No rational doubt exists that Jeff Crouere’s Ringside Politics (7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on WGSO 990 am, streaming at is deservingly the best weekday morning news talk show in the Greater New Orleans area. Crouere is a seasoned radio host, to be sure, but that alone doesn’t explain the popularity of his show. Experienced morning talk show hosts compete with Ringside on other radio stations, including the big voices, WWL and Rush Radio, but the corporate owners controlling those stations are apparently reluctant to permit meaty political (I am limiting to national) controversies without controls (read, political correctness), in particular, by banning certain fringe callers to reach their listeners.

Courere bans callers for use of obscenities as defined by the FCC, and that’s about it. Combined with Crouere’s “open line” topic policy and his gift of temperance in dealing with vile fringe callers (even those who attack his Catholic faith) allowing those callers to air their ranting is at the core of the success of Ringside. Conversely, the political correctness embraced by the big voices on their local morning shows banning these fringe callers is at the core of the mediocrity of the morning shows manifested in the blandness and predictability of their weekday local morning hosts. Likely, the big voices fear that the freedom policy of Ringside will lead to a sort of shoddy, base Jerry Springer type presentation. With a host of lesser talent, that might be so; however, Crouere possesses the skills to control those fringe callers, even the vilest ideologues among them discussed below, and even they respect the Reagan conservative Crouere, if only to protect the number of their dwindling radio-show soapboxes that allow them on air.

As well as catapulting Ringside to the top, the freedom of speech/topic policy of Ringside has created a fascinating phenomenon, as well—a loose family of regular callers of all sorts (keeping in mind that tranquility within a family is a fragile state of affairs). Planet 49er and pagan numberologist (if that’s what it’s called) “Professor Joseph,” calls in almost daily believing he is enlightening the audience in predicting all sorts of things by adding and subtracting the number of days or years relating to random and entirely unrelated events, or unraveling the most complicated and insidious of shadow governments. Fad-issue conspiracy theorists call in, too, including the now disbanded jet-trail bunch and the Bilderberg theorists, who believe the eclectic group is planning a one-world government from a New York hotel. There are the one-issue (true or contrived) callers such as the pro-lifers  (of which I’m one) or “birthers,” who call in with evangelical zeal. And, of course, the nationally ubiquitous politically-driven black “reverends,” who wouldn’t know Genesis from Revelation, who call in to decry the sins of racial/social injustices (Rev. Brown, who recently morphed out of the Al Sharpton denomination into a defender of all races, once tried to pass a collection plate on Ringside). But, the most striking phenomenon is the purely politically-driven Ringside family callers. They cover the entire political spectrum—from the collectivists progressive utopians on the Left snuggled next to the totalitarians, to the fanatical Ron Paul libertarians on the Right, not far from the anarchists.

Just as in the real-life national body politic we all must endure, Ringside callers on the Right are of independent mind and without organization, and, to be fair, the same is true for the center-Left callers, who for the purposes of this article are considered merely liberal.[1] That’s not so with the collectivist[2] progressives, who believe that laws and regulations must be promulgated to redistribute wealth, basically a utopian concept to produce an equal result for everyone rather than equal opportunity. This article is about those progressive callers, who (as liberals and progressives naturally do in their adeptness in social organization–for example, Acorn), have organized themselves on Ringside under the name, “The Magnificent (or Sensational) Seven.” I refer to the group as “the Seven.”

Before I explain the true nature of the Seven collectively and those members I discuss below individually, I should mention that I have had two stints as a talk show host on WGSO 990 and two on another station before that. I called my show “Guidance in Broadcasting” (GIB). I didn’t have guests, as I believed I was sufficiently expert on the topics I presented as anyone else. My last edition of GIB was a two-hour show on Saturdays. Rather than renew my contract, I decided to return to my writing, which included completing two book projects and writing on this blog. On GIB, my political views were inappropriately described by listeners as “conservative Christian.”[3] Much of Guidance in Broadcasting was Christian based; my bumper music was Sail On by the once popular, now disbanded, Christian group, The Imperials. To add insult to injury to the progressives of The Magnificent Seven, I sometimes referred to or even quoted Scripture (but never preached).

My view of The Magnificent Seven follows, beginning with an overview. I then offer what I believe is an accurate description of certain members of the Seven: David Bellinger (The Flaming Liberal), James of Metairie, Zorro (The Peoples Champion), L-B, and Black Zorro. By the way, it’s unfair to criticize the last four for taking the obvious advantages of anonymity; virtually all of the regular Ringside family callers do so.[4]

As a declared, identifiable group, The Magnificent Seven isn’t fully cohesive, as there exists a definite hierarchy. Bellinger, James, and Zorro (the Three), are the leaders. Like L-B and Black Zorro, they are progressive utopians dedicated to collectivists distribution of wealth policy, and who, much like our president, disguise their loathing of American individualism and the freedom principles upon which she was founded. L-B and Black Zorro are legitimate local callers, although just as vile. They are tag-alongs—pawns of sorts useful to the Three. I’ve mentioned only five of the Seven; I’m not certain whether there currently are seven members of the group at all. Perhaps if this article lands in the hands of those two who seem to have abandoned the cause, perhaps they will post a comment in response to this article. .

Beginning with L-B, it’s difficult to tell whether he knows what “progressive utopianism” means because his calls are near substance-less for the most part, except for his obsessive bigotry against all white people—the obvious and sole reason he supports the president. L-B possesses a high-pitched voice for a man that sounds as if he’s speaking through a cynical grin. He is a black man perhaps in his late thirties or early forties, and quite intelligent. But the vileness of his attacks against whites, enhanced by his cynical voice, overshadows that intelligence. L-B always pushes the envelope with his use of near obscenities; the tuned-in listener who has experience behind a microphone can almost feel Crouere’s anxiety that some FCC-forbidden word will slither through that grin. L-B adores The Magnificent Seven; when he mentions the Seven his countenance raises with pride as if the group collectively is his personal messiah. Just listening to L-B, one gets the sense that he would not have the courage to call even in anonymity to express is bigotry without his messiah.

Then, there’s Black Zorro. It’s easy to tell he hasn’t a clue what either “progressive utopian” or “collectivism” means. He just insults whites and Republicans in an apolitical way, for the most part insisting that they are hypocrites when it comes to their views against sexual immorality. Black Zorro possesses that slight drawl common to the black New Orleans community and the same colloquialisms and grammatical/pronunciation errors not corrected in predominantly black New Orleans government schools. He has the typical voice of a middle-aged, angry black man, and, on occasion threatens injury to any whites who oppose the views of the Seven. At the beginning of his angry comments or rebuttals, Black Zorro expresses his anger with remarkable consistency; he addresses Crouere with a quick, hard pronunciation of Jeff’s name: “JEFF!,” followed by his usually insulting rant against whites and Republicans. As evidence of the hypocrisy of the philosophical adversaries of the Seven, Black Zorro claims he operates a strip club in New Orleans. He gleefully tells Crouere that “hypocritical” white conservatives and Republicans are regulars in his club and tells Ringside listeners that he enjoys watching them either lose themselves in the sensual heat of lap dances or seek out adulterous opportunities with the women who frequent his club. Black Zorro refuses to disclose the name or location of his strip club. If he dares to identify any of the “hypocrites” to whom he only generally refers, Crouere and WGSO (while Black Zorro cowers in anonymity) would be open to a civil action in defamation, even if the individual Black Zorro condemns is a “public person.” Of course, Black Zorro’s strip club is a figment of his imagination, although, one must admit his creation of such a club is a clever device to insult conservatives, Republicans, and whites, generally in the context of their stance on family values.

Listening to the Three leaders closely over a brief period of time, not so much what each says—which is predictable—and setting aside their name-calling, lies, and insults, but assessing the depth of the substance of the comments of each, it is apparent that Bellinger, James of Metairie, and Zorro are professional talk show callers. By “professional,” I mean that they aren’t casual, local Ringside callers who merely desire “to put in their two cents”; they are connected political ideologues who call stations (perhaps under other handles) all over the country everyday, perhaps for compensation in some form or another, to proselytize their anti-American, anti-individualism, planned-society progressive utopian religion.

