Congressman Tim Scott, a Black Republican representing South Carolina has not joined the CBC.

To his credit, CBC chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) says Allen “is no different from any other member.” Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) said West “is not like what I’ve read – He and I have developed a rapport.” Source.

Some members are concerned about his pro-gun stance, especially when he suggested they learn about the “carry” laws in their state, and carry a weapon with them rather than hiring security. He also has expressed concern about Muslim

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and their support of terrorist group, Hamas.

In the video below, hear Allen West answer a Marine’s question about Islamic terrorism, after the whole panel has dodged it. He says there is “no perversion” of Islam. They are doing exactly what the “Book” [Koran] says. West will be a strong protector of America. Thank you Father, Amen.

Crystal Wright, writing at  HipHop Republican has more here and you can read this Black conservative woman’s website here.

If you have missed Ret. Lt. Col. Allen West’s amazing life story, you can read it here.

View his CPAC 2011 video here.

And,  It’s not about enslaving your spirt, it’s about empowering your spirit – video.

Posted by Maggie@MaggiesNotebook

Apparently there is an awful lot of “anti-Muslim hate” going on in this post 9/11 America. At least that’s what the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gravely tells us each and every day.

Just look at all this anti-Islamic bigotry going on out there:

In May, CAIR demanded that the GOP refudiate all that “racist,” anti-Muslim hatred a’goin’ on out there. (OK, they said “repudiate,” but, well, you know) In July CAIR demanded that the FBI explain why it dared to hire terror expert Robert Spencer to advise it on matters of terrorism. In October CAIR — a group that exists to find anti-Islamic bigotry under every rock — was surprised to find in a study it created that there is an awful lot of anti-Islamic animosity going on in the U.S.A. today. Mere days ago CAIR was furious that Muslims were getting “hate messages” in Oklahoma.

Why, it’s a sure thing that Muslims are being attacked by evil Americans from coast to coast… right? I mean, CAIR couldn’t just be blowing smoke up our collective… nation, could it?

It’s so bad here that Muslims in America even assembled a bunch of useful idiots from other religious communities to gather together to denounce all the anti-Islamic hate going on around us. Certainly with all this we must agree that there has to be all sorts of crimes against Muslims in the U.S.A., right?

But is that true? Is CAIR and its sycophants correct that hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise in America today? As it turns out CAIR’s claims are little else but self-serving nonsense, indeed.

To prove that CAIR is full of it we can point once again to the FBI’s statistics on hate crimes, as I’ve done in past articles (just last month, for instance). The 2009 hate crime statistics just released by the FBI puts a big dent in CAIR’s histrionics.

Now, the FBI reports crimes as reported, not crimes as proven with perpetrators convicted and in all of 2009 the FBI found a whopping total of 107 hate crimes against Muslims reported.

That’s right 107.

Now, if there was so much hate against Muslims going on in America, how does CAIR explain this low, low number of actual hate crimes against them? In light of the FBI’s stats it is hard to take CAIR’s claim seriously. If hatred against Muslims was so wide spread in the U.S., why is there no corresponding rise in hate crime statistics? And the 2009 report isn’t an outlier year, either. In 2008 (see table 1) we find an equally whopping 105 anti-Muslim hate crimes reported.

There is no way to escape the conclusion that there really isn’t much anti-Islamic hate crime in the U.S. even after 9/11. In fact, there is many times more anti-Jewish hate crime happening in the U.S. than anti-Muslim hate crime. The FBI notes 931 hate crimes against Jews in 2009, for instance.

There is another inescapable conclusion we can make, here, too. CAIR is pushing an agenda and that agenda is built on misrepresenting the climate of tolerance in America today.

The ACLU said, “[During] the new standard pat-down, a screener of the same sex will examine your head, shirt collar area, and waistband, and may use either the front or back of his or her hands to feel your body, including buttocks, around breasts, and between the legs, feeling up to the top of the thigh. Women in tight skirts that don’t allow an agent to feel the thigh area may be asked to remove the skirt in a private screening area and will be given a gown or towel to put on.”

