Herman Cain Implies Endorsing Anti-Muslim Discrimination

Its Official Folks!

And Its Obvious Herman Cain (Black 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate) Is A Paid Sell-Out, Probably Despises His Black Ancestry, Probably Hates Muslims & Is Desperately Attempting To Divide The American Black Community!

Cain Recently Stated To The National Media: "I Never Said I Would Discriminate Against Muslims Or Any Other Religion For That Matter, But I Am Going To Take Extra Precautions If A Muslim Person Who Is Competent Wants To Work In My Administration."

Wait A Minute!

Doesn't Cain's Anti-Muslim Comments Sound Like Some Of Sarah "Barracuda" Palin's Ignorant REHEARSED Tea Party Political Talking Points?

Excuse Me!

But Isn't Cain's Ideology On NOT Refusing To Hire Muslims Solely Based Upon Their Religious Beliefs, A Clear Form Of Title VII Discrimination?

FYI: From The EEOC:

Private Employment, State and Local Governments, Educational Institutions
Applicants to and employees of most private employers, state and local governments, educational institutions, employment agencies and labor organizations are protected under the following Federal laws:

RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.


Excuse Me!

But Doesn't It Appear Stupid That A BLACK Man Living In A STILL Very Racist Country Would Make Such Comments?

Listen Just Because We Now Have A BLACK Man Leading Our Nation In The Oval Office Or Just Because Another BLACK Man (Herman Cain) Is Running For U.S. President On The Republican/ Tea Party Ticket, Doesn't Mean ALL Of The Color & Racial Barriers In This Country Have Been Completely Eliminated.

Its Also Obvious Cain Needs Much Prayer & NO Political Support.

Herman Cain Sir, Please Sit Down & STOP Making A Fool Of Yourself!

Your 15-Minutes Of Fame Are Over! Like Yesterday!

VOTE OBAMA IN 2012!!!!!!







Herman Cain: Muslims have no place in US government


So we’ve got two probable candidates for the GOP presidential nominees who claim Georgia as their base. One is Newt Gingrich.

This is the other one.

For those who can’t view the video, Herman Cain is asked whether he would be willing to appoint a Muslim as a Cabinet officer or judge.

“No. I will not,” he said. “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt — there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.” According to Cain, many American Muslims “are trying to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.”

That’s just stupid. As in not very bright. By comparison, the Sharia conspiracy crowd makes the birthers look downright sane and reasonable. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, among the GOP mainstream steps up to repudiate such nonsense. After all, the Constitution explicitly rules out such nonsense, stating point blank that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I guess Herman Cain doesn’t believe in the Constitution.

Oh, and by the way?

In a speech to Texas evangelicals, Gingrich also took up the theme over the weekend, warning that unless America is saved, his grandchildren “will live in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

“a secular atheist country … dominated by radical Islamists?” Wow. That would be some trick.

It’s the kind of rhetorical collision that happens when you’re merely listing scare words needed to scare your audience and not even attempting to communicate cogent thought.


View Larger Map


Sources: AJC, AOL, AP, Fox News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Think Progress, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Anthony Weiner Politically Marred For Marrying A Muslim? Peter King? Could Be!

Why Is Congressman Anthony Weiner (D) Suddenly Being Vilified In The Media After Experiencing A 13-Year Political Winning Streak?

Surely Its NOT Just About Some Lewd Twitter Photo!

Instead Its Really About His New Muslim Wife!

That's Right!

Brooklyn Congressman Anthony Weiner Recently Married A Beautiful Muslim Woman By The Name Of Huma Abedin, 34 (Former Aide To Hillary).

Last July Weiner & Huma Said Their Vows In A Ceremony Officiated By Former Pres. Bill Clinton.

Now We Know What's Really Going On!

Is It Possible GOP Long Island Congressman & Muslim Basher Peter King Has Anything To Do With This?

Come On People Let's Be Real!

You Know Peter King Don't You?

The Same Congressman Peter King (R) Who Held A Hearing On Capitol Hill Earlier This Year About "Muslim Radicalization"?

