We the People

New Updates

2010-04-04T11:18:00.001-07:00

I have been away for a bit, but will return to posting commentary very soon. Please subscribe to this page and refer others to it, as some new and exciting things will be posted here very soon!

Thanks.

Politicizing Tragedy: Calls to Erode the 2nd Amendment

2009-11-11T08:33:00.001-07:00

Chicago Mayor Daley Blames Fort Hood On America’s Love Of Guns!

by Andrew Marcus

On Monday, Chicago Mayor Daley blamed the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre on America’s love of guns!

“Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group.”

The Mayor is using a straw-man argument that conveniently provides him with an opportunity to politicize the terrorist attack as part and parcel with America’s love of guns.

Mayor Daley, and other politicians, like to blame gun violence on the guns themselves because that is so much easier than admitting any inconvenient (politically incorrect) truths which might be revealed if they were to place blame where it belongs.

Kids murdering each other in the inner city? That’s because of guns, not the War On Drugs which turns poor children into black market drug distributing gang members.

Islamists murdering people while shouting Allah Akbar? That’s because of guns, not the Jihad being perpetrated globally against all so called “infidels”.

They blame guns because guns don’t vote.

Taking Mayor Daley at face value for a moment, is he seriously arguing for increased gun control on a military base? If there had been more guns around, this ticking Jihad bomb could have been put down a lot faster than he was.

Click image to view video

With no pogrom backlash after 9/11, no pogrom backlash after Bali, no pogrom backlash after Madrid, no pogrom backlash after London, no pogrom backlash after Mumbai, no backlash after countless other Jihad attacks, why would there be any reason to believe the reaction would be any different in this case? As we have written before, the West has already passed this particular civility test.

Climate Change Extortion

2009-11-04T07:46:00.000-07:00

This will be short and sweet.

"Money paid by rich countries to fight global warming will have to "be scaled up" from the $100bn a year on offer, the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said today.

Finance is the key, said Ban, to successful negotations on a global treaty to fight climate change, due to conclude at UN talks next month in Copenhagen." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/ban-ki-moon-climate-funding)

The bottom line is that there is no scientific evidence that global warming is man made. In fact, so much is the evidence against this concept that proponents have now had to switch the name to "Climate Change", because the general population now knows that man-made global warming doesn't exist.

Wikipedia is always a fun place to start with any issue, so let's take a look there and see if there are any mainstream scientists who agree that global warming is a myth. The rest of this post site Wiki.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased

Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellitesTimothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[4] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[7]

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[8]

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[9]

[edit] Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[10]

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[11] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"[12]

[edit] Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus viewIndividuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[13][14][15]

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[17]

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[18]

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[19]

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[20]

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[22] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[24]

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[25]

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[26]

William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[27]

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[28]

Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]

Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[32]

Harrison Schmitt, former Astronaut, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, Adjunct Professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison:"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect".[33]

Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error...human influence on the 'Greenhouse Effect' is minimal (maximum 4%). Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 4% of the ~2% of the "Greenhouse Effect", hence an influence of less than 1 permil of the Earth's total natural 'Greenhouse Effect' (some 0.03°C of the total ~33°C)."[34]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[35]

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[36][37] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[38]

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[39]

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[40]

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[41]

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[42]

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[43]

[edit] Believe cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[44]

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[45]

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[46]

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[47]

Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[48]

William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[49]

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[50]

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[51]

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[52] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[53]

[edit] Believe global warming will not be significantly negative

Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[54]

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[55]

Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."[56]

[edit] See also

Global warming

Global warming conspiracy theory

Global warming controversy

List of authors from the IPCC AR4 WGI report

List of climate scientists

Oregon petition

Scientific opinion on climate change

Scientific consensus

[edit] References

1.^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.5 - IPCC

2.^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.7 - IPCC

3.^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis p.8 - IPCC

4.^ Dr. Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist On the real danger for Canada, global cooling Frontier Centre for Public Policy

5.^ Climate of controversy Ottawa Citizen May 2006

6.^ Mr.Cool Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business August 2006

7.^ Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? Ball, Timothy Canada Free Press February 2007

8.^ "High price for load of hot air". http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html. Retrieved 2007-12-18.

9.^ New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

10.^ A Skeptical View of Climate Models Tennekes, Hendrik from Science & Environmental Policy Project www.his.com/~sepp

11.^ Global Warming Natural, Says Expert Zenit April 2007

12.^ Zichichi, Antonino (April 26-27, 2007). "Meteorology and Climate: Problems and Expectations". Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. http://www.justpax.it/pcgp/dati/2007-05/18-999999/ZICHICHI_METEOROLOGY%20AND%20CLIMATE.pdf. Retrieved 2009-10-25. "quote is found on page 9"

13.^ Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming Russian News & Information Agency, January 2007

14.^ Russian scientist issues global cooling warning Russian News & Information Agency August 2006

15.^ http://www.ogoniok.com/4933/24/ Page in Russian, Go here for a translation.

16.^ Global Warming Science vs. Computer Model Speculation: Just Ask the Experts Capitalism Magazine, August 2002

17.^ On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006

18.^ Letter to the editor The Hill Times, March 2004

19.^ Newsmax.com - New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

20.^ The Cause of Global Warming and Predictions for the Coming Century Easterbrook, Don

21.^ Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon Gray, William BBC November 2000

22.^ The Tempest Achenbach, Joel The Washington Post May 2006

23.^ Discover Dialogue: Meteorologist William Gray Discover September 2005

24.^ Climate Change: A Natural Hazard

25.^ An Unrepentant Prognosticator Krueger, Mari Gelf Magazine, April 2007

26.^ Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts National Center for Policy Analysis May 2006

27.^ Raymond Brusca (January 12, 2009). "Professor denies global warming theory". http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/.

28.^ Global warning? Controversy heats up in the scientific community Robinson, Cindy Carleton University Spring 2005

29.^ Dr. Patterson Page at Carleton University

30.^ Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe Harris, Tom Canada Free Press June 2006

31.^ Read the Sunspots Patterson, Timothy Financial Post June 2007

32.^ Wild weather ignites climate change debate

33.^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493624,00.html

34.^ Segalstad, Tom. "What is CO2 - friend or foe?". http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_ISMA_CO2.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-04.

