Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel recently insisted that Brownback’s program is faring just fine, mustering a level of denial that sounded almost as if she were a conservative mother who has just caught her son making out with his buddy.
The bitter race between Mississippi state Senator Chris McDaniel and incumbent Thad Cochran has been well documented on this site. McDaniel, immediately upon losing the runoff election to Cochran, made two things abundantly clear:
1) He would NOT concede anything
2) He believed that some democratic voters, in particular black voters, had illegally voted in that primary, in effect stealing the election from him (He won narrowly in the original vote).
Well. a little over a month later, he’s taking his fight to the next level:
Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel, the tea party-backed challenger who lost a primary runoff to U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran, has formally asked the state Republican Party to overturn the June 24 election results and declare him the winner.
But McDaniel faces high legal hurdles — with vague evidence — as he extends this midterm election year’s most bitter fight between tea party factions of the conservative movement who backed him and the traditional GOP powers who helped Cochran win by 7,667 votes, a margin of 1.8 percentage points.
McDaniel and his attorney confirmed Monday that they have filed a formal challenge with the state party, asserting that enough Democratic voters illegally cast runoff ballots to hand the nomination to the six-term incumbent.
“They asked us to put up or shut up, and here we are with the evidence,”
What evidence is he referring to? Well, that’s a good question. The article states:
McDaniel’s appeal hinges on comparing voter lists from the initial primary, which McDaniel led without winning a majority, and the runoff, when Cochran managed a comeback aided by a sharp increase in turnout in areas with a large number of black voters, a reliably Democratic voting bloc in Mississippi.
Mississippi voters don’t register by party, but state law makes so-called crossover voting — casting a ballot in one party’s primary and then another party’s runoff in the same cycle — a misdemeanor.
Attorney Mitchell Tyner said McDaniel’s campaign had found about 3,500 instances of crossover votes, along with the 9,500 “irregular votes” and 2,275 “improperly cast” absentee ballots. He did not immediately explain what made those votes irregular, or how the absentee ballots may have been improperly cast, saying only that the second pool of ballots “are votes we have questions about.”
The number that dwarfs Cochran’s winning margin, however, is the 40,000 Democrats who McDaniel claims voted in the runoff, a figure that would include explicitly illegal crossover votes, along with self-identifying Democrats who did not vote in the first round.
So we have the McDaniel side saying they’ve found some “irregular” votes without actually saying what makes them irregular and McDaniel himself making a wildly spurious claim of some tens of thousands of allegedly “illegitimate” votes.
Let’s not forget that beyond the raw numbers there was the noted “Vote buying” scandal in which less than ethical blogger Charles C. Johnson (who is NOT the man who runs this site) allegedly claimed to have been told by another notorious con man, Steve Fielder, that Fielder had been hired to “arrange” black votes for Cochran.
The whole scandal turned out to be a fabrication. No evidence of vote buying or rigging has ever been presented.
If the state GOP does not act on McDaniels request in 10 days, he can appeal to the State Court, but there he faces an even higher legal burden to prove his case. An attorney for the Cochran camp absolutely nails it:
Mark Garriga said in a statement that McDaniel’s challenge “marks the point where this matter moves from an arena of press conferences and rhetoric into a setting where nothing matters but admissible evidence and the rule of law.”
Tea Party behind him or not, the chances of any major changes resulting from this new action are practically nil. He will be facing EXTREMELY long odds in the court system.
Not once in the state of Mississippi has a court EVER overturned the results of a primary election or ordered a re-vote.
Although Mississippi has long been considered a big safe zone for the Tea Party types, even in the deep south public opinion has slowly been shifting against them.
If you look at the comments in the linked article you might expect to find a bunch of wingnuts raging about the “illegal” black voters, but instead what you find is a populace growing weary of Tea Party politics.
The very first comment on the article reads in part:
Chris, Chris, Chris. Has no one explained to you the concept of “political suicide”? I’m thinking not, because that’s what you’re doing here. Had you taken this like a man, you might have had a chance the next election cycle. But by “crying to mommy” (mommy, in this case, being the VERY Republicans you and the rest of the TP morons complain about “not being conservative enough”) because you didn’t get your way, all you’re doing is proving that you are unfit to lead and all you bring to the table is an obstructionist agenda of “If I don’t get my way, I’ll whine and cry and stamp my feet and do nothing”.
