Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
7 Views
22:00:00 12/11/11
Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working?
As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: >
AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us.
And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night.
AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance.
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home.
I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end.
AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating.
HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working.
People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster.
So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th.
I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position.
AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race?
HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations.
AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be?
HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now.
AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust.
Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane.
AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement?
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that.
AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.
1 Views
22:00:00 12/11/11
Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working?
As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: >
AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us.
And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night.
AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance.
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home.
I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end.
AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating.
HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working.
People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster.
So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th.
I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position.
AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race?
HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations.
AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be?
HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now.
AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust.
Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane.
AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement?
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that.
AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.
11 Views
21:00:01 11/14/11
Confirmed Serial Adulterer Passes Alleged Serial Harasser in GOP Race
[LESS INFO] 11 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:01 11/14/11
Here in a nutshell is the state of play in the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes: alleged serial sexual harasser Herman Cain is being surpassed by confirmed serial adulterer Newt Gingrich . With Mitt Romney stalled and Cain hemorrhaging support from women voters, polls last week from CBS and Marist showed the former House Speaker had surged into a virtual three-way tie at the top. By Monday, new surveys from CNN and PPP showed Newt vaulting past the fading pizza maker. Nevertheless, that development should be a discomforting prospect for a Republican Party which lost the women's vote by 13 points in 2008. As his public statements and personal life show, the thrice-married Gingrich is hardly a champion for American women.
That starts with Newt Gingrich's belief that marriage is an institution between one man and three women in rapid succession.
In 1980, Newt was separated from his first wife and former high school geometry teacher , Jackie Battley. As she lay incoherent in her hospital bed following surgery for a reoccurrence of uterine cancer, Gingrich paid her a visit to announce he wanted a divorce. As Lee Howell , a Gingrich friend and associate at whose wedding Newt was best man, described it: >
"Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it. >
Newt can handle political problems, but when it comes to personal problems, he's a disaster. He handled the divorce like he did any other political decision: You've got to be tough in this business, you've got to be hard. Once you make the decision you've got to act on it. Cut your losses and move on."
He moved on to wife number two, Marianne Ginther . But Marianne fared little better, getting dumped for Congressional staffer Callista Bisek after a six year affair even as Newt was leading the inquisition of Bill Clinton. As Vanity Fair summed it up last year: >
According to Salon, Gingrich and the former Hill staffer (23 years his junior, mind you) would frequently dine in the Supreme Court cafeteria--an unsuspectingly sordid detail. (In 1995, Vanity Fair referred to Bisek as Gingrich's "frequent breakfast companion.") Gingrich stepped down from Congress in 1998 following an ethics scandal, among other things. The two were married two years later.
Gingrich, who swapped his Baptist faith for Catholicism just in time to attack President Obama's 2009 address at Notre Dame University, later explained that his rapid fire infidelities were the actually product of his own patriotism: >
"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them."
Of course, the things Newt Gingrich was saying to American women weren't any better.
As the New York Times recounted 16 years ago, Newt suggested menstruation should keep women out of essential roles in the American military: >
"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections, and they don't have upper-body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets -- you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know."
And for Gingrich, the biggest "infection" of them all - liberalism - caused a young mother to murder her children.
Back in 1994, after dumping his cancer-stricken first wife but before marrying his mistress following the adulterous affair that ended his second marriage, Newt pointed the finger at Democrats for the Susan Smith affair.
It was Smith who drew Americans' initial sympathy - and subsequent scorn - for her invention of a black bogeyman to conceal her heinous crime.
On October 24th, 1994, as the New York Times recalled, Smith killed her young sons, killings for which she was eventually sentenced to life in prison: >
That night, investigators say, Mrs. Smith pulled her car to the edge of a deep lake, stepped out, put the gearshift in drive and let it roll down the boat ramp into the black water. Her two little boys, buckled snugly in their safety seats, died under the lake... >
..."I believed her, right up to the end," said Juliaette Kerhulas, of Mrs. Smith's story that a young black man had ordered her out of her burgundy 1990 Mazda on the night of Oct. 25, then driven away with 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alexander in the back seat.
Ms. Kerhulas wasn't the only one who believed in her. None other than future House Speaker Newt Gingrich rushed to the defense of Smith, whose step-father ironically happened to be a prominent Republican fundraiser and member of the Christian Coalition. Even after her confession, Gingrich insisted the Smith murders showed the decay of American society under Democratic Party rule : >
Enter Newt Gingrich, who rushed into action on election eve with another reliable generic culprit: society. He said the double murder "vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things," expediently adding that "the only way you get change is to vote Republican."
As Frank Rich recounted in August 1995: >
Asked later by Tom Brokaw to elaborate, the Speaker-to-be cited "a direct nexus between the general acceptance of violence" and "the pattern that the counterculture and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society began in the late 60's."
