68

Scripture could have prevented bubonic plague, controversial Alberta candidate says; climate change science not settled, leader adds


 

A controversial pastor running for Alberta’s Wildrose Party dominated news in that province again Monday after his leader doubled down in her support of him and audio clips from two of his sermons were released on YouTube.

Edmonton Southwest candidate Allan Hunsperger was thrust into the spotlight Sunday after a blog post in which he suggested gays and lesbians would burn in hell for all eternity if they chose to live they way they were born became public. Opponents have called for Hunsperger to step down. But on Monday Wildrose leader Danielle Smith stood by the preacher.

From the Edmonton Journal:

“The views he expressed are his personal views in the context of him being a pastor and I’m not going to discriminate against anyone, not on the basis of sexual orientation and not on the basis of their religion,”  Smith said Monday, referring to her Edmonton South West nominee Allan Hunsperger. “I believe in freedom of religion and I believe religious people do have an opportunity and should be encouraged to run for political office.”

Smith’s defence didn’t impress Journal columnist Paula Simons, who called Hunsperger   “an unabashed old-school homophobe who makes Rick Santorum look like a drag queen at a Pride Parade,” in her Tuesday column:

 Hunsperger is entitled to his personal religious beliefs. The state cannot, should not tell pastors what to preach. Within his church, Hunsperger has a constitutional right to gay-bash as much as he pleases.

But Hunsperger isn’t just a pastor. He chose to stand for office. Smith’s Wildrose Party chose to elect and accept him as its nominated candidate. His public comments on gay rights and school board policy are entirely relevant to voters evaluating his fitness, and the fitness of his party.

Meanwhile, two heavily edited clips from Hunsperger sermons were also released online Monday. In one, he says that, in God’s eyes, the Holy Land belongs to Israel. In another, he suggests circumcision can prevent HIV (an idea for which there is considerable scientific evidence) and later that “the bubonic plague would not have happened if men had paid attention to the scripture.”

Finally, in actual policy news, Wildrose leader Danielle Smith doesn’t believe the science on climate change is settled, which is, itself, kind of unsettling.


 

Scripture could have prevented bubonic plague, controversial Alberta candidate says; climate change science not settled, leader adds

  1. Presenting The Tea Party of Alberta, and the Great Leap Backwards. 

  2. Ah yes, climate change and the manufactured semblance of the science “not being settled”.

    These vested interests certainly learned their lessons well from the tobacco industry didn’t they?

    The simple fact is that the people who have studied these things their entire lives are almost entirely in agreement and bickering only over differences concerning progression and timing.

    So it of no import what those with conflicting interests think concerning said progression and timing. They have no knowledge or ability to refute a single fact, let alone challenge the fundamental nature of greenshouse gases as determined through the standard model of particle physics.

    Their opinion is only relevant in so far as how to adjust our industrial practices, and frankly, if they have become a roadblock to ethical action then they are to be ignored. It is only logical given the circumstances.
     
    Harsh perhaps, but a simple truth. Scream at the sun all you like and it won’t change one iota.
     
    Unlike politics or culture, science is not a matter of lay-opinion, but of the presentation of viable facts supporting reasonable models vetted by those who study these things.
     
    A simple truth is all it is. If you don’t study computer programming, you can’t very well expect people to accept your opinions on what operating systems are best for programming hmmm?
     
    Science has allowed us to predict the movements of the universe, split the atom, go to the moon, send satellites to other planets in deep space, delve the very origins of time and space and has otherwise revolutionized the world and sewn it together with a digital communication network spanning the globe which requires a deep understanding and ability to calculate the relativity of time and space, and a thousands others things. I’ll take the word of people who can reliably do these things over a group that offer no sound analysis whatsoever, but merely attacks, innuendo and pseudo science backed by nothing.

    •  Well, the kind of people that believe ‘scripture’ could have prevented bubonic plague aren’t too knowledgeable about any kind of science. Or history for that matter.

      •  Actually, the Jewish population fared considerably better under the bubonic plague because they were following scripture, namely the sanitary laws in the old testament.    This was in contrast to the gentile populations, who pretty much crammed everyone together in concentrated populations with little sanitary infrastructure or civic planning compared to us.

        Of course, ancient Rome was much the same way, which is why it was plague-ridden and often on fire as well.

        •  Lobbing plague ridden bodies over city walls, in one of the earliest forms of biological warfare, didn’t help.