As Republican’s trip over themselves trying to back away from the dreaded “I” (impeachment) word, trying to blame Democrats for their own foibles. someone took a bit of time to do some research. To wit…
Marilinda Garcia (NH-02): President Obama “has Many, Many Impeachable Offenses.” “When asked if she would vote to impeach President Obama Garcia said, “I would..He has many, many impeachable offenses it seems to me in terms of his disregard for our Constitution alone.” [New Boston Republican Committee Debate, 2/06/14]
Gary Lambert (NH-02): Would Not Close Door on Supporting Impeaching President Obama. “You heard me how I feel about winning, so first I gotta see whether or not that would work, whether or not we could win. Then I’ll evaluate it at that time…I’m with you on this but we gotta keep our eye on the ball.” [New Boston Republican Committee Debate, 2/06/14]
Ryan Zinke (MT-AL) Pledged to Support Impeaching President Obama. “During the debate, held May 27, tea party activist and fellow House candidate Drew Turiano asked Zinke whether he would support efforts to impeach Obama […]’And then I do believe we can put the president on the run. He’s had six years of doing his will to this country, and I believe that’s intentional dismantling of American power both domestically and abroad,’ said Zinke. ‘So is impeachment in the cards? Let’s hope we have the votes.’ Turiano, not completely satisfied with Zinke’s response, replied, ‘Is that a yes or a no?’ ‘Yes,’ said Zinke.” [Huffington Post, 6/02/14]
Rep. Steve Scalise “Refused to Rule Out a Drive to Impeach President Barack Obama.” “The third ranking Republican official in the House refused to rule out a drive to impeach President Barack Obama during an interview with Fox News Sunday.” [MSNBC, 7/27/14]
Rep. Jeff Denham: Would Not Discount Impeachment. In August 2013, Denham said: “If our Commander in Chief that was reelected in this country decides to break the Constitution it is a challenge to hold him accountable. And he’s done it several times now.” When asked if he would support impeachment, Denham said: “Impeachment is a, is a very serious issue. I think that you have to prove that the leader of the free world has done something that is so far against American beliefs that, and this trust that he’s been sworn into that you remove him. You know I think that him trying to move beyond these phony scandals is something that opens the door for us to investigate further. IRS targeting people, targeting individuals, targeting political organizations is a huge issue that we’re going to hold him account on. But the biggest issue for me thus far in this presidency has been Benghazi […]So depending on how far these investigations go we could get into a scenario where the president has broken the law.” [North Valley Tea Party Club, 8/14/13]
Rep. Kerry Bentivolio: It Would be “Dream Come True” to Impeach President Obama. “Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., Monday said it would be a ‘dream come true’ to write a bill to impeach President Obama after constituents asked what he is doing to stop the president from ‘doing everything that he’s doing against [the] Constitution.’ ‘If I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true,’ Bentivolio said at the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting. ‘I feel your pain. I stood twelve feet away from [the president] and listened to him. I couldn’t stand being there, but because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job, as a congressman. I respect the office.’ Bentivolio, a former Santa Claus impersonator and reindeer farmer, went on to say that he has already asked various lawyers and scholars to advise him on ‘how [he] could impeach the president of the United States.’” [ABC News, 8/21/13]
Rep. Steve King: House will Impeach President Obama if He Acts on Immigration Reform. “Rep. Steve King (R-IA) believes the House of Representatives will immediately begin impeachment proceedings if President Barack Obama unilaterally grants work permits and amnesty to millions more illegal immigrants by the ‘end of summer’ […]’From my standpoint, if the president [enacts more executive actions], we need to bring impeachment hearings immediately before the House of Representatives,’ King said. ‘That’s my position and that’s my prediction.’” [Breitbart, 7/26/14]
Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Impeaching President Obama a Possibility. “Rep. Jason Chaffetz says President Barack Obama’s handling of the government’s response to the Benghazi terrorist attack could be an impeachable offense and vows to continue digging at the “lies of highest magnitude” from the White House. ‘It’s certainly a possibility,” the Utah Republican said Monday when asked about impeachment. ‘That’s not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don’t know where it’s going to go. … I’m not taking it off the table. I’m not out there touting that but I think this gets to the highest levels of our government and integrity and honesty are paramount.’” [Salt Lake Tribune, 5/13/13]