First, James of Metairie. He would make a perfect antagonist in a Christian suspense/murder novel. James is white, and in his anonymity, claims to be a Vietnam veteran. (Keep in mind that these are progressives giving tidbits of their lives in anonymity; they are more likely constructing a mythical persona. James possesses a voice any radio host would envy—clear, forceful, slightly below mid-range, and articulate; grammatically, he speaks at the level of one possessing an advanced degree. He rarely calls in unless Crouere has a “special” guest joining him on air to discuss a specific topic . That James does not use a cartoonish descriptive radio name as do Bellinger and Zorro, The Flaming Liberal and Champion of the People, respectively, isn’t surprising. He isn’t the type. James never involves himself in a chat; in his criticism and attacking the reputation of the guest, he is swift and slicing as a Samurai’s sword. When he calls in he begins his response always with an amicable, disarming, “Well, hello Jeff. And hello to your guest.” then ridicules either the topic or launches a well-researched personal attack on the guest, particularly when the guest is Christian, conservative, or anti-Obama. James, with a condition I mention below, is the most intelligent of the entire group, and thus most dangerous of the Three. Unique to James, is the presence of a discernable spiritual component.

Because he expresses himself at such an exquisite intellectual level, it’s especially effective, yet disappointing when he barks out gratuitous insults such as “conservative Christian white devils,” “Neanderthals,” and the like. Nonetheless, it is understandable, because James is the quintessential anti-capitalist progressive collectivist. But that’s his second religion; his first faith is his secular intellectualism. James demonstrates his religious belief in his secularist views by his irrationally angry attacks on anything Christian, particularly regarding the belief in creation and, especially, regarding the opinion of some Christians that the earth is only about 7000 years old.[5] James most always raises a secular versus Christian debate when he calls even when off-topic. As a matter of fact, whether a guest, no matter the topic, believes in a young earth, to James, it is a litmus test for sanity. In many of his calls, he merges the secular with the spiritual within his political collectivism, social utopian view.

With James, Islam, Hinduism, Progressive Judaism (the “Judaism” of Rahm Emanuel—which itself is actually secular intellectualism), or any faith other than Christianity is tolerable (even if anyone of any other faith is conservative, he would not be one of James’s “white devils,” which he reserves for Christian “conservatives”). To understand why that is so, one has to understand the irreconcilable conflict between true Christianity and any species of collectivism, including progressive utopianism. James says he despises Christianity and its belief in evolution and as to some Christians’ belief in a young earth “because of the children.” He says he is also concerned about black voting rights. Actually, he is personally concerned about neither; each “concern” is a façade, just as the president’s concern whether Americans are insured is a facade. James’s real purpose is to promote his progressive collectivism in which control of society is the goal. As to setting up a special government program to assist blacks to vote, which he insists upon, James does so only to protect his fellow progressives because blacks traditionally vote in blocks for Democrats (usually above 95%), while whites are split according to their philosophies of governance. (I should note here that all of the Three, as well as all progressives, use the façade of black suppression of vote solely to promote the advancement of their collectivism).

As to James’s loathing of Christianity, the cause of his rage is that individualism is at the core of the faith.[6] Progressive utopianism, as is true of all species of collectivism, is a philosophy of governance in which an oligarchy is necessarily created at best, or, worse, a totalitarian state. Individualism must be challenged at all costs because if the citizenry doesn’t need government to thrive, there can be no collectivism or utopia as progressives define it. In fact, the underlining reason progressives of any kind despise the Constitution is because of the notion of “inalienable rights” of each individual, not to mention the acknowledgment of our Creator.

James of Metairie is the most dangerous of the Three because he is the most effective communicator of the Three, and the Seven. Although he might be skilled enough to hurriedly gather his information from search engines such as Google when a guest comes on Ringside, I’m convinced he is connected to some sort of network that feeds him topical or personal information regarding guests before he calls Ringside and other radio talk shows across the country. Bellinger could very well be the head of the network. As I mentioned, James rarely calls Ringside unless Crouere has a topical guest expert. Secondly, without knowing beforehand, James is armed with even the minutia (usually skewed statistics taken from progressive-biased sources, which is a favorite technique used by Brillinger) disparaging the view of the guest and in support of his collectivist, secular view, or, if not skewed stastistics, information regarding the topic, or vetted personal facts that demean the guest only available through research, such as past convictions, failed businesses, or the like that call into question credibility. No one can be that equipped and prepared without assistance when calling in on matters without beforehand knowledge.

Because James prefers to evoke a spiritual component in his calls to Ringside, he necessarily must involve himself predominantly in social/societal subjects when he calls in, rather than current political matters everyone else focuses upon. Zorro is assigned the political aspects of the Three when he calls Ringside. Not a lot can be said about The Peoples Champion. Zorro apparently enjoys the position of the vile class clown of the Three, sort of like in Stephen King’s evil clown in his horror film, IT. Most of the time Zorro calls in with scripted witty parables and metaphors on mostly political issues and sometimes cynical comments focused upon conservative, white politicians. I have heard him “off script” on occasions, and like the president with his “You didn’t build that…” off teleprompter rant, Zorro exposed himself as possessing the same adversity to American free enterprise as his utopian, collectivist president, and with equal venom.

Zorro is articulate, but not at James’s level. His sarcasm is entertaining, although sullied with purposefully thinly veiled progressive talking points and propaganda. For the most part, he focuses on national politics and rarely calls in to confront a guest (that’s James’s assignment). Though entertaining, Zorro consistently lacks depth—he is talking-point driven, as are the lemming seminar callers infecting all conservative news talk shows everywhere. For instance, lately Zorro has been on a rant against Mr. Romney, but all he manages isn his sarcasm are certain odd (and ironically antithetical Christian) tenants of Mormonism that virtually all the listeners have heard time and time again. Although, Zorro, too, is a secularist, unlike James, there is little spirituality in his calls.

Although he has tailed-off doing so lately, Zorro has two signature abrupt call-ending devices after he has read his scripted rant. The best-known one is his taunting, snark-ish “Taaa-ta” just before hanging up. The second, which he might have abandoned—he bursts out in laughter before hanging up, but not just ordinary laughter…a well-practiced, piercing laughter very much like the laughter of an insane asylum inmate in one of those old black-and-white movies. Zorro likely abandoned the call ending asylum laughter because it was perfectly appropriate for the content and presentation of his Ringside call.

     The Flaming Liberal, David Bellinger.[7] What can one say? Well…he’s blind and, as if any listener of Ringside or anyone else in the country cares, he brags about having a black, live-in girlfriend, perhaps more than one.  James of Metairie would have us believe that Bellinger is the leader of the Seven, that Bellinger is the bearer of the “truth.” Of course, Bellinger tortures the truth every time he calls any radio station on the short national list of hosts who will air him. Bellinger possesses an undistinguished voice, and he spews his words rapidly. He does so because as a caller, Bellinger has mastered the art of over-talking the host or opponent in debate, or seamlessly and quickly moving on to another topic when he’s losing ground. Over-talking the host or guest-opponent and switching topics when losing is an often-used device of liberals and progressives in debates. Bellinger is also skilled in the deception of moral equivalency in his arguments, another deceptive debate device perfected by progressives and especially effective for reasons too complicated to explain here. [8] The simplest explanation of deceptive moral equivalency is, “two wrongs don’t make a right,” we all heard when disciplined in childhood. In real discussion, moral equivalency with progressives goes like this: “You can’t criticize my president for X, because your president did X when he was in office.” If the former president actually did X, then his doing so, if wrong or imprudent, is no justification for the current president doing the same thing; it’s still wrong or imprudent.

Bellinger is unique among members of the Seven because he tells the radio audience he is a Bible-believing Christian (“I am a Christian because I am a liberal,” he claims). He insists he is a Christian despite he, like James, believes that “conservative” Christians are white devils and his pernicious attacks on anyone else who doesn’t agree with him ether in matters of politics or on social issues. The reason I do not believe Bellinger’s vile comments have a spiritual component worthy of discussing, is, assuming he really believes he is a Christian, he is devoid of knowledge of the Gospel, and for that matter the entire Bible. I have corrected him by email in his absurd interpretations of Scripture (In one call, he insisted that topless dancers should not be taxed because the Bible refers to them as pineapples, apparently misquoting and not understanding verses in Songs of Solomon). Also, Bellinger claims he is a “senior deacon,” under an unnamed “reverend.” He preaches to a flock, he says on Ringside, guiding the members in matters of the spiritual. It’s almost funny. The problem is two-fold: the Bible clearly sets out the qualifications and duties of a deacon, and Bellinger is nowhere close to either. And, the term “reverend” is nowhere found in the Bible, despite what Bellinger and the black social justice activists who co-opt the term believe.