35.^ Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? ScienceBits

36.^ The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it Christian Science Monitor April 2005

37.^ The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle Singer, Fred et al NCPA Study No. 279, September 2005

38.^ The Denial Machine CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link

39.^ Global warming is not so hot: 1003 was worse, researchers find Harvard University Gazette April 2003

40.^ [1] Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008

41.^ Essay 1: 'Global Warming' as Myth A Parliament of Things

42.^ Influence of Cosmic Rays on the Earth's Climate Svensmark, Henry Danish National Space Center, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen

43.^ Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle and here In J. Veizer, , Geoscience Canada, March 2005

44.^ On the Fundamental Defect in the IPCC’s Approach to Global Warming Research Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog, June 15 2007

45.^ Climat: la prévention, oui, la peur, non, Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 2006

46.^ The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us Balling, Robert George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook September 2003

47.^ Christy, John (2007-11-01). "My Nobel Moment". Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries. Retrieved 2007-11-02.

48.^ A Long Term Perspective on Climate Change - Heartland.org

49.^ Global Climate Change: A Global Climate Change: A Skeptics Perspective Presentation by William R. Cotton

50.^ Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works December 2006

51.^ http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006510223000.CSC_News_3.PDF[dead link] The New Zealand Herald, May 2006

52.^ The Press Gets It Wrong Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty. Lindzen, Richard Opinion Journal (The Wall Street Journal) June 2001

53.^ There is no consensus on Global Warming appeared in The San Francisco Examiner July 2006 and in The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14

54.^ A Science--Based Rebuttal to the Testimony of Al Gore before the United States Senate Environment & Public Works Committee

55.^ Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World. CO2 Science. November 2003, p. 30

56.^ Michaels, Patrick (October 16, 2003). "Posturing and Reality on Warming". CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/michaels-031016.html. Retrieved June 10, 2009.

[edit] External links

Note that the persons listed on the following web pages may not satisfy the conditions outlined at the beginning of this article.

Global Warming Petition Project

ICSC, International Climate Science Coalition

ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project

NRSP's list of advisors and experts

Climate Change : The Deniers The National Post's February 2007 series on "scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science"

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. Wall Street Journal article by Richard Lindzen (April 12, 2006)

Sixty scientists call on (Canadian Prime Minister) Harper to revisit the science of global warming. A critical review of the list members is at Who are the sixty?. An open letter in response from 91 Canadian climate scientists: Response.

Annotated bibliography by Madhav L Khandekar of recent peer-reviewed papers which, he claims, question aspects of the current state of global warming science

Sourcewatch profiles of global warming skeptics

Washington Post article The tempest: As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback, May 28, 2006

Global Warming "Consensus" Continues To Melt Away (Op-Ed, Senator Inhofe, Power Magazine)

Science a la Joe Camel

Science & Public Policy Institute

Global Warming, humans, Carbon Dioxide-Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming

The Only Political Party in America: "The Corporate Party" (Part 1)

2009-11-03T14:35:00.008-07:00

A growing number of Americans and researchers suggest that many corporations in the U.S. contribute to both Democrats and Republicans, so that no matter who wins the election, corporations can still exert their influence in Washington. But, does this line of thought have any merit? As they say, let's simply "follow the money".

The following firms are ranked in order of their total contributions for 2008. But, the chart below illustrates their total contributions over the last 20 years. Every firm on this list is defined as "on the fence", meaning they have leaned neither Republican, nor Democrat and have largely donated to both parties. This information was compiled from http://www.opensecrets.org/.

(The asterisk [*] denotes companies who have recently made equal contributions, despite their 20 year history of a party preference. Contact the Federal Election Committee or opensecret.org for more information.)

A blogger at albatross.org correctly stated in 1994, "The problem in America isn't that the Republican party has sold its soul to corporate wealth, Christian fundamentalism and plutarchs. The problem with America is that Democrats have, too. The problem with America is that the Republicans and the Democrats are units of the same organization, an organization that has consolidated its control over the American political process to the exclusion of all others." (http://albatross.org/journal/archives/000789.html)

Wanna start to see how? Keep reading.

In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections. (http://www.fec.gov/info/mssion.shtml)

Dr. Marc A Triebwasser, a Political Science Professor at Central Connecticut University tells us that "in 1971 the Federal Elections Campaign Act was passed, banning corporate campaign contributions. That was followed by the Watergate scandal. As a result of that scandal, major amendments to that act were passed in 1974." He goes on to say, "The 1974 Amendment tried to limit campaign contributions and campaign spending."

"However," he states, "it is very difficult to reform campaign financing. If you try to bar corporate campaign contributions, then the members of the board will contribute personally. If members of the board are not allowed to contribute, their wives will contribute, and so on. There are always loopholes that corporations will try to find. And, since they are well connected and have a lot of high paid lawyers on their side, they will find loopholes. It's very difficult to control this. We have been trying to control corporate contributions for the last 100 years now--without much success!" (http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/InfluGov.html)

There are undoubtedly all kinds off issues at play here, far too numerous to list in this article. However, the purpose of this writing is to introduce this concept those to who still think that there really is a "left" and a "right".

The real issue here runs far deeper than corporations hoping to get face time with a Representative or Senator. In reality, this distortion that "Left/Democrat vs. Right/Republican" is a REAL debate is widely used as a means of social control.

Noam Chomsky says, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." In short, we are taught to think in terms of "A and B". Therefore, if "C" is presented, we either discount it as impossible or our peers remind us that only "A and B" are possible to keep us in line.

Here is a video clip of Congressman Ron Paul, stating about American foreign policy that which is also applicable to our whole political process:

Quite frankly, this view is accurate and sums up politics in America today.

Now, this article will not get into how and which specific individuals have exerted control over both parties. That will be saved for a future post. However, we will look (in a general sense) at how the system is structured to award corporations influence over the government without respect to (and oftentimes without control of) either party.

Dr. Triebwasser, talks about a book written by Mark V. Nadel (possibly "Corporations and Political Accountability"). One would guess, that his post cited here is for a class of his. But, being that it is available on the world wide web, it can be assumed that an additional audience is, well, us. On this site, Dr. Triebwasser lists ways that corporations influence politicians in Washington, irrespective of party affiliation. This account provides a legal foundation for what amounts to a corporate hi-jacking of our Republic. His post is as follows in red.