Of course, the 1960's also happened to be the time when the women's movement rose to prominence. The victories it achieved for women's political equality, economic independence and reproductive rights transformed American society and helped move the nation closer to a "more perfect union."
Apparently, those epochal changes escaped Herman Cain's notice. And while Cain's is being punished in the polls for it, he is being replaced atop the GOP field by Newt Gingrich . While that may be a good thing for Tiffany's bottom line , it's a sad development for American women.
5 Views
21:00:01 11/14/11
Confirmed Serial Adulterer Passes Alleged Serial Harasser in GOP Race
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:01 11/14/11
Here in a nutshell is the state of play in the 2012 Republican presidential sweepstakes: alleged serial sexual harasser Herman Cain is being surpassed by confirmed serial adulterer Newt Gingrich . With Mitt Romney stalled and Cain hemorrhaging support from women voters, polls last week from CBS and Marist showed the former House Speaker had surged into a virtual three-way tie at the top. By Monday, new surveys from CNN and PPP showed Newt vaulting past the fading pizza maker. Nevertheless, that development should be a discomforting prospect for a Republican Party which lost the women's vote by 13 points in 2008. As his public statements and personal life show, the thrice-married Gingrich is hardly a champion for American women.
That starts with Newt Gingrich's belief that marriage is an institution between one man and three women in rapid succession.
In 1980, Newt was separated from his first wife and former high school geometry teacher , Jackie Battley. As she lay incoherent in her hospital bed following surgery for a reoccurrence of uterine cancer, Gingrich paid her a visit to announce he wanted a divorce. As Lee Howell , a Gingrich friend and associate at whose wedding Newt was best man, described it: >
"Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad, and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it. >
Newt can handle political problems, but when it comes to personal problems, he's a disaster. He handled the divorce like he did any other political decision: You've got to be tough in this business, you've got to be hard. Once you make the decision you've got to act on it. Cut your losses and move on."
He moved on to wife number two, Marianne Ginther . But Marianne fared little better, getting dumped for Congressional staffer Callista Bisek after a six year affair even as Newt was leading the inquisition of Bill Clinton. As Vanity Fair summed it up last year: >
According to Salon, Gingrich and the former Hill staffer (23 years his junior, mind you) would frequently dine in the Supreme Court cafeteria--an unsuspectingly sordid detail. (In 1995, Vanity Fair referred to Bisek as Gingrich's "frequent breakfast companion.") Gingrich stepped down from Congress in 1998 following an ethics scandal, among other things. The two were married two years later.
Gingrich, who swapped his Baptist faith for Catholicism just in time to attack President Obama's 2009 address at Notre Dame University, later explained that his rapid fire infidelities were the actually product of his own patriotism: >
"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them."
Of course, the things Newt Gingrich was saying to American women weren't any better.
As the New York Times recounted 16 years ago, Newt suggested menstruation should keep women out of essential roles in the American military: >
"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections, and they don't have upper-body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets -- you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know."
And for Gingrich, the biggest "infection" of them all - liberalism - caused a young mother to murder her children.
Back in 1994, after dumping his cancer-stricken first wife but before marrying his mistress following the adulterous affair that ended his second marriage, Newt pointed the finger at Democrats for the Susan Smith affair.
It was Smith who drew Americans' initial sympathy - and subsequent scorn - for her invention of a black bogeyman to conceal her heinous crime.
On October 24th, 1994, as the New York Times recalled, Smith killed her young sons, killings for which she was eventually sentenced to life in prison: >
That night, investigators say, Mrs. Smith pulled her car to the edge of a deep lake, stepped out, put the gearshift in drive and let it roll down the boat ramp into the black water. Her two little boys, buckled snugly in their safety seats, died under the lake... >
..."I believed her, right up to the end," said Juliaette Kerhulas, of Mrs. Smith's story that a young black man had ordered her out of her burgundy 1990 Mazda on the night of Oct. 25, then driven away with 3-year-old Michael and 14-month-old Alexander in the back seat.
Ms. Kerhulas wasn't the only one who believed in her. None other than future House Speaker Newt Gingrich rushed to the defense of Smith, whose step-father ironically happened to be a prominent Republican fundraiser and member of the Christian Coalition. Even after her confession, Gingrich insisted the Smith murders showed the decay of American society under Democratic Party rule : >
Enter Newt Gingrich, who rushed into action on election eve with another reliable generic culprit: society. He said the double murder "vividly reminds every American how sick the society is getting and how much we need to change things," expediently adding that "the only way you get change is to vote Republican."
As Frank Rich recounted in August 1995: >
Asked later by Tom Brokaw to elaborate, the Speaker-to-be cited "a direct nexus between the general acceptance of violence" and "the pattern that the counterculture and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society began in the late 60's."
Of course, the 1960's also happened to be the time when the women's movement rose to prominence. The victories it achieved for women's political equality, economic independence and reproductive rights transformed American society and helped move the nation closer to a "more perfect union."
