Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., says he’s “disappointed” that though he was very willing to engage in a nationally televised debate on global warming, the man who challenged him to the debate has now backed out.
Late last year, political activist and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader challenged Inhofe, the ranking Republican of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a leading skeptic of allegedly man-made global warming, to debate the topic with climate-change champion Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
“For the past decade, I have been reading about your description of the global warming assertions by scientists as ‘one of the greatest hoaxes’ ever perpetrated,” Nader wrote in a Dec. 12 letter to Inhofe. “Clearly you are a man of your convictions on this subject. Just as clearly, Rep. Ed Markey is a man of his convictions on this topic.
“So, what about your first real public debate with a fellow member of Congress on this topic?” Nader suggested. “People I know in Oklahoma say that you do not run away from challenges and challengers to your beliefs.”
Indeed, Inhofe did not run away from the debate challenge, but accepted it almost immediately, offering dates that might fit into his schedule.
Read the rest of the article at World News Daily
Thoughtjustoffcenter: You can find lots more information on the hoax of "Global Warming" at the "The Two Minute Conservative". Lots of other various articles too. One of my many stopping points on my daily web surfing.
More on the subject: PJ Media: What do you get when you rub two climatologists together?
Showing posts with label PJ Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PJ Media. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Watch Your Mouth!
Romney Gives the Mainstream Media a Treat
By Jedediah Bila -
In an appearance on CNN today (02/02/2012), Mitt Romney said the following: “I’m in this race cause I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. And I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”
When questioned further, he added, “I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. The challenge right now—we will hear from the Democrat Party ‘the plight of the poor.’ And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans … You can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus.”
“My focus is on middle-income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college. These are the people who’ve been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor. But the middle-income Americans, they are the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”
Can I ask you a question? How easy would it have been for Romney to instead say “I’m focused on restoring this country for all Americans”? How easy would it have been to not hand the left-wing media and the 2012 Obama machine a quote of “I’m not concerned about the very poor” on a silver platter?
Very easy.
Do the GOP candidates somehow live in a bubble where they don’t understand just how ready the mainstream media is to pounce on their every word and run with an unfavorable headline? Now sure, that will sometimes happen no matter what you say.
So many in media are waiting with bated breath to twist just about anything that comes out of a Republican’s mouth.
But candidates, why would you make their job easier—and more enjoyable—by not taking a minute to think before you speak?
The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of the mainstream media will be working overtime to demonize GOP candidates and distort their records while glorifying everything Obama has said and done. That’s unavoidable. We can’t control that.
What candidates can control is what comes out of their mouths. You don’t want the media elite to be able to paint you as anti-poor? Well then make it really hard for them to do so. And certainly don’t hand them a sound byte that makes Chris Matthews’ leg tingle and has the Obama machine and the DNC already chopping up a video montage.
GOP candidates, you guys are smart. You’re smart enough to know what the agenda of most media folks is. You’re also smart enough to know that, like it or not, many Americans still tune in to media outlets whose bias is thicker than mud.
So do us a favor and stop helping them out. Think before you speak. The future of the country depends upon it.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I have seen the video and read his actual comments in the print media. Yet, true to form, the left has already edited everything to show that the right doesn't care about the downtrodden. Speaking the truth will only get your words twisted into a lie that can be published by the left, whom are having problems publishing in the print media because the downtrodden have trouble reading the English Language, that they have butcher with slang. So everything is turned into video (digitized) which is so easy to edit and smooth out that you can make anything or anyone look and sound like they were the one (s) that murdered/shot Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.
By Jedediah Bila -
In an appearance on CNN today (02/02/2012), Mitt Romney said the following: “I’m in this race cause I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. And I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”
When questioned further, he added, “I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. The challenge right now—we will hear from the Democrat Party ‘the plight of the poor.’ And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans … You can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus.”
“My focus is on middle-income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college. These are the people who’ve been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor. But the middle-income Americans, they are the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”
Can I ask you a question? How easy would it have been for Romney to instead say “I’m focused on restoring this country for all Americans”? How easy would it have been to not hand the left-wing media and the 2012 Obama machine a quote of “I’m not concerned about the very poor” on a silver platter?
Very easy.
Do the GOP candidates somehow live in a bubble where they don’t understand just how ready the mainstream media is to pounce on their every word and run with an unfavorable headline? Now sure, that will sometimes happen no matter what you say.
So many in media are waiting with bated breath to twist just about anything that comes out of a Republican’s mouth.
But candidates, why would you make their job easier—and more enjoyable—by not taking a minute to think before you speak?
The unfortunate reality is that the vast majority of the mainstream media will be working overtime to demonize GOP candidates and distort their records while glorifying everything Obama has said and done. That’s unavoidable. We can’t control that.
What candidates can control is what comes out of their mouths. You don’t want the media elite to be able to paint you as anti-poor? Well then make it really hard for them to do so. And certainly don’t hand them a sound byte that makes Chris Matthews’ leg tingle and has the Obama machine and the DNC already chopping up a video montage.
GOP candidates, you guys are smart. You’re smart enough to know what the agenda of most media folks is. You’re also smart enough to know that, like it or not, many Americans still tune in to media outlets whose bias is thicker than mud.
So do us a favor and stop helping them out. Think before you speak. The future of the country depends upon it.
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: I have seen the video and read his actual comments in the print media. Yet, true to form, the left has already edited everything to show that the right doesn't care about the downtrodden. Speaking the truth will only get your words twisted into a lie that can be published by the left, whom are having problems publishing in the print media because the downtrodden have trouble reading the English Language, that they have butcher with slang. So everything is turned into video (digitized) which is so easy to edit and smooth out that you can make anything or anyone look and sound like they were the one (s) that murdered/shot Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Holder's Quiet Attack on Religious Freedom
January 10, 2012 - 7:35 am
Like so much from this Justice Department, Holder’s radical legal positions are at odds with long American traditions. This latest species of Holder’s radicalism is a frontal attack on faith communities.