If you search the ACLU website, there is zip. Nada. Zilch. Nor any complaints from the national ACLU in the news about people getting groped and abused. A few State ACLU chapters have chimed in, but, they don’t seem all that concerned, either. And, yes, flying is a privilege, not a right, as the saying goes, yet, we do still have a 4th Amendment, and the people doing this stop and gropes are federal employees, with all the power and none of the responsibility. Were they a private business doing the security, one would think that the airlines would have slapped those who go overboard down, as well as adjusted the written procedures.

Now, if you’ve had problems, let the ACLU know. Because, apparently, none of them actually watch or read the news in this era of 24 hour cable news channels and easily accessible news on the ‘Net.

Fortunately, they are concerned with

• Now’s the Time to Hold President Bush Accountable for Torture
• ACLU Letter to the House Opposing H.R. 5566, the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010
• Join Us for a “Fair Game” Screening in NYC Next Week!
• ACLU Says Lawsuit Charging Wal-Mart With Wrongfully Firing Medical Marijuana Patient Should Proceed

Back to the original article the quote came from, the writer makes an excellent point

After telling your child for years to not let anyone touch them, you’ll now have to add an addendum … unless it’s a TSA employee.

Meanwhile, Janet Napolitano appears to be about to cave to CAIR

“On the pat downs, CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] has recommended that Muslim women wearing hijabs refuse to go through the full body pat downs before boarding planes,” CNSNews.com asked Napolitano at a Monday press conference. “Will you insist that they do go through full body pat downs before boarding planes?”

“Look, we have, like I said before, we are doing what we need to do to protect the traveling public and adjustments will be made where they need to be made,” Napolitano responded. “With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come. But, again, the goal here, you know, we’re not doing this just to do it. We’re doing it because we need to keep powders and gels and liquids off of planes that are unauthorized just as we need to keep metals off of planes.

CAIR has put out their own little primer for jihadis, er, Muslims, to go through security. Anyone want to bet that the TSA quietly changes their rules to accommodate the folks that we are most concerned with, you know, the members of a religion involved in the vast majority of airplane hijackings?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. sit back and Relax. we’ll dRive!

“I spoke hastily and I apologize to Juan and others for my thoughtless remark.”
That follows, as you’ll see below, her comment earlier today that now-former NPR news analyst Juan Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and “his psychiatrist or his publicist.”

By politically incorrect opinion, I mean an opinion outside their brainwashed narrative. What was so offensive it deserved canning him? Well, he gets nervous when Muslims board a plane. I mean, it’s not like all the 911 hijackers were Muslims or something. Oh wait….

The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.

NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”

In my opinion they were obviously looking for a reason to fire him. Why not fire him for having legitimate human emotional reactions? They also didn’t bother listening to the entire segment in question to include context where he made sure to discuss the importance of distinguishing between practical and radical Muslims. Right Scoop has the full segment so you can get full context.Here is a roundup of reactions:

Ed Morrissey:

But then again, Williams was arguing for tolerance, and that apparently violates NPR’s “editorial standards and practices.” Clearly, NPR only wants opinion journalists that agree with the opinions of NPR, and I mean totally agree. An NPR opinion journalist had better not admit to having a normal human reaction about potential for terrorism nine years after 3,000 Americans got killed by radical Muslims on commercial air flights, or else. The rest of NPR’s cast just got an object lesson about the range of opinion tolerated by management.
But, hey, that’s NPR’s prerogative. After all, it’s not as if they’re government sponsored in any way. Oh, wait …

Michelle Malkin:

As I’ve said many times before: Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror.
Condolences to Juan Williams, whom I’ve debated –vigorously, but always with respect and cordiality — many times over the years.
Hope this accelerates his journey on the ideological learning curve. And I hope he doesn’t back down. …
Worth noting: NPR affiliate employee Sarah Spitz at public radio station KCRW wishes death on Rush Limbaugh…not a firing offense.

Angry White Guy:

Sucks when you fall victim to the same political correctness BS that you have inflicted time and time again and the conservatives and Tea Partier’s have condemned. I think we call it karma. NPR was wrong to fire Williams and rarely does Williams say anything I agree with, but he has a constitutional right to say it and I’d guess that most Americans give anyone on a plane dress in Muslim garb a second look. I know I would and it has nothing to do with racism… it has everything to do with historical facts that nearly every terrorist attack has been carried out by Muslims.

