Shale oil - isn't real oil

Oops, Shale oil isn't oil It is an oil precursor called kerogen.

Tar sands don't give oil either. That is bitumen. sort of asphalt.
http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/peak-oil-reference/unconventional-liquids/tar-sands/

read the articles at the links.

covert financial profiteering games and the road to WW III

get ready to dump your happy illusions and face the ugly reality of
unchristian greed and satanic lust for power back of a lot of
America's supposedly patriotic concerns, not to mention problems
we made for ourselves.

I would add, that I do not agree with those who dislike the Patriot
Act's undermining of freedom from wiretapping, because the
Supreme Court decision to incl. this in search and seizure was
the product of buying the arguments of the lawyers for perverts,
mobsters, and other filth, and the failure to notice that the line
of argument pushed far enough, would eliminate testimony from
a human as well as from a machine, because the rationale was
that the wiretap was like the General Warrant in bringing in too
much stuff, too vague and far ranging, when that was not the
issue specified in the search and seizure amendment.

The problem with the General Warrant, wherein the British would
shake down a whole block or more on sheer speculation, was
the matter of security of person and papers and not being subject
to random vandalism, theft, destruction and sometimes violence
to one's person. The issue was NOT that too much information
would be acquired. The purpose of requiring a court order that
was specific in what was looked for and where was to be searched,
was to correct for the problem of disruption, not for the problem
of maybe you might get caught.

Metropolitan Isaiah of the Greek Denver Diocese goofs

Metropolitan Isaiah falls all over himself to
apologize to some offended perverts, who
directly spoke to him and wrote to him,
after he commented on the legalization of
same sex marriage as a bad thing.

"As God is my witness, I have neither criticized nor
have I condemned anyone because of
their lifestyle. As a clergyman, and especially as a
Christian, I have no right to condemn anyone.
I have criticized the act, but never the person."

you can't separate the two. That is why
we need to REPENT to turn from stuff,
to have metanoia or change of heart
and mind. We are impure, we need to
become progressively purer.

If an individual is engaged in radical bad
stuff, it is the witness of Christ and St.
Paul and the canons of the church, to
denounce the individual publicly and
discipline or expell them.


"In attempting to serve God as faithfully as I can, I
have no right to condemn anyone. If God does not
condemn a sinner, neither do I have the right
to do so."

Since when does God not condemn a
sinner? He has in the past and warns He
will do so again. It is in the Bible and
supported by the words of The Fathers.

This  modern position is false, and does
nothing but accomodate sin.

When someone is (or was, before the
developments of the past two or three
centuries) excommunicated, forced to not
enter the church but stand outside or in
the narthex only, back when there were
distinct places for baptized and in good
standing, catechumens, hearers, prostrators, and
unbeliever visitors, or deposed from being a bishop
or a priest or kicked out of church altogether, or
made to do penance for a number of years,
THIS IS DEFINITELY CONDEMNING THE
INDIVIDUAL.

the sinner is warned in Scripture, in Church canons,
 in tradition, ship up or
you will be shipped out - out of the church
in this world, a possibly if you still will not
repent, out of the Kingdom of Heaven in
the next world.

"It is clear from Holy Scripture that, if God were
to condemn any person, He would be
condemning Himself, as every human being is made
in the image of God."

At this point, one should tear one's
outer garment somewhat and rush out
of the church crying "anathema!
anathema!" for here Metropolitan Isaiah
falls into a most important heresy.

Being made in God's image and likeness
is NOT being the same as God. Scripture
makes it clear, that God created the
universe out of nothing, and further created
things out of things already created.

Specifically, we were made out of mud.
Not out of God. out of mud.

Further, because of the Fall, we are no
longer as we were originally designed to
be. We are from Adam, and our flesh
and even soul material derives from him
(traducianism, but without traducianism
you still have the original sin aka ancestral
sin, a distinction without a difference).

We have the death and corruption in us
from conception on, and it takes many
forms, one of which is sexual perversion.

We are inclined to go wrong, and no one,
even those baptized at birth, fail to sin
to some extent. Yet as St. Symeon the
New Theologian points out in The Sin of
Adam, no one sins as Adam did, for he
sinned while in a condition of sinlessness
without congenital spiritual semi blindness
and bad inclination. We sin acting on our
corrupt nature, which came from Adam,
he having warped his nature by his sin,
before any of us were conceived.

Yes, St. Symeon teaches original sin very
clearly. Also atonement. the modern
denial of these is a deviation in Orthodoxy,
that is NOT from The Fathers, who acknowledged
them, and went on from there, taking them for
granted instead of dwelling on them. Their failure to
dwell on them and to dwell instead on the solution to
these problems, left them open to misuse as supposed
non teachers of such, but they DO mention them.

Back to Met. Isaiah, he commits here
the heresy of claiming we are consubstantial
with God.

The entire history of the Christological debates, puts
 the lie to this.

For it is clear, that ONLY Christ Jesus
our Lord and Savior, ONLY HE AMONG
MEN IS CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH GOD.
He is consubstantial with God because
He is God, He is consubstantial with God
in His divinity. Then to that divinity without
altering or decreasing it, He added a human
nature, without merging and confusing
these two, their point of union lies in His
Person, not in some merged emulsified
point of juncture between them. This is
what monophysitism (humanity swallowed
up in divinity but still both human and divine but not really
human much) and miaphysitism (humanity and divinity
merged into a single nature instead of two
natures held by one Person, and they either in delusion
 or deception claim that the two natures are united without
change or confusion, when to make a new nature
that is both human and divine, and single, you have to do
 exactly that) fail to understand, partly
due to a confusion between person and nature, which
 is why likely some or even a lot of mia-monophysites do
 in fact have a chalcedonian Orthodox understanding, but
a lot can easily and probably easily do not.

The point is, WE ARE NOT CONSUBSTANTIAL
WITH GOD.
Only Christ is. He alone is the interface
point, between Creator and creation.

Therefore, when God condemns someone,
He does not condemn himself.

Here we see how this waffling and desperate
seeking of approval and to not offend the
offensive, and the blurry notion of love
and mishandling of the doctrines of
forgiveness and of not playing self exalting
games of being grand judge over others,
is compatible with heresy. For here,
Metropolitan Isaiah slips into heresy.

"However, God does
condemn wrongful behavior and sinful lifestyles."

http://www.denver.goarch.org/protocols/2009-Protocols/protocol-09-12.pdf

to Met. Isaiah's credit, by the grace of
God, he manages to cling to the standards
of the Church regarding behavior, and his
one open preaching of heresy may it is to
be hoped pass unnoticed and without
corrupting the faith of anyone, and be noticed
by and repented of by himself.

Justina

Dr. Loftus, false memory expert, blows it on the witness stand

Patrick Fitzgerald vs. “False Memory” Proponent Elizabeth Loftus

5th November 2009

In which Loftus, a veteran advisory board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, is sworn in …. and exposed as a fraud

In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember
Washington Post
October 27, 2006

Your browser’s settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.

With withering and methodical dispatch, White House nemesis and prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald yesterday sliced up the first person called to the stand on behalf of the vice president’s former chief of staff.

If I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was not afraid of the special counsel before, the former Cheney aide, who will face Fitzgerald in a trial beginning Jan. 11, had ample reason to start quaking after yesterday’s Ginsu-like legal performance.

Fitzgerald’s target in the witness box was Elizabeth F. Loftus, a professor of criminology and psychology at the University of California at Irvine. For more than an hour of the pretrial hearing, Loftus calmly explained to Judge Reggie B. Walton her three decades of expertise in human memory and witness testimony. Loftus asserted that, after copious scientific research, she has found that many potential jurors do not understand the limits of memory and that Libby should be allowed to call an expert to make that clear to them.

But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and backpedaling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favored the defense.

Her defense-paid visit to the federal court was crucial because Libby is relying on the “memory defense” against Fitzgerald’s charges that he obstructed justice and lied to investigators about his role in the leaking of a CIA operative’s identity to the media. Libby’s attorneys argue that he did not lie — that he was just really busy with national security matters and forgot some of his conversations.

