The Religion of "Global Warming"

For those who do not understand the blind loyalty of people who follow Al Gore and his "Global Warming' crusade, you must understand that to them it is nothing short of a religious belief. That's right, "Global Warming" is a religion who's god is "Mother Earth". To really explain what it is I mean, I need to first define the term religion. Then I can show you how "Global Warming" fills all the needed requirements of a religion. To begin with, not all religions refer to God or gods, they do not all base their systems upon morals or some belief in an afterlife. Also, not all religious followers can properly explain exactly what it is they believe. The groups, practices and systems that we identify as religions are so diverse that it is no easy task to bring them all under one simple definition. Of course, this difficulty has not stopped people from attempting to define religion. The definitions are quite wide-ranging, with some religions emphasizing a personal indwelling kind of relationship, while others emphasize the social, more outward type of awareness of their personal being as it relates to their surroundings. Then there are those who emphasize their beliefs as handed down through the generations and others the structures preserved from past generations. We see religions based upon their functions whether they be private or public. Some dwell upon the mundane and others the transcendent, then we have religions that focus their concentration upon the truths as defined by their leaders or writings, and finally I would also add that there are those who focus upon illusions that can be mustered up through meditation or drugs. In many cases, a person's definition of religion is actually a definition of his or her own religion. As you can see there are many facets of religion that, if a person is not already grounded firmly in their belief, they could easily be lured into a different faith then they grew up with. However, the one common theme among all types of religion is faith. You must ultimately have faith that what you believe is true, even though you cannot ultimately prove it, and faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. For the most part humans are hot wired with a religious component to our souls, even agnostics and atheists have faith in what they believe. Another way to explain this would be to say we have all been created with an addiction gene. Until we find the one true God, our Creator and Father, we will go from one addiction to another never feeling as fulfilled or satisfied as we would like to. Like other false religions, those who follow the religion of “Global Warming” put their faith in the idea that something exists that they can not ultimately prove exists. When you look at the lack of provable evidence for “Global Warming” and see that this lack of proof does not blunt the faith of those following it, you will come to the conclusion that it is a religion. "Global Warming" cannot be proved, but those who follow it don't care to even consider the overwhelming evidence that proves it does not exist. I don't care what's in the 'Union of Concerned Scientists” report, they haven't gone through the proper steps to prove their belief. There is not an hypothesis they can prove. Therefore, there is no proving "Global Warming" in a scientific way. Global Warming believers must rely upon faith, just as Christians rely on faith that there is a heaven. Now, like many religions, “Global Warming” has its basic principles. One of those principles is that there is a sin component involved. Like its close relative the “Environmental Wacko” religion, it follows many of the same rules against sinning, because they worship the same god, “Mother earth”. Thou shall recycle. Thou shall not allow second hand smoke. Thou shall not cut down redwood trees, develop mosquito infested wetlands, or engage in any number of activities in ones daily life that would be "sinful". Corect behavior must be followed religiously. “Global Warming” sins include using fossil fuels, driving SUV's, burning wood , using too many electric appliances, drilling for oil, those are just a few of the sins that can be committed against “Mother Earth” in the “Global Warming” religion. Like Christianity “Global Warming” relies feverishly on one thing to keep everybody in line, and that is the apocalypse, the last days, the day when hellfire and damnation will fall upon all of us who have sinned. For those who put their faith in Christianity, they believe there will one day be an apocalyptic final end to everything. The "Global Warming” followers also have their belief in an end times. To them the apocalypse is the destruction of the world due to the use of fossil fuels that will ultimately destroy the planet through extreme warming. We are told by their prophet of doom, Al Gore, that the world is doomed and that we have only a certain amount of years left. A cursory look at the many stories we are fed about our ultimate demise, due to “Global Warming”, will help prove this is a religion based upon faith and not facts. If it were based upon scientifically proven theories, there would not be 20 different stories in 25 different days over what's happening with "Global Warming", and how long it's going to take to wipe us out. All this makes "Global Warming" a religion who's length and breadth of influence is as great as any major religion on this planet. Just look what they do to anyone who dares to tell the truth or even demand a debate about the facts. Now, unlike the theologians of Christianity, Al Gore refuses to debate anyone who disagrees with him. This refusal puts the religion of “Global Warming” in the same category as cults like that of Jim Jones, who's "Peoples Temple" religion demanded unquestionable faith and demanded that all his followers drink the kool-aid with out question.