Above all, what is fascinating about David Bellinger is his in-your-face narcissism; the affliction has, sadly, become his personal glory. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed., DSM IV-TR 301.8 provides a list of personality traits diagnostic of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPO). Bellinger is a case study; he possesses every trait on the list. Bellinger genuinely needs treatment for his NPO, which is why, despite his not realizing it, only his disciples of progressive utopianism believe what he says. I listen with amazement when he proudly proclaims to the Ringside audience, “I am the most intelligent radio talk show caller in the country,” “I am the reason for the success of Ringside Politics,” or “my romance novel (which is unpublished) is a great American classic,” and the like. As I mentioned, James seems to be the most intelligent of the Three. I stated that my conclusion is conditional because Bellinger might be far and away the most intelligent, but his extreme narcissistic proclamations makes him sound kookier than even Zorro. And, Bellinger’s raging, irrational vileness against some fellow callers, any person who disagrees with him, Tea Party activists, and all Republicans, even the moderate establishment Republicans, is antithetical to a true intellectual.

     The Magnificent Seven is a nationally insignificant group of regular radical, vile, progressive fringe callers to one small, independently owned radio station. But the members, particularly the Three, demonstrate the remarkable dedication they possess along with their nationwide covert disciples to obtain their end, and the corrupt, pernicious means they use to get there, no matter how small the increment gained toward that end. Professional callers like Bellinger, James, and Zorro call into radio talk shows are in every city in this country. Collectivists of all kinds band together as a part of their natural tendency and skill in community organization, which is the reason they now control most of the federal government despite being in the small minority in governance philosophy.

But a recent political phenomenon has come into the body politic: the Tea Party. Tea Party conservatives have agreed to stay away from the usual one-issue demands, or all or nothing position, common to the conservative mindset. Tea Party activists collectively demand a small, fiscally responsible government that honors the Constitution, and thus, individualism; they avoid social issues. To add insult to the progressive utopians, the Tea Party activists are predominantly Christian. All of that is at the core of the irrational rage the Seven, especially the Three, who lose control when a Tea Party topic arises on Ringside. Another pleasing consideration is that the emergence of the Tea Party represents conservatives co-opting the strategy of the community-organizer mentality of progressives: individual proponents joining together against their foes, the strategy of The Magnificent Seven on Ringside Politics.

[1] By “merely liberal,” I mean the sublimely naive politicians such as Jimmy Carter, who actually love America, but haven’t a clue that individualism and individual freedom and responsibility in a capitalist system is the reason for her incomparable success in world history.

[2] F.A. Hayvek’s classic work, The Road to Serfdom, explains collectivism and its sub-variants, economic and social collectivism. As the Heritage Foundation urges, any reader interested in freedom and wanting to understand the gradual movement of government to a utopian, planned society, should read Serfdom, although, Havek is clearly at the intellectual level in his discipline as was Albert Einstein in his. It is not an easy read.

[3] What the Left and many on the Right do not understand is that there are no “Conservative” or “Liberal” Christians. Christianity is defined within and only within the context of the Gospels and the Epistles, and nowhere else. Jesus made it clear that He loathed division among his followers (that was particularly so with political division and with regard to the Progressive Utopians of His time, the Pharisees and Sadducees). Paul made it clear that sectarianism is against God’s Word; sectarianism is another word for denominations. Thus, one is either a Christian as solely defined by the New Testament, or one is something else. One is a child of God and translated into His Kingdom, or one is not. God’s Kindom has no place for “liberal” or “conservative” saints, for that matter, neither is there in Heaven.

[4] Bellinger did not out his identity voluntarily. One of his female surrogates unintentionally stated his name when she called into my show. I had already known the true identity of The Flaming Liberal. Once outed, Bellinger often claims he identity and proclaims that he is the only caller with the courage to do so.

[5] I take this opportunity to explain the belief in a young earth. Christians base their young earth belief by calculating the ages given in the genealogies of the Old and New Testament, not the general idea that to God a day is a 1000 years. The biblical record, combined with the uncertainties of carbon dating and other methods of calculating matters regarding antiquity, brings about the young earth belief. Personally, I have not researched newer methods of dating ancient things; however, even as a former scientist and having studied the theory of carbon dating, I’ve always doubted the accuracy and objectivity of the technique.

[6] Don’t let the progressives convince you otherwise. The core of God’s Word is choice of the individual and our personal, individual relationship with Him. The president’s statement at Georgetown regarding “collective salvation” is typical apostasy of the progressives, who must some way even convince us that salvation isn’t an individual gift.

[7] A photo of Bellinger sitting on his sofa in his Atlanta apartment is available if one Googles his name. As always, he looks nothing like imagined; he appears to be a regular fellow sitting there in is sad, victim countenance, whom you might even guess is a conservative.

[8] If the reader is uncertain as to what the deceptive device in argument known as “moral equivalence,” I urge the reader to go to There, at the GIB blog, you should click on Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism and Biblical Ignorance.  

Posted by: Glyn Godwin | August 1, 2011

Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism and Biblical Ignorance

After the Norway Police arrested mass killer Anders Behring Brevik, before the sun went down, their investigators concluded that Brevik was a right -wing Christian Fundamentalist.  Norway television spread the revelation that the massacre was connected with Christianity:

          “We are not sure whether he was alone or had help,” a (Norway) police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised news conference. “What we know is that he is right wing and a Christian fundamentalist.”

When the investigators poured over Brevik’s manifesto, they learned that he wasn’t a Christian at all; he didn’t even believe in God, and, precisely as liberals and progressives do, he questioned why a confident man needed God.

The figurative altar of liberal written philosophy, The New York Times, gleefully perpetuated the police representative’s hasty and stupid assumption nationally by quoting him.[1] Locally, on the July 22nd edition of Jeff Crouere’s Ringside Politics with a Punch on WGSO 990 am, “All Star” liberal commentator, attorney, and political activist, Mitch Gibbs, reminded the radio audience of other atrocities committed by Christian Fundamentalist terrorists. Mr. Crouere took a call from one of his regular loony caller-prophets (my favorite is “Joseph,” who believes that the dragon in the Book of Revelation is symbolic for Planet X). Mr. Crouere’s caller prophesied that as a consequence of all countries working together to snuff out religious terrorism, all religions will be controlled by some sort of world religious authority. (Ironically, some single-entity controlling all world religions is biblically accurate).

Impressed with the caller-seer, Mr. Gibbs said to the radio audience:

          “The caller has a point. When you have issues of Fundamentalist Christians who have killed or shot at abortion doctors…”

Like his liberal, Mr. Gibbs suffers from either obvious ignorance of the Bible (obvious to those who read and understand the Bible, anyway) or he is afflicted with the anti-Christian bias common to the followers of his secular religion of liberalism.

Since the advent of Islamic terrorism committed by Islamic/Muslim Fundamentalists, the words “Fundamentalism” or “Fundamentalist,” have understandably taken on an evil connotation. Liberals have imported that connotation from the now politically incorrect usage in association with Muslims and Islamists to Christians. Nowhere in mainstream written journalism, television news, or liberal cable news channels will you ever again hear  the phrases “Fundamentalist Islam Terrorism” or “Islam Fundamentalism” as an appeasement to the oft-censoring Mr. Obama. Not so with terrorists who either claim they are Christians, or, as the police representative demonstrated on Oslo television, are falsely reported to be Christian.

When “Christian Fundamentalist terroist” is used by liberal journalists and commentators, they are using a deceptive debating technique called “moral equivalence,” although some (as is likely so with Mr. Gibbs) might not realize it because they are merely parroting liberal talking points. In the use of moral equivalency the liberals are either outrightly or subliminally sending the message, read this carefully, that Islamic/Muslim terrorists kill and maim for a different reason (jihad to spread Shari Law) than Christian Fundamentalists terrorists, but the immorality of both groups is comparable, or equivalent.

I’m not sure when liberals sowed the seed of anti-Christian moral equivalency with Islamic/Muslim terrorism with the words “Fundamentalism” or “Fundamentalist,” but I think I know one disciple of liberalism who helped that seed sprout and grow to the prevailing deception it is today. You might recall that on May 31, 2009, in Wichita, Kansas, Scott Roeder, during a church service, fatally shot mild-mannered, boy-scout leader looking, Dr. George Tiller. Actually, Dr. Tiller earned his living doing what most abortionists, who, of course, also kill babies for money, hypocritically refused to do: Dr. Tiller butchered partially born babies and babies in late pregnancy. (What can only be described as a dark, morbid irony only the ruler of darkness himself could construct, Dr. Tiller was a leader and usher in his church).