          •  Yeah, that’s an old tactic.   Lobbing rotten meat over the walls to a seige populace that was starving was another.  My favourite though, was collecting cats, brushing them with tar, and then setting them on fire.  The poor animals, panicking and in pain, would seek to find a place to hide such as on thatched roofs, inside walls etc.  Needless to say, many cities were taken by burning them down from the inside out.

            But the original point, that following scripture to prevent disease isn’t very far-fetched.   Most people in history knew how to prevent the spread of disease, even if they didn’t have cellular or germ theory and  many prohibitions in the biblical laws relate to that.   There is a reason that the gay community of San Francisco has more of a problem with AIDS than let’s say the Amish.

            Now you don’t necessarily need scripture to get the same benefits, simply following the core principles of “limit your exposure to pathogens through sanitation” and “only have sexual relations with one committed partner” would do the job just as well.

          •  LOL except that the ‘pastor’ wasn’t talking about sanitation or hygiene….he was talking about belief.

          •  Was he?   “paid attention to THE scripture” (my emphasis) seems like he’s referencing something in Deuteronomy or something.  I’d like to see the original source.

          •  @8070786956a13baf8e6aaa2a9db834d4:disqus

            Well since he thinks the Jews should convert and accept Jesus, I doubt he was talking about ancient dietary laws. LOL

            No,he’s of the Pat Robertson persuasion…..if you don’t abide by church laws, then God will punish you with earthquakes, and locusts and hurricanes and plagues and such.

            Same con they’ve used for centuries….go back to belief in God, and oh btw, God needs money.

    • And then there’s the fact that if by some chance the climate change predictions are wrong, it still doesn’t negate the other environmental impacts.

      Cleaner production is better. Period. The ones who fight this are putting their own short-term economic needs ahead of our longer-term environmental well-being. Which makes them much like everyone else – but does not make them right.

      •  I’m not really concered about this, because the debate is pointless.   The oil is going to be drilled because alternative energy either cannot produce enough to support our energy needs, cannot be transported efficiently, or have their own environmental problems.

        Largely the division of whether climate science is settled or whether carbon taxes are good depends on whether you think you will be the ones paying them.   It is hard not to notice that the left (largely made up of urban wage-earning consumers rather than producers) generally proposed carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes that consumers (ie. themselves) will be isolated from.

        • Consumers would be isolated from carbon taxes?

          Isn’t the fundamental premise of those resisting said taxes that fact that the costs will be passed on to consumers?

          So in fact, isn’t it the consumer who will pay more than anyone else?

          •  Not according to the NDP’s promises.

            In fact, well we’ll have to see.

          • Every tax placed on a producer is passed on to consumers, there is no way to get around this. A carbon tax on gasoline will cause many poor people to stop driving their rust bucket to work, and take the bus. It will have no effect on the wealthy, which is just the way the greenies like it.

            If they want to reduce their carbon emissions, people should get off their greenie butts and reduce their consumption.

            And leave me and my beautiful SUV alone.
             
            cheers

        • “isolated from”? What country do you live in? Any costs will be passed on to the consumer.

          I’m not one of those radicals who want to shut down the sands entirely; I want to see cleaner development along with greater development of more efficient vehicles / appliances and alternate, cleaner energy sources.

          By and large, those who downplay climate change do so because they like the status quo and are afraid of how change will negatively impact their wallets; such people aren’t interested in progress – or what kind of world their grandchildren will inherit.

          • Layton rejects
            the notion that gas prices will rise under his plan, saying oil
            companies shouldn’t pass on the cost of carbon regulations to consumers.
            “I
            don’t accept this analysis that’s being offered that the big polluters
            should be justified to raise prices just as we’re telling them that
            they’re going to have to deal with the cost of pollution,” he said.

            Jack Layton – April 28, 2011

  3. Why are you and the rest of the media tip toeing around the real elephant in the room of Rev. Hunsperger’s beliefs – he actually believes in a god (shudder) who became manifest in the form of a man (are you kidding me!) – Jesus, and that Jesus lived on earth, died, but rose from the dead (LOL!!!!). 

    Banishment from public life isn’t sufficient for delusion of this magnitude – tolerance demands that he be forever silenced.

    • Openly debating and opposing his statements == silencing now?

      You sound oppressed. So oppressed. How dare the godless lieberals dare open their mouths to express opposing viewpoints. How oppressive and authoritarian of them.