Jimmy Bise:

Did NPR fire Williams because of what he said or because of who he said it to? If Williams had gone on whatever passes for a news program on an NPR station, or fought his way through the cobwebs and sat down with radio-corpse Diane Rehm, there is no doubt that whatever he said would have met with some sort of rebuttal, after which Williams could have made his apologies and recited the standard boilerplate about “extremists” in Islam. However, in front of Bill O’Reilly no such admonishment would ever take place. In fact, O’Reilly would likely agree with him and who knows if that meeting of right and left minds on the matter wouldn’t have served as the long-dreaded Bat Signal that would light up the sky and signal us crazed Tea Partiers to begin our pogrom against everything even remotely Muslim.

So perhaps Williams was cashiered not for his comments, but for the venue in which he chose to haltingly air them.

Jawa:

OK, I see. NPR’s policy seems to be if you don’t have your nose up Steve Inskeep’s a$$ and agree with his obvious anti-war, America sucks narrative you’re out. Truth be damned.

Redstate:

For reference, NPR recently ran a segment on how to speak “tea bagger”.

All Juan Williams did is say both exactly how he feels and how many, many other Americans feel on this subject.

The man’s body of work makes clear he is no bigot. But we sure can’t offend muslims can we?

This is disgusting. But then the official state run media cannot have anyone expressing anything that might reflect what actual Americans think regarding Islamofascists because there is officially no such thing according to the Obama Administration.

I would encourage you to go here and tell the NPR Ombudsman what you think considering NPR is perfectly willing to teach you how to speak tea bagger, but cannot let one of its contributors express his feelings on Islam and terrorism.

PJ Salvatore wants to know when we can stop pretending NPR is serious radio and pull the plug on public funding. It’s past time if you ask me. Ugggghhh! Of course CAIR wants their hands in this pot.

Rottweiller has a thought experiment:

A thought experiment: Imagine that, out of the blue, a string of murders are committed in your city and the perp or perps were all seen to be wearing fedoras. Would you become apprehensive if a guy in a fedora walked into the mall while you were out shopping?

If not, you’re terminally stupid in a very literal sense.

The truly retarded thing is that we’re sure the Commissars who put Juan on the chopping block feel exactly the same way when they see somebody looking like a muslim boarding their plane, so it’s not the reaction that is the firing offense, it’s the mere mention that you have it.

Ed Driscoll and the Anchoress both have great roundups.

The Anchoress gives this wisdom:

It seems like In America, we are no longer supposed to harbor doubts about anything. We’re either supposed to pretend that there is no reason to ever, ever, ever worry that someone dressed in Islamic garb might want to hijack our plane into a building (for to believe otherwise would immediately render us “bigots”) or we’re supposed to pretend that there is every reason to suspect everybody.

The truth–as usual–lies between those two false extremes.

With the shocking report by Christine Brim revealing that the folks involved in planning the Ground Zero Mosque are heading a major push to get Shariah law forced upon the United States, one has to wonder why this startling fact has not become the talk of the town among the Old Media and the chattering classes? One would think that this news would be a final nail [in] the coffin of legitimacy that this GZ Mosque plan ever had.

Brim asked an interesting question about the Ground Zero Mosque building’s actual blueprints. What are the six currently unassigned floors going to be dedicated to? Brim found that nine of the 15 floors seemed to have been assigned to some purpose or another but six have not been identified as going to any particular purpose. As Brim says, that’s an awful lot of empty office space.

To answer her curiosity, Brim began to research the website of mosque planners Cordoba Initiative. What she found there should shock us all. There she found that the head of the project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been involved in a series of conferences to push Sharia law throughout the world.

Brim found segments of the Cordoba Website that have recently been scrubbed, segments that show that Rauf is a participant in pushing radical Sharia law on the United States and other western countries through an effort called the Shariah Index Project. The goal section of this scrubbed part of the Cordoba Initiative’s website announced that it intended to “define, interpret and implement the concept of the Islamic State in modern times.”