Dr. David W. Boles is the founder of the blog, Dramatic Medicine, and admittedly, a brilliant, multi-talented professor associated with many major universities as a professor, an adjunct professor, and visiting professor. He is also a prolific writer on his blog, often going beyond medical matters, despite what the name of his Blog implies. At 2:50 p.m., on June 1, 2009, the day after the murder of Dr. Tiller and the same day the county district attorney filed the Bill of Information—equivalent to an indictment—against Mr. Roeder, Dr. Boles posted an article entitled Fundamental Christian Terrorism on his blog.[2] The article is palatably anti-Christian. It is relevant here that among Dr. Boles’s personal interests are New Age concepts, including urban mysticism, universal life force theory (a species of Hinduism), and shamanism,[3] all of which the Bible condemns. In his article Dr. Boles wrote:

“(Mr. Roeder’s) Running away from the death is pretty good evidence that the Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist is no better than some of the thugs we have stowed away in the military hulks and at Guantanamo.”  [Emphasis, mine]

(“Hulks” are bodies of old rusting ships still in the water. Dr. Boles is lying when he alleges that U.S. stowed anyone in military hulks. Liberals loathe the military, and cannot resist a zing even if off topic. I appreciate Dr. Boles’s lie; it demonstrates that anything he writes outside of medicine must be contemplated with his liberalism in mind).

Now, back to subject. Do you see Dr. Boles’s use of moral equivalence between Christian Fundamentalism and Islamic/Muslim Fundamentalism? The use is obvious in this quote; “is no better than,” which is a red flag for the deceptive moral equivalence argument. Unlike Dr. Bole’s article, the use of moral equivalence is usually subliminal in most liberal journalists and commentators. Mr. Gibbs’s statement demonstrates subliminal use of the deceptive debate technique.

Why did the killing of Dr. Tiller outrage the liberals?

Because, abortion is the sacrament of their secular religion.

If Mr. Roeder had shot an orthopedic surgeon instead of an abortionist, news about the killing would not have gone beyond a two-minute bite on Wichita evening news, let alone spread nationally by the NYT. And, I assure you that Dr. Boles would not have scurried to his blog immediately after the indictment to write one word about a murdered orthopedist.

Let’s go back to what Mr. Gibbs said to the Ringside Politics audience in response to that loony prophet-caller who impressed him so much:

          “The caller has a point. When you have issues of Fundamentalist Christians who have killed or shot at abortion doctors…”

Mr. Gibbs makes my point: the caller was talking about fundamental terrorists of all sorts, but specifically mentioned Islamic Fundamentalism. Like his liberal colleagues, Mr. Gibbs used moral equivalence subliminally, but as I mentioned probably ignorantly while parroting liberal talking points, also known as propaganda.

Because they do not read God’s Word, these pundits do not understand that Christian Fundamentalism can have  nothing to do with any kind of violence. The liberal journalists and commentators either do not know, do not bother to research, or refuse to admit that there exists neither a distinct group identifiable as “Christian Fundamentalists” as there is with Muslim/Islam Fundamentalists. And Muslim/Islam Fundamentalist terrorists have known leaders and definite but unknown geographic locations where they train and plan their indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women, and children for the sake of jihad. They proudly announce responsibility for their mass slaughters. When an act of what liberals call “Christian Fundamentalism Terrorism” occurs, it is always committed by a lone, crazed actor in a dangerous delusional state, and it always involves abortionists or abortions clinics—not innocents who happen to be too close to the homicide bomber, who believes the religious absurdity that after he slaughters his victims and blows himself into smithereens, his soul will be swooped away to his heaven, where a harem of seventy-two open-armed, virgins eagerly await him to terminate their sexual status.

Well, if Christian Fundamentalism is not the moral equivalent of Fundamental Islamic/Muslim Fundamentalism, what is it?

Christian Fundamentalism existed before Mr. Boles leaped to his computer to be the first blogger to write his anti-Christian article tagging Scott Roeder falsely as a “Fundamentalist Christian Terrorist.”  The term “Christian Fundamentalism” was first used by liberal professors in academia, whose intellect is so profound, their opinions cannot be questioned by human beings possessing mere ordinary brains like us.  Roots of Fundamentalism,[4] written by Ernest Sandeen, Ph.D. and crafted for his colleagues in typical gobbledygook social science language, is considered the landmark academic work regarding Christian Fundamentalism.

Sandeen proposes that Christian Fundamentalism, “…was a self-conscious, structured, long-lived dynamic entity” that has its roots in the nineteenth century.

What? Huh?

Like most conclusions drawn by academics in the soft sciences (as opposed to the hard sciences such as mathematics, chemistry, and physics), Sandeen has complicated a simple truth—here, a simple biblical Truth I will discuss later. For us simple minded, Christian Fundamentalism is merely the belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and an accurate, ancient historic record. Belief in the infallibility of the Bible existed even before Johannes Gutenberg printed it in the 1450’s. As for America, the Pilgrims were Christian Fundamentalists; that was why they risked their lives sailing the Atlantic Ocean to be free from the oppressive, legalistic Church of England.

(Keep in mind that Christian Fundamentalists interpret parts of the Bible differently, but that does not change the fact that they all believe in the infallibility of the Bible. For example, many, if not most, Baptists are fundamentalists, but disagree with the biblical interpretation of the members of the Assembly of God, also fundamentalists,,on many aspects of the Holy Spirit in a Christian’s life).

As I mentioned, the Truth is so simple: Christianity did not suddenly arrive or evolve in the human societal experience, as the liberals and even liberals who claim to be “Christian” (they are not) seem to believe. The sole origin of Christianity is the Bible—the entire Bible and no other writing, book, or volume. Every aspect of Christianity, every nuance of the faith, every precept of the faith, originated exclusively from and is framed by the words in the Bible. And what will befuddle all liberals, those who read the Bible and understand it, understand that Christianity is not even a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Who said:

         “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you,” love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” Matt. 5:43 (NKJV).


         “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” John 13:34 (NKJV).

Do those Scriptures that any Christian who believes the Bible sound like they encourage terrorism?

Dr. Boles, the authors of the NYT’s piece I quoted, and commentator Mr. Mitch Gibbs have no clue what the Bible says because they do not read it. If only to gain knowledge about Christianity for professional competence so they do not link terrorism foolishly to Christianity, ignorantly or intentionally, they should.

I doubt they will, though. After all, one of their colleagues might see them with their gaze fixed on a page of the Bible.

Heaven forbid!

[1] New York Times, Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War, July 23, 2011.
[2]Dramatic Medicine, Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism, June 1, 2009.
[3] The word “Shamanism” is a derivative of shaman, defined as a witch doctor who is believed to be able to heal by calling upon the spirit world. See: <>, David W. Boles Biography.
[4]Ernest Sandeen, Roots of Fundamentalism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois,1970.

The debate over whether man causes global warming by emitting “greenhouse gases” is not going away, although those determined to force the myth upon us go missing when polls disclose their credibility floundering. In fact, despite knowing Americans do not want it, energy legislation such as Cap and Trade will likely be imposed upon us by the progressives in much the same fashion as was the unwanted national health care legislation. It is important to understand that the necessity of any energy legislation contemplated by the political elite depends upon the validity of man-made global warming (that I will refer to only as “global warming” in this article for brevity sake). Advocates of global warming are determined to go to any the-end-justifies-the-means contrivance to seduce Americans into accepting global warming as fact.


The determined advocates have secular motives, of course. Among them, in the short-term, to garner more power for the international (including America’s) power elite class to which the advocates belong, and in the long-term, and perhaps the most compelling, to establish some form of one-world governance—with them in control, of course.

But a spiritual motive exists, as well. And not a good one. That motive arises from the pride of man tempting him to be equal to God in authority over the Creation. The irresistible desire for that authority has led global warming to become a denomination of the extreme environmentalist cult that worships the creation rather than the Creator.

So, now we return to the tower of the City of Babel.

The descendants of the sons of Noah—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—populated the post-Flood earth. The descendents of Ham, who was cursed because he gazed upon his drunk, unconscious and unclothed father (Gen. 9:24, 25), settled on the plain of the land of Shinar, where they built the City of Babel (succeeded by Babylon and now, approximately, Bagdad). Moses, the inspired author of Genesis, recorded the first prideful corporate declaration the people of Babel:

3And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.

4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. Gen. 11:3, 4 (KJV).