Apparently, those epochal changes escaped Herman Cain's notice. And while Cain's is being punished in the polls for it, he is being replaced atop the GOP field by Newt Gingrich . While that may be a good thing for Tiffany's bottom line , it's a sad development for American women.
20 Views
13:00:00 11/09/11
Democracy Now! 2011-11-09 Wednesday
[LESS INFO] 20 VIEWS | ADDED 13:00:00 11/09/11
Headlines for November 09, 2011; Election Day 2011: In State After State, "Remarkable Wins for Progressive Politics"; Mississippi Rejects Bill to Grant Pre-Embryonic "Personhood," Outlaw Fertility Aid, Birth Control; As Cain Denies Mounting Allegations, Supporters Malign Female Accusers, Sexual Harassment Victims; Bank Transfer Day: Kristen Christian on How She Inspired Mass Exodus from Big Banks to Credit Unions; "Corporations Are Not People": Activists Push Amendment to Revoke "Corporate Personhood"
1 Views
14:36:14 05/13/11
Damnation Pastor Nelson Turner Av1611 Reformation Com
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 14:36:14 05/13/11
Lord's Day sermon coincidentally delivered on the pagan feast of Astarte (improperly grafted in syncretically as a "feast-day" (celebrated as Easter) by romanized Christians) by Pastor Nelson Turner of www.AV1611Reformation.com and preached from the infallible word of God in the English language: the AV1611 Kings James Bible concerning novel ideas, outright heresies, and devilish deceptions regarding the doctrine of eternal punishment for the reprobate sinner which is according to the foreknowledge and perfect will and justice of the Almighty Lord God and works to His honor and glory. Many nowadays, making a god after their own image, hating the truths found in the Bible seek to ignore what God has revealed concerning those who are not His Elect. The fate of the goats, the dogs, the swine, the wicked, the unrighteous, fornicators, liars, murderers, unclean etc. is not the same good, blessed, eternally joyous fate that awaits the Elect of the Father. The insouciance of the masses concerning their sure and dreadful fate is one more aspect of the awful condemnation they are under. Totally depraved as children of Adam, and not called or drawn by God to salvation, they never come to the repentance and belief in the Gospel commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ as He commenced His public ministry.
2 Views
12:20:54 05/10/11
A Royal Wedding Pastor Nelson Turner 5 1 2011 Av1611 Reformation Com
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 12:20:54 05/10/11
Sermon preached by Pastor Nelson Turner of www.AV1611Reformation.com on the Lord's Day May 1, 2011 from the AV 1611 King James Bible on the subject of "The Royal Wedding". This is not to be confused by the carnal mind of man with the pageant recently broadcast worldwide of the nuptials of the young couple that might one day occupy the throne of Great Britain if the Lord is willing. The wedding which Elect believers need to be concerned about is the one for which they are being prepared by the Holy Spirit of God and in which they will be members of the wedding of the Lamb; joined to the bride of the Lord Jesus Christ and forever joined to Him. The wonderful care with which the Divine bridegroom prepares his bride, the Church, is brought forth by numerous citations from the King James Bible.
0 Views
03:33:30 03/18/11
Wrath For His Enemies Pastor Nelson Turner Av1611 Reformation Com 3 6 2011
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 03:33:30 03/18/11
Lord's Day sermon preached 3-6-2011 by Pastor Nelson Turner of www.AV1611Reformation.com from the inspired word of God in the English language, the AV1611 King James Bible. This sermon deals with the justice of God against those who are His enemies. This was preached in advance of the tri-fold disaster in Japan -- which coming just a few days later gives graphic demonstration of the doctrinal principles exposited in this sermon. If this sermon is a blessing to you, or if you have honest questions about the Bible and Christianity, please write to Pastor Turner at drogheda@comcast.net. Visit www.AV1611Reformation.com for other sermons and study materials to help you by God's grace to improve your understanding and practice of the Christian faith which God has freely given to you. Pastor Turner is also the author of two books God's Divorce - detailing the true Bible doctrine of divorce, and, The Mind of the Jesuit:Signs, Symbols, Dogma and the Devil. Both may be ordered from the website store at www.Av1611Reformation.com .
5 Views
16:00:53 02/12/11
Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 16:00:53 02/12/11
Although this year's CPAC convention has been strangely void of any formal discussion about the events unfolding in Egypt or jobs for unemployed Americans, Tim Pawlenty did manage to remind us all of what these last three weeks would have looked like if George Bush had been in office. In his speech today, Pawlenty slammed President Obama for allowing Egyptians to determine Egypt's future in their way and their time. >
"Bullies respect strength, they don't respect weakness," Pawlenty said in a speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "So when the United States of America projects its national security interests here and around the world, we need to do it with strength. We need to make sure that there is no equivocation, no uncertainty, no daylight between us and our allies around the world."
Pawlenty called it a simple principle that the White House "doesn't seem to understand."