      •  Well see, Albertans can tell us Ontarians how to run our province, and who to vote for, but we can’t say anything about Alberta.

        And religious nuts can tell us how to live our lives, and how they’ll change govt to force us to live their way, but we can’t criticize them at all. Or tell them to sod off.

        A lot of Albertans seem to want to return to Bible Bill Aberhardt and the SoCreds….and they don’t understand how humourous the ROC finds that.

    • ” – tolerance demands that he be forever silenced.”

      The silence of opposing views, the talk of a true lefty. I love it.

      Sounds like “The debate is over, the science is settled.’

  4. Recently, scientists at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development in Italy declared that the Shroud of Turin could not possibly be a fake. The carbon dating tests are faulty. It must be a divine event that created this image.
    So these scientists (active in the climate change movement) effectively suggest that the science isn’t settled on a 5 square metre piece of cloth which would be, at most, about 2000 years old..

    Notwithstanding this, I am to believe that all scientists are in agreement that, for one, ice core samples from the Antarctic have provided an accurate, indisputable record of CO2 levels for the entire planet dating back hundreds of thousands of years. 

    5 square metre piece of cloth…no.
    510,000,000 square kilometre planet…yes.

    I am to believe that the only conclusion that can be drawn from their measurements and computer models is that in the 200 years or so since the industrial revolution, the human species has altered the climate pattern of a planet that is over 4 billion years old. 

    I am to believe that we can reverse these changes through economic policy set out by a global collective of politicians. We can control nature through taxation.

    That’s not unsettling?

    • ” In December 2011 scientists at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development ENEA announced that their series of tests demonstrated the image on the shroud could, in their opinion, only have been created by “some form of
      electromagnetic energy” such as a flash of light at short wavelength.[169][170]
      Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, the lead researcher, indicated in an e-mail
      interview that ‘….it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image
      with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier’, but their
      study does not mean the Shroud image could only have been created by the
      flash of a miraculous resurrection, contrary to how the story was
      presented in the media, especially on the Web”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Recent_developments

      • Point taken and thank you. My point wasn’t to promote the “divine event” aspect and I shouldn’t have mentioned it. 

        It was the fact that this is but one example where there is no scientific consensus, a notion that is, in and of itself, ridiculous. 

        If they can’t settle the science on a piece of cloth that one can physically hold completely in their hands how can they claim to have settled the science on something as complex as the earth’s climate with a straight face.

          • I’m not arguing the shroud. You too, see only what you want to see and your thought process is no different than that of the devoutly religious. You unquestioningly believe what you are told.

            The flat earth response is a pathetic political diversion used in place of intelligent debate.

          •  I’m an atheist.

            And I understand science.

          • It appears that there is no reply button to your last comment.

            I am also an atheist. You dismissive comment that you understand science speaks volumes to your delusions and exhaustion of meaningful debate.

          •  @79336f44b3c185ff16464a7420d57521:disqus

            No, after a certain point the reply button disappears and you have to use a work-around to talk to someone.  It tends to cut off debate.

            If you were having heart surgery, would you consult the janitor?

            If you were charged with an offense, would you ask your mechanic for advice?

            So when it comes to climate, you listen to climatologists….not oil companies, weathermen or archaeologists.

          • I see. Thank you. I didn’t know that. I also don’t know how to use it so I’ll end it here.

            This is about a questioning a theory by the human capacity for reason. We all have that ability. Some things are best left to others to decide on our behalf, in trust that they do so ethically and morally and devoid of any self interest other than that which is necessary. This isn’t one of them in my view.

            That humans can control nature and manipulate the climate is a lofty belief. That politicians can do it by burdensome taxation (tax carbon, and you tax everything over and over) is beyond the pale for me. We are lulled by our desire to be “good” and as its been said…the road to hell (figure of speech) is paved with good intentions.

            It’s also too chillingly convenient that the results of what is proposed may only be seen and proven after every living one of us at the moment is long dead.

          •  @79336f44b3c185ff16464a7420d57521:disqus

            Climatology is a century old.  Climatologists have PhDs in the subject.  You can ‘reason’ all you want, but you don’t have the background knowledge for it.

             It’s not a question of politics or taxation, it’s a question of science. It’s pointless to have scientists if we don’t listen to them.

            Cleaning up the atmosphere is a ‘good’ whether you ‘believe in something lofty’ or not. We already know the air has too much C02 in it, and we can see the results all over the planet right now.

