Back on February 17th, Dr. Ben Carson appeared on ABC's This Week to talk about his speech at the National Prayer breakfast, during which he politely ripped Obama. During his appearance on This Week, Carson said that he thought "both sides" need to "tone down the rhetoric" and that such people are acting like children.
About six weeks later, after having to endure endless attacks on him from the left, Dr. Carson accused white liberals as being 'the most racist people' during an interview with Mark Levin.
Dr. Ben Carson, a black Johns Hopkins University neurosurgeon and conservative favorite after challenging President Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, said Monday on "The Mark Levin Show" that white liberals are "racist."
"And you're attacked in many respects because of your race. You're not supposed to think like this, and supposed to talk like this. A lot of white liberals just don't like it, do they?" said Levin, host of the syndicated radio show.
"Well, they're the most racist people there are. You know, they put you in a little category, a little box -- you have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?" responded Carson.
While it would appear that Dr. Carson isn't following his own advice, we can cut him some slack because he's realizing that conservatives don't need to tone down the rhetoric at all. We need to ratchet it up because the left will only continue to smear and bully unless we do.
Conservatives are looking for someone - anyone - in the halls of power to actually assert his / her power. In the House, there are a handful of courageous Republicans (Bachmann, Gowdy, Gohmert, and a few others) but in the upper chamber, where more power is wielded and more weight is carried by each Senator, the battle has seemingly come down to three people.
Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Ted Cruz (R-TX).
In a world where a few hot-button issues rotate to the front burner with increasing frequency and intensity, immigration appears to be taking its turn. In this battle, Cruz has taken the lead among conservatives and that is evident when comparing the recent positions / activities of the three men, coupled with Cruz's stated positions on Sean Hannity's April 1st radio show.
Let's take a look at the three Senators who are attempting to tap into the most passionate and sought after voting bloc of the Republican Party - the conservatives.
Paul won major points with conservatives when he decided to filibuster for twelve hours over a response he did not get from the Obama administration over the use of drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil. Regardless of where one comes down on the issue, Paul exhibited a fighting spirit that is far too often lacking from Republican leaders. However, when it comes to the issue of immigration, Paul has deviated from the conservative position and has called for a pathway to citizenship, which in the minds of conservatives, is a pathway to amnesty. Helping Paul among conservatives was the way he confronted Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.
Rubio essentially began his dance with the devil when he joined the gang of eight, which included Socialist Democrats Durbin, Schumer, and Menendez along with RINOs McCain and Graham to cut a deal over comprehensive immigration reform. Rubio's achilles heal with conservatives has long been his rather vague stance on immigration. His decision to join the gang of eight didn't help him much, though to his credit, he is calling for open and robust debate, which just might scare the rest more than the prospect of not getting a deal done. Rubio was also incredibly weak when he had five minutes alone with Hillary Clinton over Benghazi.
Cruz appears to be separating himself from the other two in the pack when it comes to the immigration debate. He understands that until everyone agrees - and then demands / acts on that agreement - to secure the border before any other discussions take place, will get us nowhere, at best. Every time something is done about immigration (Rubio and Rand should listen up), it comes with an empty promise to secure the border after granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
Cruz isn't falling for it. As a result, his stock among conservatives will undoubtedly rise faster than will Rubio or Paul on the issue of immigration, which is a big one.
This new development further demonstrates at least two realities. First, when the United States was hit on 9/11/01, declaring war on "terror" instead of on the actual enemy, was a grave mistake. Second, that mistake is being grossly exploited with legalese and political correctness, this time coming from the Department of Defense (DOD).
The primary objective of the Federal government - and the DOD by extension - is to defend the United States "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It's exceedingly ironic that the DOD would stake out a position that does the opposite by overtly denying a self-evident truth while slapping the Fort Hood survivors in the collective face.
If we had declared war on the actual enemy after 9/11 (any and all Muslim Brotherhood groups or governments / entities that fund / support those groups), perhaps the DOD would have long ago admitted that Nidal Malik Hasan committed an act of war on the U.S.
Before murdering innocent people, Hasan shouted 'Allahu Akbar', just like the 9/11 terrorists did from inside cockpits. Belonging to the religion of Islam is another common trait Hasan shares with those hijackers. It was further learned that while al-Awlaki had ties to Hasan, he also had extensive ties to the 9/11 hijackers.
In hindsight the DOD's treatment of al-Awlaki several months after 9/11, in the form of a plush luncheon served as a foreshadowing of how it has handled Hasan, who was inspired by al-Awlaki.
Legislation that would award the injured from the 2009 Fort Hood shooting the Purple Heart would adversely affect the trial of Maj. Nidal Hasan by labeling the attack terrorism, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Fox News.
The document comes following calls from survivors and their families for the military honor, because they say Fort Hood was turned into a battlefield when Hasan opened fire during the November 2009 attack. Fox News is told that the DOD “position paper” is being circulated specifically in response to the proposed legislation.
The DoD position is the Purple Heart is awarded to Service members who are killed, or wounded and require treatment by a medical officer, in action against the enemy of the United States; as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force; or as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States. Adhering to the criterion for award of the Purple Heart is essential to preserve the integrity of the award. To do otherwise could irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration.
Again, had an actual enemy been identified after 9/11, Hasan would have easily been identified as one of its agents. After all, his own business card confirmed it. It's also beyond egregious to suggest that awarding Purple Hearts to soldiers who were attacked by an enemy of the United States damages the integrity of the award is another slap in the face to Hasan's victims.
Soon thereafter...
The proposed bill alters the long established Purple Heart award criterion contained in Executive Order 11016.
This is perhaps the clearest example of why it was wrong for the George W. Bush administration to identify "terror" as the enemy. A consequence of that decision is that our own soldiers, who are wounded or killed by a member of the enemy don't qualify for Purple Hearts.
As for the criteria for being awarded the Purple Heart...
The criteria have since been modified to include those wounded or killed as the result of being held as a prisoner of war or from an international terrorist attack as determined by the Secretary of the department concerned. This “international” distinction is important because US military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign – not domestic – forces or threats.
Uh, what if the unidentified foreign enemy makes it onto U.S. soil and infiltrates our largest Army post? Oh, yeah, that's right. The enemy is unidentified so there's no need to train or equip military personnel for such threats. Besides, there's no Purple Heart for doing so anyway.
Besides, was that an admission by the DOD that our military is not trained or equipped to defend the homeland against attack from within?
Now, how about the reason why the DOD doesn't want Hasan's victims to be awarded Purple Hearts?
The Army objects to section 552 because it would undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial. This provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist, on what is now the eve of trial.
The murder of 14 and injuring of 32 happened almost three and a half years ago and we're still on "the eve of the trial"?
What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that our response to 9/11 was bungled? The (unidentified) enemy of the U.S. (Hasan) must have a fair trial and in order for that to happen, our soldiers (his victims) must be denied the honor of a Purple Heart?!
The DOD torpedoes its own credibility at the end of the document:
The Government has vigilantly tended to the needs of the victims and their families since the tragic events of November 5, 2009. The Government – as much if not more than other interested parties – very much desires emotional closure for victims and families. Purple Heart legislation, in advance of a finding of guilt or an acquittal, is not the answer to address these most sensitive concerns.
That excerpt directly contradicts the sentiment of one of Hasan's victims.
In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.
"Betrayed is a good word," said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they've been neglected."
There was no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.
So who's telling the truth, DOD or Munley?
