Is it me or did Dr. Benjamin Carson spend thirty minutes criticizing Barack Obama - who heard every word - without ever looking at him? Right out of the gate, Carson begins ripping political correctness, something Obama loves.
Great line at the 8:14 mark:
"If you don't accept excuses, pretty soon people stop giving them and they start looking for solutions."
Ha! Was he telling Obama to stop blaming Bush?
Big quote moment begins at the 17:00 mark. As Carson was talking about great nations of the past, he made reference to Rome. Here's the quote, followed by a screenshot of the look on Obama's face after the comment:
I think particularly about ancient Rome. Very powerful, nobody could even challenge them militarily. But what happened to them? They destroyed themselves from within. Moral decay, fiscal irresponsibility. They destroyed themselves.
Here is the screenshot from right after Carson uttered those words but be sure to watch the look on the face of Obama during the entire comment.
The look of a man who knows people are on to him?
God appeared to be somewhere in the room at this National Prayer Breakfast and Obama clearly didn't like it.
To get the most out of this speech, watch Obama's face while listening to Carson's voice.
The 'tolerant' homosexual community continues its side job as speech police. While appearing on the CBS Late Show, George Costanza (Jason Alexander) referred to Cricket as a 'gay game.' This so upset the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that it demanded an apology from Alexander, who was all too willing to oblige. This would seem to serve as yet another example that Hollywood's actors are more concerned with being accepted than with speaking honestly.
"My daily life is filled with gay men and women, both socially and professionally," he said in a blog statement released through GLAAD. "I am profoundly aware of the challenges these friends of mine face and I have openly advocated on their behalf. So, I can only apologize and I do. In comedy, timing is everything."
That is a gay apology and here is the exchange that prompted it.
Be on the lookout for people of the politically correct persuasion who deny they engage in acts of political correctness for politically correct reasons. The Diversity Committee over at the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is in the process of 'educating' journalists not to use the term 'illegal alien' when reporting on illegal aliens. Why? Well, not because of political correctness. Of course not. It's to 'minimize harm' because illegal aliens find it offensive.
Tell you what, whacko. As an American citizen, I find it offensive not to identify criminals who engage in illegal behavior as criminals. As you read the article below, feel free to play the YouTube of Genesis performing 'Illegal Alien' below.
The Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is seeking to “inform and sensitize” reporters nationwide about how “offensive” the term “illegal immigrant” is to Latinos.
Diversity Committee member Leo Laurence announced the campaign against “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” terminology in the latest issue of the organization’s magazine, Quill, writing that those who have not obtained citizenship but have entered the country without any prior approval should be called “undocumented workers” or “undocumented immigrants.”
In his report, Laurence quotes SPJ Diversity Committee chairman George Daniels as saying, “this is not about being politically correct,” but about aiming to “minimize harm,” when reporting. When Daniels says “minimize harm,” he is referring to one of the major tenets of SPJ’s code of ethics, which many journalists nationwide follow.
Laurence defends SPJ’s new campaign by offering an interpretation of the Constitution that provides for constitutional rights for everyone, including non-citizens, saying that any person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He said that, constitutionally, a judge is the only person who can deem anyone or anything “illegal.”
It seems to me that all of these arguments would be moot if we SECURED THE BORDER!
After September 11th, what you carried on your person was more closely scrutinized. If you had a sharp object - like a thick guitar pic, you'd never see it again. After the failed shoe-bomber was apprehended, you had to take off your shoes and have them scanned before setting foot on a plane. Then came the underwear bomber, who also failed in his attempt to bring down an airliner. Welcome to the consequences of his actions. YOU will now be required to either submit to full body scans or very intrusive 'pat downs' at the hands of TSA agents donning rubber gloves.
Compounding this insane dilemma further is the fact that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has petitioned the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in an effort to get an exemption from the new screening procedures for Muslim women. Adding to that already insane request - considering that every individual responsible for the increased intrusiveness at the hands to the TSA was Muslim - is the fact that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually contemplating giving into it.
The Washington Times explains both the problem and the solution perfectly. The problem is that this White House - and the last one for that matter - refuses to identify the real threat, which happens to be Islamic terrorists.
