[Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of

Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 492242. Subscription

free upon request.]



Edward C. Krug, Soil Scientist

[From Imprimis 20(7):1-5 (1991 July).]

[3943 words]

Editor's Preview: Last November, Hillsdale College's Center for

Constructive Alternatives sponsored a week-long seminar that

invited nine prominent scientists and environmental analysts to

assess the respective track records of government and the private

sector in environmental protection. Their unanimous opinion was

that government action, usually precipitated by unsound science

and media sensationalism, results in massive overregulation and,

as in the case of the 1990 Clean Air Act discussed in this issue,

billions of wasted dollars. Soil scientist Edward C. Krug

observes that such action often makes environmental problems

worse and diverts attention from other less publicized but more

potent dangers.


Every day, millions of dismayed Americans read the news that acid

rain is creating an aquatic ``silent spring'' in the northeastern

United States. ... Thousands of lakes are dead with thousands

more soon to die. ... Acid rain is wiping out our forests. The

perception of mounting environmental devastation has created an

overwhelming sense of urgency. The feeling is, ``For heaven's

sake stop talking about it and do something before we kill

everything!'' The trouble is, none of this news of impending

environmental disaster is true.

Political activists from the Sierra Club, the National

Audubon Society, and other organizations have worked diligently

to create the public perception that it is. Some scientists have

helped to fuel the flames of panic. In 1980, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed that acid rain had

increased the average acidity of northeastern lakes a hundredfold

over the last 40 years. In 1981, the National Research Council

claimed that the number of acidified lakes would double by 1990.

But National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP)

scientists assigned to research the ``problem'' realized that the

publicly accepted claims of disaster were unsubstantiated. There

was simply no scientific assessment of acid rain's effects on

which to base claims of disaster, or any claims at all, for that

matter. Accordingly, NAPAP spent hundreds of millions of dollars

to develop the first census of acid rain's state-of-the-

environment. This is what they found for lakes:

1. There are only 240 critically acidic (pH <= 5.0) lakes out of

over 7,000 northeastern lakes; not the thousands claimed.

2. The average lake is as acidic as it was prior to the

Industrial Era (some lakes have become more acidic, some have

become less acidic over time); not a hundred times more acidic as


3. Only 35,000 of 200,000,000 acres [0.0175%] of eastern lakes

are critically acidic.

4. Most of this acidic water is in Florida. Yet the rain in

Florida is among the least acidic rain in the eastern U.S. --

three times less acidic than in the Adirondacks.

5. The amount of acidic water is not changing with time;

thousands of additional lakes are not becoming acidic as claimed.

6. The old Clean Air Act is working; SO2 (the principal pollutant

that creates acid rain) has been halved -- 20 million tons rather

than 40 million tons per year. The new revisions will make no

difference in the amount of acid rain 30-40 years from now. [See

Ackerman 1981 for more on the old Clean Air Act.]

7. All of the acidic lakes in the northeastern U.S. can be limed

for $500,000 a year compared to billions of dollars for an

elaborate government acid rain program.

This is what was found for forests:

1. ``Forest decline is extensive in many unpolluted areas of the

world, whereas trees in highly polluted areas (i.e. metropolitan

areas) are largely unaffected.''

2. The nitrogen in acid rain is fertilizing 300,000,000 acres of

eastern forest. Such fertilization may have a negative effect

for about 0.1 percent of the forest. Enhanced growth by nitrogen

fertilization may result in increased winter damage for 3,000,000

acres of high-altitude spruce-fir forest.

It is only common sense to conclude, therefore, that an

expensive crash program to further accelerate the current rate of

reduction of acid rain is not justified.

Yet in major media sources such as Newsweek and the New York

Times political activists passed off as ``environmental experts''

continue to claim that NAPAP has made no progress at all. They

say that NAPAP was a waste of time: it had only proven that acid

rain is the ``crisis'' it was ``known to be'' prior to the

inception of NAPAP a decade ago. In the few cases where

responsible scientists manage to report some of the real facts,

it is claimed that NAPAP's results are politically tainted --

under representing the effects of acid rain. It was in this

atmosphere that congress passed a new Clean Air Act in 1990 in

large part to allay manufactured fears of acid rain. What

Congress is trying to cover up is the fact that this new

legislation will cost our nation, conservatively, $40 billion a



Acid rain is only one of a dozen manufactured crises ranging from

toxic waste to chemical poisoning of food and global warming.