Clarification of my error in "Obama's UnGodly Youth Corp"

To everyone who might have a problem with the statement in my article, that all religious activity is barred under this legislation


I'll begin by admitting my error the way I worded my claim. I offer no excuse accept to say I should have used the phrase, "Could be interpreted by a court that non volunteer religious related activities are banned".

In my preparation for writing the article, I looked at the probable intent of the law, which is meant to limit the volunteer services to completely secular endeavors - in keeping with the authors understanding of the constitutional requirement for religious neutrality. Remember Courts are constantly ruling upon "original Intent" when they interpret a law.

I also should have pointed out the original language before it was changed to give the reader an understanding of the authors original intent, which was to exclude all religious activity regardless of when it was done. In court, a judge will look at original intent of the legislation like Justice Black claimed he did in his landmark case. In this case the original intent was to ban all religious activity regardless of when it took place. The original text of 125 contained the phrase, "A participant in", which was dropped from the later text.

Now, in looking to original intent, Justice Black claimed that while it was not written in the constitution, Thomas Jefferson's letter proves what the intent originally was. That is how we got the "Separation of Church and State" clause we are bound by. Remember also that Thomas Jefferson was not present when the Constitution was written so he would not be a good candidate to get any intent from. The activist courts have gone out of their way to find any reason to claim the intent of a law is what they want it to be.

These activist judges have shown time and time again that they will use non Constitutional literature to base their opinions on such intent, as Black did. We only have to look at the current members of the Supreme Court who admit they look to foreign laws to base their opinions upon. Where in the constitution does it say we should look to foreign laws to interpret what the founding Fathers wrote in the constitution?

Another problem with the Bill is it is against the EEOC rules to limit religious freedom in the workplace. Courts have upheld the rights for free religious expression even in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with anyone's ability to properly carry out their task. Here is what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), say on religious freedom at the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964
(“Title VII”)
prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:

* Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
* Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating – in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
* Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.3

Now, we know that liberals often claim that proselytizing at work is not allowed. However, while the law is constantly changing with every new court challenge, it is currently permissible to a point. An employee does have a right to engage in religious conduct to the extent that it is not an undue hardship on the employer. Harassing another employee is likely to be an undue hardship. Recall, however, that harassment is a fairly high - but not impossible - standard. So, while the line between permissible proselytizing and workplace harassment is blurry, important factors that bear on the analysis include,

* the pervasiveness of the proselytizing
* its impact on coworkers (e.g., harassing them) and work performance (including profitability)and
* the capacity and willingness of the employer to take steps to accommodate the aggrieved parties, such as by moving the proselytizing employee and the offended employee to different work stations.

The Supreme Court, and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace. The language in the legislation that Obama signed into law is not only unconstitutional, but it goes against the very laws put forth by the EEOC.

What this Bill represents is the over-reaching of an administration that wants to get it all done in the first 3 months, so we end up with an 86 page, shoddily written document that leaves way too much open for interpretation. It is my belief that this legislation is unconstitutional in the way it is written, and will face a court challenge in the future. If history is any indicator we can expect different judges to rule differently.

Another thing to take into consideration, is that Obama only needs one extra judge on the Supreme Court to tip the balance of the court in his favor. So like I said I did error in my assertion about the extent of this Bill's control, but it is already unconstitutional the way it is written, and only one bad ruling away from being what I warned about.

Remember to think about what my "original intent" was, and you can find that by reading the second paragraph of this comment. Again I apologize for my error in the wording of my statement.