This news should be enough to discredit [and shut down] the entire Ground Zero Mosque project forever. There is no worse aspect of Islam than the abusive, oppressive, practically stoneaged thinking of Shariah law. It is Shariah law that approves of murdering children in so-called “honor killings,” it is Shariah law that metes out punishments such as amputations of limbs for theft or stoning for being gay or having an affair. It is Shariah law that makes it impossible for a woman to prosecute her rapist.

In fact, the implementation of harsh Sharia laws was a major contributing factor in America’s decision to go to war against the Taliban. The depictions of the stoning of young women, the “laws” against music and dance, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, all this added to America’s disdain of the Taliban. After all, the evils of Shariah law oppresses women, minorities, and eliminates even the smallest chance at religious freedom.

Yet here is this Imam who is cynically going about preaching to America that we are [not] being intolerant of his religion not to allow his Ground Zero Mosque, a project that even other Muslims now say is little else but gloating about the “success” of 9/11, being involved in an effort to push the single most intolerant, oppressive set of so-called laws currently leveled against humanity. He calls us intolerant yet wants to force us all to this backwards, hateful mockery of law!

The news that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a pusher of this anti-American agenda should be enough to thoroughly discredit his claims of desiring religious tolerance in America. Yet this news is being ignored. One has to wonder why that is?

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Muslims “have to build” it there.

“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

“In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer,” he said on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC.

And this is the way that hardcore Islamist spread their version of Islam. You know, the version that Mohammed and the Koran tells them to practice. The type that leads to an Afghan couple being stoned to death over a love affair.

“We have to build the mosque, as you are allowed to build the church and Israelis are building their holy places.”

Hey, Mahmoud, what say we build a church and synagogue in Mecca? Medina? How about allowing some space at the Temple Mount? What’s that? Your answer is “NO!”? Weird.

“First of all, we have to address that we are different as people, as a nation, totally different,” he said.

“We already are living under the tradition of Islam.

“Islam is controlling every source of our life as regard to marriage, divorce, our commercial relationships,” Zahar said.

Sharia law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a big supporter of Sharia law. Of course, Rauf refused to comment on Hamas stating unequivocally that the mosque (notice, al-Zahar did not say “cultural center”) should be built.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

Rush Limbaugh and a few other radio hosts have made it a center piece of the attack against President Obama, the Tea Partiers have often put such sentiment on their protest signs, and the conservative chattering classes have been abuzz with the question: does Barack Obama want to destroy the United States?

The only real answer is “yes, but…” Yes he does, but only if it’s your ox being gored. Yes he does but there is more to it than that. And if it’s someone else’s veritable Oxen the answer might still be “yes, but…”

Conservative radio host Michael Medved, for one, emphatically denies that Obama wants to “destroy the country.” Medved employs the conventional logic that a politician that wants to be re-elected would not want to destroy the very nation that he has been elected to lead. That would make sense if only Obama were a conventional politician and if only Obama himself hadn’t told ABC News, “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” That very sentence straight from this president’s own mouth seems to shoot full of holes Medved’s conventional logic.

Still, in a way, Medved has stumbled upon a certain amount of truth no matter how small. The problem is that what we really have here is a misunderstanding of concepts. The fact is, following his straight down the line, left-wing, anti-American, radical ideology, Obama does want to destroy the U.S.A. as it is now. But in his mind he is not trying to destroy America simply because he wants utter destruction and devastation to be the only outcome. You see, mere destruction isn’t his end goal as those on the right fear. In his left-wing ideology, he thinks after America’s fall he and his left-wing comrades will be building a new and better U.S.A. Where real Americans see destruction and the end of everything, the leftists see a re-birth to a better and, in their eyes, more moral America. He and his left-wing friends see the U.S. as a Phoenix rising from the ashes of the bad old days.

Herein lies the problem. Where conservatives see only the end, liberals see the end and then a brand new beginning. Certainly the liberals are completely wrong in their contention that what they are doing will bring a glorious re-birth, but the truth is that they certainly don’t think that they are ending the U.S. on a permanent basis nor is it their intention. Liberals are not in the game to be “evil.” They think they are doing what is right.