Note the words “unto heaven” are italicized. In the New King James Version, verse 4, reads:

And they said,” Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens.”

Note the italicized “is.”

In attempting to build their tower to reach unto heaven, or such that the top, is in the heavens, the people of Babel sought to occupy the same habitat of God, symbolically placing them at His level and sharing in His authority over Creation. It is at the core of the flesh of man to desire being a god, to possess full control over his own life and the Creation surrounding him. Seeking to be a god is the centerpiece doctrine of many religions, including the New Age movement and, I believe, humanism. It is not a coincidence that in Babylon, which rose from the City of Babel, where the spirit of pride was so great that King Nebuchadnezzar succumbed to the temptation of declaring himself a god.

So what does the tower of Babel have to do with the global warming myth from a spiritual motive of the determined advocates? The pride that obsessed the people of Babel to reach the habitat of God as a symbolic gesture of being equal to His authority over Creation is that same spirit of pride that drives the global warming movement. It is a strategy of the spiritual warfare Apostle Paul (the real apostle, not the counterfeit discussed later) describes the strategy this way:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph. 6:12 (KJV)

The people who conceived building the tower in ancient Babel did so convinced that entering God’s habitat would place them equal in authority to God over His Creation. Those peoples’ vain conception was different in context than those who are convinced that activities of man leads to global warming, but the symbolism  in ancient Babel and today is the same: man himself is in control of his own destiny and of the Creation itself.

Genesis tells us the sequences of events leading to the Creation. On the sixth day God created man (and woman), then:

“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”   Gen. 1:31a. (KJV).

Principally in the Book of Revelation, God’s Word describes how the earth will be destroyed and how a new earth shall come about. It all ends with:

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.” Rev. 21:1 (KJV).

Al Gore is the undisputed Apostle Paul and oracle of man-made global warming as evidenced by The Hill in an August 19, 2010 post. The Hill reported that Gore, whose “carbon footprint” contrivance is that of a small town, called for mass demonstrations (read: Apostle Al’s flock) to drive global warming legislation though Congress. Gore is furious because Congress has not yet obeyed his edict to pass energy legislation to ward off the imminent death and mayhem global warming will cause. From his multi-million-dollar mansion, Apostle Gore angrily wrote to his flock seeking revenge in the form of riots, “Congress has failed you.”

Gore’s propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, shoved down the throats and into the psyche of government school children from pre-kindergarten to high school and considered a prophetic documentary by his faithful (sort of like his own Book on Revelation on cellulose) is perhaps the best known representation of the apostle’s doom and gloom scenario if we refuse to obey him. We must drive one of those squishy, two-seater, three-cylinder, go-cart-wheeled, premium-gas-requiring Smart cars if we can afford one, or mount bicycles if we cannot.

Genesis and Revelation are the bookends of the Bible. In Genesis, we learn that God, the Creator, created the earth and all life on it; in Revelation (the real one), we learn how the earth will be destroyed—certainly not by mere man. But, Gore and his followers (whether among those followers who are his elitist comrades in progressivism, or simply the duped and brainwashed) warn us that if Americans do not change our activities, mankind will die and the earth will perhaps be destroyed.

(To understand progressivism and its goal of one-world governance, go to <> and read my articles, Progressivism: Nothing New  under the Sun and The Myth of Global Warming: Going Global, Maurice Strong, the Sinister Wizard of Un).

Is it logical to believe that man, created by God, possesses the capacity to destroy the work of the Creator? Well…yes, if one believes man is equal to God and shares in His authority over His Creation.

Sound familiar?

It should. It is the belief born of pride that possessed the descendents of Ham to seek to establish on the plain of the land of Shinar in the City of Babel equality to the Creator, the same pride that possessed King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, which rose from Babel, to be a god, and the same pride that drives Apostle Gore and the greedy or deceived members of his flock of global warmers to be equal in authority to the Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Do not believe them for a minute; do not be seduced by the elitist or the uneducated politicians who seem to be on the side of a Christian America (uneducated in the sense that they are too intellectually lazy to seek the truth regarding the myth of global warming and ignorantly spread the fallacy of “greenhouse gases”  like carriers of a disease. To understand the fallacy, read The Myth of Global Warming: The Crucial Lie on my blog).

The duped and deceived ones in the flock need prayer to understand that but for the grace and everlasting kindness of our Creator, they, and all of us for that matter, would not be on this earth, her destiny He and He alone controls as her Creator. Most of the members of the flock of the counterfeit apostle, I am certain, have no idea that they have joined a congregation led by the same spirit that possessed the descendents of Ham and that seduced the people into building that tower on the plain of Shinar in the City of Babel.

Posted by: Glyn Godwin | August 1, 2010

Why the People Groan

I was listening to talk radio last Saturday morning. A caller called in. The frustration and anxiety in his gruff, sixty-ish voice pierced me. An image rose up before my mind’s eye: an army veteran wearing that dull fuzzy brown wool dress coat hugging his torso secured by those dark brass buttons, and tears welling up from the outside corners of his eyes. The caller asked the attorney-talk show host whether some law would allow him to disassociate from the federal government like he believed the Amish do. He insisted that he didn’t want to expatriate himself or renounce his American citizenship. The tone and inflections in his voice made it clear he loved his country; he just wanted to shield himself from the growing financial and societal abuses and the coming severe consequences of the current administration’s intentional destruction of the exceptionalism that distinguishes America from every country in world history. He didn’t express himself in those words, but that was what he was saying.

I don’t know whether my imaginary, disheartened veteran knew that for decades the government schools, controlled by progressive politicians and bureaucrats, have refused to teach, and even ridiculed the notion of America’s Exceptionalism. For those decades and now, no public school taught that the success of the Great Experiment (I wonder how many Americans know what that phrase means) had its origin in America’s unprecedented and inspired founding documents. Those documents affirmed our rights come from God, our Creator, not from laws and regulations imposed upon us by an elitist progressive ruling class. (Our founders warned that we must be vigilant against those who would attempt to slither into power to take control of the unique, new fragile free society). We naïve Americans, citizens foremost and first of the United States of Entertainment, juke’n down the sidewalk with our I-Pods blaring, enthralled with the marriage of the media’s new Princess Dianna Clinton, have long confidently assumed that no such ruling class would ever rise up to chisel our freedoms away; not here, not in America. Now, suddenly, that elite, progressive class has evolved as we watched with our eyes wide shut. Despite being in the considerable minority, its privileged members have seized the executive and legislative branches of our government, the judicial branch following not far behind with the newest radical appointees to the highest court.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.
Prov. 29:2 (NKJV)

When Solomon wrote “groan,” he gave us the result—the consequences—of the reign of the wicked man, not why the people groan. Rarely applied common sense tells us that people groan under such authority because of fear and uncertainty, because they are being led to a place against their will, and they don’t know what will happen next. All they can do is grit their teeth, clinch their fists and yell futilely, “Enough is enough!”

The discouraged caller likely didn’t realize that many influential people had already expressed his anxiety. In a remarkably bold internet post by The Wall Street Journal on June 10, 2010, entitled, The Alien in the White House; the distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed, WSJ editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz set out reasons why this administration is alien to the citizens that, guided by the Constitution, the administration swore to serve. In Ms. Rabinowitz’s own words, the central indictment of the administration was: “It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.”

Despite the candor of her article, Ms. Rabinowitz could not be completely intellectually honest; the truth is, after all, just too to frightening, too hard to believe and might offend some readers and, of course, the mainstream press (a species of political correctness). But in her article, Ms. Rabinowitz implies the truth visible to those without scales over their eyes: It makes no difference what the majority of Americans want, even demand; the goal of the progressive elites headed by this administration must be fulfilled. That goal is power and control over us by regulations and laws they alone promulgate. In pursuit of that goal, the means—including lying, maneuvering, and inciting class and racial strife, even violence—justifies, to them, their sacred end.

Ms. Rabinowitz is not alone, either. Morten Zuckerman, the media mongrel, and once one of the millions of marching-toward-the-cliff lemmings of the current administration (he allegedly wrote at least one of those teleprompter speeches), wrote an article on July 2, 2010 entitled, Obama is Barely Treading Water. Mr. Zuckerman must have cringed in buyers’ remorse as he wrote: “Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a nice breakfast but it has proved a poor supper.” He went on…, “Americans are fed up with Washington…fed up with the ill-conceived stimulus program, fed up with the misdirected health care program, and pretty much everything else.”