Obama's Ungodly Youth Corp

by Chuck Ness

What is it about socialists, that makes them despise religion? It seems that whenever a Socialist wins an election that gives them the ultimate power in a country, the first thing they try to do is remove religion as a force in that society. Oh it's not done in a way that the people realize it is happening. No, it's more covert and insidious in the way it is brought about. Usually it's done right under the noses of the very people who claim their ruler would never do such a thing. In America, religious persecution by the government has been brewing for a few generations.

The shot over the bow of religion was fired by Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. In 1947 when Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion for Everson vs. Board of Education., he reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution by taking completely out of context a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. By using the phrase “separation of church and state,” in his opinion, Justice Black limited the religious liberty of all Americans. Now after 62 years of constant government attack, Obama and Congress are about to take their godless agenda forward by disallowing college students the right to worship as they please.

Americans have been told that this is just a simple expansion of the national service programs. However, if the truth is to be told, Obama plans to build a million youth movement, who's members will be denied their right to religious freedom. (Think Hitlers Youth Core from NAZI Germany) This bill is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from NY. The Bill, HR 1388, was passed by the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. The Bill moved to the Senate where it passed by a vote of 79 to 19 with one present vote, and on April 21st Obama signed it into law.

The “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act”, or GIVE. It is also known as the, “The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." This Bill will, for all intents and purposes, combine John Kennedy's Peace Corps, Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and Obama's new “Youth Brigade” programs all together into massive program. The idea is to create a volunteer movement among the junior high, high school, and College aged youth of America. This movement will be a precursor of his larger plan for a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military. Obama’s plan begins with his requirement that anyone receiving school loans or who volunteer to serve at least three months as part of the brigade.

This all sounds fairley innocuous until you read the part of the bill that forbids any student in the program to participate in religious activities. The exact wording from section 132A of HR 1388 is as follows.

”Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization. “

In layman's terms that means, "This Bill could be interpreted by liberal courts that members of the Corp are disallowed from attending church services of any kind and never are they to witness about their faith to others."

Now I realize that leftists will try to say I am crazy for making such a statement. However, we have seen time and time again where schools and liberal judges have stopped students from sharing any and all religious (read Christian) related messages, and have disallowed all clothing with religious (read christian) statements on them along with prohibiting students from reading religious litterateur (read Christian) during their free time while at school.

My biggest frustration should be that so many Americans allowed the Democrats to get a super majority in both Houses of Congress while electing a President from the same party. Thus until we reduce the Democrat's super majority or put Republicans in control of one of the two houses of congress, the Democrats cannot be stopped from doing anything they so desire without any checks or balances. However, this bill got overwhelming support from both party's, since the Republicans joined the Democrats and voted for it. Thanks to Congress, Obama was able to tell God, "Leave Our Children Alone", with one stroke of his pen. Hitler did a similar thing when he told the church to worry about God and that he would take care of the people.

Now we could argue about whether Obama is a communist or if he is a fascist, personally I do not see much difference between the two philosophy's. Both destroy the will of men, because politically, both ideologies strive for an omnipotent, totalitarian, bureaucratic state that is the god of the people. Man exists at the behest and for the will of the state.

Economically, Communism totally abolishes private property, while Fascism on the other hand will allow you to own your property for the purposes of maintaining it for the state. Communism owns all industry, while Fascism owns the most important industries that have national interests, but allows citizens to own most of the less important businesses. (sound familiar?)

When it comes to religion, communism attempts to destroy all forms of it. Fascism on the other hand could care less about religions as long as the citizens do not hold their religion to be more important than the state. Christianity is dangerous because it is the only religion who's devout followers have proven through the years that we will not reject our God nor violate His laws to appease the state.

The greatest obstacle for those who have constantly tried to move America from capitalism to socialism, has been our adherence to our Judaeo Christian beliefs. The founding fathers gave credit to the Christian God in the preamble, not the state, for our rights. They started a tradition where they began all official government business with prayers to a Christian God. The children were raised to know and believe in the Christian God. For many years, the Bible was the only reading material in most of the schools of early America.

