Herman Cain is the GOP’s 2012 token Islamophobe. When asked if he would be comfortable with “appointing a Muslim either in your cabinet or as a federal judge” Cain gave an emphatic “no” and stated that he “will not” appoint a Muslim to any such position:
He later campaigned against a mosque being built in Tennessee, ironically citing the First Amendment:
“It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion,” he said. “And I don’t agree with what’s happening, because this isn’t an innocent mosque.”
Now Cain is stating that Americans “have a right” to ban mosques that they don’t like:
In an exchange on “Fox News Sunday,” the Republican presidential contender said that he sided with some in a town near Nashville who were trying to prevent Muslims from worshiping in their community.
“All y’all dumb motherf****** don’t even know my opinion on sh**.”
If there was ever a defining moment in the 2010 midterm elections, I would have to argue that it occurred when the statement above was made by a black construction worker who had just passed through a gauntlet of “protesters”. The crowd had assembled in lower Manhattan to express their absolute hatred for Muslims, fueled by years of neoconservative propaganda (though it only seems like a few weeks). The unidentified man, wearing a skin cap, immediately assumed to be a Muslim artifact, made the completely appropriate statement, under the circumstances, when the crowd started directing their vitriol toward him.
Clearly, none of the protesters were interested in knowing his opinion but rather projecting it upon him. Yet, he probably made the most sensible and astute comment they had heard since tuning off Fox News before traveling to New York.
As Lou Dobbs notes, there is a movement, primarily among the Islamic member nations in the United Nations, to pass a binding resolution that would mandate national legislation in sovereign nations making it a crime to offend members of a religion. On the surface, this appears to be a resolution promoting tolerance, but it is obvious that it is aimed squarely at the freedom of speech available in Western nations. Dobbs is joined by Vanity Fair journalist, Christopher Hitchens, to discuss the totalitarian desires of the UN to control thought by eliminating free expression.
Think about it! Four years ago, the Republican Party held the White House and both houses of Congress. Now, the Democrats have won the Presidency by a sizable margin, gained additional seats in the majority Democratic House, and could possibly hold a sixty-vote majority in the Senate—large enough to end any Republican initiated filibuster.
First of all, consider the magnitude of the Republican loss. What support shifted from four years ago?
A few weeks ago, I went to see “An American Carol” with high hopes for an atypical Hollywood film. It reinforced something I have been working on. When you look at the spectrum of topics I have written about, I am difficult to pigeon-hole by the average American. The two-party system forces people to consider politics in a linear manner, one is either a conservative Republican on the “right” or a liberal Democrat on the “left,” with no room for anything else. Interestingly, most Americans are not able to fit their beliefs into one of those two options, but they settle for the side they feel most comfortable with.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) to introduce a resolution calling the government of Iran to act promptly and release all American prisoners who have been incarcerated for their religious beliefs.
The resolution is intended to call the government of Iran to release Saeed Abedini who has been accused of compromising national security over his religious activities. The resolution would also ensure that the U.S. government calls Iran to release any other prisoner whose crimes include conversion from Islam to the Christian faith.
The more that comes out about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the more Americans should be outraged at the Obama Administration. According to Eli Lake, who has already destroyed the narratives put foward by the White House in the aftermath of the attack, once again brings startling information about the events leading up to that tragic mid-September evening:
In the six months leading up to the assault on the United States consulate in Benghazi, the State Department reduced the number of trained Americans guarding U.S. facilities in Libya, according to a leading House Republican investigating the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks. The reduction in U.S. security personnel increased America’s reliance on local Libyan guards for the protection of its diplomats.
On Tuesday, Chaffetz and the oversight committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), disclosed in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton details of an alleged April 6 bombing at the consulate. The letter detailed how in the run-up to the 9-11 assault there was an escalation of military-style attacks on Western targets in Libya’s second-largest city. The letter also said U.S. security personnel had requested, and were denied, additional security for the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi.
In the aftermath of last month’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama Administration tried to do everything it could to avoid taking blame. They hoped that the anti-Islam video posted on YouTube would suffice as a reasonable scapegoat, as noted by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But as more has come to light, it has been difficult for them to avoid accepting blame — not that they aren’t trying. Eli Lake has already shattered some of early narratives put forward by the White House, but more is coming out.
A couple of House Republicans are pointing out that the consulate in Benghazi has been the target of threats in the past and had requested more security prior to the attack:
Two House Republicans say they have been informed by whistleblowers that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and threatened 13 times before the incident last month that killed four Americans.
Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a letter on Tuesday that detailed the whistleblowers’ allegations.
After the protests irrupted in the Middle East last week, the United States Embassy in Egypt sent out a statement condemning the video created the Obama Administration insists created the outrage. It was a startling condemnation of free speech and expression, which protect not only speech with which the majority of Americans may agree, but also unpopular or even hate speech that some may otherwise find objectionable.
Some have defended the actions of President Obama since the controversy has erupted, but the reaction from the United States Embassy in Egypt was typical of the Obama Administration, which has fought to curb political speech. But more details have come to light in recent days, such as the White House privately asking Google, which owns YouTube, to review the video. Access to the video has already been restricted in Middle Eastern countries where violence has broken out.
Moreover, the person who made the video, a convicted felon, has been questioned by federal authorities because his activities may have violated the conditions of his release. Obviously, that is a separate issue and not necessarily one that we should say is an attempt to silence speech. However, it does make one question whether federal authorities would bother with him if he had put out a video denigrating Christianity.