Dr. Ben Carson: ‘We’re Being Crucified by Political Correctness’

Photo Credit: AP

Presidential Medal of Freedom winner Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon and best-selling author, spoke about how even regular reading by young people can improve their lives and society, but he stressed that a social hurdle is that “we’re being crucified by political correctness,” an unwillingness to tell the truth because it might offend someone or be deemed judgmental.

In an interview with black conservative activist Star Parker, founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, she asked Dr. Carson, “Now, this is where you seem to put a lot of emphasis with your life’s work, is that you can break poverty, you can break this cycle even in your family, even if everything around you is broken as you just described in this particular environment, with reading is it really that simple?”

Dr. Carson said, “That’s one of the major components

Watch video here:

Read more from this story HERE.

Why Do So Many Muslims Embrace Religious and Ideological Warfare?

Photo Credit: Holding Steady

Mahatma Gandhi is quoted in his book, Gandhi: The Power of Pacifism, by Catherine Clement, as follows:

While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.

Gandhi was referring to the experience during his lifetime in the Indian sub-continent, but the growth of Wahhabism and the current resurgence in Islamic triumphalism since Gandhi’s death in January 1948 now poses an increasingly existential threat to the West, to Judeo-Christian civilization, as well as to Hindus, Buddhists, and members other faiths.

The question repeatedly posed by the talking heads on the TV networks and cable television is how and why so many Muslims, young and old, are living in the West and enjoying all the material and educational benefits bestowed upon them — and also committing hideous acts of terror and perpetrating atrocities upon innocent civilians, even against their very own neighbors.

The Times Square bombing attempt on May 1, 2010 by Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad and the 2009 Fort Hood massacre of unarmed members of the military by Major Nidal Hasan (still described by the problematic U.S. administration as “workplace violence”) are well-known. So too is the attempt at terrorism by a Somali immigrant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who had come to America at the age of five with his family as a refugee from the hell that is Somalia, and who attempted to kill thousands during a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. But until the Chechen Muslim brothers succeeded in their massacre at the Boston Marathon, most terror attacks had been thwarted since the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon by the 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers, in which 3,000 people were murdered. This time, however, the Muslim miscreants succeeded.

Read more from this story HERE.

The ‘Co-Exist’ Bombers: This must Disappoint David Sirota

Photo Credit: National Review

This has been a strange and deadly week in America. On Monday, two bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon, the first successful terrorist attack on a civilian target on American soil since 9/11. And yet a mere two days later, Boston’s death toll was surpassed by a freak fertilizer accident at a small town in Texas.

In America, all atrocities are not equal: Minutes after the Senate declined to support so-called gun control in the wake of the Newtown massacre, the president rushed ill-advisedly on air to give a whiny, petulant performance predicated on the proposition that one man’s mass infanticide should call into question the constitutional right to bear arms. Simultaneously, the media remain terrified that another man’s mass infanticide might lead you gullible rubes to question the constitutional right to abortion, so the ongoing Kermit Gosnell trial in Philadelphia has barely made the papers — even though it involves large numbers of fully delivered babies who were decapitated and had their feet chopped off and kept in pickling jars. Which would normally be enough to guarantee a perpetrator front-page coverage for weeks on end. In the most recent testimony, one of the “clinic”’s “nurses” testified that she saw a baby delivered into the toilet, where his little arms and feet flapped around as if trying to swim to safety. Then another “women’s health worker” reached in and, in the procedure’s preferred euphemism, “snipped” the baby’s neck — i.e., severed his spinal column. “Doctor” Gosnell seems likely to prove America’s all-time champion mass murderer. But his victims are ideologically problematic for the media, and so the poor blood-soaked monster will never get his moment in the spotlight.

The politicization of mass murder found its perfect expression in one of those near-parodic pieces to which the more tortured self-loathing dweebs of the fin de civilisation West are prone. As the headline in Salon put it, “Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American.” David Sirota is himself a white American, but he finds it less discomforting to his Princess Fluffy Bunny worldview to see his compatriots as knuckle-dragging nutjobs rather than confront all the apparent real-world contradictions of the diversity quilt. He had a lot of support for his general predisposition. “The thinking, as we have been reporting, is that this is a domestic extremist attack,” declared Dina Temple-Raston, NPR’s “counterterrorism correspondent.” “Officials are leaning that way largely because of the timing of the attack. April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals. There’s the Columbine anniversary, there’s Hitler’s birthday, there’s the Oklahoma City bombing, the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.” Miss Temple-Raston was born in my mother’s homeland of Belgium, where, alas, there were more than a few fellows willing to wish the Führer happy birthday back when he was still around to thank you for it. But it was news to me it was such a red-letter day in the Bay State. Who knew? At NPR, “counterterrorism” seems to mean countering any suggestion that this might be terrorism from you know, the usual suspects.

