Posted on 02/26/2008 7:51:28 AM PST by ZGuy
He's not the only one. They are _legion_:
My comments:
"..And Call to Action, a group founded last year, seeks to make global warming a top political issue for evangelicals; its leaders include ..the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for government relations of the National Association of Evangelicals. Some political analysts speculate that "eco-evangelicals" could be a crucial voting bloc in this fall's elections."~ Eviana Hartman
Ah, yes, "Reverend" Cizik. This is the guy who said he had a “conversion” on climate change so profound in Oxford that he likened it to an “altar call,” when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior.
This occurred when he, and some other dupes (I'm being kind, here) went to see John Houghton, the radical 60's activist re-tread who helped Al Gore promote his "An Inconvenient Truth" film. (See excerpts of a Judge's ruling below, which found the film to have 38 scientific errors in addition to promoting Al's "extreme" partisan political "solutions" as propaganda to little children and unsuspecting adults. Of course this clever political film was shown to countless church congregations, too, by their "trusted" pastors.)
Here's the background which should be copied and passed on as far and wide as possible before the sheep vote in favor of getting themselves sheared (higher taxes and more regulation) this November:
More examples of "committed Christians" (Sorry for the length, but I wanted to have it all in one place for future reference):
The “Reverend” Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC, said this:
“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”
“.. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.” ~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003
Some would call that "lying for Jesus" with malice aforethought. No kidding.
*
NY Times Friday 11 March 2005:
“.. Mr. Cizik said he had a “conversion” on climate change so profound in Oxford that he likened it to an “altar call,” when nonbelievers accept Jesus as their savior. Mr. Cizik recently bought a Toyota Prius, a hybrid vehicle. “ Richard Cizik is the Vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals
Oct. 2006:
“..Cizik dates his “conversion” to 2002, when evangelical left activist Jim Ball of the “What Would Jesus Drive” anti-SUV campaign “dragged” him to Oxford, England, for a global warming summit featuring scientist and Christian thinker John Houghton. “I had, as John Wesley would say, a ‘warming of my heart,’ Cizik recalls. “A conversion to a cause which I believe every Christian should be committed to.”
After his Oxford conversion, Cizik returned home, sold his gas guzzler, bought a Prius, and renewed his interest in recycling. He notes that evangelicals comprise 40-50 percent of the “Republican base” and Republican politicians, who “have stymied action on climate change, will “have to listen” if evangelicals become as passionate as Cizik is about climate change.
Promoters of The Great Warming are hoping that other evangelicals will have dramatic conversions to the global warming cause like Cizik. No doubt, many of these new enthusiasts for the planet are full of passionate sincerity. But some seem to see acceptance of disastrous scenarios of global warming, fueled exclusively by human activity, as almost an article of faith, transcending need for logical argument. For them, it has become intrinsically a struggle between noble friends of the earth and wicked allies of the fossil fuels industry. They have adopted climate activism as a new crusade.
Evangelicals are more famous, or notorious, for preaching about the impending End Times. At least that old kind of preaching pointed listeners towards repentance...and God. This new mode of climate revivalism points evangelicals towards a very differently kind of imagined apocalypse, in which the solution is not divine intervention but increased government regulation, reduced standards of living, diminished national sovereignty, and enhanced powers for international bureaucracies. That Old Time Religion now looks more appealing, because it involves God.
*
The court case that was brought against Al Gore and his global warming propaganda film in Great Britian, was by Stuart Dimmock - a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. The "ruling" had to do with Al and his friends' attempt to "politically indoctrinate" little children in school - which is illegal.
The "scientific errors" they discovered in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (AIT), are a side issue, and were not the basis for the case brought against the propagandist, Al Gore.
The judge found, among other things, that in Al Gore's movie, AIT, "science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..." [See details below]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions Case No: CO/3615/2007 Hearing dates: 27, 28 September, 1, 2 October 2007 Before: MR JUSTICE BURTON
Stuart Dimmock - Claimant -- Mr Paul Downes and Miss Emily Saunderson (instructed by Malletts) for the Claimant
-vs-
Sec. State for Education and Skills - Defendant -- Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendant
[Judge] Burton:
Stuart Dimmock is a father of two sons at state school and a school governor. He has brought an application to declare unlawful a decision by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills to distribute to every state secondary school in the United Kingdom a copy of former US Vice-President Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth ("AIT"), ..... I have had very considerable assistance from both the very able Counsel, Paul Downes for the Claimant and Martin Chamberlain for the Defendant, and their respective teams.
The context and nub of the dispute are the statutory provisions described in their side headings as respectively relating to "political indoctrination" and to the "duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues" in schools, now contained in ss406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which derive from the identical provisions in ss44 and 45 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986. ...
I viewed the film at the parties' request..... It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – ... – but that it is a political film.. . Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming,... but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out.
Paul Downes... has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates ...:
(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities aretaxed, including fuel consumption, travel and manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear) employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels."