7 Ways Corporations Influence Washington

1. Access - Through campaign contributions and other methods, corporations are able to gain access to public officials more often than the average citizen. This means that corporations at least have a better chance of having their case heard.

2. Advisory Committees to Government Agencies - The fact is that the government does not have fact gathering apparati in a number of fields. And so, government agencies appoint committees to provide information and advice. Often, these committees contain many people from the industry involved. The information they provide are used in making public policy. Now, obviously, if the information that government agencies are getting is from the industry involved, then the perspective from which they get the information is likely to be one-sided. For example, if the government needs information on nuclear power, it most likely will call upon nuclear engineers for advice. However, these engineers come from the industry involved. The government does not usually consider the opinion of the private citizen, although the concerns that pregnant women have who live near Three Mile Island or other nuclear power facilities might well need to be taken into account. So the advice the government gets is often stacked in favor of the corporation.

3. The Revolving Door Effect - Many times individuals are employed in an industry, then get called upon to work as the head of an agency or on a regulatory commission, and then return to the industry in question. These people are going to be returning to work in the same industry they may be regulating. How independent can the thinking of these people be? Are they going to make a decision against the interest of that industry if they are eventually going to have to get another job in that industry?

4. Former House and Senate Members Serving as Lobbyists - Many times, when people retire from the House or Senate, they become lobbyists for major corporations. Now, first of all, these people know a great deal about the laws that have been passed relating to their new employer's industry, and they know the inside dealings that went into making these laws. What's more, former representatives and senators maintain the privilege of going on to the floor of their old chambers. That means that during a vote on a bill, they can go on the floor and lobby current senators or representatives as the case may be. No other lobbyists can do this. So these former legislators have a greater ability to influence the process than someone who doesn't have the privilege of the floor, or the other connections they do.

5. Lobbying Itself

6. There is the symbiotic relationship between lobbyists, members of congressional committees and executive agency personnel. In other words, the Washington triangles or iron triangles.

7. Court Action - The fact is that corporations can pay a lot more for legal work than the government. Many times corporate lawyers don not aim at winning a case, but simply at delaying government action. Let's say a corporation has an advertisement on television that the Federal Trade Commission feels is misleading to the general public. The FTC may issue a ruling for the corporation to withdraw that advertisement from the air. The corporation then gets its lawyers to seek a temporary injunction against that ruling until a hearing on the ruling can be held. In the meantime, the advertisement remains on television. Then, the corporation's lawyers use various legal tactics to keep delaying the date of the hearing. There are lots of ways lawyers can do this. Let's say the hearing finally comes up a year later. Before the hearing actually begins, the corporate lawyers announce that they are going to withdraw their objections and that the corporation will follow the FTC's ruling and withdraw the ad. They know they don't have a leg to stand on in court. Has the corporation lost? No. While all this has been going on, the advertisement has been on television for a whole extra year. So even though the corporation is eventually going to lose the case, it winds up winning by delaying things.

The idea that party affiliation has anything to do with how our government is actually run is laughable, once see (as you read above) that the system itself is set up for wealthy businesses and wealthy business owners to have a disproportionate influence over the happenings in Washington D.C. Have you ever wondered why the wealthiest 5% of our nation controls 95% of everything? Well, now you know how.

Now, if have read this far, you can probably stand to watch this video of Noam Chomsky, explaining the truth about our "Democracy".

The chart listing corporate donations is below. Please take another look at the chart. Beneath it, you will find listed some information about each company found on opensecret.org. Please take a look again and just...think.

JP Morgan Chase [and] Co.
JP Morgan Chase [and] Co. is one of the nation’s leading financial services firms, offering commercial and consumer banking and credit services, securities brokerage and financial consulting. Like the rest of the finance sector, the company hit hard financial times in 2008 and received billions of dollars in taxpayer money to re-gain its footing. In 2002, federal investigators launched a probe into the firm’s relationship with former energy giant Enron. Prior to the energy firm’s collapse, JP Morgan Chase had been one of the company’s largest financial backers.

AT [and] T, Inc.
After being broken up in the mid-1980s in a landmark antitrust case, this telecommunications icon re-formed in 2005, and became the nation’s largest phone company when SBC Communications bought AT&T Corp. for $16 billion. As SBC, the company led the fight to allow the Baby Bells to enter the long-distance market, where they hope to offer profitable broadband Internet services. Cable and telecom companies have been fighting over the issue for several years and recent legislation in the House would allow national cable franchises to be awarded to the telecoms. The cable industry complains this would allow telecoms to unfairly cherry-pick rich suburbs.

National Association of Realtors
The National Association of Realtors represents the nation’s real estate industry. While the bulk of its issues tend to deal with property management and control, the group also lobbies members of Congress and the administration on virtually every issue facing business, including health care reform, bankruptcy legislation and tax cuts. It supports Democrats and Republicans almost equally.

Morgan Stanley
Morgan Stanley is one of the world’s top investment banks, offering its clients everything from stock portfolio management to credit services. Like others in the securities industry, however, it lobbied for money from the federal government in 2008 and 2009 when the industry—along with the economy—was floundering. The company, which splits its contributions evenly between Democrats and Republicans, has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security. Morgan Stanley also has lobbied in favor of proposals to deregulate the securities industry, so that investment firms can further extend their reach into financial services.

American Bankers Association
The American Bankers Association represents banks of all types and sizes, including regional banks, holding companies and savings associations. One of the most powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill, the association regularly presses Congress for regulatory relief and industry tax breaks.

Bank of America
Bank of America was already an enormous U.S. bank, and the company grew even more when it acquired investment giant Merrill Lynch in 2008. Together, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch received billions of taxpayer dollars from a bill passed that year to bail out struggling financial companies.

Merrill Lynch
Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch when Merrill was on the verge of collapse in 2008. Over the years, the company had been a dominant voice in efforts to deregulate the financial services industry, which is now blamed for causing the economic meltdown.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
Shortly after accounting giant Arthur Andersen got caught up in the Enron scandal in January 2001, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the other big accounting firms swung into action to prevent additional federal regulation of the accounting industry. They were successful—until WorldCom’s accounting troubles came to light five months later.

Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin is the nation’s top defense contractor, the brains behind such high-tech military hardware as the F-16 jet fighter and a variety of land and sea missiles. Considering that access is the name of the game when securing such lucrative contracts, it’s no surprise that Lockheed splits its campaign money equally between Democrats and Republicans. All told, NASA and the Defense Department account for roughly 80 percent of the company’s annual sales.

Verizon Communications
Formed in 2000 when Bell Atlantic bought GTE, Verizon is among the nation’s top phone companies and is the No. 2 wireless provider, after Cingular. One of the “Baby Bells” that control the local phone market, Verizon has spent the last several years fighting to allow the Bells to enter the long-distance market, where it would expand its profitable broadband Internet services. Verizon has been lobbying to secure legislation that the telecommunications companies believe will drive down rates and add hundreds of channel choices by allowing states to issue all television licenses.

Credit Union National Association
The Credit Union National Association (CUNA) is a trade association representing credit unions nationwide. After years of near dormancy, CUNA quickly became one of the most powerful trade groups in Washington after the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that corporate credit unions could not accept outside members. In response, the group mobilized its members and launched an ultimately successful campaign for legislation that essentially overturned the ruling. In the process, they more than doubled their campaign contributions to the federal parties and members of Congress and continue to be a powerful force in Washington.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Deloitte Touche is one of the remaining Big Four accounting firms and once offered its clients one-stop shopping for accounting, consulting and other financial services. But the collapse of Enron and its resulting fallout for the accounting industry forced the firm to rethink its business strategy. Like other firms, however, the company has continued to lobby against bills that would strengthen oversight of the industry and further restrict the auditing/consulting relationship between firms and their clients. In September 2002, federal investigators began to probe Deloitte & Touche for its role in a bookkeeping scandal at Adelphia Communications, one of the firm’s biggest clients.

Ernst [and] Young
Ernst [and] Young is one of the world’s largest accounting firms, offering its clients everything from auditing services to tax advice. Over the years, the firm has successfully led efforts to block increased federal oversight of the accounting industry. Yet the collapse of Enron and the corporate scandals that followed have largely put the company on the defensive.

Boeing Co
Boeing is the world’s top manufacturer of commercial airplanes, including the 767 and the 747. The company is also a leading military supplier, making fighter bombers, transport planes and the Apache helicopter. The company regularly lobbies Congress to increase defense spending and to win military contracts, although it lost the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter contract to rival Lockheed Martin in 2001.

Credit Suisse Group
Credit Suisse First Boston is one of the world’s largest securities firms. It advises and invests in virtually every industry affected by federal legislation, including oil and gas, telecommunications, electric utilities and media companies. Credit Suisse has been one of the leading proponents of privatizing Social Security, as well as deregulating the securities industry, a move that would allow investment firms to offer up services usually available only at banks. In August 2002, after a succession of corporate scandals rocked Wall Street and Washington, congressional investigators launched a probe into alleged conflicts of interest in the firm’s dealings with Enron and Global Crossing.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Through its 45 local chapters, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association provides health care coverage to more than 80 million people. Blue Cross/Blue Shield also has a contract with the federal government to review and process Medicare claims. The association is lobbying Congress to make it harder for the government to penalize companies if their employees defraud the Medicare program and process false claims. Local Blue Cross chapters have paid about $340 million to the federal government to settle Medicare fraud charges since 1993.

American Hospital Assn
The American Hospital Association represents 37,000 individual members at more than 5,000 hospitals and health care systems. With one-third of the nation’s hospitals in the red, the association’s primary focus is lobbying against any reductions in Medicare payments. The association also supports tort reform that would limit medical malpractice lawsuits, and is pressing Congress for job programs to train nurses.

American Dental Assn
The American Dental Association has more than 140,000 members nationwide. The association lobbies Congress on expanded dental care for uninsured children and for reforms in Medicare. The association has also spent much of its time defending its profession against lawsuits that charge the mercury used in fillings causes health problems.

General Dynamics
General Dynamics is one of the nation’s top defense contractors, assembling virtually every piece of military machinery engaged in modern combat. The company builds warships, nuclear submarines, tanks and combat jets, not to mention the command and control systems that link it all together. One of the company’s biggest lobbying issues has been to encourage lawmakers to step up appropriations for the Navy, one of the company’s biggest clients. Furthermore, the company has fought legislative attempts to shrink the nation’s fleet of submarines and warships—a move that has blocked Defense Department attempts to shift that money to other facets of the nation’s land and air defenses.

American Medical Assn
The American Medical Association (AMA) represents medical doctors across the country, promotes standards in care, and publishes a number of medical journals. The association has traditionally supported Republican candidates, agreeing with the GOP on such issues as medical malpractice reform. But over the last few years, the AMA has also begun to shift support to the Democrats, favoring their attempts to pass patients’ rights legislation and expand Medicare payments.

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) represents private, not-for-profit, consumer-owned electric utilities. In Washington, the group often goes toe to toe with large investor-owned electric utilities, especially on the issue of electricity restructuring. While investor-owned utilities push for relaxed federal regulations to promote competition, rural cooperatives emphasize the importance of consumer protection and preventing market abuses. The downfall of energy giant Enron gave this argument a significant boost.

The funny thing about the truth is that it is irrespective of your opinion.

Is There Really a Biblical "Hell"?

2009-10-29T17:28:00.001-07:00

The term "hell" comes from the Hebrew word "Sheol". And when one looks at the literal translation, one finds that the word is not referencing a place called "hell", where sinners are sent upon death. The ancient Hebrews didn't even have a concept of the soul going anywhere after death, let alone a place of perpetual torment.

You can be spared hours of research and this idea can be summed up fairly simply by citing Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------
Sheol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the album, see Sheol (album).

Sheol (pronounced "Sheh-ole")[1], in Hebrew שאול (Sh'ol), is the "abode of the dead", the "underworld", or "pit".[2] Sheol is the common destination of both the righteous and the unrighteous dead, as recounted in Ecclesiastes and Job.

Sheol is sometimes compared to Hades, the gloomy, twilight afterlife of Greek mythology. The word "hades" was in fact substituted for "sheol" when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (see Septuagint). The New Testament (written in Greek) also uses "hades" to refer to the abode of the dead.