"We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, Czech Republic, Colombia, amongst other of our friends," Pawlenty said. "Meanwhile, we appease Iran, Russia, and adversaries in the Middle East, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Mr. President, with bullies, might makes right. Strength makes them submit. We need to get tough on our enemies, not on our friends. And, Mr. President, stop apologizing for our country," Pawlenty said in one of his speech's biggest applause lines.
"The bullies, terrorists and tyrants of the world have lots to apologize for. America does not."
It's worth contrasting that with President Obama's speech made shortly after TPaw's spew:
(More follows) >
And above all, we saw a new generation emerge -- a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply: Most people have discovered in the last few days -- that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever.
This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they've done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence -- not terrorism, not mindless killing -- but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.
And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can't help but hear the echoes of history -- echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice.
As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana while trying to perfect his own, There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom." Those were the cries that came from Tahrir Square, and the entire world has taken note.
For TPaw, respecting Israel et al means showing force, shaking our guns at whoever they call enemy instead of respecting the right of people to determine their government. How is it disrepecting democracies to support democracy?
When I read what he said, I was whisked back to the days of George W. Bush. In 2002, he gave a speech where he called for Palestinians to enact true political reform, including free and fair elections. He promised that if they did so, the United States would support them.
In 2006, the Palestinians elected Hamas in elections supervised by the UN and deemed to be free and fair. In a press conference following the elections, Mr. Bush paid lip service to the democratic process and then refused to acknowledge the Palestinians' duly elected representatives.
Juan Cole, writing for Salon: >
In a mystifying self-contradiction, Bush trumpeted that "the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy." If elections were really the same as democracy, and if Bush was so happy about the process, then we might expect him to pledge to work with the results, which by his lights would be intrinsically good. But then he suddenly swerved away from this line of thought, reverting to boilerplate and saying, "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing."
So Bush is saying that even though elections are democracy and democracy is good and powerful, it has produced unacceptable results in this case, and so the resulting Hamas government will lack the legitimacy necessary to allow the United States to deal with it or go forward in any peace process. Bush's double standard is clear in his diction, since he was perfectly happy to deal with Israel's Likud Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of the budding Palestinian state, and which used the Israeli military and security services for its party platform in destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority throughout the early years of this century. As Orwell reminded us in "Animal Farm," some are more equal than others .
Which is precisely what TPaw said in his speech. Some are more equal than others. Poland, the UK, Columbia, Israel. Those democracies are just fine. But in Egypt's case, we should have been strong, firm, unequivocal in our undying support for the dictator. Because THAT would somehow have protected our national interests.
Democracy is democracy, regardless of whether this country likes the outcome. As President Obama said, the way forward for Egypt won't be easy, and I expect it also won't be pretty, because democracy means letting everyone have a voice, even when you don't like what they say. This is what conservatives and TPaw really don't understand at all. In their minds, we should undermine and starve any democracy that isn't aligned with our express (white, Anglo-Saxon, conservative Christian) ideals, because we don't like it.
This clip with The Nation's Katrina VandenHeuvel puts an exclamation point on it:
Click here to view this media
TPaw's speech is nothing more than a living example of that. From the day Barack Obama was elected, they have worked to de-legitimize his presidency. Birthers. Glenn Beck. Fox News. They work with one goal, to undermine a democratically-elected president that they don't happen to agree with.
Who are the real dictators here?
0 Views
19:14:08 12/20/10
The Unworthy World Pastor Nelson Turner Av1611 Reformation Com 12 19 2010
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 19:14:08 12/20/10
Lord's Day sermon (12/19/2010) from Pastor Nelson Turner of www.AV1611Reformation.com preached from the AV1611 King James Bible, the infallible word of God for English speaking people in these end-times.This sermon discusses the enmity between the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ and those who serve their worldy lusts. Pastor Turner speculated that he might have titled this sermon "The Christian is An Alien In This World" because of the very distinct lifestyles, paths and outcomes seen to separate the Elect children of God and the reprobate left to perish in their sins. Verses from the AV1611 King James Bible used in this sermon include John 7:5-7; 8:23; 14:17; 15:18-21; 17:6-16/ Hebrews 11:36-40. If this sermon is a blessing to you, or if you have honest questions about the Bible and Christianity, please write to Pastor Turner at drogheda@comcast.net. Visit www.AV1611Reformation.com for other sermons and study materials to help you by God's grace to improve your understanding and practice of the Christian faith which God has freely given to you. Pastor Turner is also the author of two books God's Divorce - detailing the true Bible doctrine of divorce, and, The Mind of the Jesuit:Signs, Symbols, Dogma and the Devil. Both may be ordered from the website store at www.Av1611Reformation.com .
7 Views
00:00:33 11/22/10
This Week: Are We Going To Be Taken Seriously By The Very Serious People On The Debt Ceiling?
