Skip to comments.16-year-old faces threats after challenging Michele Bachmann to a debate [May 20, 2011]
Posted on 05/28/2011 8:26:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A 16-year-old high school student says she is facing online threats after calling into question Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann's knowledge of the Constitution.
What started as a harmless -- if cheeky -- way of pointing out Bachmann's historical mistakes has turned darker for New Jersey high school sophomore Amy Meyers, the Courier Post Online reports.
Last month, Meyers posted an open letter online challenging Bachmann to a constitutional debate.
"I have found quite a few of your statements regarding the Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted," Myers wrote. "As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere."
Several media outlets reported on Myers' challenge. As a result, she said, people have threatened violence against her and threatened to publish her address online, the Courier Post reports. Myers' high school has also reprotedly received inquiries regarding Myers' letter.
"A lot of them are calling me a whore," Myers said of the online remarks against her. Added her father Wayne Myers: "I personally did not think there would be a reaction like actual stalking and the vitriol that's coming out."
Myers has also seen a good deal of positive feedback online. Bachmann's office has said it would not respond to the debate challenge.
As leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, Bachmann has expressed an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, even organizing classes on the Constitution for members of Congress. She's used her platform as a Tea Party leader to build a national profile and may soon enter the race
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Exactly. If it was done it’s wrong and any idiot stupid enough to resort to RAT name-calling tactics deserved to be outed. So, as when the moonbats threatened Wisconsin state legislators, let’s have the IP addresses and go get them. No conservative wants this kind of jerk on our side.
On the other hand, we’ve been accused of saying things in the past - like the “n-word” at the Tea Party rally...? Without proof, who knows what was said?
And no, I’m not saying it’s OK to call her a whore just because every liberal seems to get away calling Republicans vile things like that.
CBS should be criticizing a 16 yr old know-it-all, and especially her parents, for the stupidity and useful idiocy of this silly “debate.” Indeed, how “childish”
And for the Democrats to use a child to further their own political gain
How much press and air time did CBS give the woman who suggested the “everybody draw Mohammed day” and then had to go into permanent hiding?
Where’s the coverage and continuing coverage, on that?
Yup. That's all this is - a strawman setup, hyping an insignificant heckler into a media Joan of Arc.
Best thing to do is ignore it and let it fade away, the schemers in the MSM will move on to their next fabricted smear campaign.
RE: I challenge my own congresscritters all the time, and nobody ever thinks that’s newsworthy.
Well, for one, you’re not a teenager. Secondly, there’s no interest on the part of the mainstream media to make a Democrat look ignorant. Thirdly, the mainstream media is just itching to prove that a Tea Party candidate ( a so called conservative Goliath ) can be slain by a liberal “David”. And finally, if they can do that, they can then by implication, tar and feather the entire Tea Party movement as composed of ignoramuses who support an ignoramus as a leader.
That’s their agenda.
the journolist knows exactly what she is doing. this is a cleverly disguised form of the alinsky ridicule attack. michele is correct. she comes out fine as long as she ignores it. the statists now need a response, let them debate themselves.
This is a news story....?
Written by a true leftist. There are terms that a conservative would never use. Probably written by a leftwing teacher or at least with a leftwing’s assistance.
It is high time that every Freeper begin urging Jim Rob to publicly challenge Obama to a debate on the constitution.
When Obama tells Jim via his cronies in the MSM that he refuses to accept the challenge, we then get every freeper that has a blog to write stories about the way Obama is afraid to debate him.
Said Freep bloggers should repeat a call to demand Obama debate Jim Rob at least once a Month up to next years election.
Eventually, Google search will have millions of references to Obama being afraid of debating Jim Robinson of FreeRepublic on the constitution.
This kid is a dope and a tool but the fact is Bachmann has been a disappointment as a candidate so far. As for the intelligent design/science thing, I think Dinesh D’Sousa listed scientists who believe in God in What’s So Great About Christianity. Whether they won Nobels or not, I don’t remember.
I’m pretty sure that nowadays belief in God disqualifies a person from winning a Nobel (or an Oscar too!). It’s only where honesty matters that belief in God really rates.
Either way, I don’t think Michele Bachmann (who I really like) is ready for prime time.
Listen, little girl: you had the temerity to make a public spectacle of yourself, to call out this congresswoman and essentially say she's ignorant & deceitful. Then, when Michelle's friends have the temerity to suggest that they believe your intentions are less than honorable, and that you've been put up to it by a pimping party and pimping network, you want to whine to national media - See-BS News, in particular - and complain, "Ahm juss a widdoo goil and all vees angwy people awe pickin' on me!"
Anybody care to bet about the kind of parent that raised this one?
2. Not a real Nobel prize
3. What statement did she ever make in support of ID?
Speaking as a scientist, and one who personally has little problem with evolution and creationism, any real scientist has to acknowledge that evolution is a THEORY. Perhaps a very good & sound one, depending on your argument, but a THEORY just the same, and NOT a "fact".
A little research showed me this...
Nobel Laureates Who Favor Intelligent Design
Compiled by: Sean D. Pitman M.D
Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor makes the following interesting argument:
“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.”
Dr. Robert Gange is a research scientist (cryophisics), engineer, and adjunct professor the David Sarnoff Research Center in Princeton. He just so happened to write a pro-creation book entitled, “Origins and Destiny”. Aside from the book itself, the back cover has this interesting endorsement from the late mathematician, physicist, and Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics):
“I was particularly pleased with Dr. Gange’s refusal of the idea of materialism, and the convincing arguments supporting that refusal. In fact, the book will be a welcome response to materialism. Good luck, for a good book!” (http://www.ccel.us/gange.toc.html#Ab)
Wigner also noted in his widely quoted paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences, that scientists often take for granted the remarkable—even miraculous—effectiveness of mathematics in describing the real world:
“The enormous usefulness of mathematics is something bordering on the mysterious . . . . There is no rational explanation for it . . . . The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” - Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13 (1960): 1-14.
Interesting comments for an acclaimed “modern” genius with a Nobel Prize in physics. Such comments seem to mirror Einstein’s well-known observation:
“You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way . . . . [T]he kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.” Albert Einstein, Letters to Solovine (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), 131.
Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program. In his address he discussed the increasing lifespan of humans as a result of cures and treatments for various infections and diseases. He urged his listeners to seriously consider their role as “higher species” on this planet. He also mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creation, Darwin versus the Biblical Genesis account, noting that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe that “Genesis was right, and there was a creation, and that the Creator is still involved”. (1)
After reading the book “Origins of Life” by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (2), among other books by Rana, Richard Smalley make the following endorsement: “ Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred.” (3)
Toward the last days of his life, in an interview with William Dembski, Smalley predicted that ID would be mainstreamed in five years and that evolution, in its conventional materialistic sense, would be dead within ten. Although I am personally just a bit skeptical as to the time frame, it will be interesting to see if his predictions are eventually borne out. (4)
This entire story doesn't pass the smell test.
I could swear I read this story about four months ago.
Thing is progressives don’t care about the Constitution and there is a large segment of the populace who have no clue how this nation is designed to work.
Well Oztrich Boy, care to comment about the proof found by SeekAndFind?
RE: I could swear I read this story about four months ago.
This story is very recent ( maybe just last week ).