The Transportation Security Administration's demeaning new "enhanced pat-down" procedures are a direct result of the Obama administration's willful blindness to the threat from Islamic radicals. While better tools are available to keep air travelers safe, they would involve recognizing the threat for what it is, which is something the White House will never do.
El Al, Israel's national airline, employs a smarter approach. Any airline representing the state of Israel is a natural - some might say preeminent - target for terrorist attacks. Yet El Al has one of the best security records in the world and doesn't resort to wide-scale use of methods that would under other circumstances constitute sexual assault. The Israelis have achieved this track record of safety by employing sophisticated intelligence analysis which allows them to predict which travelers constitute a possible threat and which do not. Resources are then focused on the more probable threats with minimal intrusion on those who are likely not to be terrorists.
The Islamic groups that have declared war on western civilization are laughing at us and we still don't get it.
Former Arab Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat travels constantly, speaking to audiences about his former religion and warning them of its agenda. He is actually suggesting that all Arabs - including himself - should be profiled.
Just to re-cap, here is the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Keep that in mind as you watch former TSA Director Mo McGowan (at the 2:30 mark), who says he understands concerns over the violation of fourth amendment rights but "we're going to have to do it."
Last year, three days after the Fort Hood massacre, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army George Casey was more concerned about protecting the military's 'diversity' than he was identifying the true threat - Islamic Jihad. Denying the truth about what was responsible for the murder of 14 at Fort Hood disrespects those who died. Now, a little over one year later, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is making statements that indicate he either doesn't understand the real threat or is refusing to acknowledge it.
Inexplicably, Adm. Mike Mullen is actually pointing to poverty as a source for Islamic terrorism, despite poverty having nothing to do with the motives of Osama bin Laden, the Christmas Day bomber, Nidal Malik Hasan, the Times Square bomber and a countless slew of other Islamic terrorists who simply hate infidels and want them dead. Via The Hill:
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Friday that new ways of deterrence that address those factors that make individuals vulnerable to coercion were essential in tackling the threats of the 21st century.
Adm. Mike Mullen, in a speech at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, said Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and al-Qaida can be deterred by the threat of retaliation, but efforts to attack the basis of extremism were essential through support of education and development.
“Attacking the humiliation, the hopelessness, the illiteracy and abject poverty which lie at the core of the attraction to extremist thought will do more to turn the tide against terrorism than anything else,” the chairman said. “We can continue to hunt and kill their leaders, and we will. But when a person learns to read, he enters a gateway toward independent education and thought. He becomes more capable, more employable, and enjoys a sense of purpose in his life.
“He will understand the Quran for what it is and not merely what his mullah tells him it is, who is equally uneducated,” Mullen continued. “He can raise his children to a higher standard of living than the one he knew, an aspiration shared by parents around the world. And his wife will help him prevent the despair that might lead a child of theirs into the arms of al-Qaida or the Taliban.”
The irony is that Mullen's attempt at political correctness may have backfired because those 'uneducated mullahs' don't like being called 'uneducated.'
The judges in the trial of Geert Wilders found the perfect way to get out of a very uncomfortable position after the prosecution recommended last week that charges be dropped. Whether it was their intention to step down from the proceedings because the Defense accused them of bias matters little.
Oct 22 (Reuters) - A Dutch court approved on Friday a request from anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders to have new judges for his trial on charges of inciting hatred against Muslims.
Wilders made this request earlier in the proceedings but it was declined. The court has now agreed with Wilders and has stepped down based on claims that a court official has attempted to intimidate one of the defense's witnesses.
Geert Wilders' trial on inciting hatred charges in Amsterdam took a new twist on Friday after it emerged another court official may have tried to pressure one of the defence witnesses.
The allegations, in De Pers newspaper, led Wilders' lawyer Bram Moszkowicz to again ask for the judges to be dismissed because they refused to rule on whether the witness should be recalled.
Wilders broke his silence to call personally for new judges. The trial is 'a great big mess', Wilders told the special panel considering the request.
The Monsters & Critics website is reporting that one of the judges tried to influence one of the defense witnesses at a dinner.
Wilders had filed the partiality complaint on grounds that one member of the panel of judges had attempted to influence an expert on Islam, who was being called on as a witness in the proceedings.
When the expert witness, an Arabic scholar, divulged the attempt to influence him, he was no longer allowed by the panel of judges as a witness. Thereupon Wilders' lawyers filed suit declaring that he 'had not the slightest trust' any longer in the judges.
In the wake of the ruling, it meant that a new panel of judges would have to be found to carry out proceedings against Wilders.
This is a huge victory for Geert Wilders, made even more so by revelations and admission by the court itself that he was a victim of judicial bias.
This one is truly amazing. When an entity decides to police itself by insisting that certain factual statements are offensive and warrant an apology out of some sort of political correctness, we've really reached a new low. That's what happened in Seattle with an FM station called 107.7 The End. On December 28th - the day after DHS Secretary Napolitano said, "the system worked" - someone either hacked into or logged on to the station's Twitter account and made the following extremely incendiary comment:
Not all Muslims are terrorists—but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Time to accept profiling America.
Apparently ignoring the fact that the statement is actually factual, The End decided it needed to apologize anyway.
UPDATE: The End's program director responds. Details after the jump. Yesterday, at 3:43 PM, someone logged on to alternative radio station 107.7 The End's Twitter account and posted this:
"Not all Muslims are terrorists--but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Time to accept profiling America." The Twitterer then stuck around for the next two hours, defending his/her thoughts to some of The End's followers, before finally signing off: "Cee ya. Until I get my own show." By morning the comments had been deleted. In their place was this apology:
We abhor last nights twitter hacking. The End brand in no way condones the comments and apologizes. Pswrd & security measures changed.
This is an incredible level of cowardice on the part of 107.7 The End. They should actually call their station, "The End of Common Sense".
Here is a LINK to their website. Let them know how you feel.
Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch was contacted recently by one of Nidal Malik Hasan's classmates. As Spencer points out, the preponderance of evidence almost makes this claim uneventful but in light of the cowardly rhetoric of the head of the Army, George Casey, it serves as validation for those of us who know the truth and continue to embarrass the likes of Casey with it. Here is the quote from a Doctor and former classmate of Hasan:
He was an outspoken jihadist. He stated publicly that Shariah Law came before the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold. He did off topic presentations in public health classes on how the War on Terror was a war on Islam. Other courses, he justified suicide bombing.
We complained to faculty, but the PC climate in the military prevented any action that might have been taken against him. Now there are 13 people dead and scores more wounded.
In an effort not to appear completely negative in this post, I will say one thing positive about Casey. He did answer the question about why two soldiers were arrested in addition to Hasan. They were seen running and appeared to be running from police. In reality, they were running from the scene.
Ok, I'm done being nice. General George Casey's display on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous would have made Neville Chamberlain blush. To view the truly shameless display, fast forward to the 4:00 mark and watch Casey express concern about "backlash against our Muslim soldiers".
It doesn't get much more pathetic than this. Unless, of course, you're talking about such drivel coming out of the mouth of the man in charge of the entire U.S. Army.
For a contrast to General Casey, please view the Warrior Song video at the bottom of the homepage as it's the video of the week. You will hear from General Patton in that video and when you do, ask yourself what Patton would think of Casey.
Never having served in the military, I owe some deference to General George Casey. However, it doesn't take a genius to see the absurdity of political correctness either. Why, on earth, is America's top commander choosing to be an apologist for multi-culturalism?
This is really the last thing that families of the murdered or wounded need to hear from top military brass. Reuters reports:
General George Casey, U.S. Army chief of staff, cautioned against jumping to conclusions about whether religious beliefs motivated the accused gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim born in the United States of immigrant parents.
"I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that," Casey told CNN's "State of the Union."
Backlash against Muslim soldiers? Tell you what. How about we start looking into how pervasive the views of Nidal Malik Hasan are inside the military instead of worrying about a "backlash". This mentality is incredibly disturbing and General Casey is coming across as an apologist of the politically correct kind.
How does Casey think General Patton would have responded to the discovery of Nazi troops inside the U.S. military? Would he have refrained from using such an incident to galvanize his troops or would he have warned them not to offend all Germans?
With all due respect to Casey's military career, this stance is inexplicable and completely misguided.