What is Mr. Zuckerman saying? He is saying that we Americans are groaning. Solomon wrote the inspired words thousands of years ago to tell us why: But when a wicked man rules…

On July 30, 2010, Ernest S. Christian of co-posted, Will Washington’s Failures Lead to a Second American Revolution? In the article, the authors discussed the disturbing uncertainty Americans feel. They wrote that people are asking…, “Is the government doing us more harm than good?”

What are Mr. Christian and his co-author saying? They are saying that people groan when they begin to realize that the actual deeds of those governing them, despite their reassuring words and false promises, show themselves as the enemy of the people they swore to serve.

I am not posting this article to provoke paranoia or to spread the “enough is enough” sentiment that is festering among the majority of Americans. Quite the contrary; I am showing that millenniums ago the Truth was written in God’s Word by history’s wisest man guided by God’s Hand, the same Hand that guided the hands of our founding fathers. He is still with us; He has never left us. And, He is with that discouraged caller, too.

If we keep our faith and continue to pray, our Creator, whom the founders acknowledged in our founding documents, will heal this nation. He will not let America and her exceptionalism be destroyed by the corrupt progressive elites, no matter the arrogance and condescension they display as they continue their financial and societal abuses while gleefully waiting to take advantage of the national crisis they know their governance will cause. As it is assured us in the Bible, they shall have their rewards, as we shall have ours.

So, dear caller, if you happen to read this, wipe your eyes and stand tall. Do not leave your post. We groan only for a season. When a righteous authority rules—and he or she will come if we keep our faith and stand our post with you—we shall rejoice together, once again.

“Wonderful wizard he was, he was—the wonderful wizard of…,” the U.N.

In an article by Ronald Bailey first published in The National Review,[1] Mr. Bailey quotes The New York Times hailing Maurice Strong as “Custodian of the Planet.” Strong has been on the short list of candidates for Secretary General of the United Nations for decades; he is now approaching eighty years old.  Not to worry, though; this man will never open the curtain that hides him and his levers of worldwide power networking and progressive propaganda brokering. His buddies range from uber-globalist and progressive Al Gore to RINO George H. W. Bush, and most of the progressive global movers and shakers in between. During the sixties, Canadian-born, Strong, was a powerful U.N. bureaucrat, and, as now, obsessed with the idea of a one-world government operated by the U.N. as its leadership. His problem back then was how to justify implementation that one-world government.

In my second article in this series, The Myth of Global Warming series, I wrote that in 1957, the late Roger Revelle, then Director of Schiff’s Oceanography Institute and Harvard visiting professor, co-authored papers that connected burning fossil fuels with increased atmospheric CO2.. As a result of the papers, others speculated that atmospheric CO2 absorbed heat, causing a rise in (global) atmospheric temperature. (A scientific conclusion that has never been proven, which is why Gore introduced the notion of “Scientific Consensus”). That increase, according to the faithful, will be devastating to human life on Earth—the whole Earth.

Revelle’s papers came just in time. Strong had justification to implement, perhaps not a one-world government, but some degree of the next best thing: the threshold to the sliding slope toward U.N. world rule, some degree of global governance.

How? The U.N. would be justified in demanding first world nations (read the United States and other capitalist or industrial powers) that caused global atmospheric damage by emitting CO2 should make payments to the U.N. to be distributed to third-world countries. The payments were CO2 taxes (Today, include a U.N. tax on methane and even water vapor, the gases composing the fraudulent “greenhouse gases.” I mention this in depth in The Myth of Global Warming: The Crucial Lie).

Custodian of the Earth Maurice Strong had to have been ecstatic when the Revelle papers came along. In 1970, he organized a U.N. celebration: the World Earth Day in Stockholm Sweden. Thereafter, to provide a façade of scientific credibility to the unproven notion of greenhouse gases and man-made global warming, Strong pushed for a U.N. sycophant group of U.N. one-world government bureaucrats, radical environmentalists activists, and environmental scientists. The “scientific panel” was called the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC did no research; it merely reviewed published articles on climate change and promoted only those authors and their articles that agreed with the myth of man-made global warming. The press, liberal and ignorant, in the United States and world-wide portrayed the IPCC as the final scientific word on the subject of man-made global warming. The IPCC directly and indirectly played a substantial role in scientific grants to researchers regarding climate change. Any researcher who desired to test any hypothesis that touched upon a theory that repudiated man-made global warming “need not apply.”

Behind his curtain, the obscure, powerful Maurice Strong and the world media succeeded in their quest to raise IPCC to the preeminent source of scientific authority regarding global warming; IPPC became the last word in the false science.

Why the push? The linchpin concept of man-made global warming is that it is global. Globalism is an inextricable tenet of progressivism and, by its nature, it is, of course, global. Regulating man-made global warming must therefore be global. As a practical matter the only political entity able to regulate the “problem” is the United Nations. Regulating the problem means regulating CO2 and other “greenhouse gas” emissions by forcing global reduction and implementing worldwide taxation, read: either worldwide redistribution of wealth directly through the U.N., or in corroboration with the U.N.

Mr. Obama’s Cap and Tax, or the “Energy Bill,” or whatever euphemism it will be labeled is an example of that corroboration. Cap and Trade is not based on a theory in a vacuum. Regulating and taxing CO2 and other gases fraudulently labeled “greenhouse gases” is dependent upon man-made global warming being scientifically valid. It is not. Cap and Trade is pushed by the progressives of this country to increase their power and wealth, to redistribute income, and more insidious, to reduce the United States to a second or third world country—the ever-enduring effort of those who desire to empower the United Nations and to incrementally increase global governance toward Maurice Strong’s life-long obsession whether it takes years, decades, or generations: a one world government.

[1] International Man of Mystery: Who is Maurice Strong? The National Review, September 1, 1997.

The scientific validity of man-made global warming depends wholly upon the proposition that “greenhouse gas” molecules absorb infrared heat when light passes through them, carbon dioxide being the principal culprit. As I wrote in my first article in this series, The Myth of Global Warming: The Crucial Lie, no scientific evidence, no scientific article—none—exists to support the greenhouse gas heat absorption theory. Al Gore’s advisors contrived the “scientific consensus” absurdity to fill the vacuum of scientific evidence (Gore, who flunked out of divinity school and who refuses to debate the issue, just doesn’t have the mental wherewithal to construct such a brilliant diversion from intellectual honesty as that a scientific theory is established by vote).

President Obama’s pick to head up the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, pronounced that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant.  Ms. Jackson had to do that even though CO2 is involved in respiration in virtually all forms of life since life on this planet began. The tragedy is that even conservative politicians, too busy to learn the truth and spending too much time in front of mirrors, have accepted the notion that “CO2 emissions” must be curtailed—the fraudulent premise used intentionally by progressives and by gullible liberals who demand that capitalism-killing laws such as Cap and Trade must be passed to save the Earth.

The starting line of the misleading road began in the fifties. Oceanographer Roger Revelle, then Director of Scripps Oceanographic Institute in San Diego, expanded the goals of the Institute from oceanic studies to atmospheric issues. Revelle hired Chicago professor and geophysicist, Hans Suess, whose main interest was the effects of burning fossil fuels on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

In 1957, Revelle and Suess co-authored a paper dealing with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels and oceanic absorption of the gas. Their paper led to speculation that man-made carbon dioxide increased atmospheric temperatures because of a “greenhouse effect,” that is, that atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed heat, increasing atmospheric temperatures.

Revelle needed a way to measure the gas in the atmosphere to get to the next step. He hired geochemist David Keeling to devise a way to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide. In a 1958, Keeling published a paper connected burning fossil fuel (read, our use of gasoline and diesel fuel) to the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The two research articles, the first co-authored by Revelle and Suess and the second by Keeling, became the infallible references for the man-made global alarmists, who claimed doom for mankind, and worse, for polar bears. Note: although neither of these papers provided any support that carbon dioxide absorbed heat; the molecule does not. If the absorption theory cannot be validated, man-made global warming is not happening.

Revelle taught freshmen as a visiting professor at Harvard University; Al Gore was one of his students. Gore later declared Revelle his mentor. Problems for Al: Revelle later changed his mind that a greenhouse effect existed since no scientific evidence supported that any gas absorbed heat, raising atmospheric temperature. Revelle was concerned that the man-made global warming mania that he had created (he is known affectionately by the global warming alarmists as “the father of the man-made global warming theory”) was going too far. He believed it was premature to make laws regulating carbon dioxide (read again, cap and trade) based on the unproven heat absorption theory.