Yes THAT Peter King!

Did You Really Think Peter King Was Going To Allow A Liberal Brooklyn Congressman Who Marries A Muslim Woman, Run For New York City Mayor Without Some Political Backlash?

Please Not A Chance!

Don't Get It Twisted!

Its Highly Possible Peter King Has Absolutely NOTHING To Do With This Scenario.

Than Again Its Highly Possible King Might Just Have A Little To Do With It.

Either Way Its Political Backlash That Did NOT Just Come Out Of Left Field. More Like The Right Field!

This Is Why I Believe Democrats & Independents Should Continue Supporting Congressman Weiner. Especially Those Who Reside In His District.

God Bless Congressman Weiner & His Wife Huma!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Anthony Weiner Marries Huma Abedin

Rep. Anthony Weiner married his glamorous gal pal Huma Abedin in Long Island Saturday in a lavish ceremony officiated by former President Bill Clinton.

The power couple exchanged their "I do's" inside the secluded Oheka Castle in Huntington.

Clinton jokingly said that marrying a politician can be tough because it's "easy to distrust them, whatever their religion," a source told the Daily News.

The ex-Prez also praised the 45-year-old Weiner's tenacity while courting Abedin, 34, who looked resplendent in a white Oscar de la Renta gown.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, C-Span, Huffington Post, Mediaite, MSNBC, NY Daily News, NY Post, NY Times, Google Maps

Peter King Warned Paterson That Gillibrand Was Wrong Choice

View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Salahis Invoke Fifth Amendment Rights; Desiree Rogers Still Wanted

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Alleged Dinner Crashers Invoke Fifth Amendment Rights


In what one member of Congress called "a charade," a couple that showed up at President Obama's first state dinner -- uninvited, the White House claims -- declined to answer questions surrounding the event before a House committee Wednesday.

Under questioning from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, and others, Tareq Salahi repeated over and over again, "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."

The Salahis' attorney notified the committee in December that because of a pending investigation by federal prosecutors, they would not answer questions about how they gained entry to the White House on November 24, despite not being on the guest list to attend that night's state dinner for the prime minister of India.

In a brief statement that opened the often-contentious hearing, Salahi chastised the committee for requiring the couple to appear despite having been told the two would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if subpoenaed. That, he alleged, is against the ethical rules of the Washington bar.

He incensed some committee members by reiterating the couple's respect for U.S. troops, the Secret Service and the president.

"You have shown effrontery here," said Daniel Lungren, R-California. He called it "an abomination" that the Salahis would invoke the name of those in uniform "and suggest that somehow what you do provides support to them."

"The Constitution protects fools," Lungren said. "The Constitution protects stupidity. The Constitution protects errant thought. Thank God it does."

"This was not a hearing looking for information," the couple's attorney, Stephen Best, told reporters after the hearing. "This was an opportunity for a public flogging."

"I think today's procedure is a charade," Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana, said in the hearing, referring to the Salahis' refusal to answer questions.

Other committee members also lambasted the couple, alleging they put their own desire for celebrity before the security of the president and are wasting the committee's time and taxpayers' money.

"I don't respect your right to take the Fifth Amendment. Not at all," Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-New Jersey, told the couple.

"Were you there?" he asked Salahi, referring to the dinner.

When Salahi began, "On the advice ..." Pascrell interrupted him, asking, "Are you here right now? You gonna get an answer from your attorney on that?"

Pascrell noted the committee had offered to allow the couple to speak behind closed doors. After conferring with his attorney, Salahi said, "Yes, but you didn't offer us any legal protection."

Salahi's wife, Michaele, also invoked her Fifth Amendment right under questioning by committee members, but replied, "yes," when asked if she would return to testify after the investigation has concluded.

Asked by Thompson whether the state dinner appearance was part of a "reality TV stunt," Tareq Salahi said the couple was under a non-disclosure agreement and "should not discuss matters related to the television matter."

The Salahis contend they were told they could attend the program to honor India's prime minister, but the White House says they were not invited and were not on the guest list for the exclusive affair.