Rep. Michele Bachmann: Option of Impeaching President Obama Should Not be Dismissed. “Bachmann stopped short of saying that Obama should be impeached, but when asked, said that option shouldn’t be dismissed. ‘As I have been home in my district, the 6th District of Minnesota, there isn’t a weekend that hasn’t gone by that someone says to me, ‘Michele, what in the world are you all waiting for in Congress? Why aren’t you impeaching the president? He’s been making unconstitutional actions since he came into office,’ Bachmann said.” [Politico, 5/16/13]
Rep. Blake Farenthold: House has Votes to Impeach President Obama. “Rep. Blake Farenthold thinks the House of Representatives has the votes to impeach President Barack Obama in response to an inquiry about the authenticity of the president’s birth certificate, but said at a town hall meeting he doesn’t think it would be the best approach. ‘A question I get a lot, ‘If everybody is so unhappy with the president, why don’t you impeach him?’ Farenthold, a Texas Republican, said at a town hall meeting Saturday according to a video posted on YouTube. ‘I’ll give you a real frank answer about that, if we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.’” [Politico, 8/12/13]
Rep. Steve Stockman: “I’m Considering Filing Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Obama.” “Mr.Stockman said Mr. Obama has repeatedly broken his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and in response, he’s seriously mulling legal action. ‘I’m considering filing Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama,’ he wrote on his website, as reported by The Blaze.” [Washington Times, 1/30/14]
Rep. Jack Kingston: Congress Will Start Looking at Impeaching President Obama “Very Seriously.” “Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) declined to comment this week when asked whether he supports impeaching President Barack Obama, but in a radio interview two weeks ago, he said it was a very serious possibility […] ‘Not a day goes by when people don’t talk to us about impeachment. I don’t know what rises to that level yet, but I know that there’s a mounting frustration that a lot of people are getting to and I think Congress is going to start looking at it very seriously.’” [Huffington Post, 7/16/14]
Rep. Randy Weber: “The President Deserves to be Impeached.” “‘The president deserves to be impeached, plain and simple,’ Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) said at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation.” [The Hill, 7/15/14]
Rep. Joe Barton: Impeaching President Obama “Debatable.” “Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who voted to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998, said that doing the same for Obama was ‘debatable.’ ‘I think it’s debatable. I certainly think the president has gone out of his way to not enforce some of the laws that the Congress thinks he should be enforcing,’ Barton said.” [The Hill, 7/15/14]
Rep. Michael Burgess: Impeaching President Obama “Needs to Happen.” “Impeaching President Barack Obama ‘needs to happen,’ Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told a local tea party group, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Tuesday. Burgess spoke, the paper said, in response to an attendee’s suggestion that the GOP-controlled House use impeachment to stop Obama from ‘pushing his agenda.’ ‘It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up,’ Burgess reportedly responded. ‘No question about that.’” [Politico, 8/09/11]
Rep. Ted Yoho: House Should Threaten to Impeach President Obama. “Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) told colleagues that the House should pass legislation with new steps to secure the border, and tell Obama if he didn’t implement it, they would impeach him. ‘He either enforces the laws on the books—as he was hired and elected to do—or he leaves Congress no option. This is not our choice, this is the President’s choice and I would advise him to uphold the law on the books,’ Yoho said in a written statement after the meeting.” [Breitbart, 7/25/14]
Rep. Paul Broun Backed Impeaching President Obama. “Rep. Paul Broun, a GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in Georgia, indicated during a tea party-sponsored candidate forum this weekend that he would support the impeachment of President Obama. Candidates at the Gilmer County GOP forum, including Broun, were asked by a questioner: ‘Clinton was impeached for perjury. Obama has perjured himself on multiple occasions. Would you support impeachment if presented for a vote?’ Broun, along with two other candidates, Derrick Grayson and Eugene Yu raised their hands, according to video of the event obtained by ABC News (watch video above). Neither Rep. Phil Gingrey nor Rep. Jack Kingston attended the forum.” [ABC News, 2/03/14]
Rep. Louie Gohmert Pushed Impeachment of President Obama. “Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Tuesday amped his recent impeachment rhetoric by claiming that President Barack Obama was ‘getting close to a high crime and misdemeanor’ […]Gohmert also repeated his recent warning that if Republicans force the U.S. to default on its debt by refusing to raise the debt ceiling then it ‘would be an impeachable offense by the president.’” [Raw Story, 10/15/13]