Read more from this story HERE.

Media Stumped: It's the Jihad, Stupid

Photo Credit: Drew Zahn

Many in the mainstream media are mystified, unable to pin down a possible motive behind the Boston bombings despite a wealth of information that strongly suggests the suspects had ties to radical Islam.

For example, it was discovered early Friday that one suspect had a playlist on YouTube titled “Terrorist” and another called “Islam.” He also subscribed to a channel called “Allah is the One.”

The two suspects are immigrant brothers from the Russian republic of Chechnya. The playlist belonged to 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed overnight in a shootout with police in the Boston area. Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19, was taken into custody late Friday evening.

The older brother’s playlist also included “The Emergence of Prophecy: The Black Flags From Khorasan,” described as ”a key part of jihadist mythology: That one of the most significant battles fought against the ‘infidels’ will take place in the Khorasan, a geographic area that includes parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan” and has been increasingly mentioned in al-Qaida propaganda.

Read more from this story HERE.

Senator Cruz on Obama's Real 'Gun Control' Record

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

From yesterday’s Rush Limbaugh Show:

CRUZ: In 2010, roughly 48,000 felons and fugitives attempted to illegally purchase firearms. Out of those 48,000, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44.

RUSH: Right.

CRUZ: Let me repeat those numbers because those numbers, in my opinion, are quite staggering. Out of 48,000 felons and fugitives who in a single year tried to illegally purchase firearms, the Justice Department prosecuted just 44 of them. In our judgment, that’s unacceptable.

RUSH: What Cruz is doing here is called push-back. He’s a freshman, won election. He’s Tea Party. He’s got a great future. People very much appreciate what Cruz is willing to stand up and say. But did you know the specifics here, the nut of what he said here? It proves the point. Forty-four prosecutions out of 48,000 felons and fugitives who tried to illegally purchase firearms. We’ve already got plenty of law. We only prosecuted 44 of ’em in 2010. Why? Because we don’t want to create the impression we have enough gun laws. In fact, let’s turn it around 180 degrees. The Democrats want the impression created we don’t have enough law.

So you have all of these fugitives, all of these felons committing these horrendous crimes, and we’re not pursuing and we’re not prosecuting ’em, and the reason, “We need more law, Mr. Limbaugh. We don’t have enough law to go after these people. The gun control laws are woefully inept, we need more.” That’s what they want everybody to conclude. Just like we don’t have the laws necessary to deal with immigration. Yes, we do. All we would have to do is enforce current law, and we could reform the immigration problem without anything new.

Read more from this story HERE.

Postmodern Prudes

Photo Credit: National Review

More than 500 people were murdered in Chicago last year. Yet Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel still found time to berate the fast-food franchise Chick-fil-A for not sharing “Chicago values” — apparently, because its founder does not approve of gay marriage.

Two states have legalized marijuana, with more to come. Yet social taboos against tobacco smoking make it nearly impossible to light up a cigarette in public places. Marijuana, like alcohol, causes far greater short-term impairment than does nicotine. But legal cigarette smoking is now seen as a corporate-sponsored, uncool, and dirty habit that leads to long-term health costs for society at large — in a way homegrown, hip, and mostly illegal pot smoking apparently does not.

Graphic language, nudity, and sex are now commonplace in movies and on cable television. At the same time, there is now almost no tolerance for casual and slangy banter in the media or the workplace. A boss who calls an employee “honey” might face accusations of fostering a hostile work environment, yet a television producer whose program shows an 18-year-old having sex does not. Many colleges offer courses on lurid themes from masturbation to prostitution, even as campus sexual-harassment suits over hurtful language are at an all-time high.

A federal judge in New York recently ruled that the so-called morning-after birth-control pill must be made available to all “women” regardless of age or parental consent, and without a prescription. The judge determined that it was unfair for those under 16 to be denied access to such emergency contraceptives. But if vast numbers of girls younger than 16 need after-sex options to prevent unwanted pregnancies, why isn’t there a flood of statutory-rape charges being lodged against older teenagers for having consensual relations with younger girls?

Read more from this story HERE.

See, I Told You So …

Photo Credit: RichardBowen

I remember when the debate over same-sex marriage first began.

I debated homosexual activists in the media and explained that it really wasn’t a matter of “marriage equality” as they claimed. After all, if marriage is no longer limited to unions between men and women, why should the institution be limited to couples?