By the second century BC, Jews who accepted the Oral Torah had come to believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment. This belief is reflected in Jesus' story of Lazarus and Dives. At that time Jews who rejected the Oral Torah believed that Sheol meant simply the grave.

Christian translations of the Hebrew scriptures have variously rendered the word sheol as "hell"[3] or "the grave".[4]

One theory is that Sheol is connected ša'al, the root of which means "to burrow" and is thus related to šu'al "fox" or "burrower".[5]

Biblical scholar William Foxwell Albright suggests that the Hebrew root for SHE'OL is SHA'AL, which means "to ask, to interrogate, to question." John Tvedtnes, also a Biblical scholar, connects this with the common theme in near-death experiences of the interrogation of the soul after crossing the Tunnel.
As regards the origin not of the term but of the concept, the Jewish Encyclopedia considers more probable the view that it originated in animistic conceits: "With the body in the grave remains connected the soul (as in dreams): the dead buried in family graves continue to have communion (comp. Jer. xxxi. 15). Sheol is practically a family grave on a large scale. Graves were protected by gates and bolts; therefore Sheol was likewise similarly guarded. The separate compartments are devised for the separate clans, septs, and families, national and blood distinctions continuing in effect after death. That Sheol is described as subterranean is but an application of the custom of hewing out of the rocks passages, leading downward, for burial purposes."[6]

In the Tanakh, which is the Hebrew Bible (the books that Christians call the Old Testament), the word "sheol" occurs more than 60 times. It is used most frequently in the Psalms, wisdom literature and prophetic books.

Jacob, not comforted at the reported death of Joseph, exclaims: "I shall go down to my son a mourner unto Sheol" (Genesis 37:35). Sheol may be personified: Sheol is never satiated (Proverbs 30:16); she "makes wide her throat" (Isaiah 5:14).
Other examples of its usage:
Job 7:9 "Just as a cloud dissipates and vanishes, those who go down to Sheol will not come back."

Psalm 18:5-7 "The breakers of death surged round about me; the menacing floods terrified me. The cords of Sheol tightened; the snares of death lay in wait for me. In my distress I called out: LORD! I cried out to my God. From his temple he heard my voice; my cry to him reached his ears.

Psalm 86:13: "Your love for me is great; you have rescued me from the depths of Sheol."

Psalm 139:8: "If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there."

Jonah 2:2: "...Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, And You heard my voice."

The Hebrew concept is paralleled in the Sumerian Netherworld to which Inanna descends. See Irkalla.

The Book of Enoch (ca. 160 BCE) purportedly records Enoch's vision of the cosmos. The author describes Sheol as divided into four sections: one where the faithful saints blissfully await Judgment Day (see Bosom of Abraham), one where the moderately good await their reward, one where the wicked are punished and await their Judgment at the resurrection (see Gehenna), and the last where the wicked who don't even warrant resurrection are tormented.

The New Testament follows the Septuagint in translating sheol as hades (compare Acts 2:27, 31 and Psalm 16:10). The New Testament thus seems to draw a distinction between Sheol and "Gehinnom" or Gehenna (Jahannam in Islam). The former is regarded as a place where the dead go temporarily to await resurrection (according to some traditions, including Jesus himself), while the latter is the place of eternal punishment for the damned (i.e. perdition). Accordingly, in the book of Saint John's Revelation, hades is associated with death (Revelation 1:18, 6:8), and in the final judgment the wicked dead are brought out of hades and cast into the lake of fire, which represents the fire of Gehenna; hades itself is also finally thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15).

In Luke 16:19-31 (the story of Lazarus and Dives), Jesus portrays hades as a place of torment, at least for the wicked. Jesus also announces to St. Peter that "the gates of hades" will not overpower the church (Matthew 16:18), and uses hades to pronounce judgment upon the city of Capernaum (Matthew 11:23).

The English word "hell" comes from Germanic mythology, and is now used in the Judeo-Christian sense to translate the Greek word Gehenna — a term which originally referred to a valley outside Jerusalem used for burning refuse, but came to designate the place of punishment for sinners. Although older translations (such as the King James Version) also translated Hades as "hell", modern English translations tend to preserve the distinction between the two concepts by transliterating the word hades and reserving "hell fire" for gehenna fire.

In the Esperanto translation of the New Testament, wherever the word "Hades" might appear, it is merely transliterated; but in places where the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament it uses Sheol, rendered into Esperanto spelling, corresponding with Zamenhof's translation in the original. (Cf. Acts 2:31, Psalm 16:10.)

According to Professors Stephen L. Harris and James Tabor, sheol is a place of "nothingness" that has its roots in the Hebrew Bible (or Talmud).
"The ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul living a full and vital life beyond death, nor of any resurrection or return from death. Human beings, like the beasts of the field, are made of "dust of the earth," and at death they return to that dust (Gen. 2:7; 3:19). The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally translated "living soul" but more properly understood as "living creature," is the same word used for all breathing creatures and refers to nothing immortal...All the dead go down to Sheol, and there they lie in sleep together — whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free (Job 3:11-19). It is described as a region "dark and deep," "the Pit," and "the land of forgetfulness," cut off from both God and human life above (Pss. 6:5; 88:3-12). Though in some texts Yahweh's power can reach down to Sheol (Ps. 139:8), the dominant idea is that the dead are abandoned forever. This idea of Sheol is negative in contrast to the world of life and light above, but there is no idea of judgment or of reward and punishment. If one faces extreme circumstances of suffering in the realm of the living above, as did Job, it can even be seen as a welcome relief from pain–see the third chapter of Job. But basically it is a kind of "nothingness," an existence that is barely existence at all, in which a "shadow" or "shade" of the former self survives (Ps. 88:10)."[7]

Harris shares similar remarks in his Understanding the Bible: "The concept of eternal punishment does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, which uses the term Sheol to designate a bleak subterranean region where the dead, good and bad alike, subsist only as impotent shadows. When Hellenistic Jewish scribes rendered the Bible into Greek, they used the word Hades to translate Sheol, bringing a whole new mythological association to the idea of posthumous existence. In ancient Greek myth, Hades, named after the gloomy deity who ruled over it, was originally similar to the Hebrew Sheol, a dark underground realm in which all the dead, regardless of individual merit, were indiscriminately housed."[8] While some believers in the Bible think that it contains one doctrine of Hell (regardless of what they think about the nature of Hell), Harris and nontheists may view the doctrine as changing throughout the Bible.