          • You insist on professing a superior knowledge on the subject. You know nothing of my background and yet state that you do based on zero evidence. Shall I conclude that that you are a climatologist by your words?.

          •  @79336f44b3c185ff16464a7420d57521:disqus

            Having a science degree is helpful, yes

          • Yes, you are a climatologist?

            From “understanding science” to a degree in science. Not what I’d have expected; you got me. I would not have expected a scientist to so misinterpret an earlier opinion just to attack religion instead of just trying to convince me that all credible scientists of the world agree on this.

            Do you, as a scientist, seriously believe then that if one questions the notion of man-made climate change (and reversal), then the next logical step is to presume that they are religious, and that they believe that the earth is flat? Of course, sceptics are all racists right? That’s just sound scientific reasoning.

          •   @79336f44b3c185ff16464a7420d57521:disqus

            No, I’m not a climatologist. There is no such thing as just a
            ‘scientist’…..they all have specialized fields.  But they all

            understand the methodology and scientific papers.

            ALL scientists do not agree on this, because ALL scientists haven’t been asked. Climatologists work on this, not astrophysicists or geologists….and 97% of climatologists  agree on climate change and it’s cause.

            Some scientists are religious, most are not.  You can’t be much of a biologist if you are a creationist….or much of a geologist if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

            I don’t know of any sane person that believes the world is flat….and since there is no such thing as a ‘race’,  it would take a lot to be a racist scientist. LOL

            Science depends on proven fact….it must be verifiable in experiments and math….by other scientists in the same field.

            That’s the whole point about science….it’s not a belief, or a guess, or an idea….it has to be proved and verified.

            Scientists are also people….and they can lie, and commit fraud and be bought….which is why they have such strict rules about publishing a paper, and verifiable experiments.

            You aren’t really interested in this topic though…debating it, or discussing it…..you are just interested in your wallet….so you have a conflict of interest yourself.

            You don’t WANT it to be true, because it might cost you a nickel…..therefore every climatologist in the world is wrong, and you are right.

            That’s what denialism means.

          • I’d love to see a list of all them with the 97% in agreement highlighted. The UN must have one.

            Nothing else needs replying to but this;

            No such thing as a race? I can’t believe I have to do this;

            Oxford Dictionary defines race as “each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics” 

            Damn, that sounds almost scientific.

            Yes…when David Suzuki isn’t telling children that Santa is in peril, he likes to throw around the idea that climate change sceptics’ thinking is no different than racists’ thinking.

            Classic brain washing…”You don’t want to be a racist do ya kid,…huh…well do ya?”

            Take your ‘degree’ back and get a refund. You were robbed and you talk out your a**.

            No. No I do not want you spending my nickel. My labours shall be for the benefit of my family and my community, not a bunch of half-baked, ego-maniacal academics.

            By all means, rid yourself of your worldly possessions now, bow before Al Gore, take your vow of poverty, and indenture your servitude to him. 

            Leave me the hell (figure of speech) out of it.

            I will come back and read your final word. I won’t bother to reply but I’ll be sure to give it a good head shaking.

          •  @79336f44b3c185ff16464a7420d57521:disqus

            Fercryinoutloud…..we’ve already had several UN reports…that got a Nobel prize on climate change.

            You must have been living under a rock for years!

            And there is no such thing as ‘race’….we are all the same species, and we all have the same DNA

            You never had the slightest intention of debating anything, so kindly don’t bother me again.

            Deniers are just boring.

          • Dear Eddie, you’ve met OriginalEmily I see. She is a one of several well known resident ‘trolls’ on MacLeans regarding climate issues. Don’t waste your time. She’s a piece of work.

          • Dear Klem, 

            Aye, she is, and a very poorly crafted one at that. I’m glad that the science community chose to ignore the “no such thing as a race” law when they did sickle cell research.

            Why not go further? Can we expect to hear these words spoken in a courtroom?

            “No your honour, I am not a creepy pervert that hangs out in women’s washrooms because you see, there is no such thing as a gender. Our DNA is the same and it would be sexist and unconstitutional to find me guilty of anything in light of that fact”

            This country needs an enema.

    • Do I find your strawman unsettling?

      Only if you actually believe the words you’ve written.

      Your entire comment couldn’t be more contrived really, so it sounds like an excuse. A really really lame excuse.