Consistently we are led to believe that we must submit to

comprehensive regulation by an ``elite'' of environmental experts

if our planet is to be saved. The real crisis, however, appears

to lie with these self-proclaimed saviors. They view the present

world order --- which places power in the hands of individuals --

as foolhardy. They manipulate science and our own institutions

to convince us that it is necessary to sacrifice our rights of

self-determination for some ``greater good'' like environmental


Environmentalism itself has become more than just a cause; it

is the preeminent American political party. Ron Arnold, author

of Ecology Wars [1987], reports that the major environmental

organizations meet regularly to coordinate their activities.

And, according to California Representative William E.

Dannemeyer, the top twelve organizations that comprise the base

of support for the Environmental Party are four times bigger than

the combined Democratic and Republican parties:

``All told, the Environmental Party has an operating

budget of $336.3 million (1988) and has a donor base of

12,959,000. That's nearly $250 million more than the

Republican and Democratic parties combined and a donor

base of some 10 million persons more!'' [Human Events, 1

Sep 1990, pp. 3-4.]


About 90 percent of these funds go to support political

activities, not environmental improvement. Yet members of the

Environmental Party have established themselves as the poor,

blue-jeaned, idealistic defenders of the public interest and

Planet Earth. Their opponents, usually American businessmen, are

portrayed as Darth Vaders in three-piece suits -- special

interests opposed to the common good.

The Environmental party is difficult to oppose because it

embraces a nominal cause that has no opposition. Who wants foul

air, dirty water, and reckless disposal of toxic wastes? Who

relishes questioning the Party and being automatically labeled

and enemy of Mother Nature? The last group that wants to fight

on these uneven terms is the business community. But

confrontation cannot be avoided because the party has targeted

free enterprise for extinction.

If one were deliberately trying to create a means to kill

free enterprise (and its attendant wealth and freedoms), one

could not come up with a better killing machine than the

Environmental party. Indeed, from the beginning, business and

industry learned that fighting back in self-defense is even worse

than doing nothing. And, of course, there are those who have

decided that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em; over half the

financial support received by the Party comes from private-sector

foundations. [See Echard 1990.]


To understand government's role as a Party ally, it is

helpful to think of government as the business of regulation.

Like all business, the business of regulation seeks growth. But

even governmental growth is not risk-free. It has the inherent

liability of incurring the displeasure of the consumer (taxpayer)

by increasing the cost (taxes) of the product. Environmental

legislation, however, is like manna from heaven: it is

principally an off-budget tax. The government is thus perceived

as working for the common good, literally for free.

To government, the well-known Environmental Party line is an

irresistible siren's song:

``Government must regulate all human activity. The

masses must obey the environmental bureaucracy -- it

knows what is `best.' Sacrifice must be made for the

`just cause.' There are only 5 to 10 years before it is

too late to save the planet from the masses who inhabit


And crises are the time-honored formula by which people are

persuaded to give up their rights to government.


It was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who observed that ``hastiness

and superficiality -- these are the psychic diseases of the 20th

century and more than anywhere else this is manifested in the

press.'' Businessmen would do well to heed Solzhenitsyn's

warning, for they have few enough friends in the media these

days. A report of the Media Institute shows that ``Television

almost never portrays business as a socially useful ... activity.

[Quoted in Arnold 1987, p. 20.]''

Americans love the underdog. Stories of the ``common

citizen'' battling against unscrupulous capitalists and

industrial giants are popular and pay big dividends for the media

with little accompanying risk. The myth of the great lobbying

power of the ``Timber Barons,'' the ``Oil Monopolies'' and the

``Mining Kings'' support the image of a David versus Goliath

conflict -- the battle between good and evil.

Since the environmental party provides an endless source of

prepackaged, easy-to-report disasters -- clear cut cases of

conflict between good and evil for eager consumption by the

public -- the Party and the media are natural friends and allies,

bonded through mutual self-interest. Together, they bombard the

public with a never-ending series of fictitious environmental

disasters. Invariably, the businessman and free enterprise are

to blame.

The Environmental Party and the mass media also conspire to

provide government with a clear mandate to micromanage all

aspects of human activity. While scientific truth is not

established by vote, political reality is. The Environmental

Party, government and mass media represent a triad of

self-interest that excludes the public interest. They are

succeeding in dismantling democracy and free choice where all

previous efforts have failed.

The only way to defeat them is by grassroots activism through

private groups like the one I work for -- the Committee for a

Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). These groups, though small and

often unknown to the general public, can have an important

influence on the issues of our time, especially on environmental

issues that have become mired in politics and media hype.


But the brilliance of Environmental Party strategy lies in

its ongoing attempt to discredit science and government and to

persuade the public habitually to place its trust in the

proclamations of the Party's political activists. Here are the

results of a survey by the Democratic firm of Marttila & Kiley,

and the Republican firm of Market Strategies, Inc. reported in

the Washington Times last August [1990]:

-- Only 15 percent of the American public trusts what government

scientists say.

-- Only 6 percent trust scientists seen as representing industry.

-- 68 percent implicitly believes political activists.

-- 67 percent agrees with the statement, ``Threats to the

environment are as serious as environmental groups say they


Virtually all scientific research is funded by industry and

government. Since the public no longer trusts these sources, it

is apt to accept the ``good faith'' assertions of political

activists as fact.


Diverting Attention from Real Dangers

In 1990, President Bush planted an elm in Indianapolis on

Earth Day. He claimed that this tree was a symbol of the

environment, and of the ``problem'' of global warming. The

``green'' elite that informs the President got part of it right:

The elm tree does represent a problem -- the environmental

devastation resulting from the Party's sham-environmental ethic.

The President's elm is also representative of the specific

problem faced by our eastern forests: It may soon die. But it

will not die from acid rain or air pollution but from Dutch elm


There are 150 million acres of eastern hardwoods that have

been assaulted in recent years by a variety of imported diseases

and pests. Before the chestnut (the most valuable tree in the

eastern forests) was eliminated by blight, an enterprising

squirrel could have gone from Maine to Georgia on the branches of

chestnut trees, coming down only to cross rivers.

Oak, which has replaced much of the elm and chestnut, is

being devastated by the gypsy moth. Beech bark disease from

Canada is now making its way across the rest of North America

after being introduced into Nova Scotia from Europe.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Party bemoans acid rain's

hypothetical risk to about 300,000 acres of high altitude

spruce-fir forest from winter injury due to nitrogen


Inflated fears about acid rain distract us from being

concerned about the remaining 18 million acres of spruce-fir

forest that are literally being chewed up by imported insect

pests. For example, 90 percent of the mature fir trees in the

Southern Appalachians are dead or dying because of the woolly

adelgid. The spruce buzzworm has eaten millions of acres of red

spruce in Maine and many more millions of acres in Canada.

While the Environmental Party diverted our attention and

resources to acid rain, in 1986 the zebra mussel was introduced

into our lakes from Norway. A comparison of the problems

represented by acid rain and the zebra muscle is in order:

It is probable that acid rain acts to increase the acidity of

naturally acidic ``fishless'' waters. It may also acidify a very

small percentage of low-productivity waters. But the party has

portrayed lakes that cover a few tens of thousands of acres --

most of which we now know to be naturally acidic -- as an

environmental Armageddon.

The zebra mussel, on the other hand, is enormously

proliferate and feeds on the planktonic food base of aquatic

ecosystems. It has no natural enemies. In just a few years, it

has rapidly spread to eat the planktonic base of the aquatic food

chain, decreasing the productivity of tens of millions of acres

of water. It has also done billions of dollars of damage to

water supply systems and industry. Biologists see no way to

prevent the zebra mussel from taking over our more than 100

million acres of high-productivity freshwater.

If the Environmental Party were a genuine champion of the

environment, it would not be preoccupied with multibillion-dollar

acid rain controls or its other pet concerns like the spotted owl

and the snail darter. It would not embrace nominal environmental

issues that are used to acquire control over vital industrial

activities and it would not ignore greater environmental problems

just because they cannot be used to achieve such control.

The truth is that the Environmental Party is dominated by

false prophets whose concern for the environment masks their real

agenda, which is social engineering, and their ultimate goal,

which is power.


During the debate over the Clean Air Act of 1990, Senator

Daniel Patrick Moynihan [D., NY] pointed to the key problem when

dealing with the Environmental Party: the triumph of process over

reason. He declared that ``environmental legislation created

over the last twenty years has typically forbidden any analysis

of cost or has demonstrated no concern for it.''

The party is not interested in using logic and science to

correctly identify problems, or to decide which responses might

do more harm than good. It ruthlessly pursues any legislation

that gives it the means not just to control economic activity,

but all forms of human behavior. The result is that the

Environmental Party has become the absolute secular power of the

country. Any activity can be construed as unacceptably damaging

to the environment. Pull one fish out of a lake, cut one tree,

or plant a field and you can be said to have harmed the

environment. If you breathe, you exhale CO2 and allegedly cause

global warming.

