Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing ‘House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated’

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Thursday, April 23, 2009By Marc Morano
‘House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated’

Climate Depot Exclusive – Updated

Washington, DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed ‘celebrity’ as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The “celebrity” witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats’ “celebrity” with an unnamed “celebrity” of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.

[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said “absolutely not” to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee “pushed at multiple levels” to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats “refused,” according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

“Waxman knows there has been no ‘global warming’ for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years’ global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore’s mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, ‘the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,’” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing…US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton – March 19, 2007 )

A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.

Tony Blair: “It is time to wrench ourselves out of a state of denial. There is one major factor in common. In each conflict there are those…who argue that they are fighting in the true name of Islam.”

April 23, 2009
Tony Blair: “It is time to wrench ourselves out of a state of denial. There is one major factor in common. In each conflict there are those…who argue that they are fighting in the true name of Islam.”
Tony Blair is still dogmatically convinced that the Islamic jihadists are hijacking and twisting the true, peaceful Islam, and he shows no awareness of the classic theological and legal teachings that they can and do draw upon to justify their actions and make recruits among their fellow Muslims, but what he says here about the need to combat the ideology, and the ideological kinship among disparate jihad groups, is spot on.

Not that there aren’t other major problems with what he says here — see below.

“Tony Blair calls on world to wage war on militant Islam,” by Ruth Gledhill for the Times Online, April 23 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

[...] In an address last night to a forum on religion and politics in Chicago, Mr Blair said that the world today faced a struggle posed by “an extreme and misguided form of Islam”, which threatened the majority of Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
“Our job is simple: it is to support and partner those Muslims who believe deeply in Islam but also who believe in peaceful co-existence, in taking on and defeating the extremists who don’t.” [...]

It would have been good of Mr. Blair to supply some names at this point, since there are so many who have the reputation of being moderate but are not in fact interested in “peaceful co-existence,” and the possibility of deception is so great. But no such luck.

“The case for the doctrine I advocated ten years ago remains as strong now as it was then,” he said, arguing that there was a link between the murders in Mumbai, the terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempts to destabilise countries such as Yemen, and the training camps of insurgents in Somalia.
“It is not one movement. There is no defined command and control. But there is a shared ideology. There are many links criss-crossing the map of Jihadist extremism. And there are elements in the leadership of a major country, namely Iran, that can support and succour its practitioners.”

Defending the Obama Administration’s attempts to engage with Iran, Mr Blair said: “The Iranian Government should not be able to claim that we have refused the opportunity for constructive dialogue, and the stature and importance of such an ancient and extraordinary civilisation means that as a nation, Iran should command respect and be accorded its proper place in the world’s affairs.” I hope this engagement succeeds.

They will claim that no matter what. Blair seems oblivious to how Obama’s hardline appeasement stance seems to have emboldened the mullahs and the Thug-In-Chief.

He argued that the purpose of such engagement should be clear and was about more than preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. “It is to put a stop to the Iranian regime’s policy of de-stabilisation and support of terrorism.”
Listing the conflicts across the world, from Israel through Iraq to the Philippines and Algeria, he said: ‘It is time to wrench ourselves out of a state of denial. There is one major factor in common. In each conflict there are those deeply engaged in it, who argue that they are fighting in the true name of Islam.”

Mr Blair said that the doctrinal roots of extremism could be traced back to the period in the late 19th and early 20th century where modernising and moderate clerics and thinkers were slowly but surely pushed aside by the hard-line dogma of those, whose cultural and theological credentials were often dubious, but whose appeal lay in the simplicity of the message that Islam had lost its way and departed from the “true faith”.

True enough, although those who made this claim could also point to jihads from before the 19th century that operated according to the same core beliefs as those they were advocating.

“The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach,” he said.
Even if scientific advance were indeed urged upon Muslims as a duty in the Qur’an, this would say nothing about the jihad and Islamic supremacism that are also taught in the Qur’an. The “extremists,” in fact, are not against “knowledge and scientific advance.” They are not Amish with AK-47’s. They make use, in fact, of the most sophisticated technology

Homeland security secretary taking heat already

Homeland security secretary taking heat already
By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Eileen Sullivan, Associated Press Writer
Fri Apr 24, 4:30 am ET

WASHINGTON – It didn’t take long for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to shoot herself in the foot or for Republicans to make her a target of their opposition to Obama administration policy.