“Ridiculous,” I would be told. “There’s just no demand for polygamy and group marriage.”

I remember laughing and explaining to homosexuals activists, who represent, at most, 1 percent of the population, that polygamy is supported by perhaps 20 percent of the population worldwide, including one of the three major religions.

It was inevitable, I explained, that you could not change the definition of marriage without opening up a Pandora’s box of other taboos like polygamy.

That box has now been blown open – and not just by Muslims, who have been strangely quiet about the same-sex marriage debate, in part, I suspect, because they know where it will lead. It has also been blown open by liberal, secular women, including Jillian Keenan in an article in Slate.

Read more from this story HERE.

When will Republicans Understand Free Market Healthcare?

Photo Credit: WND

Healthcare is one of the most complex policy issues. The lack of free market healthcare, engendered by endless government interventions (and secondary interventions to fix the original interventions), has made policy solutions even more cumbersome. But the overarching principle of any reform must begin with the understanding that federal intervention in the healthcare industry has inexorably driven up the cost of healthcare and health insurance. As such, no healthcare policy panacea can begin with growing government and further distorting the already grossly-altered healthcare market.

Instead of proposing more free market solutions, Republicans are offering pale-pastel versions of Democrat government intervention as solutions. Here are two examples.

Last week, Congressman Larry Bucshon (R-IN) introduced the Orwellian-named “Truth in Healthcare Marketing Act of 2013” (HR 1427) – a bill that forces optometrists to disclose all their licensing and qualifications in all advertising. It grants wide latitude to the Federal Trade Commission to regulate and penalize offenders. The bill is heavily backed by special interest hustlers like the AMA and American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). The ophthalmologist lobby doesn’t want competition from cheaper healthcare providers (optometrists), and they want to use the boot of the federal government to ensnare them in red tape.

It is this sort of anti-free market special interest legislating that has crowded out choice and competition from the marketplace. The reality is that there are already strict laws in most states to punish those optometrists who step outside of their scope of service beyond their qualifications. There is no reason, beyond special interest politicking, for the federal government to get involved. The bill was introduced on April 9, a day before the AAOs national meetings in DC commenced.

Read more from this story HERE.

Snubbing Thatcher's Funeral? No, Obama Is Consistent!

Photo Credit: roberthuffstutter

Is President Obama snubbing Lady Thatcher’s funeral in London? No, he’s simply being consistent. Mrs. Thatcher was a great defender of democracy. Mr. Obama is not.

Mr. Obama went to London in 2009. There, he bowed to that desert despot, Saudi King Abdullah. It was Abdullah who refused in 1998 to give the U.S. access to Madani al Tayyib, the financial kingpin of al-Qaeda. So, of course, Mr. Obama would bow to Abdullah.

Back home, the new president tossed a bust of Winston Churchill out into the snow. The brave champion of freedom who resisted Hitler’s “Nozzies” triumphed over tyranny.

Mr. Obama extends his hand to tyrants.

And, after all, he did give an iPod with recordings of all his speeches to Britain’s Queen. It was a most thoughtful gift — just in case Her Majesty was having trouble with insomnia.

Read more from this story HERE.

Another View: Rubio's Immigration Bill Allows Lawsuits to Gut Border Security

According to the Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll, the Schumer-Rubion Immigration Bill has serious problems. Mr. Carroll maintains that either “Sen. Marco Rubio failed to stay awake in his civil procedure class at the University of Miami Law School, or Sen. Chuck Schumer’s lawyers pulled a fast one on him.” Here are his concerns with the bill:

1) If liberal activist groups can challenge any of the bill’s security triggers in court, then, after 10 years, the secretary of homeland security can grant currently illegal immigrants permanent legal status anyway. That’s what the bill currently says. If Rubio does not like it, he should introduce an amendment to remove this section of the bill.

2) The border fence is the only border security item that the bill exempts from nonconstitutional challenges. Challenges to any other security measure in the law are still vulnerable to suit.

3) Nothing in the bill stops the secretary of homeland security from granting legal status to currently illegal immigrants if the E-Verify and visa entry-exit systems are not up and running. The secretary can just say that they are, no matter what the facts on the ground actually are. If you don’t think this is possible, just remember how Obama ignored Congress and the War Powers Act and bombed Libya anyway, despite the fact that his own lawyers determined the bombing was a military action.

Until there is a citizen suit provision in the bill, empowering U.S. citizens to challenge the secretary’s determinations that the security measures are in fact in place, there simply is no guarantee that they will ever happen.