See You at the Pole: Another Pagan Ritual Celebrated by Unkowing Christians?

2009-10-29T12:33:00.001-07:00

"See You at the Pole" is an event where Christians all across the nation meet around a flagpole and pray. The website for this event states the following:

"A young man named Josiah began one of the greatest revivals and awakenings in the Old Testament. Josiah had become king of Israel at the age of 8. Scripture tells us that at the age of 16, he began to pursue God passionately. Like his forefather, David, he began to show signs of godliness early on and gained the respect of the people. 2 Kings 22:2 states, “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in all the ways of his father, David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.”

This resulted in radical obedience — getting rid of everything that did not honor God and challenging everyone around him to do likewise. These actions resulted in a mighty move of God in his day — actually, one of the greatest ever!

Our theme verse for See you at the Pole™ comes from the heart of this story. Right after the newly discovered scriptures were read to Josiah, the Bible says, “When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes.” In other words, his heart was pierced with conviction. (Read the full story.)"

But, apparently pole-goers who take part in this event have ignored two things, 1) there is no mention in Scripture that prayer to God should take place around a pole, and 2) the predecessor for this event was a pagan ritual.

The "Maypole" tradition is based on pagan worship of the phallic and the unification of the male and female principles. One need not look very far to see that yet another seemingly Christian event has roots in ancient Pagan worship.

The Encyclopedia Brittannica describes the Maypole Dance as a "ceremonial folk dance performed around a tall pole garlanded with greenery or flowers and often hung with ribbons that are woven into complex patterns by the dancers. Such dances are survivals of ancient dances around a living tree as part of spring rites to ensure fertility. Typically performed on May Day (May 1), they also occur at midsummer in Scandinavia and at other festivals elsewhere."

Wikipedia states, "According to the polemic anti-Catholic pamphlet, The Two Babylons, the origin of the maypole dance began in ancient Babylon during sex worship and fertility rites."

These two photos to the left are taken from jordanmaxwell.com. They illustrate the true nature of worship around a pole. If you do enough research, you will find that phallic symbols are very prevailent thoughout Christian (and really all) religious symbolism.

The question that most Christians will fail to ask is "why"?

The answer is that many of our Christian traditions and rituals came from earlier religious doctrines. That fact is no longer up for debate, as there is simply too much empirical data to suggest otherwise.

If we are to sincerely develop a relationship with God, it is time that we who call ourselves Christians start to take an honest look at the history of our religion and why we do and say certain things. This is one example of many, highlighting the biggest dilemma in Christianity. That dilemma is that much of what we call "Christian" is actually "Pagan" or derived from some ancient religion or legend. Once we realize this fact, then and only then will we be in a place of spiritual honesty and we just might start to be able to bring about some of the positive change on this Earth that we preach about.

(As a side note, this is why strippers dance on a pole.)

How Well Do You Know Your Bible?

2009-10-18T08:55:00.002-07:00

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

2009-10-13T10:57:00.012-07:00

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America has largely flown below the radar for most Americans. This union between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will be colloquially known as the North American Union, similar to the European Union. This move is the next step toward globalization and creating a one world government.

The fact that this organization has rapidly advanced it's agenda and goals with no congressional oversight, almost no U.S. media coverage and no debate raises concerns with some as to the true nature of this plan.

The American Policy Center says that the completion of this union will "only mean an eventual end to the U.S. Constitution as our ruling document, replaced instead with a new North American Government." Some would raise questions as to why this is a bad thing. However, with a closer look at these plans we might more questions raised than answered.

The SPP.gov website lists the following government representatives:

Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, United States
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, United States
Eduardo Sojo, Secretary of Economy, Mexico
Juan Mouriño, Secretary of Interior, Mexico
Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, Canada
Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, Canada

However, it lists them as "Ministers". Wikipedia has this to say about the term: "In many parliamentary systems of government, especially those using the Westminster system, such as the United Kingdom, Canadaand Australia, ministers must be selected from the legislature. In presidential systems of government such as the United States and Mexico, ministers are formally titled secretaries (because the term minister carries royalist connotations considered inappropriate in republics) and are appointed by the president, not drawn from the legislature."

The incredible irony is that it singles out the U.S. and Mexico as having government systems that prefer not to use the word "minister" as a title for government officials, yet our own government's website is using this title in reference to its ambassadors. The question is to what? The answer (of course) is a whole new system of government that is being formed in front of our eyes. The word minister can be used, because those officials are not working for the U.S. Republic, they are working for the North American Union.

Plans and development have been underway for years to integrate the three nations, the most obvious of which are plans to create a super highway to connect all three nations. If you wonder why the U.S. isn't doing more about border control, the reason is because soon, there will be no borders.

Congressman and former Presidential Candidate Ron Paul had this to say on his Congressional Blog in 2006:

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City... This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Paul went on to say that, "The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP"

Paul then, hits the nail on the head, as to the significance of this move:

"The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

In 2007 the Boston Globe labeled these plans a "conspiracy theory", stating, "If you haven't heard about the NAU, that may be because its plotters have succeeded in keeping it secret. Or, more likely, because there is no such thing. Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. "

However, it is probably a safe assumption that government officials, such as Ron Paul, who are privy to classified information are accurate. Additionally, we can use history as a reference to gauge the liklihood of the creation of a NAU.

Patrick Henningsen, in an op-ed piece, said, "You can say it's a myth, but that won't make it disappear. Before it was introduced, was the EURO a "myth" too? We're half way there... like the great bail out, Americans will be manipulated to accept even more, increasingly extreme solutions to successive fiscal panic events. America could soon gain painful first experience- the same pain it has often induced in countries like Argentina, Mexico, Germany and Brazil... hyper-inflation. As a part of a 'relief package', the “Amero”- the ultimate financial instrument, will be presented as a pre-packaged panacea or 'rescue' by our saviours- the bankers."

The fact of the matter is that strong evidence suggests that there will be a North American Union within the next 5-10 years, rendering the U.S. Constitution worthless, our national borders erased, our financial system further controlled by a reserve system designed to ensure our dependence and our rights and civil liberties non-existent.