[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:33 11/22/10
Nothing reminds me to take my blood pressure medicine like another Sunday morning in Absurdistan! Is it just me, or is it crazy to turn the deficit "crisis" into a political argument, and not an economic one? Have the Villagers so completely bought into the Grand Bargain narrative that it doesn't even occur to them that this is a really bad idea?
Oh, you already know the answer. These shows are nothing more than a high school vanity project for the Village elders. And that, of course, includes the media "journalists" who take part. What an incoherent mess.
Why does multimillionaire host Christian Amanpour [$2m salary, married to James Rubin , executive editor at Bloomberg News, adjunct professor at Columbia University, salaries unknown] allow Sen. Jon Kyl [worth between $519,090 to $746,082 ] to get away with saying a targeted tax increase on billionaire hedge fund managers is a "job killer"? She probably asks tougher questions of her 11-year-old son.
And OMB head Jacob Lew [In 2009, got $944,578 bailout bonus after working for Citigroup, where his salary was $1.1 million and "additional compensation". Current salary unknown] speaks in spin, all of which whizzes past Amanpour like a whiffle ball.
Could we just once have a real discussion on the nuts and bolts of the issues, instead of partisan spin? >
AMANPOUR: This morning there are reports of a resurrected grand bargain. So, is a breakthrough on the horizon? Joining me, a man at the heart of these tense negotiations, White House budget director Jack Lew.
Thank you for joining me.
LEW: Good to be here, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: How worried should the American people be? Is the country going to default? Is a deal at hand?
LEW: I do not believe that responsible leaders in Washington will force this to default. I think that all of the leaders of congress and the president have acknowledged that we must raise the debt limit. And the question is how?
I think the question is, do we do more than that? Do we do as much as we can to reduce the deficit and provide some assurance that we're taking seriously the fiscal problems this country faces?
AMANPOUR: So is there a grand bargain still on the table?
LEW: Well, I think that there's multiple tracts that are being discussed. It's not a given how we get to raising the debt limit. There are some extreme voices that are saying, we should push it over the edge. I think the risk of taking that path is just enormous. The present referred to it as Armageddon. It would mean higher interest rates, which are taxed on all Americans, it would undermine our standing in the world and it could have a cloud for a long time over the United States.
I think the question how we get there -- Senator McConnell, Senator Reid have been working on a path that would, in fact, give congress perhaps a way to get that done.
I [think] the challenge is doing more. It's not enough for us just to do what we have to do. We have to do as much as we possibly can to deal with the fiscal challenges.
AMANPOUR: Sitting here today with the time ticking away. What do you think is the realistic? Will it be the McConnell sort of last-ditch effort which allows the president to raise the debt ceiling and allows Republicans or anybody to register their disapproval of it?
LEW: I think that what we face now is not a challenge of do we have the time. It's a question, do we have the will.
The president has shown through his leadership that we must take action, we must take it now. He's spoken to the issue in his State of the Union, in his budget, he spoke to it over the last few days to the public. He is pressing these discussions forward that we should do as much as we can. And he's willing to take on some very, very difficult issues that will require for both sides to move into areas to make them uncomfortable to get this done.
AMANPOUR: Well, let's talk about entitlements. The Democrats, you've heard Nancy Pelosi, you've heard Senator Reid talk about not touching entitlement. Is that just a public posture or will that be part of a deal?
LEW: I think it's very, very hard for Democrats to make these changes in entitlement programs and for good reason. They have an effect on people that's really very significant.
We are concerned first and foremost about the stability of Medicare as a system to provide for the medical needs of our elderly. It does contribute to the problems we face in terms of rising costs over the years. The challenge is could we get a balanced package together? It's not fair to ask senior citizens to pay a price, to ask families paying for their college educations, for their children to pay a price , but to leave the most privileged out of the bargain.
And everything has to be on the table.
Um, Jack? We've already paid a price. High unemployment, declining wages and public services. We had our turn, leave us out of this "balance" argument. It's their turn, the rich people. The people like you - and Christiane. >
AMANPOUR: But who would be part of the big deal -- entitlement cuts, correct?
LEW: I think the president made clear that, depending on the size of the package, there would be different kinds of things that could be done in entitlements. There are some relatively small technical changes and there are structural changes.
In order to get the kinds of structural reforms that would be needed in a long run, there has to be a balanced package that puts taxes, revenues as well as spending on the table.
There's that "balance" fetish again. Hey Jack, WE PAID AT THE OFFICE!!! >
AMANPOUR: Does the president have his own plan? What is on the table? You saw Speaker Boehner saying where are the president's cards?
LEW: I think Speaker knows quite well how far the president is willing to go. There have been detailed conversations on many, many subjects. And I think the president has shown that he's willing to move into space that is a very hard place for Democrats to go . And the challenge is, can we find a place where there will be some kind of fairness and balance.
And leadership takes partnership as well. The president has shown a willingness to go there. We need a partner to work with.