Rep. Lou Barletta: House Probably has Votes to Impeach President Obama.”Rep. Lou Barletta says the House ‘probably’ has the votes to impeach President Barack Obama. ‘He’s just absolutely ignoring the Constitution, and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances,’ the Pennsylvania Republican said of Obama on the Gary Sutton radio show on Monday. ‘The problem is, what do you do? For those that say impeach him for breaking the laws or bypassing the laws — could that pass in the House? It probably could. Is the majority of the American people in favor of impeaching the president? I’m not sure.’” [Politico, 6/17/14]
h/t: Roderick2011 via Mediaite
Here is an updated version of something I wrote at the Times of Israel last year…. I think it is relevant now given the strong strain of isolationist thinking that infects both the Hard Left and the Libertarian Hard Right (think Greenwald, Snowden etc….). So… I would like to put this out there in a moderate forum to an American audience. Here goes:
There is a debate around the spreading wave of Isolationism which is manifested in an unholy alliance between the Hard Left (which ultimately seeks to end the United States) to the Hard Right (which ultimately seeks to create “Fortress America”). Both of these groups have joined forces to strike against those interests which would weaken their “end game” wishes (for the Left, a world where the U.S. if it exists at all, is hobbled and severely weakened and for the Right, where the U.S. exists alone as an island amidst the chaos of an ever confusing and dangerous world).
The world is more interconnected than ever before.We hear that the world is getting to be a “much smaller place”. This is very true. Now, people can talk face to face with those on the other side of the globe from the comfort of their living rooms. Ideas can be transmitted throughout the internet, and data can be shared no matter where we are. We can physically see one another and one anothers environs in a way that has never been possible before.
Because of this, the world is more interconnected than ever before. Things that happen thousands of miles away do affect us. Just look at the rate of environmental damage caused by over use of resources and the concurrent problems that this causes. We are no longer able to isolate ourselves from anyone and we have to come up with global solutions to poverty, the environment, and a host of other problems IF we are too maintain both reasonable standards of living and reasonable National goals.
I do think that National interests can survive and thrive in an ever increasingly globalized world (in fact I think it is imperative that they do). Though that seems counter intuitive to the theory that we need one world government. We don’t. While the world needs to act in a more coordinated fashion regarding some of our issues (the environment, poverty, and so forth) there is no way right now that people in individual nations would be able to pull this off in any meaningful day to day manner. We are simply too different and have too many different ways of approaching and solving problems.
To people in al-Qaeda their vision is that of a warlord filled vicious theocratic world, where only those who adhere to their particular form of Islam would wield power and where everyone else would exist to serve them as individuals and their crazed interpretation of Islam in general. To those in corporate America who endorse “Randian Capitalism” the world would be a strict plutocracy where the rich would live in cantons and the rest of the world would be their “resource pool”. And with all the iterations in between there is simply no way that humanity could come to any sort of peace agreement on how to run day to day government.
So what prompts this piece? It is due to the fact that I see many people both on the Hard Left (as evidenced by most of the folks - not all but most) at leftist blogsites, or columnists doing their utmost to spread disinformation regarding the U.S. and demanding that it live up to standards that they would hardly ask of other nations. And when it even comes to discussing other nations, it seems that as long as those nations are anti-U.S. anything they do is ok with the Hard Left. They will excuse all of the things they say they stand for in the name of supporting a nation that stands against the U.S. And by doing so are willing to team up with the most vile elements of the polity to support their cause, hence Leftist support for Hamas or the Assad regime in Syria.
One thing is truly dangerous - the growing strain of isolationist thinking.I also see the isolationist wing of the Republican party doing the same thing. Unable to think beyond (to them) what seems like the most simple or quick solution they simply say, “let’s build a corporate state in the U.S. reminiscent of the Gilded Age and screw everyone else”. They simply cannot think out their own little boxes, not realizing that while they are building “Fortress America”, forces that are hardly sympathetic to America and our interests gain power. These Rightists think only about the immediacy of an issue and simply don’t think about the ramifications of said issue. There is no serious thought that goes into “problem solving”.. So we see with the “Repeal Obamacare” folks. All they care about is defeating the President, they care nothing for the long term damage they are causing this nation.