Liberals think that the U.S. is arrogant and needs to be taken down a notch or three. Liberals think that U.S. history is filled with nothing but evil and any attacks on the U.S. are richly deserved. Liberals think that the U.S. was founded by evil, selfish, hateful white men who were only interested in their own power and didn’t want to empower others. So, liberals want the founders’ memory eviscerated. Liberals think that our capitalist system needs to be eliminated. In short, liberals value nothing about the U.S. except its tradition of self-actuation, liberty, and its freedom to re-make itself and they want to use that capacity to erase everything that makes the U.S.A. the U.S.A. Once that is done they want to build a U.S. to their own liking using the very freedoms they used to lay her low.

This is the aim of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, Moveon.org, the Center for American Progress, Media Matters and other such extremist left-wing organizations. Even CAIR attempts to use America’s freedoms as a weapon against her.

But, again, these liberals think they are doing a good thing. The problem is that they are utterly wrong. If this country treads the left-wing path, the U.S. will not emerge a winner. It will be laid low just like the left wants, but it will not rise again. The left’s prescriptions will lead to our becoming a third world nation. And yet there is no doubt they really imagine they are doing good.

Like Medved, New York Times columnist David Brooks cannot understand this whole political reality. Brooks thinks that Obama and Democrats only tried too many things at once and that is why so many Americans are rising up against them. Apparently it was just an accident of scope, nothing but an act of overreach that frightened the voters. Otherwise, he sees the Democrats and Obama as your average, everyday American pols. He doesn’t see a radical, destroy-America agenda in their efforts. In fact, he ridiculously seems to think that it is the right that somehow wants to destroy the country with a “government war” agenda — a battle against all government. So, he sees both sides as in the wrong and his “centrist” position as the correct path.

What he simply can’t understand is that conservatives are not wholly anti-government. They are all about the right amount of government, government when and where it is most needed and efficacious has always been the American right’s goal.

In fact it is liberals that have used government to destroy America. Liberals have used the courts to destroy religion. Liberals have used the schools to preach against American history. Liberals have used government to weaken economies and create a culture of dependence. Conservatives have not used government to do anything of the kind. In fact, even in the bad old days it was Democrats that tried to use government as a weapon against those that it wanted to keep down.

This is the culture from which Obama and the largest number of his party come. They see government and our freedoms as the perfect weapon with which to destroy what once was in order to make America into what they want it to be and it’s an America that is radically different from what it always has been, what it was meant to be.

Yes, ordinary politicians wouldn’t want to destroy the country they were elected to lead and yes, ordinary pols would want to make sure they win the next election. But leftists like Obama think that they have this one small window to make the radical changes to this nation according to their ideological plan. Remember how they voted in Obamacare when the great majority disliked the policies? Remember how Democrats said we’d learn to like Obamacare anyway? This means that they don’t care if they lose elections in the short term. It is the obliteration of the old to be replaced by their new “improved” U.S.A. that is their actual goal, not anything as mundane as winning elections. They have a grand plan here, not just an simple election.

So, in everything that really matters, Michael Medved is wrong. Obama does want to destroy the U.S.A. That Obama thinks his left-wing ideas will later bring a rebirth is meaningless when reviewing the consequences of his “cure” for what he thinks ails America, a cure that will surely kill the patient.

(Originally posted at BigGovernment.com)

Keith Ellison, who is also Keith Hakim, is the first Muslim to be sent to Congress from any state, and the first to be sworn on the Koran. He is an attorney, a Democrat and an Black convert to Islam. He was raised Roman Catholic in Detroit and is a supporter of the Nation of Islam’s leader, Louis Farrakhan (aka Louis Eugene Walcott).

Ellison is a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Nihad Awad, the head of CAIR and James Yee, a Muslim Guantanamo cleric were featured speakers at Ellison’s Congressional fundraiser.