The Environmental Party did not acquire power all at once; it

took its lead from bureaucracy. Starting with the first federal

water pollution law in 1948, government has given itself

increasing authority to regulate everything from noise to

wildlife. Ron Arnold notes that with the passage of RCRA (the

Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) and

``Superfund'' (the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980), government now has the

authority to regulate literally every substance in existence

[Arnold 1987, p. 15].

The Environmental Party has imitated government by gradually

expanding control over well known environmental organizations

such as the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society and the

National Wildlife Federation. These groups began as bona fide

organizations promoting wise use, i.e. conservation of the land,

but have abandoned, as former NWF president Ray Arnett and others

have testified, conservation education for the more tempting

pursuits of political advocacy and lobbying.



What values does the Environmental Party advocate? Ron

Arnold states: ``America's new-found sensitivity to nature came

packaged in a strongly anti-industry, anti-people wrapper. It

came with a gut feeling that people are no damn good, that

everything we do damages nature and that we must be stopped

before we totally destroy the earth.'' [p. 10] The best know

environmentalist of our time, Dennis Hayes, proclaimed on the

first Earth Day, ``We feel that Earth Day has failed if it stops

at pollution, if it doesn't serve as a catalyst in [changing] the

values of society.''

In his 1968 book, The Population Bomb [New York: Ballantine

Books/Sierra Club, 1968] (sold by the Sierra Club and endorsed in

the foreword by Sierra Club Executive Director David Brower), Dr.

Paul Ehrlich called people a ``cancer'' on the earth. He

repeatedly asserted that ``the battle to feed humanity is already

lost.'' He predicted that the world would run out of food by

1977, after which world population would begin to starve back to

two billion by 2025.

To stave off this disaster, Ehrlich prescribed a form of

global triage. He claimed that the Third World was hopeless and

that we should help it die: specifically, we should increase the

death rate by denying food and technology and reduce the birth

rate through mandatory birth control and sterilization. The

nations that were not beyond hope would have only mandatory birth

control. Government experts would decide who could reproduce.

In 1968, Ehrlich did not think that we were ``mature'' enough for

this approach -- yet.

Now, nearly a quarter of a century later, the world has not

come to an end. Undeterred by his awesome capacity for error,

however, Ehrlich has republished his thesis (The Population

Explosion [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990], 1989 [sic]),

merely changing the dates. Incredibly, he has retained his

hallowed status as a prophet of the future, even receiving the

1990 MacArthur Foundation genius award.

With the help of Ehrlich and others like him, the

Environmental Party is working hard to make its dismal world

vision come true. For example, one of the 12 pieces of

legislation the Environmental Party uses to rate Washington

legislators is a bill to fund the United Nations' program of

compulsory sterilization in Third World countries receiving aid.


The U.N.'s alliance with the Environmental Party doesn't end

with the schemes to kill off or stunt the Third World population;

the stated fundamental goal of its international convention on

global warming is no less that the development of a statist world

government that will control every activity of life in all

countries. The leading 17 industrial nations have signed an

agreement in principle to implement such a plan to stave off the

alleged horrors of global warming.

Global warming is but another manufactured environmental

crisis whose real purpose is social engineering. World-class

agronomists, geologists, and environmental scientists of the

U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) find that

if global warming occurs to the degree and extent that the

doomsday global warming models predict, it will be of great

benefit to the world! What these IPCC data mean for the U.S.

alone is an increase of $12 billion per year in food production,

$30-50 billion per year in water resources, an increase in wood

of 80 billion cubic feet, and more than $500 billion in wood by

2050. (These prospects are merely academic, however, since a

number of scientists admit that if we look at the last fifty

years, rather than the century average as is customary,

temperatures are not increasing.)

Nevertheless, the well-publicized plans of the U.N. and the

Environmental Party require Third World nations to place large

areas in ``forever wild'' nature preserves to prevent their dire

and, predictably, false warnings about global warming from coming

true. Additionally, these nations will be denied use of their

remaining natural resources by the banning of primitive

slash-and-burn practices and of modern agricultural and

transportation technologies based on fossil-fuels -- ostensibly

to minimize emissions of CO2.

The real consequence of such action is to prevent Third World

countries from becoming developed. The U.N.'s and the

Environmental Party's plan effectively blocks them from following

the developed nations through the demographic transition to

prosperity and near-zero population growth rates.

The plan is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Underdeveloped

nations will remain underdeveloped, and will retain low economic

growth, high population rates, poverty, and concomitant

environmental devastation.


``Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing

but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their


Matthew 7:15-16

The Environmental Party has given us a new definition of

``social responsibility,'' one that has little to do with people

and much to do with rainforests, sea turtles, dolphins and

spotted owls. It has also given us a new definition of man, one

that has important religious significance.