Yes, and apparently leadership takes deep cynicism and an abiding faith in disreputable economic theories -- that just happen to dovetail with the desires of the elite. Funny how that works out! >
AMANPOUR: If it gets down to that, would the president, as Representative Cantor suggest, do a one-year extension to save the country from going into default?
LEW: The president has been very clear on that subject. It would be a very unacceptable outcome to have...
AMANPOUR: But would he do it?
LEW: He's made clear that he will not have this debate over should we raise the national debt a year from now. It would be a bad thing for the economy and a bad thing for the country.
AMANPOUR: So to be clear, he could be pushed into default then?
LEW: I do not believe the country will be pushed into default. I think congress knows what it has to do. It's got time do it. The president has made clear what he is prepared to do and the parties are going to have to come together.
It's kind of unfortunate that things always have to get to the last minute. Sometimes there are no consequences, right now, we're in a place where the world is watching. And we should get our business done, congress should get its job done and the president has been working every day for the last month trying to work with them to get it done.
AMANPOUR: And some kind of a deal, whether it's the grand bargain, or the Mitch McConnell last-ditch effort, plus whatever it might be. Would the president agree to any deal that does not include revenue raising?
LEW: I think the president made clear that there are reasonable steps that can be made to reduce spending. We've already made many, many deep cuts in spending. There's more restraint that we think is in order. He has made it clear that for a big deal, there will have to be balance between revenue and spending.
The question is how much can we get done? And the president's view is clear. We should get as much done as we possibly can to give assurance to the market and to the American people that we got our fiscal house in order.
No matter who we have to screw and leave by the side of the road. Tough luck, chumpies! >
AMANPOUR: So if you had to predict right now, what would be the deal that will get done to avoid this deadline, this potential catastrophe as we're calling it?
LEW: So I think the minimum is I believe the debt will be extended. I think notwithstanding the voices of a few who are willing to play with Armageddon, responsible leaders in Washington or not.
Our efforts over the next days will be to, in addition to that, do as much as we possibly can to make the tough decisions -- this is a question of leaders coming together and saying, we are going to do hard things on both sides. And the time is now, as the president said, if not now, when.
Yes, because that's what disaster capitalism is all about : Seizing the opportunity. >
AMANPOUR: On that note, Jack Lew, thank you so much of you for joining us.
LEW: Thank you.
NOTE: I'm continuing my little experiment (inspired by this ) of illustrating just how large a class divide exists between us and our elected representatives. As has been reported elsewhere, members of Congress seem to have amazing luck with the stock market - frequently beating the Street by significant margins. So let's keep in mind that their interests may not always align with ours.
10 Views
00:00:33 11/22/10
This Week: Are We Going To Be Taken Seriously By The Very Serious People On The Debt Ceiling?
[LESS INFO] 10 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:33 11/22/10
Nothing reminds me to take my blood pressure medicine like another Sunday morning in Absurdistan! Is it just me, or is it crazy to turn the deficit "crisis" into a political argument, and not an economic one? Have the Villagers so completely bought into the Grand Bargain narrative that it doesn't even occur to them that this is a really bad idea?
Oh, you already know the answer. These shows are nothing more than a high school vanity project for the Village elders. And that, of course, includes the media "journalists" who take part. What an incoherent mess.
Why does multimillionaire host Christian Amanpour [$2m salary, married to James Rubin , executive editor at Bloomberg News, adjunct professor at Columbia University, salaries unknown] allow Sen. Jon Kyl [worth between $519,090 to $746,082 ] to get away with saying a targeted tax increase on billionaire hedge fund managers is a "job killer"? She probably asks tougher questions of her 11-year-old son.
And OMB head Jacob Lew [In 2009, got $944,578 bailout bonus after working for Citigroup, where his salary was $1.1 million and "additional compensation". Current salary unknown] speaks in spin, all of which whizzes past Amanpour like a whiffle ball.
Could we just once have a real discussion on the nuts and bolts of the issues, instead of partisan spin? >
AMANPOUR: This morning there are reports of a resurrected grand bargain. So, is a breakthrough on the horizon? Joining me, a man at the heart of these tense negotiations, White House budget director Jack Lew.
Thank you for joining me.
LEW: Good to be here, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: How worried should the American people be? Is the country going to default? Is a deal at hand?
LEW: I do not believe that responsible leaders in Washington will force this to default. I think that all of the leaders of congress and the president have acknowledged that we must raise the debt limit. And the question is how?
I think the question is, do we do more than that? Do we do as much as we can to reduce the deficit and provide some assurance that we're taking seriously the fiscal problems this country faces?
AMANPOUR: So is there a grand bargain still on the table?
LEW: Well, I think that there's multiple tracts that are being discussed. It's not a given how we get to raising the debt limit. There are some extreme voices that are saying, we should push it over the edge. I think the risk of taking that path is just enormous. The present referred to it as Armageddon. It would mean higher interest rates, which are taxed on all Americans, it would undermine our standing in the world and it could have a cloud for a long time over the United States.