When Fitzgerald found a line in one of her books that raised doubts about research she had cited on the stand as proof that Libby needs an expert to educate jurors, Loftus said, “I don’t know how I let that line slip by.”

“I’d need to see that again,” Loftus said when Fitzgerald cited a line in her book that overstated her research by saying that “most jurors” consider memory to be equivalent to playing a videotape. Her research, however, found that to be true for traumatic events, and even then, only 46 percent of potential jurors thought memory could be similar to a videotape.

There were several moments when Loftus was completely caught off guard by Fitzgerald, creating some very awkward silences in the courtroom.

One of those moments came when Loftus insisted that she had never met Fitzgerald. He then reminded her that he had cross-examined her before, when she was an expert defense witness and he was a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York.

Libby’s defense team declined to comment.

– Carol D. Leonnig

regarding that last post.....

Bear in mind, that there is no degree of sinfulness that cannot
be cleansed by the Blood of Christ, Who loves us and
eagerly awaits our repentance.

Repentance means turning from, not just regretting while
you get ready to do it again. Go check on the Greek words.

It is written, in the parable of the prodigal son, that there
is more joy in heaven among the angels, over a sinner
who repents than over many who never were guilty of
serious sin.

So do not despair.

Heterosexual sin will send you to hell as much as homosexual sin will

We are hearing a lot lately, about bullying of gays, some of whom have
committed suicide. (Of course, these are the obvious fag types. The
he man sort who think they are straight because they do the buggering
and never allow themselves to be buggered, are not on the radar. But
the Law of God both OT and NT explicitly targets these, "if you lie
with a man as you would with a woman, it is abomination unto God."
Arsenokoites, mistranslated self abuse, is man defined as strong ergo
manly, arsen, and koites or coition, the dominant partner is here
condemned along with the "effeminate" in the same breath. It also has
implications against sex as service demanded by the stronger of the
weaker, and buggery whether hetero or homo.)

But while apparently there is a lot of talk about the abomination of
homosexuality, there is not any talk to speak of about the
abomination of heterosexual experimentation or "fornication."

St. Paul makes it clear that fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom
of Heaven, and Revelation speaks of fornicators as well as
buggerers and sorcerers being kept outside of the New Jerusalem.

so it is really irrelevant "who you are" or "what your sexuality is,"
because HETEROSEXUALS WHO LUST AFTER MANY
POSSIBLE PARTNERS AND THE WIVES AND HUSBANDS
OF OTHERS AND ACT ON THESE LUSTS ARE HEADED
FOR HELL JUST AS MUCH AS THE BUGGERERS AND
FAGGOTS ARE.

The purpose of figuring out who you are should not be just so
you can act on it whatever it is.

If you figure out you are something that is wrong, then you
have a valuable piece of knowledge - that you need to get
yourself under control and with God's help NOT act on it.

homosexuality is a series of choices in what feelings you
cultivate and play with, sometimes starting from some
unwholesome stimulation as a child. By the time you have
some clear cut choice of action, you have been cultivating
feelings.

Same for heterosexuals who sleep around.

If you have an impure heart, it needs cleaning. Desires
may come unasked, but ACTION is a CHOICE.

And a man or woman who has sex with many partners,
of the opposite sex, is only slightly less impure but still
headed to hell just as much as a homosexually inclined
person who acts on his or her inclinations is.

If the churches had been busy denouncing heterosexual
abomination like they ought to have been, instead of
glossing it over as inappropriate to discuss in mixed
company in public, and at most something for women
to worry about doing but men can fall now and then,
somehow he is more noble and just needs a good wife,
while a woman who falls is beyond redemption and
unmarriageable, if that crap had not been taught,
then the whole problem of the heterosexual sinner
would not have fallen off the radar.

Because when the double standard was correctly
rejected, the vile young and older men were not
held up to shame and spat upon along with the
girls and women who were whorish, but rather
everyone was free to be wrong.

The fact is, that The Bible is not strictly a hate
document against gays, but against all forms of
whoredom. And it does more denunciation of
male unchastity than it does of female.

This genetically modified supermarket health food killed baby rats in three weeks

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/04/watch-out-there-are-more-problems-with-genetically-modified-foods-than-youre-allowed-to-know.aspx