It wasn't until after Hugo Black reinterpreted the meaning of the phrase, "Freedom of Religion" in 1947 that the Bible, Christian literature, prayer, and even the name of Jesus Christ Himself began getting banned from the schools our children attend. Now, we learn that with the stroke of a pen, we are but one Judge away from the high court ruling that this legislation in fact does stop our children from attending a church as long as they are taking government money to go to school, or if they volunteer for Obama's “ Ungodly Youth Brigade”.

Ephesus; The Loveless Church

The first church Christ mentions to John in the book of Revelations is Ephesus, which means darling. With over 300,000 people, Ephesus was the largest city and the Capital of the Asian Province. Founded by Paul around 50 AD it was also the location of the third ecumenical council in 431 AD. With an important seaport it boasted of being the home of the Greek goddess Diana, known to the Romans as Artemis the moon goddess, and to the Asiatic as the nursing mother of gods, men, animals, and plants. The Temple of Artemis was one of the seven ancient wonders of the world whose goddess was commercialized as a trinket god supplying great wealth to the local silversmiths. Paul’s preaching interfered with the commerce of this idol and aroused violent opposition from the merchants (Acts 19:23-25).


At the time when Paul founded this church hardly anyone there knew of the true Gods temple. Now, two thousand years later, no one knows of Artemis. This ancient wonder was burnt and rebuilt and finally destroyed, and the world is better for that destruction. Meanwhile the true temple is majestically nearing completion with new members being added to the Lambs Book of life every day. Christ recognized the Ephesians tireless perseverance in bearing up under trial for His name’s sake, and how they opposed false apostles like the heretical Nicolaitians; (Rev 2:2-3; Rev 2:5). However, he reproved them for having left their first love, (Rev 2:4) and admonished them to remember where they had fallen from, (Rev 2:5). They are warned to repent and return to their first works or else He will come and remove the candlestick out of its place, (Rev 2:5). As a reward to all those who overcome and persevere, the fruit from the tree of life is offered. Those who allegorize the churches to represent the different ages match Ephesus with the early church age roughly from 33 AD to 70 AD, marking the fall of Jerusalem.

Politics and Religion

Most people would agree that politics and religion are the two most likely topics that divide even the best of friends. Websters dictionary says that politics is the political opinions or sympathies of a person, while it says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I don’t see the difference between the two.

When I watch elected officials on the floor of the US Senate or House, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who pastors a church in Columbus, Georgia. He will flail his arms all around as he preaches his views on the Holy Scriptures. If your in agreement with their opinion, you could easily get engrossed as you listen to them share their deep-seated and fervent beliefs in such an animated way. Continue reading

Politics & Religion, Do They Mix?

by Chuck Ness

Most people would agree that politics and religion are the two most likely topics that divide even the best of friends. Websters dictionary says that politics is the political opinions or sympathies of a person, while it says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I don’t see the difference between the two.

When I watch elected officials on the floor of the US Senate or House, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who pastors a church in Columbus, Georgia. He will flail his arms all around as he preaches his views on the Holy Scriptures. If your in agreement with their opinion, you could easily get engrossed as you listen to them share their deep-seated and fervent beliefs in such an animated way.

Delusions of Evolution

It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. We are told that such methods as Radiocarbon tests to find the levels of Carbon-14 remaining in fossils, U-Pb dating of volcanic materials to determine how long ago lava cooled, helioseismic dating to get a helium diffusion age in the field of astrophysics, and many more scientific fields and the methods they use can baffle the minds of even the most educated believers of God. Depending on what poll you read, this vast amount of technology has convinced 30% to 40% of believers that God must have used evolution in His creative process.

However, what if I told you that many scientists, archaeologists, biochemists, physicists, micro biologists, and astronomers disagree with most of the findings and conclusions by today's evolutionist experts? Some of these men even go so far as to challenge the very idea that the universe is billions of years old. It is important to remember that the age of the universe is directly related to the science used to convince people of the age of planet earth.