... the Defendant, does not challenge that the film promotes political views. ................."
In the DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] leaflet ... there was this one sentence summary:
"Mr Johnson said that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long term view on the environment among the public."
After the pre-action correspondence from the Claimant, and on the very day the Judicial Review Claim Form was issued, a somewhat differently worded news release was issued by the Defendant dated 2 May 2007:
"....This pack will help to give young people information and inspiration to understand and debate the issues around climate change..."
The explanation for the distribution to all schools is now given in these proceedings in the witness statement of Ms Julie Bramman of the DES:
"8. …I should say at once that it was recognised from the start that __parts of the Film contained views about public policy__ and __how we should respond__ to climate change. The aim of distributing the film was not to promote those views, but rather to present the science of climate change in an engaging way and to promote and encourage debate on the political issues raised by that science."
...the meaning of partisan, as in partisan political views: ...
Partisan ... Mr Downes pointed to dictionary definitions suggesting the relevance of commitment, or adherence to a cause. In my judgment, the best simile for it might be "one sided". Mr Downes, in paragraph 27 of his skeleton argument, helpfully suggested that there were factors that could be considered by a court in determining whether the expression or promotion of a particular view could evidence or indicate partisan promotion of those views:
"(i) A superficial treatment of the subject matter typified by portraying factual or philosophical premises as being self-evident or trite with insufficient explanation or justification and without any indication that they may be the subject of legitimate controversy; the misleading use of scientific data; misrepresentations and half-truths; and one-sidedness.
(ii) The deployment of material in such a way as to prevent pupils meaningfully testing the veracity of the material and forming an independent understanding as to how reliable it is.
(iii) The exaltation of protagonists and their motives coupled with the demonisation of opponents and their motives.
(iv)The derivation of a moral expedient from assumed consequences requiring the viewer to adopt a particular view and course of action in order to do "right" as opposed to "wrong."
This is clearly a useful analysis.
"....What is forbidden by the statute is, as the side heading makes clear, "political indoctrination". If a teacher uses the platform of a classroom to promote partisan political views in the teaching of any subject, then that would offend against the statute.
[...]
The Film
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i)"... science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ..."
The Errors [38 found - only 9 focused on for brevity - are snipped here]
The Guidance
"... in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to "influence the opinions of children" (paragraph 7 above) but so as to "stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes" (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.....
...it is noteworthy that in the (unamended) Guidance Note there is no or no adequate discussion at all, either by way of description or by way of raising relevant questions for discussion, in relation to any of the above 9 'errors', the first two of which are at any rate apparently based on non-existent or misunderstood evidence, and the balance of which are or may be based upon lack of knowledge or appreciation of the scientific position, and all of which are significant planks in Mr Gores's 'political' argumentation. ..."
"...One particular change in the section on "Citizenship: Planning a whole day event on climate change" is of some significance:
"..... Invite in a guest speaker to go over the issues raised across the day and discuss solutions … But please remember that teaching staff must not promote any particular political response to climate change and, when such potential responses are brought to the attention of pupils, must try to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."
The _amended_ Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage:
"[Schools] must bear in mind the following points
* An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)
* teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views;
* in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate ...
* where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.
"...I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – ..." bttt
vaudine
“Leaders like Mehlman are the reason the GOP is in a funk.” ~ vaudine
Yep. Google “Melman outted”.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+Mehlman+outted
|
They are mercenaries. Guns for hire, which ever side pays them.
And you'd better hope McCain isn't stupid enough to tap our Governor, Charlie "Mr.Suntan" Crist, as his VP running mate.
We may wind up having another "October Surprise" like we had in '06.
our governor of MN, Pawlenty (aka T-Paw), has seen the Gore-bull warming light ,too. My guess is that it’s to prepare him for being McLame’s Veep.
I believe you are correct sir. Also, an interesting tid bit. They have a statute honoring Benedict Arnold, or at least part of him, near the Saratoga battlefield in New York. Do you know what is unusual about the statute?
Yes, I am correct, and money is never just a tid-bit to traitors! But as to the statue, please inform me. Thanks. :)
Plans were in the works to commission a statute of Arnold, who was a genuine Hero at the battle of Saratoga. He was wounded in the leg during the battle. After his treason, they still wanted to recognize his heroics, but didn’t feel it would be appropriate to have a statue of a traitor, so at the end of the day, they just did a statue of Arnold’s Boot, to reflect the wound he received at Saratoga. The “boot” is still on display.
Thank you. I’ve been to Saratoga, but my visits were somewhat hurried and I missed more than a few things. While another took credit for it, history knows that Arnold was the real ‘hero’ of Saratoga, a great field general and a man with great potential in the Colonial army. How sad that personal needs for recognition and fame and money turned him into a national traitor. Washington was probably not the only one wept over that!
Thanks to other freepers, I do know. :)
Soros's buddy.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.