Utah Pirate Radio

In this interview from April 15th, 1994, Dick Cheney reveals the reasons why invading Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein wouldn’t be a great idea. He also stipulates that “not very many” American soldiers’ lives were worth losing to take out Saddam during the Gulf War.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

www.ronpaul2008.com

More about what a priest is vs. what a High Priest is.

The earthly Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of believers.

1. Aaron and his sons were the priests of old.

Christ and his sons (believers) are the priesthood of today. The Lord Jesus is called the “High Priest” twelve times in the epistle to the Hebrews and “Priest” about six times more. As we read for example in Heb. 4:14: “Seeing then we have a Great High Priest who is passed into the Heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”

2. Aaron was a human being, full of failure. Christ, our High Priest, is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens”.

3. Aaron’s priesthood was an earthly one and operated in connection with an earthly sanctuary - Hebrews 9:1.

Christ’s priesthood is a heavenly one, as we read in Heb. 8: 1: “We have such an High Priest, who sat down on the right hand of The Throne of the Majesty in the heavens.”

4. Aaron and his sons offered physical, animal sacrifices, which could never take away sins- see Hebrews 10:11.

Christ, on the other hand, offered Himself through the eternal Spirit without spot to God - Hebrews 9:14. The blood of animals could never atone for sin, but the precious blood of Christ indeed purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God- Heb. 9:14.

5. Aaron and his sons did what all men do eventually- they died. Heb. 7:23 says “they were many, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death.” But: This Man- Christ- continues ever; He has an unchangeable priesthood Hebrews 7:24, and so He is able to save to the uttermost (to the very end) them that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them - Heb. 7:25.

6. Aaron had to offer sacrifices not only for the sins of the people, but also for his own sins- Hebrews 5:3. But Christ died for our sins; He did not offer for His own sins because, praise God, He had none. Aaron offered the blood of others (of animals) for his own sins; Christ on the other hand offered His own blood for the sins of others, which is the exact reverse.

7. Aaron’s work never put away one sin. Christ’s blood is able to cleanse every soul from sin- I John 1:9.

What does this expression “priest after the order of Melchizedek” mean?

The seventh chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews fully explains it. Space does not permit us to quote that chapter in full, but let us briefly consider the gist of its teaching:

There was a priest named Melchizedek who lived in Abraham’s day, more than 400 years before the law was given. He was not only a priest but also a king - the King of Salem. Salem means “peace”, while Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”. Naturally this man got his name at birth, but he had to grow up to become King of Salem. He was therefore king of righteousness before he was king of peace. In this he is a beautiful type of Christ, Who is truly the Righteous One by the fact of Who He is, while He became the King of peace through His redemptive work upon the Cross; for He is our Peace and He made peace through the blood of His cross - Col. 1:20.

The fact that Melchizedek lived long before the Levitical priesthood came into being suggests that this higher priesthood of Melchizedek was in God’s mind long before the Jewish priesthood commenced. Since Melchizedek typifies Christ and His work, it proves that Jesus’ heavenly priesthood in God’s purposes preceded the Jewish priesthood.

Since neither Melchizedek’s parents nor his descendants are mentioned in Genesis, the Spirit of God in the epistle to the Hebrews uses this to teach that therefore Christ, whom Melchizedek represents as High Priest, had no parents nor descendant. He is the first High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and the last one too, for no one ever was High Priest after this order before Christ and no one will ever come after Him, for the sublime reason that He lives forever. He is our High Priest, as Heb. 7:25 says, because He ever liveth.

The first thing Christ did as High Priest after this new order was to “offer Himself to God for our sins”, something Aaron never did nor could do. All the sacrifices which Aaron and his sons offered through the centuries pointed on to the one and all- availing sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. Christ’s priesthood thus sets aside the old order. The only priesthood the Bible now knows about is that of Christ as High Priest, and of all believers as priests, as we go on now to consider. (Refer to the other video about what a priest is I.E. the priesthood of believers, or the “royal priesthood”

Mormon Missionaries Debating A Georgia Preacher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPyvJacwUI

Missionaries often come to talk about the Bible, to talk about their faith, and when someone else has a point of view, they either get angry, or they say “we aren’t here to talk about this all night”. 3 minutes after these missionaries arrive, they say “we aren’t here to talk about this all night”. I love this preacher’s response.

So after discussing the global warming issue with an LDS man on a different message board, this guy got pissed off and started calling anyone who supports the idea that humans are responsible for global warming “cult members”, and then terminated my account for apparently no reason other than he didn’t want to discuss the topic anymore.

I’ve made these video-casts in response to it.

Part 1

and

Part 2

Political pressure on scientists

U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, [117] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[118][119][120]. Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by Chris Mooney as constituting a Republican War on Science.[clarify]

Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article [121] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[122] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

The BBC’s long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."[123]

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth’s climate’, and that we are ‘at the point of no return’. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric."[124]

According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,

"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."[125]

Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey [126] was itself unscientific.[127]

 Related developments

In 2005, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inspector general had determined that the EPA’s regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.[128][129] It has been alleged by that, under the Bush Administration, EPA has begun to rely less and less on its scientists and more on non-science personnel. The EPA has recently changed their policies regarding limits for ground-level ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead. New policies will minimize scientist interaction in this process and rely more on policy makers who have minimal scientific knowledge.[130]

References:

James Hansen “NASA Scientist rips Bush on Global Warming”

Diagram and facts on the greenhouse effect

Statements by concurring organizations