Revelle was so concerned that he wrote letters to politicians. On July 14, 1988, he sent a letter to Congressman Jim Bates (D-Ca). He wrote: “Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of ‘greenhouse warming.’ As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal believe is that we should wait another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.”

The waiting period Revelle urged was for scientific research to validate or invalidate the greenhouse effect since if the effect, the absorption of heat, cannot be validated, man-made global warming does not happen. Despite desperate attempts by grant-issuing progressives for the last two decades, the greenhouse gas effect has not been validated; it will never be. Thus, Gore’s insult to any real scientist that even though there is no legitimate scientific support, a “scientific consensus” exists—establishing a scientific theory by a show of hands, not research.

Revelle died of a heart attack in 1991. When asked about Reveille’s reversal of opinion regarding greenhouse gases, Al Gore—well known for his self-sacrificial love for humankind and absolute lack of hypocrisy—revealed his affection for his mentor, suggesting that Revelle’s reversal on the issue of the greenhouse gas effect was caused by senility.

Next: The Myth of Global Warming: Taking it Global, Maurice Strong, the Sinister Wizard of Un

Posted by: Glyn Godwin | May 4, 2010

The Myth of Global Warming: The Crucial Lie

The notion that man causes global warming is an insidious malignancy intended to destroy American exceptionalism and dependent upon progressive propaganda supporting a single lie. (Please read my last post, Progressivism: Nothing New under the Sun). I explain that lie below in the first article of a series of articles collectively entitled The Myth of Global Warming. The need for Cap and Trade depends upon the scientific validity of Global Warming, as does the justification for the desired end result of progressivism—varying degrees of global governance through another contrived crisis only this time global. It is the progressive methodology no different from the contrived crises that brought us the Stimulus Package and Obamacare domestically.

At the outset, from a Christian point of view, it is the height of human pride and arrogance to believe that any activity of man can destroy God’s creation, whether the creation is the Earth or mankind itself. No surprise; pride and arrogance are character traits of progressives who force their political agenda on us. Do the names “Obama,” “Pelosi,” and “Reid” come to mind? Man cannot destroy God’s creation—not with bombs, exhaling, or tooling around in SUVs.

The Global Earth

The scientific validity and proposed mechanism of man-made global warming are founded upon two scientific theories operating together. They are:

1) The Earth is a type of greenhouse, or subject to a greenhouse effect, and

2) Certain gases exist, known as “greenhouse gases” that, theoretically, possess a trait different from other atmospheric gases such as Nitrogen and Hydrogen.

Place in front of your mind’s eye the global Earth, perhaps using the popular Google image. What do you see? Now, place a greenhouse in front of your mind’s eye.

The typical, non-commercial greenhouse you saw was about the size of a large room or very small house constructed of glass panes. Inside, long, crudely built wood tables sit parallel to each other, creating aisles. Brick-colored clay pots or old coffee cans sit on the tables, filled with dirt and with all sorts of plants growing in them.

Let me add what fiction writers call “setting”: The sun is shining, and it’s cold outside but warm inside the greenhouse. Why is that?

It’s called “the greenhouse effect.”  Short-wave visible light (rays) from the sun penetrates the glass (Don’t worry about understanding the physics of short-wave or long-wave infrared light; it’s not important. You will understand the overall mechanism). The rays heat up everything inside the greenhouse, the wood tables, the clay pots, and the dirt. When all those things heat up, they radiate heat into the greenhouse atmosphere in the form of long wave infrared radiation. That heat is different than the short-wave, visible light of the sun. The long wavelength radiation emitted by the things in the greenhouse cannot pass easily through the glass panes causing the temperature inside to rise.

That is the greenhouse effect. There can be no doubt that the effect is scientifically valid. We experience the effect every time we get into our cars during the Louisiana Summer. We cannot even grip the steering wheel comfortably.

It is important to understand what else is going on inside of the greenhouse. or better written, what is not going on. Except for the invisible movement of air called “convection currents” everything is static. Nothing is moving. (You can visibly see convection currents when you see swirling in water coming to a boil—same thing, but with a liquid rather than gas).

Now, God’s creation—the Global Earth.

In your mind’s eye, the global Earth you see might appear to be static, too. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Earth is spinning on its axis, creating days; it is tilting on its axis, creating seasons; it is rotating around the sun, creating years. Winds swirl and blow over her surface. El Niñas and jet streams flow over her. Tides move and ocean currents stream. Floating clouds form, release their water, then dissipate, then reform, again, and again. The Earth is a miraculously created dynamic wonder—”dynamic” meaning that she is constantly moving and herself. Movement above her, over her, and under her is constant. The Earth cannot exist in a static, greenhouse-model state. Modeling the Earth after a greenhouse, or drawing an analogy to a greenhouse to any degree more than absurd; it is scientific fraud to force an absurd conclusion.

The existence of “greenhouse gases” is the second necessary theory for man-made global warming to be scientifically valid. Let’s mentally stroll into your imagined greenhouse. Remember, the greenhouse atmosphere is heating up because long-wave radiation emitted by the things in the greenhouse cannot escape through the glass panes and into the atmosphere of the Earth. Those who want us to believe that man-made global warming exists tell us that certain gases, principally carbon dioxide, but also methane and even water vapor, absorb or hold heat. Those gases have a special name: “greenhouse gas emissions,” or “CO2 emissions.” It is essential to the global warming proponents that this heat absorption phenomenon occur. If not, man-made global warming cannot be valid; Cap and Trade has no basis in science, and there is no justification for any degree of global governance because there is no global crisis.

There exists no valid research that carbon dioxide or any of the other greenhouse gases absorb or hold heat. None. This article will eventually find its way to the internet from my blog, I challenge anyone to prove that underlined statement wrong.

The proponents of man-made global warming fall into three classes: 1) the progressives, who know that it is a lie to impose political agenda domestically and globally; 2) the liberals, including the environmentalists, who have bought into the contrived crisis; and 3) those who do not link their belief to a political philosophy, but are duped by propaganda, such as the younger generation that Al Gore is now targeting. How do these proponents deal with the reality that a crucial component of the theory, absorption of heat by greenhouse gases, cannot be proven because it does not exist?

Mr. Gore, the apostle of man-made global warming, refuses to fully debate its scientific validity. Of course, he cannot; again, there is no research supporting the existence of greenhouse gases as he defines them. Mr. Gore limits his argument to a unique concept: man-made global warming exists because a consensus of climate scientists supports it; therefore, it is “settled science.” (Sort of like an inverse notion of his “No controlling legal authority.”).

There is no such consensus. That is another lie. Even so, the notion that a scientific theory is settled because a consensus supports it should offend every scientist of any merit in any field. Scientific theories are not proven by a democratic process—a show of hands of scientists in the field of study. Scientific theories are proven valid or invalid by formulating a hypothesis, creating a protocol (procedures with materials and methods for bench work) to test the theory by generating honest, observable data, and, then, analyzing the data objectively.

At the U.N. Global Warming Conference in Poznan, Poland at which 650 of the world’s top climatologists (not environmentalists, or “environmental scientists” or U.N. bureaucrats) agreed that main-made global warming is a media-generated myth. Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology said, “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other…every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.” What Dr. Kunihiko meant when he said, “…but it doesn’t pay to say so.” is that if any of his colleagues desire a government grant, he or she cannot test a hypothesis that would in any way discredit the greenhouse gas heat absorption theory.

Man-made global warming is perhaps the greatest political fraud imposed upon a population. It is part of the power-garnering of the progressives in this country, which will be economically crippled by Cap and Trade. On my radio show I have said many times that if Mr. Obama is elected to a second term, we, as citizens of America, will be paying taxes directly to the U.N.. Our hard earned money to be redistributed to smaller countries, and we will be subject to some degree of direct U.N. global regulations. All that will be justified by the contrived crisis of man-made global warming.

How did this false science get here? The answer comes in the next post.

Posted by: Glyn Godwin | April 24, 2010

Progressivism: Nothing New Under the Sun

The government has announced that it intends to regulate salt levels in processed foods to lower sodium content. After all, we citizens take in about twice the amount of sodium that we should. That has to change the government tells us. And a new law forcing food processors to reduce salt in their products would save millions in health care costs, the FDA insists. (As far as I know, salt shakers will not be confiscated. Shaking one over a serving of processed food will not be a crime, yet).