Other then a few probes and the space station we cannot physically investigate anything but earth and maybe some small samples from the moon and what asteroids have hit the earth. All the evidence we have for the age of the universe is tied directly to their theory of the earth's age. So if the earth is proven to be young, then the evidence for an old universe crumbles. Then along with the age of the universe crumbling, so does the possibility of evolution. Now that is where these many learned men come in to the picture. These scientists have presented so much evidence that points to intelligent design, that they have put into question the very methods used by evolutionists.


Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalezand his collaborators have created the concept of the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ). The GHZ defines the region of the Milky Way Galaxy that is most habitable to complex life. His concept involves a number of situations that must exist for life to occur. When taken into account we see that we are not only unique but special in our planets ability to sustain life and to discover what is in the universe. Gonzalez's investigation has proven that Carl Sagan was wrong when he said there are millions of other earths full of life like ours.


What Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys, has done is taken those who base their theories of age on helioseismic testing to task. After repeatedly ran experiments that measure how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The data shows that most of the helium generated by nuclear decay would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian2 age of the rock, and there would be very little helium in the crystals today. But the crystals still retain large amounts of helium, amounts these experiments show are entirely consistent with an age of only thousands of years.

Then we have biochemist Michael Behe, author of “Darwin's Black Box” who points out that molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex. Like a mouse trap that can not function without all the parts available to work at the same time, so to do the machines at the molecular level of cells. This irreducible complexity discounts minute changes that needs to be done for evolution to work.


Add to them such scientists as nuclear physicist Robert Gentry, geophysicist John R. Baumgardner, and many other highly educated scientists and professors from a vast array of fields that have evidence the earth is either not millions of years old or that evolution is a bad theory at best? All these men have another thing in common besides their work that proves a God created us and everything we see. They have all at one time or another been persecuted and attacked for there stance by secular academia and the media.

Now it is very understandable that they would get heated debates about there findings, but to be targeted and threatened with the loss of their very livelihood, reminds one of what the church did to Galileo for daring to say the earth revolves around the sun. Like the many scientists and experts who come out against the idea that global warming is caused by man, these men should be hailed as heroes. If, for no other reason then they dare to question the modern day evolutionists I call, “The Flat Earthers”.

Letting Go Of Life

By Chuck Ness

When I took our dog Hershee to the vet today for her yearly checkup and shots, there was a gentleman who brought his old dog in to be put to sleep. As I watched him carry his old dog to the room where the veterinarian would do his job I looked down at Hershee and wondered how I would handle the task of taking her on that one way journey. I realized then how hard it is for some of us to let go of life.

There are myriads of reasons why people may get a dog and anyone who has ever owned one has their own unique story of how they ended up with theirs. In today's society we have gotten so attached to our dogs that they have literally become members of the family. Back in the very early days of civilization we used our dogs primarily for hunting and protection, we loved our dogs, but we never quite made them a part of the family. 

Somewhere along the line, we invited them into the big house, and so they had no need for their small shelter in the back yard. Our children started growing up with them licking their dirty faces clean and feeding their unwanted meal to them under the table at dinner time. We even started projecting human personality traits upon them that made them unique and special in our hearts. 

In today's modern society, for those of us who do not hunt, we usually get dogs because our children want one or we think they need one. We are convinced that every child needs a dog to love, to take care of, and to learn how to depart with when the time comes. 

We tell ourselves that it helps a child to mature and learn responsibilities. So we tell them they must take care of them, but in reality it was our dog from start to finish. Oh, the children do grow up with it and each child would spend a certain amount of time claiming it as theirs. However, every parent eventually learns the same lesson, and that is that they are the ones who will end up caring for the dog. 

Eventually all the children grow up, finding other interests and our biggest reminder of the pitter-patter of small feet running down the hallway, is the old dog that used to chase after those little feet. We begin to realize that the old dog is truly the best friend we've had through the last 10 years or so. With the children gone or at least seldom home anymore, we catch ourselves feeding the dog under the table at dinner as we silently laugh at the times we chastised the kids for doing the same thing. After all, who could look at those deep brown eyes, smiling face, wet snout and not be moved to give them a bite.

Then one day we hear our dog whining or barking for us to give them a boost up onto the couch or their favorite chair, because their hips are too weak to lunge their withering body off the floor as they used to. We tell ourselves their time is short and that God will soon snuff their candle out. Their peep hole into this world gets dimmer and dimmer as their eyes get cloudier and cloudier by the month. We know what we must do, but our hearts cannot find the compassion we need to take them on that one way journey. 

Then we wake up one morning and we find our best friend laying still next to their favorite chair, almost as if they tried one last time to lunge their feeble body up onto it. We find a blanket, or maybe take the one that protected the chair from their dirt all those years, and gently wrap them in it as our eyes water from the pain we feel.

 We know where we will lay them, if only letting them go was as easy as it was to pick their eternal spot where they will forever rest. We then looking up to God and thank Him for lending us the life that we so dearly did not want to let go of. 

For the first couple of weeks we spend a little extra time looking over to the spot we buried them at, or at least thinking about the choice spot we put them. Eventually the hurt becomes easier to deal with, and we actually ponder whether or not we will get another. Some do, while others could not fathom ever replacing such a friend with another. In time the memories are all we have left, and we may look at the pictures we took through the years but they really never do justice to the memories of the friend who's life we did not want to let go off.

It was these thoughts that went through my head as I pondered the day I would have to part with a dear friend and family member. Hershee is 13 now and if she lives another 3 years it would be a blessing from God. I remember when I was a young boy back in Duluth Minnesota. We had a dog named Blondy who got hit by a truck and died at the ripe old age of 10. For years I could see the pole with the bird house on top that stood as a grave marker for a childhood dog. 

In the 1970's they bulldozed the house, the land, and the marker to make room for the new Freeway. If I try, I think I could still remember the exact spot where Blondy is now part if I-35. I haven't been back to Duluth since 1984, but I'm sure I could remember the spot as I drive over it on the freeway.  

The thing that I remember the most about the time we buried her, was the tears in my dad's eye as he shoveled the dirt over the hole Blondy was laid in. He said the sun was bright and made his eyes water, but I knew he was just trying to put on a strong front for us kids. After all, it was his friend who's life he had to let go of.

It has been many years since that day when Blondy was buried, but I remember it like it was yesterday. We will always have good, bad, and sad memories of them. It's those cherished memories that will live forever in our hearts.

Since I wrote this in 2009, my dog has had one major stroke and a few small ones. She has recovered somewhat, but she is just not the same. She will wonder off into the back field where I must hunt her down to physically get her attention. She gets up all hours of the night wanting to go outside. Oh, not to pee, just to go outside. She barks at the slightest sounds that she used to ignore, and when I come home from work she is not nearly as excited to see me as she used to be, or she just doesn’t have the energy to show her excitement anymore. 

I don’t know if I will have to take her on that one way ride to the vet or wake up one day and find her gone. What I do know, is her time in this world is short, and I will cherish every day the Lord allows us to have our friend around. Knowing that one day she will take that journey over the Rainbow Bridge.

((((Hershee had to be put down on December 27, 2013. Her kidneys shutdown on Christmas, and at 4:00 am on 12-27-13 we ended her pain and suffering.))))

Good bye sweet friend

I dedicate this to our beloved dog, 
Hershee Ness

12/18/1995 - 12/27/2013

Hershee's Garden

Has Talk Radio Killed the Grassroots Conservative Movement?

by Chuck Ness

Back in the beginning when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, the field was wide open for anyone who could connect with an audience. Up until then, radio stations who could only broadcast via AM radio were a dying breed. Most of them had changed their formats to broadcast via FM transmitters. The AM stations were lucky if they could sell enough add time for summertime baseball, local sports wrap ups, or farm information programs to pay a live body to be in the studio. There were certain markets that seemed to be somewhat successful with the numerous “Tradio” type shows across the country where individuals could buy and sell items in a radio type off flea market, but for the most part AM radio was dead.