Below you will find a timeline compiled by the American Policy Center of the development of the NAU. What side will you stand for?

The Chronological History For the Establishment of the North American Union

July 2, 2000: Mexican president Vicente Fox proposes a 20 to 30

year time line for the creation of a common North American market.

November 27, 2000: Robert Pastor’s book “Toward a North American

Community” is published.

December 2001: U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge

and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley sign the “Smart

Border Declaration.” It called for a “30-point action plan to enhance

the security of our shared border , while facilitating the legitimate

flow of people and goods.”

September 9, 2002: President Bush and Prime Minister Chretien

meet to discuss progress in the Smart Border Action Plan. An update

on the plan is produced by the White House on December 6, 2002.

December, 2002: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell signs an

agreement between the United States and Canada to establish a Bi-

national Agreement on Military Planning.

JaNuary, 2003: The Canadian Council of Chief Executives launches

the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI)

to propose a comprehensive North American strategy integrating

economic and security issues.

February, 2004: The Council on Foreign Relations publishes Robert

Pastor’s paper “North America’s Second Decade,” which advocates

further North American integration.

october, 2004: The Canada-Mexico Partnership (CMP) is launched

during the visit of President Fox to Ottawa.

November 1, 2004: The Independent Task Force on the Future of

North America is formed. The task force is a trilateral effort charged

with developing a “road map” to promote “North American security

and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.” The

task force is sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations.

march 23, 2005: President Bush meets at his ranch in Crawford, TX

with Vincente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they

call a Summit. The three heads of state then drive to Baylor University

in Waco, where they issue a press release announcing their signing

of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of

North America (SPP).

may 17, 2005: The Independent Task Force on the Future of North

America (CFR) releases its report “Creating a North American

Community – Chairman’s Report.” The 59-page document outlines

a five-year plan for the “establishment by 2010 of a North American

economic and security community” with a common “outer security

perimeter” to achieve “the freer flow of people within North America.”

JuNe 9, 2005: Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar

held a “friendly” committee hearing that features Task Force member

Robert Pastor. He reveals further details of the plan for a “continental

perimeter,” including “an integrated continental plan for transportation

and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and

high-speed rail corridors.”

JuNe 27, 2005: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff attends a

SPP meeting in Ottawa, Canada, at which he said “we want to facilitate the

flow of traffic across our borders.” The White House issues a press release

endorsing the Ottawa report and calling the meeting “an important first

step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.”

July, 2005: The White House announces it is backing a coalition called

Americans for Border and Economic Security, organized by former

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Its purpose is

to conduct a political-style campaign to sell the American people in a

guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security promises and

financed by coalition members who each put up $50,000 to $250,000.

march 31, 2006: President Bush, Vicente Fox and new Canadian Prime

Minister Stephen Harper meet in Cancun, Mexico to (according to the

official news release) celebrate the first anniversary of the Security and

Prosperity Partnership. At the same time Bush demands that Congress

pass an immigration bill with a guest worker permit program.

JuNe 15, 2006: SPP’s North American Competitiveness Council

(NACC), consisting of government officials and corporate CEOs

from the three countries, met to “institutionalize the North American

Security and Prosperity Partnership and the NACC, so that the work

will continue through changes of administrations.”

September 12, 2006: In Banff Alberta, Canada, a group of present

and past elected officials from all three countries meet with corporate,

military, academic, financial, industrial, and think tank members in a

“North American Forum.” U.S. participants include former Secretary

of State George Shultz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and

Robert Pastor, to name a few.

auguSt 19-21, 2007: Montebello, Canada, President Bush, Canadian

Prime Minister Steven Harper, Mexican President Felipe Calderon

meet with corporate leaders to discuss integrating and harmonizing

regulations between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. This part of the agenda

was organized by the American Competitiveness Council representing

top 10 multinational corporations from each of the three nations.

The meeting also produced a plan to provide military assistance to

Mexico to prop up its efforts to fight drugs. Emergency measures were

discussed to deal with pandemic emergencies such as Avian Flu.

February 14, 2008: The United States and Canada sign a military

agreement allowing the armed forces of both countries to support

each other in case of domestic emergencies, even one that does not

involve a cross-border crisis. Combined with the Montebello pact to

aid Mexico’s military, this U.S./Canadian pact essentially creates the

ground work for a North American army.

march 13, 2008: Approximately 50 persons gathered in a conference

room at the U.S. State Department in Washington D.C. for a meeting

of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy

(ACIEP), an advisory body to the U.S. Government. The council

advises on the whole field of economics. The meeting discussed

NAFTA, the SPP and how they fit into plans for the “Framework for

Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration,” created in April,

2007 by President Bush German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. According to

information distributed at the meeting, this “Framework has put the

United States and the European Union on a joint path toward further

transatlantic economic integration…”

april 21-22, 2008: According to the official White House news release,

“This fourth meeting of North American leaders since 2005 will continue

our work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiatives.

It will also serve as an opportunity for the three leaders to discuss

hemispheric and global issues of importance to North America.”

Global Warming is the Myth That Will Push Us Toward One World Government: Unless We Stand Up

2009-10-11T08:49:00.002-07:00

What happened to global
warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

U.S. Helping Drug Trade?

2009-10-11T08:24:00.000-07:00

Afghan Border Now Controlled From Tehran

Iran said Saturday its joint border with Afghanistan is now being controlled not only by border guards but also through advanced security surveillance systems from police headquarters in Tehran.

Addressing a ceremony to mark Police Week in Tehran, Police Chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moqaddam said his men are using sophisticated radar systems to survey the crime-infested frontier with the war-battered country, Fars News Agency reported. “The Afghan border (with Iran) is now being controlled from Tehran. Illegal border crossings due to the negligence of some border sentry will not be possible,” he added.

His comment came after the deputy head of the Drug Control Headquarters, Taha Taheri said Iran plans to build a fence along its border with Afghanistan to exercise better control of the region. “The entire Iranian border along Afghanistan will be sealed with concrete walls and barbed wire by the end of the year [ends March 20],” IRNA quoted him as saying.
He noted that the barriers will be constructed along the 700 km (435 mile) joint border.