It was the misanthropic core philosophy of the new

environmentalism in the 1970s that originally led Reverend

Richard Neuhaus (a founder of National Clergy and Laymen

Concerned About Vietnam) to write the book, In Defense of People

[New York: Macmillan, 1971], in which he pointed out that this

movement puts the ``rights of nature'' above the ``rights of

man.'' Today, we also know that under the Environmental Party's

proposed new world order, the lost rights of the many are

concentrated into the hands of the ``knowing few'' who administer

``the rights of nature.''

The core of this environmental totalitarianism is anti-God,

even though some general Judaeo-Christian or other religious

principles are acknowledged and even venerated by many

Environmental Party Members.

God and the Environmental Party know that man is a sinner.

Both define what sin is. Even though we sin, the loving God

views people, science and technology as blessings. Under the

loving God, we have free choice. The Party does not love people,

science, or technology. It wants to replace God with its own

authority and eliminate free choice. It worships Creation, but

not the Creator.


The Environmental Party does not respect the sanctity of

science. It manipulates science as a tool of persuasion.

It does not respect the sanctity of the environment. It

manufactures environmental crises as a means of gaining control

over the resources that support modern civilization. One of the

outcomes of this siege on civilization is the destruction of the


The Party does not respect the sanctity of an individual's

right to self-determination. It holds that, given the truth,

``we the people'' do not have the ability to make the ``correct''

decisions. Only the Party elite have that ability.

The Party views the present world order -- which places power in

the hands of the people -- as dangerous and unacceptable. Its

leaders must feel ironic satisfaction in using our own free and

democratic institutions to force us through a form of boot camp

in which they break us down and remake us in a new ``green''


Those same leaders know that ``the only thing necessary for

evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'' Let us prove

them right -- not by doing nothing -- but by defeating the

Environmental Party's bid for power.

[The following appeared on page 2:1 as a one-column insert.]

``Edward C. Krug, director of environmental projects for the

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT, P.O. Box 65722,

Washington, D.C. 20035), is a former soil scientist for the

Illinois State Water Survey. With more than a decade of

experience in the field and a Ph.D. in soil science from Rutgers

University, he specializes in research on manmade influences on

watersheds -- influences such as dredging, agriculture, industry,

mining and waste disposal. On the college level, he has taught

courses in land planning and utilization, and electron microscopy

and x-ray microanalysis. He lectures frequently before groups

such as the National Press Club, the Air Pollution Control

Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of

Science. His articles have appeared in Policy Review, Science,

Nature, the Encyclopedia of Earth System Science, and other

publications. In December [1990], Dr. Krug was interviewed

during a widely remarked ``60 Minutes'' program on myths about

acid rain [broadcast on 30 December 1990], and he will appear on

a second ``60 Minutes'' program this month.''

[Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of

Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 492242. Subscription

free upon request.]

[The following is not part of the original article.]

Ackerman, Bruce A. and Hassler, William T. CLEAN COAL, DIRTY

AIR. New Haven, CT: Yale, 1981.

How the Clean Air Act became a multi-billion-dollar bail-out

for high-sulfur coal producers.

Arnold, Ron. ECOLOGY WARS. Bellevue, WA: The Free Enterprise

Press, 1987.

Brookes, Warren T. ``The Green Network Grows Greener With

Cash'', HUMAN EVENTS, 19 May 1990, p. 14.

Based on Echard 1990.


IMPERATIVES. Washington, D.C.: Capital Research Center,


Capital Research Center, 1612 K Street N.W., Suite 704,

Washington, D.C. 20006. Voice: 202-822-8666.

Krug, Edward C. ``Fish Story: The Great Acid Rain Flimflam'',

POLICY REVIEW, Spring 1990, pp. 44-48.

Krug, Edward C. and Frink, Charles R. ``Acid Rain on Acid Soil: A

New Perspective'', SCIENCE 221:520-525 (5 Aug 1983).

Index of Articles of Interest    Home

  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 |216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 272 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | 290 | 291 | 292 | 293 | 294 | 295 | 296 | 297 | 298 | 299 | 300 | 301 | 302 | 303 | 304 | 305 | 306 | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 |316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 | 325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333

These articles are free from BelieversCafe.com, the complete christian resource site with more than 5000 webpages.  Redistribute freely with this link intact. NB:follow the respective authors copyright instructions!

Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions

Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD

BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages

Our sponsors:   W8MD sleep and weight loss center