The fact that the FBI has broken all ties with CAIR, saying CAIR is not “an appropriate liasion partner,” should be enough to divert Keith Ellison’s affection for the organization. This report quotes an FBI assistant director, Richard C. Powers, saying the FBI is unsure whether the relationship between CAIR and Hamas ever was severed. So, with all of CAIR’s presence on Capitol Hill, with their mammoth media blitzs and lobbying efforts, with their denial of terrorist ties, the FBI cannot support their claims…yet CAIR continues to walk the halls of Congress…and Keith Ellison continues to support the organization.

Okay, there are two women committed to running against Keith Ellison (aka Keith Hakim) in Minnesota. I’m a conservative, and so I am interested in the candidacy of Barb Davis White, but assuming this is a very blue district, I’m also interested in Lynne Torgerson, a Democrat – because neither of these women are Muslim. One of them must unseat Ellison.

Republican Barb Davis White is 49-years-old and single. She lost to Keith Ellison in record numbers according to the The Minnesota Independent, but she will “give it another go in 2010.” White is Black and an evangelical minister. In the video below you’ll hear her speak of the total lack of coverage of her previous run against Ellison  saying it was virtually impossible to get reporting on her candidacy:

A staunch conservative in the state’s most progressive district, White has burnished her credentials this year through involvement with the local Tea Party movement. “I want to be listed as a Christian and a patriotic right-wing conservative American,” she told Tea Partiers in April.

The online news source linked above said Davis has had ongoing difficulty with her FEC filings. No detail was given. In the video below, you’ll see that she is a dynamic speaker and a plain talker. Find White on Facebook here.

Minnesota’s 5th District is 73.5% White, 12.9% Black, 6.0% Hispanic, 5.2% Asian, 1.6%Native American and 3.2% other. She was recently chosen for the Frederick Douglass 2010 Freedom Calendar.

Before saying more about Torgerson, this is my disclaimer. She is not Muslim, she will not support CAIR or raise money for CAIR, and likewise, CAIR will not raise funds for Torgerson. This should give the good people of the 11th District of Minnesota pause to rethink their vote. Islamic faith cannot abide peacefully within the halls of Congress.

The Huffington Post reports “the growth of anti-Muslim sentiment in Minnesota.” That’s a good thing, in my opinion. Here’s a quote from Holger at Holger Awakens in August 2008 in a post about Somali immigrants, the tuberculosis they brought with them and their habit of never, with one exception, integrating into society:

…the one documented act of assimilation into Minnesota society by the Somalis was in 2006 when they massed at the voting precincts in Minneapolis to cast their votes. And who did they help elect? The mouthpiece for the Nation of Islam, Keith Ellison.

According to Lynne Torgerson’s website, she believe that life begins at conception:

She wants a strong Homeland Security, and goes wobbly when she talks about animals and being “green on the environment.” We are all “green” on the environment – but we differ on the measures necessary to keep the environment green.

Torgerson is for a health care public option, but does not want to eliminate the private sector (naive at best), she supports the Second Amendment and is a gun owner, seems to be strong on immigration control (although she wanders a bit as she tries to express her thoughts), she supports Israel, and wants to stop Iran’s nuclear aggression. Torgerson wants to “eliminate our dependence…on foreign oil,” wants to develop clean energy, keep jobs in America, and she opposes the auto bailout.

When it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, Torgerson says that freedom of religion does not include criminal behavior in the name of religion. This gets her to Islam:

Torgerson cites Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Infidel and the proof of “repugnant” behavior which is contrary to the First Amendment. She asks and answers “what else do I know of Islam.” This strikes me as an earnest question made by a woman sincerely concerned about the threat of Islam and trying to be “real” about it.

I’ll say it again, she is a Democrat who is not Muslim, she will not support CAIR, will not raise funds for CAIR and CAIR will not raise funds for her. Find Torgerson on Facebook here.

Barb Davis White Challenges Keith Ellison in 2010 (video)

Christmas. Who needs it? Not Best Buy, that’s for sure. After all, Best Buy is loathe to use that hateful word in its advertising. It’s so “religious” and tinged with racism, America, and tradition. It makes Best Buy shudder to think of using that foul word, Christmas. But, advertising for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha? Heck, why not? What could be more welcoming and tolerant?

And so, Best Buy has issued a Thanksgiving sales flyer wishing all good multi-cultural, Muslim loving Americans a happy Eid al-Adha this year.