Best said after the hearing the couple received "representations that they relied upon" that they were invited guests. Two Secret Service investigators were privy to this information from a person who knows the Salahis, he said. "This was not a stunt, and they committed no criminal act."

There was no connection to any reality TV show, he said, and the Salahis were not seeking publicity. The couple has turned down multiple offers from the media to be "rewarded handsomely," he added.

"Whatever the real story is, it's on the other side of the gates of the White House, not with the Salahis," Best said. "They thought they were invited. ... If it was a misunderstanding, it was a misunderstanding caused by representatives of the government."

Tareq Salahi also noted in his opening statement that the couple's attorneys have offered to provide information to the committee, but that offer was declined by Thompson's staff.

"Those offers are not satisfactory," Thompson said. "These lawyers were not at the state dinner and have no firsthand knowledge of the facts."

Tareq Salahi also said the couple has provided phone records, e-mails and other documentary evidence to the committee.

There also was criticism of the White House in Wednesday's hearing.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said the White House "continues to stonewall" and will not allow social secretary Desiree Rogers to testify on the security breach.

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs has said that allowing a White House staff member to testify before a congressional committee would violate the Constitution's separation of powers.

"I don't know what the White House is trying to hide," King said. "Obviously, something went wrong, and it originated with the White House, not the Secret Service."

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, in previous testimony before the committee, took responsibility for the security breach, acknowledging that "appropriate procedures were not followed."

Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pennsylvania, said Wednesday he thought it was "unfortunate" that Sullivan "had to take all that grief from us."

"I hold you responsible for it," he told the Salahis.

"Your actions ... made a mockery of this country, a mockery of our security," Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, told the couple. "I'm saddened, and I'm disappointed, and I'm outraged."

Best reiterated afterward the Salahis do not want the events surrounding the dinner to detract from the "extraordinary institution" of the Secret Service.

"They are Americans," he said. "They are proud Americans."


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, WSJ

Peter King Says Terrorists Don't Deserve Same Legal Rights As Americans

Rep. Peter King says the Obama Admin. should stop sending mixed messages about Terrorism, stop granting Terrorists the same legal rights as American Citizens, that Terrorists should be tried as Enemy Combatants and explains why Congress should pass the "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Christmas Day Would-be Bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, offers up a Not Guilty Plea at his first U.S. Criminal Court appearance.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sources: MSNBC, GOP.gov

GOP Attack Dems On National Security, Terrorism Issues

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

GOP Seizes On Terror Issue


Republicans have wasted no time in attacking Democrats on intelligence and screening failures leading up to the failed Christmas Day bombing of Flight 253 — a significant departure from the calibrated, less partisan responses that have followed other recent terrorist activity.

The strategy — coming as the Republican leadership seeks to exploit Democratic weaknesses heading into the 2010 midterms — is in many ways a natural for a party that views protecting the U.S. homeland as its ideological raison d’etre and electoral franchise.

President Obama’s GOP critics have been emboldened during the past 48 hours by the stumbling initial response of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who spent Monday retracting her Sunday claim that “the system worked” in the aftermath of Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab’s near takedown of a jet ferrying nearly 300 people from Amsterdam to Detroit.

“In the past six weeks, you’ve had the Fort Hood attack, the D.C. Five and now the attempted attack on the plane in Detroit … and they all underscored the clear philosophical difference between the administration and us,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

“I think Secretary Napolitano and the rest of the Obama administration view their role as law enforcement, first responders dealing with the aftermath of an attack,” Hoekstra told POLITICO. “And we believe in a forward-looking approach to stopping these attacks before they happen.”

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) went even further, telling FOX News that the Christmas attack proved President Obama’s talk-to-your-enemies approach might actually be encouraging terrorists.

“[S]oft talk about engagement, closing Gitmo, these things are not going to appease the terrorists,” he said. “They’re going to keep coming after us, and we can’t have politics as usual in Washington, and I’m afraid that’s what we’ve got right now with airport security.”

Obama didn’t address his critics during a brief appearance in Hawaii on Monday, saying only that "the American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to keep you and your family safe and secure during this busy holiday season. … As Americans, we will never give into fear and division."