The problem is that both extreme’s arguments contain half truths throughout. For the Leftists and their complaints about the NSA, they are generally right. The NSA SHOULD NOT be spying to the extent that it is on American citizens. I get that they want to find out what is happening in the world, and that they are protecting Americans from terror. However, I also get that these powers can easily be misused to create what they like to call “the surveillance state”. That said, the NSA and CIA have a responsibility towards protecting American citizens so… this is a problematic issue. However, to compare the U.S. unfavorably to groups like Al-Qaeda and to lionize those who would leak our secrets to foreign nations (Edward Snowden) is far from helpful.
On the Right side, the “Libertarian crew” is right about the fact that we can cut the Defense budget by reducing foreign ventures and use those resources to pay private business at home for development projects. Of course at the same time they need to realize that while we can do that to a degree, we cannot afford to cut ourselves off from the world in a meaningful way and still have a say in our own future due to the fact mentioned previously, that the world is indeed more interconnected and that foreign affairs really do have an impact on our daily lives at macro level.
In the end, one thing that is truly dangerous to the U.S. and the well being of the “free world” is this growing strain of neo-Isolationist thinking. Hamstringing our intelligence sectors will only create a world where America and it’s allies (and interests) are threatened. Honestly, the Russians or Chinese certainly have no compunctions regarding the use of any and all tactics to achieve their goals. For the Hard Leftists this is just fine to allow them to thoroughly weaken the U.S. While the Isolationist Hard Right simply doesn’t care what other nations do because (and this is sheer idiocy) they think the U.S. can simply “wall itself off” and let the rest of the world burn.
It is important that we do have civilian oversight of our intelligence gathering particularly as it relates to American citizens. Don’t take this article as indictment of that. We are a “free nation” because our government has been restrained in its ability to gather information / data on our everyday lives. It is also important that we recognize that “overzealous” gathering of personal data can and often does lead to problematic issue with regards to a “surveillance state”. I do not want to live in a nation that monitors my computer usage or my phone records without any kind of just cause.
So.. it is important that we balance our need for privacy with our need for the protections our intelligence sectors provide. What we need here is an honest discussion about how we can best balance the two needs. What we don’t need is constant vilification of our nation hidden with rhetoric designed to weaken our nation and its ability to protect its citizens. We don’t need those who would propose solutions in a vacuum either supporting or without understanding the nature of our national enemies.
Though these movements currently operate on the fringe, as the Hard Left is no real part of the Democratic Party (although they pretend to be the base) and the Isolationist Hard Right is only a portion of the Republican Polity (though growing), still they represent possible growing threats (as they appeal mainly to the young and idealistic for various reasons), it is important that we understand and expose them for who they are. Of course here in the U.S. they should not be restricted from discussing their viewpoints, but those viewpoints should be exposed for what they really are, an effort to weaken the United States, both at home and/or abroad.
1) remember to Look Down Benevolently. not everybody is as calm and wise as you are. remember, your job is to give everybody the Benefit Of Your Wisdom. you are, fer sure, Very Calm, Moderate, and Reasonable. not like those critics of yours who are Angry, which is Bad
2) you are empowered to tell people What They Think. they’ll deny it, but you know What They Think better than They do. After all, when they say the sky is blue, it’s clear that they are trying to tell people that the sky is purple. it’s obvious!
3) remember, Some Say some stupid things. or at least some people should be saying these stupid things, even if you can’t find anybody who says them, because it’s time for you to say how stupid Some Say are, whoever they are, for saying them. Some Say you lie when you do this, but these people are just Angry, which is Bad
4) in conclusion, it’s obvious that there is an Easy Answer to all this. everybody else - except people who agree with you - are just stupid for not seeing the Easy Answer. why doesn’t everybody just do what i say?? it’s a mystery…
Paying attention to the written output of people with opposing political views is important for several reasons. Primarily because it forces you to evaluate arguments against your own position and, where those arguments have merit, modify your views. From a liberal perspective, at least, I would also argue that it’s important because the people holding those views are still people, and worthy of being taken seriously as people if not as debaters.
A further reason for paying attention to written output in particular is that, especially in the era of the internet, it becomes part of the “knowledge framework” which provides a backdrop for people of that political bent, within which their ideas continue to evolve. And so it is worth examining two recent RedState articles dealing with the current IRS affair and relating it to the Watergate scandal.