      I mean my god man, if that’s your level of scrutiny, no wonder the wool is so easily pulled over your eyes… or should I say shroud? LOL

      • Simply an example to show that scientists do not reach consensus on anything…nor should they. I think it’s a good example because it shows that that cannot agree on even something so physically simple.Those that claim climate science is settled have sold their integrity for some funding and some celebrity. They are little more than political puppets.

        • You’re comparing apples to bicycles for pete’s sake.

          This shroud is a single artifact that could’ve be produced in numerous ways, and since we indeed only have this one single artifact, it’s impossible to make comparisons.

          Basic particles however has been studied six ways to sunday for more than a century and there is virtually an endless supply of any one type of particle we can use to ensure the results of any particular experiment are always the same.

          In fact, if there is a comparison at all it is with the predictive aspects of climate modelling, and the scientists are clearly in disagreement concerning that modelling, demonstrating again that a complicated process is much harder to pin down.

          So we may not know precisely how long it will take or how it will progress, but we do know that sooner or later excessive GHGs result in warming. This is an undeniable fact and the science is indeed settled as far as that’s concerned.

          But then this is the confusion that deniers use to confuse people with. They cite uncertainty about timing and progression to infer uncertainty about GHGs, when in fact the properties of GHGs have been known for over a century.

          • Yet some scientists are equally adamant that GHG follows temperature change rather than precede it. In other words…not settled.

            Denier…the climate change movement’s adaptation of…infidel.
            How blind is man.

          • I take it you’re trying desperately to refer to the CO2 lag in the geological record following certain events in geological history? (sigh)

            This reference is simply one example of the difficulty in determining progression and timing, NOT whether GHGs cause warming.

            Moreover, there are many reasons the earth can warm, no one is saying that the only way the planet warms is through GHGs.

            When warming of any kind occurs, CO2 sinks can end up releasing CO2 resulting in: planet warms, CO2 releases and thus warms things even more.

            Again though, this has nothing to do with the basic properties of GHGs, but is a discussion in determining progression and timing in a complex system.

          • A conclusion drawn upon a fact.

            All scientists who have studied this do not agree that we are the cause of climate change. The science cannot be called settled.

          •  @79336f44b3c185ff16464a7420d57521:disqus

            Yes actually they do, and yes actually it is.

  5. Bravo on Allan Hunsperger’s stand for his beliefs. Many of us are getting tired of being walk on and treated as door mats by secular perverted views of debauchery. If people want to be gay, or have orgies or do drugs and do all kinds of hedonistic practices, that’s fine. Just leace GOD OUT OF IT.

    •  ‘secular perverted views of debauchery’ 

      And you think ‘God’ was involved in this?  LOL

      • Oh naïve one. You don’t have any clue what I’m talking about.

        •  No, and neither do you.

    • Excuse me, but it appears that the person who brought god into this was the preacher man, not the so-called heathens.

      But I do agree: when someone runs for public office, they should leave god at home.

      • Leave God at home? Leave homosexuality at home, instead of having these silly “gay pride parades”. Look, like I said, if people want to be gay, be gay. Just don’t lie to people and say that it’s an acceptable act by GOD. It’s not. If people disagree with that, too bad. That’s their problem. Deal with it.

        • Really now, I don’t recall anyone running for office by flaunting their “gayness”.

          However it seems an endless number of dogmatists do nothing but talk about god in their campaigns despite the fact that their ridings are populated with a great many types of people, most of whom do not share their religion.

          As far as the “gay parades” and the like, the moment you agree that the dogmatists should stop gathering in public and displaying their own form of exhibitionism in front of abortion clinics and the like, then I’ll agree with you.

          And above all, honestly, if you have a direct line to god, then by all means share the phone number! LOL  (that’s sarcasm in case you missed it)

          I mean honestly, the audacity of suggesting you know what god thinks is beyond the pale. As a christian I take great offense to the suggestion in fact. Get over yourself already.

          Being religious is not an excuse to be deliberately obtuse or flaunt one’s ignorance:

          Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
          “I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.”

  6. “a blog post …became public”
    Was it not always public?

  7. Another sweetie: Ron Leech

    ‘Another controversy involving another Wildrose candidate is bubbling to the surface in the election campaign. Ron Leech, the Wildrose candidate for Calgary-Greenway, told a
    Calgary radio audience on Sunday night that he has an advantage because
    he is white.