In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holder’s DOJ argued that a church cannot fire an employee for acting contrary to church teaching, and contrary to an employment contract that incorporates that teaching. A teacher filed a complaint to the government about how the school handled her narcolepsy, which presumably would involve sleeping at work. The church school then fired the teacher because the church forbids lawsuits among believers based on 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. (“But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!”)
This particular Lutheran church had well established dispute resolution mechanisms within the church, and based on church teaching. Instead, the teacher went to the government, contrary to church teaching.
Holder’s Justice Department believes that religious schools should not be able to enjoy a longstanding exemption to various employment laws which conflict with church teaching, or, the “ministerial exception.”
Assistant to the Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger (photo below) argued that the religious school could not fire the teacher for filing a complaint to the government even if church teaching forbids it. At oral argument, Kruger advocated positions so extreme that even Justice Elena Kagan appeared to reject them.
It’s not hard to see where this slippery slope slides. What if a teacher in a Catholic school does something directly contrary to Catholic teaching? Or, consider this possibility offered by American Catholic:
At oral argument, she wouldn’t categorically preclude the possibility. Instead, she told the Court that the government interest isn’t currently sufficient to justify an assault on the male priesthood. Kruger said “the government does have a compelling and indeed overriding interest in ensuring that individuals are not prevented from coming to the government with information about illegal conduct.” In other words, even if church doctrine prohibits you from settling disputes with the church through the government, the Obama administration cares not. Holder wants informants, or as the DOJ prefers to call them, complainants.
Sometimes the radicalism of Obama’s Justice Department is on full display, like when it sues Arizona or blocks South Carolina voter ID. Other times, the radicalism creeps along the margins, as Kruger did at the Supreme Court, arguing that the long respected ministerial exception to church doctrine is no longer respected by this president and his Justice Department.
Expect a decision very soon in the case. Let’s hope if Kruger gets her way, the voters notice in November.
See PJ Media.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Just how much are moral Americans going to allow this administration overturn or go around the constitution and the laws of this nation. The main stream media doesn't even cover the story. So, I guess we will all remain dumb to the facts.
Do some research, find out the facts, and share them with anyone and everyone that you can.
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has quietly advanced legal arguments in direct conflict with Catholic teaching and the teaching of other Christian denominations. If the Department of Justice prevails, the Catholic Church and other churches will have a difficult time preserving doctrinal traditions central to church teaching, particularly in church schools. The quiet and radical legal attack comes with perilous political risk, because active Catholics may determine Obama’s fate in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Like so much from this Justice Department, Holder’s radical legal positions are at odds with long American traditions. This latest species of Holder’s radicalism is a frontal attack on faith communities.
In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holder’s DOJ argued that a church cannot fire an employee for acting contrary to church teaching, and contrary to an employment contract that incorporates that teaching. A teacher filed a complaint to the government about how the school handled her narcolepsy, which presumably would involve sleeping at work. The church school then fired the teacher because the church forbids lawsuits among believers based on 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. (“But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!”)
This particular Lutheran church had well established dispute resolution mechanisms within the church, and based on church teaching. Instead, the teacher went to the government, contrary to church teaching.
Holder’s Justice Department believes that religious schools should not be able to enjoy a longstanding exemption to various employment laws which conflict with church teaching, or, the “ministerial exception.”
Assistant to the Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger (photo below) argued that the religious school could not fire the teacher for filing a complaint to the government even if church teaching forbids it. At oral argument, Kruger advocated positions so extreme that even Justice Elena Kagan appeared to reject them.
It’s not hard to see where this slippery slope slides. What if a teacher in a Catholic school does something directly contrary to Catholic teaching? Or, consider this possibility offered by American Catholic:
Then, too, what also about Catholic women using this principle to sue the Catholic Church in the United States because they are excluded from the priesthood? There’s absolutely no doubt that when it comes to ordination, the Catholic Church discriminates in favor of males. Should SCOTUS be able to tell the Catholic Church in the United States that it must redress the imbalance?
Yes…if, as an organization, the Catholic Church is bound by federal employment discrimination statutes.
No…if, as an organization, the U.S. Catholic Church is exempt from federal employment discrimination statutes.Far fetched? Not to Kruger.
At oral argument, she wouldn’t categorically preclude the possibility. Instead, she told the Court that the government interest isn’t currently sufficient to justify an assault on the male priesthood. Kruger said “the government does have a compelling and indeed overriding interest in ensuring that individuals are not prevented from coming to the government with information about illegal conduct.” In other words, even if church doctrine prohibits you from settling disputes with the church through the government, the Obama administration cares not. Holder wants informants, or as the DOJ prefers to call them, complainants.
Sometimes the radicalism of Obama’s Justice Department is on full display, like when it sues Arizona or blocks South Carolina voter ID. Other times, the radicalism creeps along the margins, as Kruger did at the Supreme Court, arguing that the long respected ministerial exception to church doctrine is no longer respected by this president and his Justice Department.
Expect a decision very soon in the case. Let’s hope if Kruger gets her way, the voters notice in November.
See PJ Media.com
Thoughtsjustoffcenter: Just how much are moral Americans going to allow this administration overturn or go around the constitution and the laws of this nation. The main stream media doesn't even cover the story. So, I guess we will all remain dumb to the facts.
Do some research, find out the facts, and share them with anyone and everyone that you can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)