I think the question how we get there -- Senator McConnell, Senator Reid have been working on a path that would, in fact, give congress perhaps a way to get that done.
I [think] the challenge is doing more. It's not enough for us just to do what we have to do. We have to do as much as we possibly can to deal with the fiscal challenges.
AMANPOUR: Sitting here today with the time ticking away. What do you think is the realistic? Will it be the McConnell sort of last-ditch effort which allows the president to raise the debt ceiling and allows Republicans or anybody to register their disapproval of it?
LEW: I think that what we face now is not a challenge of do we have the time. It's a question, do we have the will.
The president has shown through his leadership that we must take action, we must take it now. He's spoken to the issue in his State of the Union, in his budget, he spoke to it over the last few days to the public. He is pressing these discussions forward that we should do as much as we can. And he's willing to take on some very, very difficult issues that will require for both sides to move into areas to make them uncomfortable to get this done.
AMANPOUR: Well, let's talk about entitlements. The Democrats, you've heard Nancy Pelosi, you've heard Senator Reid talk about not touching entitlement. Is that just a public posture or will that be part of a deal?
LEW: I think it's very, very hard for Democrats to make these changes in entitlement programs and for good reason. They have an effect on people that's really very significant.
We are concerned first and foremost about the stability of Medicare as a system to provide for the medical needs of our elderly. It does contribute to the problems we face in terms of rising costs over the years. The challenge is could we get a balanced package together? It's not fair to ask senior citizens to pay a price, to ask families paying for their college educations, for their children to pay a price , but to leave the most privileged out of the bargain.
And everything has to be on the table.
Um, Jack? We've already paid a price. High unemployment, declining wages and public services. We had our turn, leave us out of this "balance" argument. It's their turn, the rich people. The people like you - and Christiane. >
AMANPOUR: But who would be part of the big deal -- entitlement cuts, correct?
LEW: I think the president made clear that, depending on the size of the package, there would be different kinds of things that could be done in entitlements. There are some relatively small technical changes and there are structural changes.
In order to get the kinds of structural reforms that would be needed in a long run, there has to be a balanced package that puts taxes, revenues as well as spending on the table.
There's that "balance" fetish again. Hey Jack, WE PAID AT THE OFFICE!!! >
AMANPOUR: Does the president have his own plan? What is on the table? You saw Speaker Boehner saying where are the president's cards?
LEW: I think Speaker knows quite well how far the president is willing to go. There have been detailed conversations on many, many subjects. And I think the president has shown that he's willing to move into space that is a very hard place for Democrats to go . And the challenge is, can we find a place where there will be some kind of fairness and balance.
And leadership takes partnership as well. The president has shown a willingness to go there. We need a partner to work with.
Yes, and apparently leadership takes deep cynicism and an abiding faith in disreputable economic theories -- that just happen to dovetail with the desires of the elite. Funny how that works out! >
AMANPOUR: If it gets down to that, would the president, as Representative Cantor suggest, do a one-year extension to save the country from going into default?
LEW: The president has been very clear on that subject. It would be a very unacceptable outcome to have...
AMANPOUR: But would he do it?
LEW: He's made clear that he will not have this debate over should we raise the national debt a year from now. It would be a bad thing for the economy and a bad thing for the country.
AMANPOUR: So to be clear, he could be pushed into default then?
LEW: I do not believe the country will be pushed into default. I think congress knows what it has to do. It's got time do it. The president has made clear what he is prepared to do and the parties are going to have to come together.
It's kind of unfortunate that things always have to get to the last minute. Sometimes there are no consequences, right now, we're in a place where the world is watching. And we should get our business done, congress should get its job done and the president has been working every day for the last month trying to work with them to get it done.
AMANPOUR: And some kind of a deal, whether it's the grand bargain, or the Mitch McConnell last-ditch effort, plus whatever it might be. Would the president agree to any deal that does not include revenue raising?
LEW: I think the president made clear that there are reasonable steps that can be made to reduce spending. We've already made many, many deep cuts in spending. There's more restraint that we think is in order. He has made it clear that for a big deal, there will have to be balance between revenue and spending.
The question is how much can we get done? And the president's view is clear. We should get as much done as we possibly can to give assurance to the market and to the American people that we got our fiscal house in order.
No matter who we have to screw and leave by the side of the road. Tough luck, chumpies! >
AMANPOUR: So if you had to predict right now, what would be the deal that will get done to avoid this deadline, this potential catastrophe as we're calling it?
LEW: So I think the minimum is I believe the debt will be extended. I think notwithstanding the voices of a few who are willing to play with Armageddon, responsible leaders in Washington or not.
Our efforts over the next days will be to, in addition to that, do as much as we possibly can to make the tough decisions -- this is a question of leaders coming together and saying, we are going to do hard things on both sides. And the time is now, as the president said, if not now, when.