The official criticized the West’s Afghan policy and said after the US-led military invasion of the impoverished country in 2001 poppy cultivation had shot up significantly. “It seems that the West is encouraging (illegal) drug production in Afghanistan rather than fighting it,” Taheri added.

Afghanistan supplies more than 90 percent of the world’s opium, which is the raw ingredient of heroin.
The UN values the potential export value of Afghan narcotics at about $3.4 billion a year

Obama Does Not Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T09:37:00.001-07:00

"Barack Obama today sensationally won the Nobel Peace Prize after just nine months in office for returning America to a multilateralist foreign policy after eight years of going it alone under George W Bush," exclaimed proudly the Times Online this morning.

What that The Times (and apparently The Norwegian Nobel Committee) forgot is that Mr. Obama has continued the same war policies as his predecessor, George W. Bush. Let's also not forget to mention that President Obama was in office for only two weeks before the deadline for nominations had to be submitted. So on what achievements were his nomination even based?

While a message of hope and change is commendable on some level, when one has the political and financial wherewithal to actually materialize that change, yet consistenly fails to do so, I would hesitate to consider that consummation meritorious.

Since taking office, President Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan (and is considering even more troop additions), continued the Bush policy of Iraq's occupation and is now making plans to launch an attack on Iran, despite our National Intelligence Estimate, the IAEA and nearly every other intelligenece organization on the planet saying that Iran has not restarted it's nuke program.

This is behavior rewarded by a Nobel Peace Prize?

Israel

As Saleh Al-Naami reported, "the United States asserted it would no longer demand Israel to stop or freeze the establishment of settlements , but to 'rationalize it'." This is a serious blow to the Middle East peace process, as the expantion of Jewish settlements into Palestinian territory is a primary reason for conflict in the region.
According to Gateway Pundit, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said, "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported.

At a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

"Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses," ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear capabilities, although it refuses to confirm or deny the allegation.

"This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel's) power plants ... and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen," said ElBaradei.

How is the Obama administration serious about peace when it supports a nation that has come under fire for creating a massive nuclear program (with our backing) completely out of world view and intentionally targeting civilians in it's attacks? How can anyone in this administration be considered a champion for peace, when as we speak, they are ramping up for another war in the Middle East, based solely on unsubstantiated "evidence"?

Here is what John Pilger has to say about Iran:

"In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year – a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake."

President Obama is turning out to be nothing more than a wolf in a very eloquent sheep's clothing.

I chose this above photo of President Obama because the American Flag he stands in front of is actually a wartime flag. America has been in a state of war since our civil war (which never officially ended). Here is a photo of the "real" American Flag, the peacetime flag:

It's stripes are vertical. When our leaders display THIS flag, then and only then will they be eligible to receive any type of award rewarding them for steps taken to usher in an era of peace.

It’s All Fun and Games Until Someone Fails a DNA Ancestry Test

2009-10-08T17:57:00.000-07:00

It’s All Fun and Games Until Someone Fails a DNA Ancestry Test

Posted by Osagie Obasogie on September 30th, 2009

Recreational genetics, particularly of the genetic ancestry kind, have been seen as a harmless way for people to learn a little about their heritage despite the technology’s remarkable limitations. Now it seems like the fun and games are over. Officials in the United Kingdom have launched the Human Provenance Pilot Project in an attempt to use some of the same technologies to determine the nationality of asylum seekers.

From Science Magazine:
The Border Agency’s DNA-testing plans would use mouth swabs for mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome testing, as well as analyses of subtle genetic variations called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). One goal of the project is to determine whether asylum-seekers claiming to be from Somalia and fleeing persecution are actually from another African country such as Kenya. If successful, the Border Agency suggests its pilot project could be extended to confirming other nationalities.

This shift from using genetic ancestry tests as a source of recreation to a source of public policy has been ongoing for the past few years. In the United States, for example, genetic ancestry tests have been used for things such as determining who is a “real” Native American and providing evidence of college applicants’ minority status for admissions and financial aid. But the stakes for asylum seekers are particularly high. Refugee Action’s Sandy Buchan notes that many of those who seek asylum are two or even three generations removed from the country of origin of their parents and grandparents, and are fleeing areas other than the nation of their birth. A Zimbabwean farmer fleeing persecution may possess the DNA of British relatives; would they be denied asylum on that basis?

Sir Alec Jeffreys, who developed many of the techniques used for forensic identification, corroborated this sentiment from a scientific perspective: The Borders Agency is clearly making huge and unwarranted assumptions about population structure in Africa; the extensive research needed to determine population structure and the ability or otherwise of DNA to pinpoint ethnic origin in this region simply has not been done. Even if it did work (which I doubt), assigning a person to a population does not establish nationality - people move! The whole proposal is naive and scientifically flawed.

For a closer look at the imprecision behind genetic ancestry tests, see Chapter Two of the CGS Report Playing the Gene Card?

Posted in Civil Society, Osagie Obasogie's Blog Posts, Race, Sequencing & Genomics, The United Kingdom

US Withdrawal From Afghanistan Won’t Cause More Chaos

2009-10-08T12:10:00.002-07:00

The pullout of US troops from Afghanistan won’t worsen the deterioration of the situation in the war-torn country, believes Malou Innocent from the Washington-based Cato Institute.

Propeller “I think that essentially what will happen afterwards is it might look similar to what it did after the Soviets pulled out in the late 1980s and the early 1990s – sort of an eventual devolution of insurgent groups in fighting a sort of civil war,” Innocent told RT.

“But I don’t think it will look too much different from what we see today. A lot of the chaos and the catastrophe and the bloodshed that we see is with a hundred thousand US and NATO troops there. So I don’t think we can eventually see any sort of greater chaos than we do now.”

(http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-10-08/afghanistan-us-troops-pullout.html#)

Introducing 18 Evolution

2009-10-08T08:44:00.000-07:00

18 Evolution is currently under development. Our pages will be sites dedicated to providing current news and cutting edge research on a wide array of political topics.

Included in our research you will find information on H1N1, the U.S. economy, the Green movement/Global Warming, Terrorism, pending legislation, U.S. drug policy and an array of other fascinating topics.

Stay tuned, as the full launch of the website will be up and running this fall.

Check this blog frequently for updates, until then.

Best wishes,

18 Evolution