At the heart of the GOP criticism is a recent intelligence analysis from Napolitano’s agency saying veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan could be susceptible to right-wing recruiters or commit lone acts of violence.

When conservative bloggers began writing about the report, Napolitano defended the assessment while acknowledging that some of it should have been rewritten. She went on a number of television news shows to apologize and explain her support for and admiration of veterans.

This was not enough for several Republicans who took to the House floor this week to criticize Napolitano, confirmed to her Cabinet position less than 100 days ago.

“Has this homeland security secretary gone absolutely stark raving mad?” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. “She needs to come before Congress. She needs to answer a few questions.”

On Thursday, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told Fox News that Napolitano must not understand “the disruption that she has caused” in some parts of the country. “I think the appropriate thing for her to do would be to step down,” he said.

A day earlier, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said, “Janet Napolitano should resign or be fired.”

Obama administration aides dismissed the criticism as a “typical Washington game” and “political theater.”

Despite the furor among some Republicans, party leaders did not bring it up in a meeting with President Barack Obama and top White House aides on Thursday. Although House Republican leader John Boehner had indicated earlier it likely would be discussed, his spokesman, Kevin Smith, said the topic was not broached.

White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the right-wing extremist report originated in the Bush administration and Napolitano was working to keep the nation safe from terrorists.

“She doesn’t have time for these games — and neither does the president,” Shapiro said.

The veterans issue wasn’t the only flap. Earlier this week, Napolitano drew criticism for flubbing an explanation of federal law prohibiting people without proper documents from crossing U.S. borders into the country.

In an interview with CNN, Napolitano, whose career has included stints as a U.S. attorney and attorney general and governor of Arizona, said: “Crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.”

While crossing the border illegally is a crime, most illegal immigrants caught in the United States face only civil penalties and deportation.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., characterized Napolitano’s statements as one of the most “baffling” he has ever heard from a senior government official.

“It is breathtaking that a Cabinet secretary, bestowed by the public with the responsibility to protect our nation’s borders, could be ignorant of the indisputable fact that it is a violation of the criminal code to enter our country illegally,” Sessions said.

Napolitano spokesman Sean Smith said: “She may be new to Washington, but she has been around politics for a long time, and she knows political theater when she sees it.”

Smith said Napolitano spent 16 years enforcing the law on the Southwest border. “Americans can rest assured that she understands what the law is along the border,” he said.

She also has drawn criticism for claiming in an interview that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists entered the U.S. across the Canadian border. The 9/11 Commission found that none came through Canada. But others have, such as the would-be millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam.

Discussing security along the U.S. border on Canada’s CBC News on Monday, Napolitano said, “To the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it’s been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there.”

When asked whether she was talking about the 9/11 terrorists, Napolitano said: “Not just those, but others as well.”

Smith on Thursday said Napolitano acknowledged she misspoke and had been thinking of the millennium bomber.

Obama Determined to Bankrupt, Take Over Television Networks

Obama Determined to Bankrupt, Take Over Television Networks

Ryan Tate, Gawker

Obama wants 24-7 Coverage for himself
How much prime-time is enough for Generalissimo Barack Obama, our “big brother?” Now he wants a fourth televised speaking opportunity in barely three months. How are the TV people supposed to make money?

The networks are getting really irritated, because America is not just some communist country where the ruler can pre-empt important current-affairs programming like American Idol whenever he wants, for propaganda. TV executives recently bitched about Obama “wreaking serious havoc with our schedule and our advertisers,” and that was back when he was only up to three speeches.

Now he wants yet another news conference — during sweeps again! — on Wednesday the 29th, the end of his first 100 days. So the network suits are just all gritting their teeth, pissed. TV Week:

Programmers have been peeved at President Obama’s numerous primetime appearances since taking office, because every unscheduled speech or press conference results in a loss of ad revenue…

There’s no word yet on whether the broadcast networks will agree to the White House request, though one network insider said it’s all but a given they will.

Come on guys, don’t just roll over. At least finagle a written guarantee that Ed Henry will be prevented from “asking” a “question,” by force of taser if necessary.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers