The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual "lynching" of him.

Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word "uppity" to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn't use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.

When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?

The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because "Mr. Wright" has "said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks" and "he suggested that America was guilty of 'terrorism' and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

The Hutchinson News has said: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up."

Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?

I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.

Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?

Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter's mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today's editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?

It's clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama's bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.

I'm not concerned about Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama's newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama's drive for power.

The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.

don't believe either the myth that government might have created HIV or that there are greenhouse gases capable of controlling air temperatures. I find it interesting that some of those who are so gullible that they believe strongly in the greenhouse effect are highly critical of those who believe there is some type of HIV conspiracy. The HIV conspiracy is at least plausible. The greenhouse effect is impossible.

I think that those who believe in some type of HIV conspiracy have watched too many James Bond type movies. However, I recognize that one goal of biological weapons research, such as the United States once conducted, is to develop pathogens that could infect humans. Some scientists speculate that those of European ancestry are less susceptible to the HIV virus because they have the GC-2 gene variation instead of the GC-1 variation that is more common among those of African ancestry. Racists or those concerned about overpopulation might concievably be willing to release such a virus into the population. If Adolph Hitler had developed a virus that would have been more likely to target non-Aryans, he would have released it.

I'm only arguing that a conspiracy is possible not that it exists. I'm not sure that medical knowledge was sufficient prior to 1980 to allow development of a virus capable of targeting broad genetic groups. Viruses (such as various forms of the "flu") capable of killing thousands sometimes seem to appear suddenly. The similarity of HIV to a comparable chimpanze virus indicates that humans could have acquired the virus from a chimpanze by eating an infected one or possibly having sex with it. (Note: a resident of a nearby town is currently facing charges of having sex with a dog.)

The claim that carbon dioxide can increase atmospheric temperature isn't mathematically or scientifically possible. Even those who support the idea admit that the earth's temperature only changed by 1 F (0.17%) during the entire 20th Century. Such a difference is extremely small considering that temperatures in many areas can vary by 20-30 F in a single 24-hour period. Some areas can see a 100 F difference or more between high summer temperatures and low winter temperatures.

The idea of CO2 causing global warming is based in part on a theoritcal model called a black body model that doesn't apply to earth.

CO2 comprises less than 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere. That means other molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by over 2,500 to 1 making it extremely difficult for CO2 to heat the rest of the atmosphere.

The sparse distribution of CO2 would leave huge gaps between CO2 molecules for the limited range of infrared radiation CO2 interacts with to pass through.

Physicist Niels Bohr received a Nobel Prize for his research indicating that gas atoms/molecules don't become hotter after absorbing radiation. The only affect was a change in the energy state of the electrons. In order to absorb additional radiation in a specific wavelength, a atom/molecule would first have to emit radiation in that wavelength.

Bohr's research indicated that molecules absorbed and reemitted radiation in quantum amounts. Thus, absorption of IR radiation by CO2 molecules would break up IR radiation into quantum sized units instead of trapping it.

Physicist R.W. Wood demonstrated in 1909 that greenhouses didn't become warmer by trapping IR radiation.
Natural sources of radiation convert only a small portion of the heat energy they possess to radiation at any one time. The ground and water don't emit enough radiation to heat air that is the same temperature.