Then in 1989 the DC court of appeals upheld the 4-0 ruling by the FCC that abolished the Fairness Doctrine. That is when radio stations across the country started hiring whoever they wanted to say whatever they wanted as long as public decency laws were not violated. Now it still wasn't as easy as just putting someone on to talk about anything, the person needed to be somewhat charismatic, his topic had to be worth listening to so they could keep the audiences attention.

The Last President of A Free Democracy

It seems as though the whole world is rejoicing to the news that the “Anointed One” has won the election. In reality it is one of the darkest day's America has ever witnessed. A veil has been thrown over the head of the great Lady of Liberty as her enemies have finally found a way to bring her to her knees. All that remains of the this once ”Great Beacon” of democracy are those ”Bitter Clingers” who are forced to accept their defeat.

Men and women from around the world will stand in awe as the “Anointed One'' stands at the cusp of attaining the most powerful position the world has to offer. With a belief that he will right the wrongs of the past and level the playing field for all, the masses rejoice at the idea of his rule. With a promise of prosperity and equality reminiscent of what Karl Marx wrote of, he has beguiled the masses with his empty promises.

But what of those ”Bitter Clingers” who stand in fear of what his ascension to power really means? When their leaders are declared enemies of the state and the laws are changed to stifle their dissent? What will they do when the country they loved resembles the tin horn dictatorships of South America? What will become of them, after their enemy has destroyed their way of life? Will they ever be able to mobilize as a force to take back their country? And what of their God, whom the friends of the “Anointed One” will inevitably declare illegal on grounds of tolerance?

Well, they can see the handwriting on the wall, and they do not need Daniel to interpret for them what the handwriting says. The “Anointed One” and his legion of godless councilors will claim that their God has been weighed in the balances, and found wanting. They will thus rule that their God and his laws are unconstitutional and unfit for today's society. The God whom their forefathers gave credit to for founding this once great democracy. The God whom they trust with their souls and pray to for salvation. Their God and their religion, will be reduced to a status similar to that which it received under the Roman Empire.

They also know it will be just a matter of time before those in power reverse centuries of achievements that have allowed this country to prosper and shine. Achievements that have enabled the very ones who have gained power to be where they are. Now these new rulers will make laws restricting the freedoms of these “Bitter Clingers”. Freedoms that have allowed them to rightfully cling to their Bibles, and their guns. Yes these “Bitter Clingers” believe in the Constitution that gave them their right to cling to their faith and their defense. A Constitution that will be shredded the day the “Anointed One” takes his place in history as the last President of this Free Democracy.

I say “Last President” of this free democracy, because in a free democracy you do not stifle the votes of some while allowing illegal votes of others. Something that will happen time and time again as long as the “Anointed Ones” cohorts are allowed to rule as they will be. When and “IF” the “Anointed One” leaves office, this country will never ever be the same again.

Politics, and the Ladies of WindChime

by Chuck Ness

As a Deacon at my church I have had the privilege to be involved with a limited assisted retirement center in my town. I teach a Bible study class on Monday nights, and on Sunday afternoons I give a sermon in their activities room. I have been having probably 20% of the residents come to hear my studies and sermons in the last 3 years. I also offer one on one counseling when needed. I guess you can say I have gotten to know more then a few of the residents at WindChime.

OIL, The Common Man's Friend

by Chuck Ness

In the current political discussion we are having on the need to drill or not to drill for oil, often the discussion comes down the need for more fuel to drive the vehicles we use for transportation.

What the libs fail to see, is that oil is truly the common man's best friend. We must not forget that we live in a world that thrives upon synthetic products. That is products made from materials other then natural substances, like rubber from rubber trees or silk from cocoons made by silkworms, (the larvae of the Asian moth Bombyx mori) etc. etc.