Hannity stakes his (weak) public position on Islam

There are several reasons why high profile individuals do not speak the truth about something. It can be tactical or it can be for career preservation. Wikileaks all but proved it is rarely out of ignorance. Enter Sean Hannity. He has publicly stated his position that Islam is not the problem. Instead, it is "RADICAL" Islam.

Logan's Warning at Right Side News got into a twitter battle with the talk show host and made this patently apparent. Interestingly, it was Hannity who ultimately blocked LW because he apparently wasn't prepared to logically defend his position after LW quoted very specific verses.

Hannity ducked the verses, told me there are “different interpretations” and threatened to block me on Twitter.

I told him that is leftist talk, and asked him to show me just ONE version that does not call for the dominance over non-Muslims. Of course he did not respond.

He definitely did not like being challenged. But I was not going to bow to him because he is on TV. The truth is more important! The argument ended with Hannity ignoring all the facts I had sent him, and him stamping his feet as he stated he will NOT say Islam itself is the problem.

Then he blocked me.

Yes, Logan's Warning doesn't have the public profile that Hannity does so it's definitely more difficult for Hannity to take such a position. It was also difficult for Winston Churchill to take the position he did against the Nazis; he took it anyway - at great expense - until the time was right. Just because doing the right thing may be more difficult for Hannity than it is for LW doesn't make it any less right. Churchill stated very uncomfortable realities from a much higher public position than that held by Hannity.

We're rapidly approaching the point where everyone will have to choose sides. If you're not on the side of Islam, you will have to be on the side of Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill. Hannity has historically been very critical of Chamberlain. Considering his stance on Islam, Hannity may need to stop doing that if he is to avoid justified charges of hypocrisy.

Here is Hannity's recent interview with Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is promoting a book. If Hannity had Rauf on his show to expose the imam's true intentions, it would have been a good move. Instead, the talk show host only helped the radically deceptive imam sell more books while pushing his deceptive agenda.

Hannity has unfortunately staked his very Chamberlain-esque position.

It's really kinda sad. It's also tragically ironic because Hannity has said countless times that journalism died in 2008.



h/t Free Republic

Another piece to the Obama Selective Service puzzle?

Of all the questions surrounding Barack Obama's identification documents, I always found the ones about his Selective Service registration the most compelling. Debbie Schlussel broke this story back in 2008 and very legitimate questions remain unanswered. Now we learn - via Breitbart - that in 1983, Obama penned an article that called on people to ignore the law that required them to register with the Selective Service.

In late 2008—long after the election—the media revealed a long-forgotten article written by Barack Obama while at Columbia. Obama wrote the March 1983 article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” about two campus groups, Arms Race Alternatives (ARA) and Student Against Militarism (SAM). Ben Smith of Politico (now at Buzzfeed) told readers that Obama’s views reflected the “very conventional campus liberalism of the time.”

Wrong. Smith and the media failed to investigate what the activists at SAM were actually doing: encouraging students to break the law by not registering for the Selective Service and harassing military recruiters.

A little later, we learn a little bit about the current chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, who seemed to excuse the illegal act:

SAM’s most serious form of political activism, however, was encouraging students not to register for the Selective Service. Refusing to register for the Selective Service could mean arrest, imprisonment, and—most importantly—denial of federal student aid. SAM counseled Columbia’s estimated 400 non-registrants and tried to form them into a political force on campus. The non-registrant’s “refusal to register seems to reflect more of an abstract repulsion to war and violence than any political opposition to the American political system,” wrote Julius Genachowski for the Spectator on November 29, 1982 (later Obama’s classmate at Harvard Law School, and his appointee to lead the Federal Communications Commission). “But they are nevertheless acutely aware that a peaceful world would require a restructuring of that system—and that such a change could only be furthered by the public declaration of their opposition to draft registration.”

SAM hosted an event encouraging students to do just that. It even formed a support group for law-breakers.

So, if Obama registered with the Selective Service, he would have been the quintessential hypocrite by endorsing a group that others to break the law while he himself did not. If he didn't register with the Selective Service, he broke the law by not doing so. Moreover, it will have meant that he committed a felony because the Selective Service registration card dissected by Schlussel is, in fact, fraudulent.

For some reason, this clip came to mind as I was writing this post:

Audio: Al Sharpton compares Republicans to murderous Nazis

What group of people advocates for murdering those who don't think like they do and identifies them as sub-human? Hint: they view anyone who doesn't practice their religion as "apes and pigs." Another hint: this group actually allied with the Nazis in WWII. Yeah, well Al Sharpton thinks it's Republicans.



I wonder if Sharpton ever heard of Larry Grathwohl, the man who outed Obama's colleague Bill Ayers as a man who more aptly fits such a role.



h/t WZ