is perfectly acceptable, affordable and offers broad choice.

If McCain and his supporters want to wallow around in the politics of nay-saying, fear and hate, no problem. Go for it, but don't expecct Americans who are ready for change and are looking forward instead of backwards in terms of policy to buy into all hat negativity. That's the Bush world mentality and those days are numbered now down to less than 100.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out....
the crap you are posting is just that, crap.
I see you've been reading the junk science

mags, watching AL Gore movies.  You really are being disingenous here.  There are 692 scientists who have declared that global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.  Now, we are talking scientists with pedigress a mile long after their names.  You make that insidious claim that the ice caps are melting, and yes, they are, like they usually do, but you neglect to speak to the fact that as they melt, bigger ice caps form that are not melting.


If you have the intelligence to read the report on Fox News, you will see that this is a UN initiative that has been in the works for years.  It goes right along with their plan to strip property rights, huddle the masses in "villages," and only those in power will be the land owner barons. 


Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.


 


 


So even the monitor can't correct you? NM

Thank you board monitor. NM

Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!

 


It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it.  But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.


 


Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon


Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State



POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005

UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005


The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.

The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.

About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.

Religious "voodoo?" Science has documented and shown that....sm
life begins at conception, those cells are living, have their code, and I have seen my own children on ultrasound as early as 8 weeks (with high risk pregnancies) fully formed, moving all extremities, trying to suck their thumbs, kicking, tiny heart beating away, with everything that you or I have, only inside the womb. Now if you wish to believe that a woman can do with THAT as she wants, so be it, I still have to stand with the pro-choice crowd not because I believe in abortion or that it is okay and not murdering a human being, but because I can see the instances where a woman would be justified in her actions, and let her make her own peach and atonement with God, as we all will. Science more and more is proving out what has been in the Bible all along. I do not think that was a fair or rational characterization of "religion," and it was hurtful and inflammatory. Choose to be atheist or agnostic, Christianity is not "voodoo."
Check out monitor board

Check out the monitor board.  Anon and gt have posted a request to keep the cons off the liberal board and to stop *bad mouthing* liberal posters on the conservative board and the cons have actually followed both gt and anon to the monitor board and posted replies there!!!!!  This borders on obsessive compulsive.  **Anything liberal we shall attack**


And the monitor obviously has one-sided rules.

All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally.  You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.


It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above.  Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.


At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board.  Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.


All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude.  In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue.  All you're about is attacking.  Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.


Says a lot about fairness on this board.


And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.


Will you leave?  Sure.  *RME*  As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board.  Choose one.


 


The monitor specifically requested

you stay on your own board.  Your lack of respect isn't surprising.


The solution is simple.  Go back to your freezer.  Don't let the door hit ya.


To Monitor: A CON says your rules are *stupid*

and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina).  They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.


Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).


Please ask them to leave.


Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??

The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.


Whistleblowers on this were required to monitor
their spouses, for starters, and also conversations of Doctors without Borders and Red Cross personnel (aid workers). The conversations were recorded. Legally speaking, this falls under the category of search and seizure and requires a warrant showing just cause. If that sounds familiar, it should, since right to privacy and protections against unreasonable search and seizure are encoded in the Constitution. There are a number of privacy issues that come into play available to illustrate what a slimey, slippery slope this can be. Suffice to say that what we have here is a government agency behaving as voyeurs, abusing their power, thumbing their noses at the law and violating the constitutional rights of Americans serving our country. I am grappling for an explanation that justifies such offensive behavior. Eqally as disturbing is the notion that that some Americas with entrenched post-911 Patriot Act mentality accept this as status quo.
If you ask me, this is one post the monitor should delete!

I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.

Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.

So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.

But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."

Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"

The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."

Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.

He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.

This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics



Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves


In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.

In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."


Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.


Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.

Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"


Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.



"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.


"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.


"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.


"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.

Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”



'Bout time, too! This science shows such great promise in
N/M
Can you tell me how you feel inclined to be the board monitor? sm

In the meantime, I have wished you Merry Christmas several times.  In your politically correct universe, is that bashing?


Can your computer monitor grow fingers?

I left for a while when you CONS wouldn't respect the monitor's

request to stay on your own board.  I came back to see if anything has changed, and now I see that you're all just as sweet as can be and are actually capable of acting like human beings (NOT!).  Just to make you happy, I may decide to stay.  You've driven some people from this board, but I'm not as inclined to let you disgust me to that level.


Hugs and kisses, sweetheart.  Have a very happy day.  *VBS*


Lee Green did not monitor the elections, Jimmy Carter did.
Lee Green is the director of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting) which is a Pro-Israeli American Media Monitor. I prefer to read a book and make up my own mind and certainly am not surprised that Zionist critics would hate Carter and the truths he exposed in his book. They can protest to their heart's content, but they can't turn lies into truth.
Me three...he recites a great speech from the monitor......casual speaking is definitely

.Sure, O is Christian. His mother was Christian
his father Muslim. In Indonesia, where O spent 4 years, age 7 to 11, he attended a catholic school and received outside the school Islamic teachings.

When he was 12 his mother took him back to the US into the care of her mother and the rest is history......
Wait - he wants to monitor health care? Like he monitored Wall Street? Pass.
xx
I saw this earlier. sm
Practicing for martial law maybe? Notice the term 'homeland' - makes me think of Nazis and Communists.




Well, what he said earlier was
He wanted EVERYONE to have the same great health care plan everyone on capitol hill has.......then he did't say that anymore.....hmmmmm
Again as I posted earlier
UAW was offered pay rates as they are paid to American workers who work in the U.S. for foreign auto companies, i.e. workers in Indiana who work for Honda and Toyata. This would surely NOT be the same as our working for the same rates as Indian MTs. That would be crazy. Don't even suggest it.
I have brought it up earlier on here but
O lovers immediately jumped on the Palin bandwagon again. They are so worried about Palin being a "heartbeat away from possibly being president" but they couldn't care less than Biden may very well be just a heartbeat away....period!

They seem to think Obama will live forever, even though both his parents died young AND he was a heavy smoker, drugger, and drinker.
They seem to have no concern about that.


I saw this on TV earlier today...
... right before I threw my shoe at the TV set.
this proves my earlier

post about the popularity of Fox News and the country being a majority of dullards.  Not enough information to understand the debates on Meet The Press or other actual news programs, so watch 2 clowns argue.  When finished, turn on the wrasslin' channel.


 


I am the one who replied to you earlier.

God forbid I step away from my computer to take my son swimming and didn't answer your post before I did so. 


I am not a republican.  I used to be until the past administration and now I've pretty much said to heck with both parties.  If you wish to talk to terrorists and if that is what Obama wants to do....more power to you.  I will say a little prayer that your head stays attacked to your body when you go to talk to the very people who HATE us.  This isn't fearmongering....that is fact...plain and simple and YOU are so busy spewing democratic ideology that I'm about to vomit over here. 


And for the last friggin time.....TERRORISTS ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!!!!  Regardless of whether we captured them and held them forever, whether we tortured them, or whether we just said to he!! with it and shot them dead......they would still hate us.  Us being all sweet and nice is making them think nothing more than we are a bunch of friggin pu$$ies and why should they worry about being captured because their pal Obama will take care of them.  Give me a break.  The next time you jump down someone's throat and give them he!! because you think they are spewing republican values.......why don't you look in a mirror and see that all you do is regurgitate the BS that MSNBC and mainstream media dish out.  Oh....but don't watch Fox even though the ratings are way better than anything you watch because they obviously don't know what they are talking about even though more people seem to be relating themselves to that network than any other. 


So go on with your democratic rhetoric about how Bush is to blame and Obama will not only save our country but the world and we will all be peaceful and harmonious with one another and skip around and giggling....oh happy day....yippee.......(PUKE)


I was thinking about this very thing earlier. sm
There is a great plan and things happen for a reason.  I have faith and trust in Him, too.  We are blessed!  
I heard that earlier. I believe he is sincere...
it is a historic thing that will happen and I think acknowledging it is the right thing to do. Good for McCain.
Yes you did, in an earlier post you claimed to be one

You posted this earlier today and got
But thanks for trying.
Poll from earlier today

I am encouraged by the responses to this poll.  I think that SOME Republicans and those who support McCain/Palin are sincere in their beliefs the same as supporters of Obama/Biden are sincere in their beliefs.  Those who just said "McCain" don't appear to have any reason other than I would assume, that he is the Republican candidate.  There were also those who had reasons but then referred back to the rumors and repeated the charges of Marxist, Socialist, etc. etc.