Both these articles make much of Nixon’s “18 missing minutes” of tape (though, revealingly, they actually refer to “Obama’s 18 missing minutes of tape”). The contention is that the apparently unrecoverable emails in the IRS affair constitute the same kind of evidence of cover-up as in the Watergate case, where 18 minutes were found to have been erased from Nixon’s White House audio recording system.
The validity of the comparison, and the alleged different level of interest shown in the two instances of missing data by the press, is somewhat interesting in its own right, but the subtle key to these articles is the way in which they attempt to recast Nixon’s threatened impeachment and resignation as being about these missing minutes.
In fact, and as neither article mentions, Nixon was obviously implicated in the Watergate cover-up by existing audio from the tapes, including extracts which prompted the original use (?) of the term “smoking gun”, and which decimated his political support in congress, making impeachment apparently inevitable. The missing audio was certainly unhelpful to him, but it’s not implausible that if the remainder of the audio had revealed nothing of interest, Nixon might have remained in office. Both RedState articles, however, make it seem as if Nixon was undone by an allegation of having destroyed evidence, which is not really the case.
This is obviously very important in the context of contemporary Republican efforts to insist that lack of positive evidence is in fact evidence of malfeasance (as in the insistence on seeing Obama’s “real” birth certificate, unsurprisingly brought up in the comments to the RedState articles). As the first article puts it:
If the current President were a Republican, the media would have already drawn an inescapable conclusion based on this evidence alone: a cover up is occurring here and it’s the media’s job to leave no stone unturned until the President can prove his lack of involvement in it.
In fact, Nixon’s involvement in Watergate was definitively proven by the tapes, and the “18 missing minutes” became an interesting footnote. However, the quote above is a startlingly accurate representation of current Republican operatives’ attempts to find evidence in the absence of evidence itself, and to justify such an approach in an appeal to history, appropriately re-written.
(by Alan Clifton)
The Queen of Idiocracy sets a new low:
Recently, Palin posted on her Facebook:
As unbelievable as it sounds, your tax dollars are funding the federal government’s Zombie Apocalypse Plan. I kid you not. (Google it; it really is the strangest thing. It’s not like government isn’t trillions in debt and wasting billions of your dollars everyday…but I digress.)
Well, perhaps it sounds unbelievable - because it is.
Apparently so many people bought into this nonsense from Palin that Politifact had to do a fact check on her post. And, of course, they rated this ridiculous post as “False.”
What really happened was in 2011 the Center for Disease Control decided to “spice up” their annual message about preparing for real disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes and other disasters by playing up on the “zombie apocalypse” joke that was fairly big.
Alan emphasizes how stupid this is, but it may be more important to consider how utterly dishonest it is. Palin is willfully misrepresenting an obvious joke in the belief that her audience is either too stupid to know the truth or (more likely) that they are fully aware of the falsehood and accept it anyway as a useful smokescreen for their real beliefs.
CDC Zombie Apocalypse page This has expanded quite a bit since the original 2011 blog post. The post is so popular and well documented that it has its own wikipedia page: Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse
Palin can scarcely claim the facts are not available, not that she and her audience of smirking bigots would give a damn.
hmmm - tarot cards. Check.
Sex. Check. Gays. Check. Winnie the Pooh? Check.
The Washington, DC-based Media Research Center monitored “Huff Post” over a 24-hour period simply to verify how liberal the publication was thought to be. The observation period began at 8:00 a.m. on May 1, the National Day of Prayer - a day MRC selected in hopes of giving the website the benefit of a doubt.
But MRC reports what it found “ranged from liberal propaganda, sex, attacks on Christians on the National Day of Prayer, more sex, sympathy for executed murderer/rapist Clayton Lockett, attacks on Republicans, still more sex and, of course, the gay agenda.”
“I was stunned at how they looked at faith on the National Day of Prayer,” says Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at MRC. “On a day when most ordinary news outlets are marking the day with prayer and some sort of traditional belief stories, you find a story [on Huffington Post] about different tarot card readers; and then you also would see somebody … comparing faith and belief in God to [his personal] belief in Winnie the Pooh.”