    During the interview, Leech said, “I think, as a caucasian, I have an
    advantage. When different community leaders such as a Sikh leader or a
    Muslin leader speaks they really speak to their own people in many ways.
    As a caucasian I believe that I can speak to all the community.”

    http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120417/CGY_controversy_wildrose_120416/20120417/?hub=CalgaryHome

    • Doesn’t the concept that caucasians have an advantage underly the entire “affirmative action” doctrine?

      •  I was unaware there was any ‘affirmative action’ program to get people to listen to those of other colours. You must be thinking about hiring practices.

        • You’re unaware of many things.  Mr. Leech is saying the same thing you and your ilk have maintained for decades – whites have an advantage over non-whites.  The PC party would seem to be in agreement with Mr. Leech, as they’ve been highly critical of the Wildrose for the preponderance of “old white guys” within their ranks.

          •  No, he’s claiming that as a white man he can communicate with all groups, whereas people of colour cannot.

            The PC party said they wanted someone OTHER than old white guys.

          • No, he’s pointing out that candidates from a particular ethno-cultural background tend to receive the preponderance of their support from those that share it.

          •  Exactly what I said

  8. Climate change gave Harper his majority and since the
    majority are now former believers, the first party to officially renounce the
    CO2 mistake and its fear mongering will have an easy election win.

    Would you vote for a party that threatens your kids with a
    CO2 death?

    Would you vote for taxing the air we breathe to make the weather
    colder?

    Would you vote for a party that is willing to condemn your
    children to the greenhouse gas ovens?

    Voters have the final and REAL consensus that matters, not
    the same world of science that gave us pesticides.

    •  Would you vote for a ninny-state run by the ignorant?

  9. Tea Party and Flat Earth Party

  10. Silly preacher… doesn’t he realize that the only true God is the God of the tolerant left… and that the lefty God doesn’t like anyone who doesn’t believe in the God of cultural marxism. What must be done to these Christians to wake them up… perhaps crucifixion would work… or at least crucifixion by lefty media. 

  11. “Wildrose leader Danielle Smith doesn’t believe the science on climate change is settled, which is, itself, kind of unsettling.”

    What’s unsettling is your ignorance and the bias of your opinion. Global warming is **the theory** that increased levels of carbon dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere because of the so-called “greenhouse effect”.

    A theory is not a fact. And an opinion not based on facts is called a prejudice.

    Jacques

  12. Would YOU vote for a party that condemns YOUR children to the greenhouse gas ovens?
    Climate change fear mongering gave Harper his majority so keep yappin you fear mongers. Now who’s the fear mongering neocon eh?

  13. “LIBERAL CO2 fear mongering”, gave Harper his majority and further support of the CO2 exaggeration will keep Harper and his neocons in power forever.
    Would you LIBERALS still be shooting your mouths off like this as you condemn our children to the greenhouse gas ovens, if there were real legal consequences for you issuing such CO2 death threats?
    “the greatest threat to the planet” – Earth Hour
    Do you LIBERALS enjoy looking your own children in the eyes and condemning them to a CO2 he!!?
    “catastrophic climate crisis” “irreversible and unstoppable warming” – IPCC “LIBERALISM’S lab coat consultants”, you obedient LIBERALS bow to unquestionably.
    Real LIBERALS are happy, not disappointed climate change was a total and legal exaggeration.
    Occupywallstreet are real LIBERALS as they in their list of demands reject climate change because of Y2Kyoto’s required “bank funded and corporate run CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS ruled by trustworthy politicians.Obama has not mentioned the crisis in his last two state of the union addresses so be real progressives and move forward away from the CO2 mistake.

  14. If those studies, showing that circumcision prevents men from getting HIV when having unprotected reproductive sex with HIV+ prostitutes, are correct, then Christians are false god worshippers and Jesus was a false Messiah, because He was trying to replace infant circumcision with Baptism to protect the least of our brothers and with the sacrifice of His life the covenant law was fullfilled and circumcision is no longer necessary, and Jews are actually God’s chosen people, chosen to dominate and control the world’s populations, from within Israel, their promised land, through circumcision, their everlasting covenant.
    If those studies were fabricated by religious doctors using Creation Science Fiction to make up another reason to justify their faith in circumcision, then new studies will reveal that circumcision does not prevent HIV, and HIV will continue to evolve, maybe into an airborn virus, spread like the common cold. Stop our governments from being fooled into redirecting HIV/AIDS research funding to these Zionist Zealots. There are many studies debunking the procircumcision studies, but they don’t get the media coverage because you-know-who owns a lot of it.

Sign in to comment.