Yes, because that's what disaster capitalism is all about : Seizing the opportunity. >
AMANPOUR: On that note, Jack Lew, thank you so much of you for joining us.
LEW: Thank you.
NOTE: I'm continuing my little experiment (inspired by this ) of illustrating just how large a class divide exists between us and our elected representatives. As has been reported elsewhere, members of Congress seem to have amazing luck with the stock market - frequently beating the Street by significant margins. So let's keep in mind that their interests may not always align with ours.
0 Views
14:46:48 11/15/10
Sin's Motion In The Heart Pastor Nelson Turner Av1611 Reformation Com 11 14 2007
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 14:46:48 11/15/10
Pastor Nelson Turner of www.AV1611Reformation.com delivers a Lord's Day sermon preached from the word of God in the English language, the AV1611 King James Bible, on the subject of sin, its motions, and when it begins in man and how it develops into action once the motion to sin is formed in the heart. This is a follow-up sermon to the prior week's teaching "The Temptation of Adam", and has a more general application to every person; particularly God's Elect and how we are to confront the motion of sin and use the grace of God in us to stop it at its source. Verses from the Av1611 King James Bible used in this sermon/teaching include: Matthew 15:11-19/ Romans 1:24; 7:7; 6:12; 13:14/ James 3:1; 1:14-15/Luke 6:44-46/ Mark 4:19/ John 8:44, 14/ Titus 3:2-3; 2:11-14/ 1Timothy 6:9/ Galatians 5:24/ 1 Peter 1:13-14; 2:11-12; 4:1-5/ Ephesians 4:22-24. If this sermon is a blessing to you, or if you have honest questions about the Bible and Christianity, please write to Pastor Turner at drogheda@comcast.net. Visit www.AV1611Reformation.com for other sermons and study materials to help you by God's grace to improve your understanding and practice of the Christian faith which God has freely given to you.
12 Views
10:06:26 11/01/10
News Channel Morning Edition: November 2, 2010
[LESS INFO] 12 VIEWS | ADDED 10:06:26 11/01/10
Watch the Nov. 2 edition of CBN News Channel's Morning News with Efrem Graham. Top Stories -- Dems Control is at Stake on Election Day, Giants Beat Rangers to Take World Series Title, and more.
0 Views
15:33:50 07/14/10
Lessons From Jeremiah 45 Pastor Nelson Turner 7 11 2010
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 15:33:50 07/14/10
Sermon by Pastor Nelson Turner of AV1611Reformation.com preached on the Lord's Day July 11, 2010 from the word of God in the English language the AV 1611 King James Bible for the edification of the Elect and a witness of condemnation to the unsaved and reprobate. Verses from the King James Bible used in this sermon include Jeremiah 45/ Isaiah 45:5-7/ Job 1:21-22; 2:9-10/ 1 Chronicles 22:1-4/ 2 Samuel 24:1-4/ Genesis 3:19. If this sermon is a blessing to you, or you have honest questions about God's word, please write Pastor Turner at drogheda@comcast.net. Visit www.AV1611Reformation.com for free downloads and links to streaming video and audio sermons, valuable reading material for Christians, and information on how to acquire Pastor Turner's books "God's Divorce" (concerning the Bible's revealed doctrines on divorce and remarriage) and "The Mind of the Jesuit..." just published and available in print or .pdf format at http://av1611reformation.com/store/book-offers/.
0 Views
06:27:55 03/15/10
The Ethiopian Pastor Nelson Turner 3 14 2010 Www Av1611 Reformation Com
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 06:27:55 03/15/10
Lord's Day sermon for March 14, 2010 by Pastor Nelson Turner of www.AV1611Reformation.com preached from the inspired word of God for English speaking people, the AV1611 King James Bible. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Jesus Christ". A falsehood has arisen in some Christian churches and among some who profess and preach the Christian faith that the children of Ham are damned; and that a black complexion is revelatory of darkness within. Pastor Turner uses Holy Scripture to overthrow these misconceptions and show that although "darkness" connotes sin and evil in the Bible, "blackness" does not have that same meaning. In fact in multiple instances, as demonstrated in the sermon, "the Ethiopian" (Cushite; member of the black race) is singled out in a special way by God's Providence. Verse from the AV1611 King James Bible used in this sermon include:Galatians 3:28/ Matthew 15:22/ Mark 7:26/ Jeremiah 13:23/ Numbers 12:1/ Deuteronomy 18:15/ Jeremiah 38:7-8/ 2Kings 19:8/ Psalm 68:31, 141:2/ Song of Solomon 1:4/ Acts 8:27, 35-39/ Isaiah 1:8. If this lesson from God's holy word is a blessing to you, please visit the www.AV1611Reformation.com website for other sermons, books, writings and links to advance your knowledge of God's word by His grace. And please write to Pastor Turner drogheda@comcast.net with your faith-based questions or comments.