9:04 a.m. 93% Of Straight Men In This Study Admitted to Doing This In Bed Together
HuffPo doesn’t just push the gay agenda. It helps manufacture it. In the Gay Voices section, the article made it sound like nearly all straight men have been doing more in bed with other men than is actually the case. The headline, with an accompanying photo of James Franco cuddling with another man, made the British studies’ findings sound more gay than they were.
Emily Thomas began the article by saying, “Yes, straight men sleep together.” She went on to detail a British study that found 98 percent of the participants “have shared a bed with another guy.” While, 93 percent said they had “spooned or cuddled” with another man.
However, the bromance study only looked at 40 young male athletes, in contrast the headline which made it sound like the majority of all straight guys are getting their cuddle on with other dudes. Perhaps only at HuffPo.
Cuddling? Check. Check. Check.
As most of you should be aware, Marco Rubio made comments the other day saying he doesn’t believe in man made climate change. He also strongly signaled he’ll be running for President in 2016. That election will be the first one in which I’ll be able to vote since I’ll be a citizen by then, so I decided to write the Senator a letter, mainly for the purpose of seeing what, if any, reply I get.
Dear Senator Rubio,
It was brought to my attention the other day that you are seriously considering running for President in 2016.
I know you come from a jurisdiction rich in immigrants. I myself am an immigrant, I’ve been in America since 2008. As it so happens, The 2016 Presidential election will bet the first one I vote in as an American Citizen.
I’m certain you would appreciate my support in that regard and I do have generally conservative leanings, but I am concerned over certain comments you recently made concerning climate change.
Now let me be clear, I have no desire to engage in a scientific debate with you. Neither you nor I are trained scientists so such a prospect would be pointless. I also have no desire to engage in a theological debate. Rather, I’m simply seeking clarification on your belief so I can make an informed decision on whether or not to support your Presidential ambitions.
Your comments stated that you don’t believe humans are causing climate change.
Let’s assume for the moment your assumption is correct, that humans are largely not responsible for climate change.
Do you not agree that we, as not only as responsible human beings but also responsible Christians, are called upon to be good stewards of the earth? I like to think the Lord gave us dominion over all creatures for a specific reason: He wanted us to look after them and treat them with respect, so that we might cultivate and develop them for continued use over many generations.
I’m wondering if you’ve ever thought much about God’s instructions to Noah prior to the great flood:
“You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you” - Genesis 6:19, NIV
If God is indeed all powerful He didn’t actually need Noah to accomplish this. He could have repopulated all the animals Himself after the Flood ended and merely sent only Noah and his family on the ark.
But not only did He instruct Noah to take the animals with him, He instructed him to keep them ALIVE. A major reason for this was to underscore the important role humans played in looking after the creatures of this earth.
We have never and can never abdicate that responsibility. The covenants we made with God thousands of years ago are still valid today. The duty we have to care for this earth is non-negotiable.
Think about it this way: You work for a large corporation in a middle management role. The big decisions are of course, made by the CEO and executive management. You’re likely to have little, if any, input into them for the most part. You must accept that, it’s part of what goes along with a command structure.
But even though you may have little influence in the decisions made at the top, you also have very important responsibilities and duties of your own that must be seen to in order for both you individually, and the company as a whole, to prosper and grow.
It’s the same with this planet. God will do things as He sees fit but even though you have limited control over His actions, you still have important roles as a small part of a large plan.
Now at this point you may be thinking: I get what you’re saying, but looking after livestock and corporate responsibility have little if anything to do with climate science.
That may be technically true, but where this all ties together is the fact that being a good steward/good shepherd over the earth does not ONLY mean taking good care of the animals that are here. It means taking care of the environment itself and the natural resources it contains.
Jesus commands us to love one another. Loving someone means, among other things, providing them an adequate environment to develop and realize the full limits of their potential.
We do ourselves and our children and grandchildren no good when we squander our valuable resources. Many of those resources are complex, delicate and extremely difficult if not outright impossible to replace when they are gone.
Regardless of where one comes down on climate change, I believe it’s both a morally and biblically sound argument that humans have a responsibility to respect and care for this planet and the creatures on it.
To abandon that harms not only our future, but our relationship with God.
I hope you hold similar beliefs, because I’m sure you’d love for my first ever Presidential vote to be for you.
Thank you in advance for your time and response.
(obviously my actual name will be on the real thing)