Does the forceful use of government to reduce salt content in foods sound familiar? It should; it’s sort of micro-Prohibition.  Government’s banning alcohol and limiting sodium content in processed foods are notions of Progressivism. Progressives believe that citizens’ lives can be improved by laws and regulations, whether the citizens want the laws and regulations or not and even if the need for improvement is contrived. And another thing: it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. Progressives either ignore the Constitution, lie to us (along with elitist Harvard professors whom we dare not doubt) that the laws and regulations are constitutional, or they insist that the Constitution is a “living document” that morphs from generation to generation to fit ever-evolving societal norms. It’s much like the “liberal” Christians (whatever they are) and rabbis of Progressive Judaism, both groups insisting the Bible is a living volume that morphs generationally as well.

The new patently unconstitutional health care law pushed through congress against our will by lies (“This Bill will reduce the deficit,” Mr. Obama insisted, and “Health care will be cheaper, too.”), and bribes (Sen. Mary Landrieu and her betrayal of her constituency and her oath of office with the Louisiana Purchase) is a legislative Lincoln Monument-level tribute to Progressivism. (Progeny legislation is coming, too, with the intention to bring this country into a spiraling decline). Another tidbit you’ll neither hear from the mainstream media nor even Fox News is that Progressivism incites violence. It has to if it’s to succeed. The violence is never done personally by the political elite progressives, of course, but by the common citizens who believe they are going to get something for nothing, or who are seduced into the absurdity that the progressives actually care about them.

Political pundits tell us that Progressivism began with FDR and his New Deal. That might be true in the American experience, but it’s not true in the human world experience.

Solomon wrote:

“That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.” Eccl. 1:9 (NKJV).

The first five books of the Bible, written by Moses, some say around 1300 B.C., are called “the Pentateuch,” meaning “the Law, or “the Law of Moses.” As the founding document of the new Jewish Theocracy, it was the theocracy’s constitution, setting out the fundamental principles of governance.

Now, flash-forward Jewish history to Palestine and Jerusalem during the ministry of Jesus: No more is Israel a nation, but the theocracy survives centered in Jerusalem and controlled by a familial line of Chief Priests (notoriously corrupt money grubbers), and the Pharisees. The Pharisees interpreted the Pentateuch and imposed entirely improper rules and regulations upon the common Jews. They insisted the common Jews do everything from washing their hands in a ceremonious procedure to not lift a finger on the Sabbath in a manner that might be considered “work” as the Pharisees defined the term. The Pharisees were the theocracy’s elites; they lied, misrepresented, and oppressed the common Jews with their rules and regulations, for their on good, of course.

Sound familiar? It should.

The Pharisees were the progressives of their day. The only difference between them and modern-day progressives who control the legislative and executive branches of our government  is they asserted their oppressive, power-maintenance policies within a theocracy. Today’s progressives do the same within a representative republic—a distinction without a difference. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, our country is not a democracy, like your government schools taught you).

Remember I said for progressivism to succeed, it must excite violence, but the elitists themselves do not participate in the violence; they slither into the background. No doubt should exist in reasonable minds that with their propaganda, the Pharisees promoted hostility to Jesus in the common Jews, so much so that they hollered, “Free Barabbas? Crucify Jesus!”  in the heat of their propaganda-induced mob rage, while the Pharisees watched.

If you doubt that Progressives then and now stand on the sidelines while inciting the duped, consider one of the best known modern-day progressive-elitists and High Priest of the deception of man-made global warming: Al Gore. On its August 19, 2010 post, The Hill reported that Gore was furious because, in his view, Congress had failed his flock by not passing energy legislation (cap and trade). What did Al do? He called for mass demonstrations. Typically, demonstrations by the extreme environmentalists, the core disciples of the High Priest, are rarely peaceful.

I will leave you with this: the evil of Progressivism in Jesus’ days, despite the cruelty the corrupt ideology inflicted upon Him, led to the single greatest event for goodness in the history of the world.

What Solomon wrote is an everlasting Truth. The damage of modern-day Progressivism controlling our government will ultimately lead to a good end, as well. In the spiritual and physical world every force is met with an equal counter force. I am convinced that if we educate ourselves and keep our voices raised in peaceful protest, we can take this great nation back from those who desire its decline and return to her unique exceptionalism birthed by the principles of her inspired founding documents.

Posted by: Glyn Godwin | April 19, 2010

Palestine and Presidential Petulance

As a listener to my radio show and a subscriber to my blog, you ought to be aware of the snub President Obama gave to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House meeting earlier this month. Obama’s conduct was the height of arrogance and petulance, unfortunate personality traits that he shows us almost every day. Netanyahu, a principled conservative attempting to keep Israel in tact,  has decades more experience in public service than our president, whose only expertise remains as a community organizer for Acorn and its ilk. But the snub was for a reason: Netanyahu refuses to subjugate his government and himself to Obama. In the psyche of our president, that refusal is an intolerable insult. Thus, the snub.

I have a question for you: Who are the Palestinians? I mean, when you think about it, they are an obscure population living in a near wasteland that is not a country. They, themselves, don’t even try to improve their condition. The land has no real infrastructure, no hospitals of any real meaning, no manufacturing, not even a city, or as far as I know, a named town. So did these people just pop up like weeds? Well, not quite. You could say fairly that they are reaping the sins of their fathers. And Mr. Obama is doing his best to take advantage of their wretched conditions to reach his own ends.

In 1946, Israel was reaching her independence. The Israelis had built a complete infrastructure, including a powerful military. The neighboring Arabic nations felt threatened, that worsened by their hatred of Jews, born in biblical times thousands of years earlier. Egypt, particularly, Syria and others, made it clear that they were going to destroy Israel before she gained even more power. But, the Arabic states in 1946 had a problem: The Israelis did not discriminate against the Arabs. Their border was free to cross (watch out for arguments that Israel has now built a fence between it and the Palestine area; they did that to stop the new 20th Century murderous scheme—suicide bombings). The problem was that at least half the population of Israel in 1946 was Arabic. Destroy Israel with a precipitous attack and you kill you own.

Egypt found a solution: broadcast warning inside Israel and drop pamphlets from the air, telling the Arabs that destruction of Israel is certain and they should get out. They should cross the border to the wasteland of the Palestine region and wait. When Israel was destroyed, they could reenter and rebuild a new (anti-Israel) Arabic state. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs domiciled in Israel did just that. But, as we now know, Egypt’s plans were not God’s plan. And the Bible clearly states that those who curse Israel will be cursed.

After Israel won the 1947 war, the Palestinians who crossed the border expecting to re-enter into a destroyed landscape had nowhere to go. Egypt, Syria, and all the Arabic states betrayed them, refusing to give refuge. Israel helped, but refused to allow them to re-cross the border. Since then, the Palestinians have grown into a pathetic population subject to continuous propaganda against Israel and her allies. We are exposed to that same propaganda when the subject of a new Palestine state is brought up.

Modern Palestinians are the children and grandchildren of those who left Israel waiting for her destruction as instructed by Egypt. The modern Palestinians are people without a country who are controlled by terrorists’ regimes, particularly Hamas, and by any political opportunist who can slither into control, read: Yasser Arafat.

Now, let’s get back to our President. The liberals and progressives insist that Palestine deserves to be a state. Of course, they cannot explain the logic. Not only that, they say the eastern Jerusalem should be given to the Palestinians for their capital. Really? Think about that: Jerusalem, the City of David and where Christianity was born when Jesus was resurrected, should be divided. Mr. Obama, whom I contend is hostile to Christianity and, minimally, leans toward the Muslim faith, would love to see a new Arabic nation, which he himself was the principal for its creation. Mr. Obama has a proclivity for that sort of thing. Legacy and all.

Benjamin Netanyahu is no fool. When the mainstream media, the liberals, and the progressives attempt to construct Mr. Netanyahu and all conservatives—Christians, too—as heartless because they refuse to join Mr. Obama creating a Palestine state, don’t believe them. Prime Minister Netanyahu will not help Mr. Obama raise up a new malignant neighbor on Israel’s border no matter how petulant Mr. Obama becomes.

I have set all this out without mentioning that Israel is a sovereign country with Jerusalem as its capital. Our inexperienced, arrogant president (and Hillary) has no business insisting that Prime Minister Netanyahu do anything in his governing decisions, let alone that Jerusalem be divided and the eastern side be given away. The notion is preposterous. But, if the president, in his supreme wisdom, continues to insist that Palestine become a state, he should turn to Egypt. After all, it was Egypt’s militant religious bigotry and betrayal of its Muslim brothers that caused this mess.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: