Your take on the King hearings...

[phrodeau]

Now, for those of us who don't get our marching orders from the NY Times and The New Republic:


Niall O'Dowd
http://www.irishcentral.com/story/n...-king-over-ira-links-will-fail-105846888.html

Well, that sure throws a shoe into your outrage about the connection between Bill Ayers and President Obama.

 

[busybody..]

King has bent over backwards to show that he's NOT going after peaceful Muslims in the US. This NEEDS to be done, radical Islam is without a doubt THE BIGGEST threat to the US. 53% of the country and most cops & feds are 100% in favor of these hearings.

I simply cannot comprehend why liberals constantly defend a radical group that wants nothing more than for ANYONE with an opposing view to DIE? I'm speaking of RADICALS, NOT peaceful Muslims. Not to mention they are the WORST human rights violators in the world.

you know whats REALLY funny?

On INTERNAIONALS WOMANS DAY...2 days ago

Egyptian women were out protesting for rights and were BEATEN by EGYPTIAN MEN............and the same day the UN passed a RESOLUTION against ISRAEL vis a vis WOMEN

 

[busybody..]

Department of Justice Statistics Show at Least 80% of All Terror Convictions Involved Islam…


Shockingly, none of the non-Islamic convictions are Christian-related.

(IPT)- More than 80 percent of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11 involve defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda, a review of Department of Justice statistics shows.

Though Muslims represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases DOJ lists.

On Thursday, the House Homeland Security Committee holds its first hearing into radicalization among Muslim Americans. Critics have taken issue with the focus on one religious minority, but the DOJ list shows that radical Islamists are disproportionately involved in terror-related crimes.

Al-Qaida is involved in the largest number of prosecutions, representing 30 percent of the 228 terror cases involving an identified group. Hizballah-affiliated defendants are involved in 10.5 percent of the cases and Hamas is part of 9 percent. Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Tayyiba was involved in 6.5 percent of the cases.

The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and the Colombian FARC lead the non-Islamist terrorist groups, combining for 14 percent of the total.

 

[busybody..]

Flashback: Keith Ellison Wrote That the Constitution is Evidence of a Racist Conspiracy…


Ellison is testifying today at King’s Muslim radicalization hearings, how unbelievably awesome would it be if he was forced to answer questions about statements like this and his previous support for NOI Leader Louis Farrakhan?

(PJ Tatler)- With Rep. Peter King’s hearing on the threat of radical Islam set to begin today, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has been in the news. Congress’ only Muslim member, Ellison will testify in today’s hearing and has vocally criticized its intent and purpose.

But Ellison’s past as an apologist for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan deserves more scrutiny than it has gotten. Writing for a college newspaper,The Minnesota Daily, on November 27, 1989, Ellison wrote an article defending Farrakhan from critics. That article is not posted online but the Tatler has obtained the article in its entirety. Writing under the name Keith Hakim, Ellison wrote the following to defend Farrakhan and the NoI against charges that he and his organization are racist. Ellison/Hakim first establishes his own definition of racism, then makes the very incendiary charge that “their Constitution” is racist.

Racism means conspiracy to subjugate and actual subjugation. That means planned social, economic, military, religious and political subjugation of whites. It cannot be intelligently argued that the Nation of Islam is doing this. In fact, blacks have no history of harming or subjecting whites as a class. On the other hand, whites have it written into their very Constitution that blacks shall be considered three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation of their white owners. Their Constitution also makes provision for the return of runaway slaves. Their constitution [sic] is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples. (emphasis added)

 

[busybody..]

Doesnt This Show Hearings Are Needed?

Top Dem Rep Bennie Thompson Says King Hearings on Radical Islam Could Inspire Suicide Bombers…


Mind-numbing stupidity. They have the Koran, nothing else is needed.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee says Thursday’s hearing on Islamic radicalism could be used by terrorists to inspire a new generation of suicide bombers.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi says in prepared remarks that Congress has a responsibility to make sure its words do not make problems worse.

Spectators packed the Capitol Hill hearing room and organizers were planning an overflow room to accommodate people clamoring to witness a hearing that inspired days of protests. New York Republican Rep. Peter King says the focus on the Islamic community is appropriate because Islamic terrorism is the primary threat facing the U.S

 

[busybody..]

Vomit Alert: Ellison Cries During King Hearings on Radical Islam

…
I have to wonder, does Ellison weep for the Muslim victims of al-Qaeda who are blown up on a daily basis in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Chechnya, etc.?


Maybe I’m being overly cynical but I can’t help believing Ellison is doing this for the cameras to gain sympathy.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

My take on the King hearings is that I simply don't know what he hopes they accomplish.

Approximately 99% of the Islam religion falls within two denominations, Sunni and Shia. Why would anyone be surprised that some unknown number of the 2.5 million American Muslims subscribe to the more radical teachings of the Koran?

We live in a country that tolerates, if not celebrates, the freedom to think, speak and advocate the most bizarre and hateful ideas including the very destruction of the country that invites the airing of those ideas. If King's hearings identify a population of radicalized American Muslims that is larger or smaller or about the same as one would expect, how would or should that change our commitment to religious freedom?

Since the wake up call of 9/11, the FBI and the nation's intelligence agencies have reorganized themselves and have worked tirelessly to keep us from harm. Sometimes they have been more lucky than good.

But I would be extremely surprised if the King hearings unveiled any great trend that the FBI is unaware of.

So what's the point?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Peter King emulates the Vettebigot!

Bigoted Congressbigot Peter King goes "full Vetteman" today, strenuously denying that he said America has too many mosques, right after video emerges of him saying that America has too many mosques. Link to Video.

Gimme a "D"!
Gimme a "E"!
Gimme a "R"!
Gimme a "P"!

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Maybe the point is to seek out and expose for the American people a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the administration to seek out and investigate radical Islam in America, to expose and understand how badly the political correctness guiding our various government institutions has undermined our national security, and endangered the lives of ordinary Americans.

The problem with political correctness is not so much that it exists as it is that some people place a value on it far in excess of the legitimate self-interest of society at large. For those people, you cannot expose enough evidence of national security threats greater than their ability to either pretend the evidence is faulty or exaggerated or to elevate their delusions of nobility to being of superior value even if the evidence is true. It started before the first gavel to open the hearings.

I fear the hearings will generate far more heat than light on both sides. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The problem with political correctness is not so much that it exists as it is that some people place a value on it far in excess of the legitimate self-interest of society at large. For those people, you cannot expose enough evidence of national security threats greater than their ability to either pretend the evidence is faulty or exaggerated or to elevate their delusions of nobility to being of superior value even if the evidence is true. It started before the first gavel to open the hearings.

I fear the hearings will generate far more heat than light on both sides. I hope I'm wrong.

Political correctness isn't the cause of anything. It's a vapid by-product of our national allergy to nuance.

So is accusing people of political correctness, by the way. That's a stand-in for "touchy-feely Democrats getting in the way of law and order," another dumb unnuanced bit of monkey Tourette's.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Me too. Incidentally the Army is in the process of disciplining nine officers it feels should have flagged the Ft Hood Killer at various points in his career, but I suspect that without putting people under oath and asking them to answer, we'll never know whether or not it was institutional political correctness that prevented the proper management of Major Hasan's career.

I think Army Chief of Staff Casey's quote on the risk of diversity becoming a casualty being a greater tragedy than the shootings themselves, pretty effectively argues for the PC component you've identified. I'd sure like to more about any directions given by the chain of command above the nine that are being singled out.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Political correctness isn't the cause of anything. It's a vapid by-product of our national allergy to nuance.

So is accusing people of political correctness, by the way. That's a stand-in for "touchy-feely Democrats getting in the way of law and order," another dumb unnuanced bit of monkey Tourette's.

So how would you suggest we deal with it when confronted by......uh, allergy sufferers?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sonny Limatina]

It's real, you are naive.

Dear Exhibit A:

Sonny didn't say it wasn't real.

Sincerely yours,
Irony

 

[Sonny Limatina]

So how would you suggest we deal with it when confronted by......uh, allergy sufferers?

I don't know. If you really pushed me, I could tie it all to fear of litigation. If that's what it is--and I'm not saying I'm correct, but I am--then nuance is not in the litigationaphobic's best interest. He'd want to avoid anything that got him in the same hemisphere as anything offensive, let alone the neighborhood.

It's the same as the right building a brand on strength and Amurkin fortitude. Thinking is for sissies. If you express nuance, you destroy the brand. So it's best to speak in declarative sentences and let the limp Democrats worry about whose feelings are hurt. (See our friend Exhibit A.)

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I don't know. If you really pushed me, I could tie it all to fear of litigation. If that's what it is--and I'm not saying I'm correct, but I am--then nuance is not in the litigationaphobic's best interest. He'd want to avoid anything that got him in the same hemisphere as anything offensive, let alone the neighborhood.

It's the same as the right building a brand on strength and Amurkin fortitude. Thinking is for sissies. If you express nuance, you destroy the brand. So it's best to speak in declarative sentences and let the limp Democrats worry about whose feelings are hurt. (See our friend Exhibit A.)

I believe PC comes in many sizes and flavors. The "litigationphobic" is definitely one of those. I've often described the role of corporate legal counsel as being one who admonishes his client never to exceed 45 mph in a 50 mph zone. And how much am I paying you for that advice?

But another characteristic of political correctness is not so much the fear of litigation specifically, as it is an attempt to fashion a guarantee out of a world that is often cruelly random and capricious.

My concern was your accusation that my accusation to someone who I felt was being "nuance averse" was it's own form of PC. Well, gee, if rule #1 is that I can't hold up the mirror.....?

There is a whole undercurrent before discussion begins that feels uncomfortably as if a presumption exists that blacks can't be racist and women can't be sexist just to pick two concepts out of the air.

I'm sure that didn't sound very nuanced, but my point is that I feel from the get-go that if I hope to make a case against either of those propositions, then I had better have a far greater serving of nuance at the ready than I am going to find in the standard 8 oz. jar.

That's my main beef about PC. Like the deist who bristles at the idea of confronting the contradictions of his faith, PC attempts to take refuge in its own benevolent intent.

Surely there is no greater dangerous lack of nuance than that.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I believe PC comes in many sizes and flavors. The "litigationphobic" is definitely one of those. I've often described the role of corporate legal counsel as being one who admonishes his client never to exceed 45 mph in a 50 mph zone. And how much am I paying you for that advice?

But another characteristic of political correctness is not so much the fear of litigation specifically, as it is an attempt to fashion a guarantee out of a world that is often cruelly random and capricious.

My concern was your accusation that my accusation to someone who I felt was being "nuance averse" was it's own form of PC. Well, gee, if rule #1 is that I can't hold up the mirror.....?

There is a whole undercurrent before discussion begins that feels uncomfortably as if a presumption exists that blacks can't be racist and women can't be sexist just to pick two concepts out of the air.

I'm sure that didn't sound very nuanced, but my point is that I feel from the get-go that if I hope to make a case against either of those propositions, then I had better have a far greater serving of nuance at the ready than I am going to find in the standard 8 oz. jar.

That's my main beef about PC. Like the deist who bristles at the idea of confronting the contradictions of his faith, PC attempts to take refuge in its own benevolent intent.

Surely there is no greater dangerous lack of nuance than that.

Col, I may not have read back far enough, but I thought the "politically correct" charge came from Vetteman. In my experience, that charge is almost always used with the same dull lack of nuance that plagues political correctness itself.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Col, I may not have read back far enough, but I thought the "politically correct" charge came from Vetteman. In my experience, that charge is almost always used with the same dull lack of nuance that plagues political correctness itself.

Well, if nothing else, you've provided me with another opportunity to focus my thoughts, and while I agree that attacks on political correctness can often be characterized by the same lack of nuance as PC itself, I think what unnerves me is that extra effort I have to bring to the discussion at the outset in order in order to pierce that protective mantle of benevolent intent.

Nurse Ratchett wears white and has the keys to the ward. I'm just in here for a 30-day eval. I don't like my chances.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Well, if nothing else, you've provided me with another opportunity to focus my thoughts, and while I agree that attacks on political correctness can often be characterized by the same lack of nuance as PC itself, I think what unnerves me is that extra effort I have to bring to the discussion at the outset in order in order to pierce that protective mantle of benevolent intent.

Nurse Ratchett wears white and has the keys to the ward. I'm just in here for a 30-day eval. I don't like my chances.

This is a much bigger discussion, but to some extent, that's the price you (we) pay for the centuries of shit we've poured over blacks, women, and whoever else threatened our perch on top of the food chain, and boohoo poor inconvenienced you. You should think twice: racism is pernicious. You (we) might be forming opinions based on biases you didn't even know you had, and I wish more people thought critically about race and gender in our country.

Having said that...political correctness is not about controlling the first thought ("Muslims scare me on planes") or the second thought ("Maybe that's a crazy way to think"). It's about controlling the wrong third thought. It presupposes one correct conclusion. That's unnuanced and dumb. It's that third thought that might be bugging you the most: that if you conclude the unpopular analysis, you'll be labeled and dismissed.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The "fact" you continue to conveniently overlook is Peter King's support of the I.R.A.

Who knew that there were "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists"?

Should I then begin calling Bill and Hillary the leaders of the modern American-Irish "terrorist" movement?

"King played an absolutely huge role in getting the Clinton White House involved in the Irish peace negotiations and he never shirked the hard task of making Sinn Féin completely aware of what America needed from them."

Link above...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Well, that sure throws a shoe into your outrage about the connection between Bill Ayers and President Obama.

The only outrage I feel towards that connection is the cover-up by his allies in the "impartial" and "unbiased" media...
__________________
"As the 20th century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact."
Michael Crichton, 2003 lecture at Caltech "Aliens Cause Global Warming."