What has heartened me is I am convinced we are all AMERICANS first and we all love our country.  I alwo believe that "we the people" will come together after this horrible election and raise our voices until ALL politicians listen to us.  That is my HOPE.


Good night all.


Yeah, and she went a step further earlier and said...(sm)

in her own words *Can you not see what is happening?  Hitler was elected into office during a democratic state.  I am not saying that O is Hitler, what I am saying is that someone with such extreme ideas has been elected to the highest power and there are many signs pointing to the fact that we are going to see some changes that even those that voted for him are not going to  like.*  That's in the *I am a democrat* post.


Just because you say you didn't call him Hitler right after you did, doesn't mean you didn't do it in the first place.


You must have missed my earlier post.
There are plenty of places to go for accurate information on this, so quite whining about media silence. You just don't know where to look. Try the world wide web for a change.

Here ya go. Just a few examples for you to mull over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAieKGwQp-s
In the flesh interview with Dr. Larry Hunter, influential conservative economist, talks about why he endorses Obama. Interview starts @ 1:25 into the clip.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-08-obama-economy_N.htm
Conservative economist Martin Feldstein agrees that "reviving the economy requires a major fiscal stimulus from tax cuts and increased government spending."

For now, most conservative Republicans who could try to block the new Democratic president's plan are willing to boost red ink. Armed with an electoral mandate and faced with a mammoth recession, Obama is being given a wide berth by the GOP. "We need to govern," says Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "These issues are so huge and are going to have such a devastating impact on our nation if they're not aggressively and boldly addressed, that we can't afford for this just to be a party-line event."

... but even conservative economists agree a huge stimulus package with a variety of spending initiatives is needed. "I have just two words: big and everything," says Martin Regalia, VP, Economic and Tax Policy and chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE49U3DC20081031
The endorsement from the Economist (a virtual bastion of conservatives) raised a few eyebrows.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113701/Majority-Americans-Favor-775-Billion-Economic-Stimulus.aspx
This kind of support is at least as significant as that of conservative economists.

Ain't cut and paste grand?
I saw the original of this earlier today. sm
I was so upset I wanted to call CNN and tell them in no uncertain terms that they needed to fire that wench and get somebody who would let the people talk without being interrupted. Personally, if it had been me she was haranging, I would be in jail because I probably would have swung at her.

That woman is worse than Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and others of her ilk. SHe gives the honest, hardworking reporters a bad name.

No wonder the alphabet soup and MSM groups have lost any and all credibility.


Earlier poster was right....America did NOT win!
nm
I was making reference to an earlier conversation...sm
Look it up.
So didn't somebody on this board state earlier that
*
One of the earlier "kill him" incidents happened
nm
Thank you, I alluded to the same thing in an earlier post...

why should those of us who have built something from our hard work and determination pay for those who have no ambition or drive and only feel a sense of entitlement, jealousy and anger towards those who are doing the right thing? Most people would be in much better financial shape and would be able to get through tough economic times if they just prepared before hand. Remember saving for a rainy day? Well it's pouring right now and I dare say a lot of people have not had to change their lifestyle because they were prepared. There is no incentive in socialism to work hard or save money. Laziness will be rewarded from the sweat of my back. You don't deserve my piece of the pie that I paid for!


 


I guess I missed your earlier post....sm
because I'm not the 1 poster who did respond, lol. I am an Independent who happens to be voting Rebulican this election year (but I guess that is no secret, lol).

I agree....If a person, no matter who it is, is found to be constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of POUS then he/she should be impeached on grounds of treason and jailed immediately.
Or at leat degrading ones like tried to be posted earlier
NM
I think it wasn't discovered earlier for several reasons. sm
Iwas a healthy 20-something, no risk factors nor known; no particular reason to do US. Back in the day, US wasn't done routinely like now.

If any good could have come from it, I would have let it go to full-term, but you are not allowed to donate organs from an anencephalic child after birth. Maybe that has changed.

As for Patty - wow, if you are an example of pro-life / christian values, I don't want in to *your* heaven. Why do you get to judge me? Isnt' that between me and God?