Don’t you feel your heart warming already? Isn’t your PC bone tingling with happiness? And aren’t you secretly gleeful that those rotten, evil, reactionary, hatemongering Christians are getting theirs… even if Christians do make up about 75 percent of the United States?

Well, let’s give Best Buy a hand for its politically correct sales flier excising that horrid Christmas nonsense and being enlightened enough to help us all convert to the “Religion of Peace.”

Thanks be it to Allah and Best Buy for helping us forget little things like the Khobar Tower bombing, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Towers, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, 9/11, or that silly little incident with Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood. It was but a trifle, after all.

In this happy Eid al-Adha season we can thank Best Buy for its sacrifice, too. For its sacrifice of America to its enemies, for the sacrifice of our traditions, religious principles, and culture to an alien, hostile ideology. We can thank Best Buy for helping organizations like CAIR to spread its message of cultural jihad.

Yes, thanks Best Buy for showing us how to be better “Americans.”

Now go ye forward and shop, America. Happy Eid al-Adha to everyone. And don’t let PETA stop you from buying that goat. And don’t mind us, folks. We are just committing cultural suicide is all.

Update: Perspective via Dan Riehlu

CAIR came out with their excuse for Muslim shooter, Nadal Malik Hasan: he is heinous, and Islam condemns his actions. No comment from CAIR spokesman Nihad Awad that the murders may have been committed in the name of Allah. Awad didn’t mention that there is a name for murders committed in the name of Allah – and that name is jihad. CAIR, by the way, is an un-indicted co-conspirator in the war on terror.

This article, written by Cynthia Tucker, supports CAIR’s position. The CAIR press release is here.

While most Americans will no longer buy this, our courts will. While most Americans know that Islam is an ideology with a Koranic mission to eliminate infidels entirely, the government will not even begin to explore that truth. It is a fact that many Muslims who live their lives peacefully, know that others inside the “faith” are committing jihad, and they do nothing to stop it. It is also a fact, that to abolish jihad from the “faith” is to abandon Islam.

Cynthia Tucker says [it] is probably not a “teachable moment from this horror,” and she cautions that the Army must focus more on stress-plagued soldiers.

There were about 7 hours of teachable moments yesterday – for some, those hours will never end – those hours will be the defining moments in their lives. The Army was already investigating Hasan. Tell me what they could have done with him, without cries of discrimination? There is nothing they could do except:

(1) let him out of the Army after paying thousands for his education, and send the message that if you don’t want to go to a war zone, just let us know and we’ll fix it for you, or

(2) deny all promotions and try to keep him quiet in an environment where men and women know they will be on a battlefield fighting the same ideology that Major Hasan believed so intensely in.

How many centuries has this been going on and we still reject that Islam is anything but peaceful?

There has never been a time, anywhere in the world, that Islam was not the aggressor. No, not every Muslim is radical, but can anyone show me one instance, even within the Military, where Muslims personally want to put an end to Islam’s threat to infidels?

We do not know the details of each and every Muslim serving alongside our Military. That’s the problem. What are we asking Muslims to do when deployed to a war zone fighting the war on terror. We are asking Muslims to kill Muslims, knowing that their “faith” teachs that only Muslims can, and should, survive. I know many Muslims are serving this country, but, really, I ask again, will they tell you they want to put an end to Islam’s threat to infidels? Will they?

My predictions:

(1) If Hasan lives, he will go to prison. I’m hearing this afternoon that he is paralyzed, so if he lives he will not go to prison – and no, being paralyzed is not punishment enough.

(2) The soldiers at Ft. Hood will be blamed for harassing Hasan for his religious beliefs. “Stress” will be used to excuse Major Hasan’s actions.

(3) No one can answer how a solider is supposed to react to a man among them, saying that America is the aggressor in Iraq. There is no answer, because every right answer is discrimination.

(4) Most Americas will no longer support the Muslim cries of “discrimination,” but our leaders will. Our troops will continue to serve side-by-side with Muslim soldiers who do not believe in the war on terror and are not fully committed to eradicating jihad.

(5) Fort Hood will happen again, somewhere, in some way.