But other Democrats say the GOP’s yuletide political offensive could backfire on Republicans, putting the spotlight on the party’s own less-than-spotless record on homeland security.

Exhibit A: DeMint’s controversial “hold” on Obama’s choice to lead the Transportation Safety Administration, Erroll Southers, which has left the agency leaderless during a critical period of reappraisal and potential reorganization.

“Considering that this group has been playing politics with the TSA for months, their new-found concern about safety seems a bit contrived,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who acknowledged “legitimate beefs” about lapses leading up to the Christmas Day bombing attempt.

DeMint says he’s blocking Southers because the top cop at Los Angeles International Airport hasn’t vowed to block TSA unionization. And spokesman Wes Denton said the agency is better off headless than with big labor running the nation’s airports.

“This is an important debate because many Americans don't want someone running the TSA who stands ready to give union bosses the power to veto or delay future security measures at our airports,” Denton said.

DeMint isn’t the only Republican raising concerns that Abdulmuttalab was allowed to board the plane despite being placed on a list of potentially dangerous foreign nationals and that he managed to escape detection despite carrying a large amount of explosive powder sewn into his underwear.

Early Monday morning, the House Republican Conference blasted an e-mail offering up a half-dozen GOP lawmakers to discuss national security — and to criticize the Obama White House.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the top Homeland Security Committee Republican, criticized the Obama administration for not going public more quickly to reassure Americans that the skies are safe.

Hoekstra, for his part, blamed the president for “downplaying” the threat of terrorism and slammed the White House for failing to provide detailed bipartisan briefings.

Democrats, on the other hand, say they have plenty of ammunition for a homeland security counterattack.

Over the summer, 108 House Republicans voted against the final conference report of the 2010 appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which included funding for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures.

The no voters cited a procedural dispute over the appropriations process. They included Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Hoekstra and a who’s who of big-name House Republicans: Reps. Mike Pence, Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Joe Wilson (R-SC).

The conference bill included more than $4 billion for "screening operations," including $1.1 billion in funding for explosives detection systems, with $778 million intended for buying and installing the systems.

“It’s a base political calculation,” said one senior House Democratic aide. “It’s risky to play politics with something like this. The morning after [the attempted bombing], Republicans had already drawn a bright line on this.”

In June, both parties overwhelmingly backed Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who inserted an amendment into the House's massive Homeland Security appropriations bill barring the use of full-body image scans as "primary" screening tools at airports.

The amendment, which died in the Senate, passed the House on a bipartisan 310 to 118 vote, with conservative libertarians joining liberals, all decrying the scans as a major invasion of privacy.

It would also have given passengers the option of getting a pat-down — which might have also detected the Christmas bomb — while banning the storage and copying of the images, which show a virtual picture of a person's naked body.

The measure was little-noticed at the time, but it could have a big impact if the Obama administration follows through on its pledge to increase such imaging, which experts say could have detected the explosives hidden on the body of the would-be airplane bomber.

Chaffetz, for his part, doesn’t regret the amendment, telling the Salt Lake Tribune, "It's a difficult balance between protecting our civil liberties and protecting the safety of people on airplanes," adding, “I believe there's technology out there that can identify bomb-type materials without necessarily overly invading our privacy."

In the coming days, GOP criticism of the administration’s actions may give way to a louder, if more decorous din from Democrats questioning security procedures here and abroad.

A handful of key congressional chairmen have already scheduled hearings to see what did go wrong on that Northwestern Airlines flight.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, says his panel will investigate how the attempted bomber slipped through security and screening procedures.

"I view Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a terrorist who evaded our homeland security defenses and who would have killed hundreds of people if the explosives he tried to detonate had worked," Lieberman said.

"What we know about the Abdulmutallab case raises two big, urgent questions that we are holding this hearing to answer: Why aren't airline passengers flying into the U.S. checked against the broadest terrorist database, and why isn't whole body scanning technology that can detect explosives in wider use?"


Sources: Politico, MSNBC