Viernes, 14 de mayo de 2010

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2010

Roughly halfway into yesterday's two minute exchange, Eric Holder states that
he does not want to say something negative about Islam and that may be true, at first.
He uses an example of another kind of "radical Islam" held by an apparently non-hostile
Muslim and that may be fine. However, keep listening carefully.
Video, "Eric Holder Refuses to say 'Radical Islam'"

Toward the end of this strained give and take, his essential contention becomes what he finds acceptable or unacceptable in the use of the word "radical," in contrast with the way Rep. Lamar Smith (TX-R) uses it.

He makes his contention clear: he refuses to accept "radical" as a pejorative and he is only considering the word as an abstraction, which he takes to mean something "not consistent with" what is traditional. That is not about his Muslim example; it is about the term, radical, itself.

Our Attorney General under Barack Obama is defending "radicalism" in principle, against negative aspersions.

I.O. understands that big issues of the moment include Glenn Beck's discovery of Maurice Strong, also those arrested for investigating Obama's financial aid as an Occidental College student (and that Holder admitted here, he hasn't read Arizona's ten page illegal immigration bill that he criticized). More on Mr. Strong I think later, also, perhaps the Occidental issue. This for now. - AW


Most importantly, 
please contact elected officials and candidates about their stances on America's sovereignties (please see the Three Sovereignty Questions). What are their responses? You can email arlenwilliams"at"yahoo"dot"com. Now, that is really something to publish.


Tags: obama Holder Congress

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar