Rep. Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, stopped by a “Defeat Jihad Summit” hosted by Frank Gaffney yesterday, to discuss the “conundrum” that he’s in about whether to vote for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that President Obama has sent to Congress to formally approve the ongoing military actions against the so-called Islamic State.
Perry said that while he feels “duty bound” to stop the “growing scourge” of the Islamic State, he doesn’t want to sanction the use of force by Obama, who he claimed is “really working collaboratively with what I would say is the enemy of freedom and individual freedom and liberty and Western civilization and modernity.”
“And in that context, how do you vote to give this commander-in-chief the authority and power to take action when…you know in your heart that, if past performance is any indicator of future performance, that he won’t, and that he actually might use it to further their cause and what seems to be his cause and just drag you as a complicitor [sic] in it,” he said.
Burkman asked Gaffney “whether Obama just has no comprehension of foreign policy” or if “at a more sinister level, does he not see himself as representing the United States?”
“I think the president is of the view that Islam, not radical Islam, but the authoritative version of Islam is in fact a legitimate and desirable and, well, laudable enterprise,” Gaffney responded. “And there are many Muslims who would meet all of those tests. Unfortunately they don’t include, to my way of thinking, the authorities of Islam or those who are following their tenets.”
“The folks who believe in the traditions and institutions of Islam are, I’m afraid, part of the problem,” he continued. “To the extent the president is admiring of them and enabling of them, I think isn’t just a problem of not understanding what’s afoot here. I think it’s a deep sympathy for it. And it translates into an empowering and emboldening of the jihadists who are our mortal enemies.”
RWW’s Paranoia-Ramatakes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
According to the right-wing media, Sharia law is gaining a foothold in Michigan, President Obama is blocking the sale of miracle drugs and Satan is commanding the gay rights movement. But Sarah Palin has uncovered the most menacing threat to America of them all: criticism of Sarah Palin.
According to Media Matters, one email to Erickson’s list claimed that the federal government is suppressing a miracle cancer cure that healed Ronald Reagan. Another warned that President Obama and the FDA could kill “over 45 million Americans…including you” because they are refusing to release a “secret” cure to cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.
But 45 million deaths is low compared to the potential toll of another “Obama scandal” that a RedState sponsored email warned could “wipe out 281 million Americans.”
4) Fox News Helping … Hillary?
At least according to Sarah Palin. Upset that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly mocked the prospect of Palin and fellow reality television star Donald Trump running for president as a “reality show,” Palin charged that O’Reilly is trying to undermine the conservative movement just as it prepares to take on Hillary Clinton.
Palin fumed that “quasi-right” media outlets like Fox News should wake up to the fact that “this is a war” against Clinton and should help the GOP unify and “surface the competitor who can take on Hillary or whomever it may be and win for this country.”
Perkins recently spoke with Frank Gaffney, a fellow anti-Muslimconspiracytheorist, about the supposed rise of Sharia law in the U.S., and unsurprisingly, Gaffney joined in on the frenzy and referred to the city as “Dearbornistan.” He said the “Muslim-only” city of Dearborn has become a “ghetto” that is “too dangerous” to enter.
This might be news to the city’s residents, including one Army veteran who was able to find no shortage of stores selling haram goods like ham and liquor, along with a gentleman’s club, despite the claims of right-wing activists that the city is now imposing Sharia law.
2) Marriage Equality Turns Kids Into Government Property
A group of Catholic and Protestant leaders signed a statement this week warning that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead “to the coercion and persecution of those who refuse to acknowledge the state’s redefinition of marriage, which is beyond the state’s competence.”
Signatories, including National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher and prominent Proposition 8 supporter Rick Warren, warned that marriage equality for same-sex couples represents an even “graver threat” to society than divorce “because what is now given the name of marriage in law is a parody of marriage.”
By legalizing same-sex marriage, the statement reads, “a kind of alchemy is performed, not merely on the institution, but on human nature itself,” since same-sex marriage apparently “disregards the created order, threatens the common good and distorts the Gospel.” The statement even claims that marriage equality will turn children “in important legal respects, the property of the state.”
1) Gay Demonic Energy
American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer thinks that Satan makes people gay, so of course Fischer believes that Satan is also in command of the gay rights movement.
“I don’t think you will ever find a more directly demonic energy than when you deal with the homosexual agenda,” Fischer said this week. “They’re vicious. They are mean. You literally are staring into virtually the unvarnished energy of Satan himself when you come up against the forces that are pushing the homosexual agenda forward.”
Upset with the coverage of his comments, Fischer said that he feels bad for gay people, since they are “captives, prisoners of war” of Satan.
Marino told Gaffney that America needs a president who is “not going to step back and allow this kind of activity to take place in our court rooms.”
“We need conservative judges, we need a conservative president who will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court and to the appellate court and the district court as well where this issue can be snuffed out immediately when the defendant tries to raise the issue,” Marino said.
According to Gaffney, Dearborn, Michigan — a regulartargetofdebunkedclaims about Sharia law that Gaffney calls “Dearbornistan” — has become a “ghetto enclave in which it’s Muslim-only and others, if they are not effectively proscribed or prevented from going in, know that it is too dangerous to go.”
The two also railed against the criticism directed at Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for declaring that no-go zones are sweeping across Europe — an allegation for which Jindal offered no evidence besides anecdotal stories he claimed to have heard from people he met — and stating that Muslim faith leaders who condemned terrorist attacks didn’t go far enough because they didn’t specifically say that the culprits are going to Hell.
Gaffney said the “clueless” people criticizing Jindal want to impose a “rhetorical equivalent of a no-go zone.”
Gaffney also said that criticizing Jindal’s remarks amounts to enforcing Sharia blasphemy laws, decrying the “people who are trying to silence him, effectively to try to put Sharia blasphemy restrictions on his speech and his political prospects.”
Last week on “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins invited anti-Muslimconspiracytheorist and birther Frank Gaffney to discuss the so-called “no-go zones” in Europe, neighborhoods that anti-Muslim activists claim are run according to Sharia law and remain off-limits to police and governmental authority.
Perkins asked Gaffney if President Obama is aiding terrorists because he won’t blame terrorist attacks on Islam, prompting Gaffney to say that Obama is a Sharia law proponent who sounds just like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the leaders of Boko Haram.
“When the president says at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,’ we could’ve found those words coming out of the mouths of Osama bin Laden, or Mullah Omar of the Taliban, or the leaders of Boko Haram or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of Islamic State,” Gaffney said. “This is the doctrine of Sharia and its blasphemy codes. So it not only gives people latitude to say, ‘The president is saying we mustn’t exercise our freedom of speech or maybe we should give it up altogether lest it offend these folks.’ It is also, and this is really in a way much worse, emboldening our enemies, who when they see this behavior, they think we’re submitting to them.”
Gaffney, of course, is leaving out the fact Obama’s 2012 UN speech was all about the importance of the freedom of speech and opposition to blasphemy laws:
Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day and I will always defend their right to do so.
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.
We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
Gaffney also conveniently left out the sentence immediately following the president’s remark on “those who slander the prophet of Islam”: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”
Shortly after terrorist gunmen killed 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris earlier this month, conservative commentator Steve Emerson went on Fox News and claimed that Europe was being taken over by “no-go zones” controlled by Islamic law to such an extent that non-Muslims were not allowed to enter Birmingham, England’s second-largest city.
But at the same time, the “no-go zone” myth gained traction among conservative activists and Republican leaders, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who mentioned it in a speech in London despite refusing to offer the names or locations of the purported no-go zones, and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who claimed last week that France has “like 700 no-go zones where authorities have allowed Sharia law to be imposed,” something that he claimed is also beginning to happen in the United States.
The “no-go zone” myth didn’t spring out of nowhere two weeks ago. Instead, it has been percolating for years in fringe media, perpetuated by anti-Muslim activists warning that Europe was being overtaken by Sharia law, soon to be followed by the United States.
Bloomberg pinpoints the beginning of the myth at a 2006 article by conservative pundit Daniel Pipes, who gave the name “no-go zones” to a list of French “sensitive urban zones,” some with large populations of Muslim immigrants, that were, in reality, nothing more than areas hit by high crime and poverty that were actually targeted by the government for urban renewal projects. A few years later, Pipes had the opportunity to visit a few of these “no-go zones” and reported that they were “very mild, even dull” compared to high-crime neighborhoods in the U.S. and that “immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.” He wrote, “Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.”
But Pipes’ retraction came too late to stop the “no-go zone” story from becoming an established fact in fringe right-wing media.
The Muslim population, for example, in France is over 10 percent,” she said. “You see outside of Paris … it can be very frightening. The no-go zones, the Shariah zones, where firefighters and police cannot go. They are many times lured by particular criminal activity into these zones, only to be ambushed. We see it in the U.K., increasingly, the imposition of Shariah law. And people think it can’t happen here, but it is happening here.
Last year, the Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro similarly warned in a FrontPageMag article that European “no-go zones” would provide “precedent” for such “Muslim enclaves” in the U.S. The publication has been another prominent generator of the myth, frequentlyciting Pipes since-rejected claim about French “no-go” neighborhood.
The myth percolated to the top of the news cycle briefly in 2010 when Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle claimed that Dearborn, Michigan, and the made-up town of Frankford, Texas, were ruled by “Sharia law.” She didn’t use the term “no-go zone,” but was clearly influenced by the myth that had by then become established fact in fringe media.
As recently as last month, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt was citing the myth to warn that U.S. protests against police brutality would create “no-go zones.”
“It’s like in England and Scandinavia and I guess in Paris and a lot of Europe, perhaps in a lot of their metropolitan areas, the Muslims have come to a preponderant population in those areas that the police do not dare go into the urban areas controlled by Muslims,” he said.
The myth, propagated by a few voices in fringe media, is too wild for Fox News. But it is now apparently perfectly acceptable in the Republican Party.
Rep. Trent Franks believes that President Obama’s executive action on immigration was such an egregious step that it may cause the rule of law to collapse and compel the U.S. send an apology to England for the American Revolution.
While speaking yesterday with Frank Gaffney, the Arizona Republican said that Obama is “dividing the country in some very significant ways and I don’t think that he serves either the illegal immigration community or the cause of the rule of law or justice in general in any way when he makes these kinds of unilateral decisions.”
“I think that there’s probably nothing that this president has done or is doing that is more dangerous to the fundamental foundation of this Republic then ignoring the Constitution and betraying his oath of office” he said. “There is something very frightening about a president who simply aggregates this power onto himself and ignores the very oath that he took that president.”
“Without trying to sound overwrought, it literally could be the death of the Republic because once the chief executive officer of any republic all of the sudden begins to ignore the rule of law to hold himself unconstrained to the Constitution and to the truth of his own words, if that should become a common practice of presidents, then that little unpleasantness with England we had is something we should probably apologize for,” Franks added.
In an interview with Frank Gaffney on Tuesday, Rosemary Jenks, the director of government relations at the anti-immigrant group Numbers USA, said that any opening of the U.S. military to some people who came to the country illegally would be an “unbelievably dangerous” attack on the military’s “morale” and “integrity.”
“I think this president, not only is he intent on transforming America, he is intent on decimating our military in every way possible, in attacking its morale, in attacking its integrity,” she said. “It is just unbelievably dangerous to put illegal aliens inside the gates with our troops. It is unconscionable the things this president is doing to our military.”
“Well, I really think of it as a wrecking operation, and this fits the profile for sure,” Gaffney agreed.
In September, the Defense Department issued a new policy expanding to a small number of DREAMers an existing Bush-era program that allow some noncitizens with specialized skills serve in the military. USA Today explained the policy change:
The Pentagon program is capped at 1,500 recruits per year. Officials say it's unclear how many of those might be unlawful DACA status immigrants as opposed to others who are also eligible for military service under MAVNI, including those with legal, nonpermanent visas such as students or tourists.
Estimates suggest between 1.2 million and 2.1 million children, teenagers and young adults in the U.S. have no legal immigration status but meet the criteria for the DACA program. Those targeted by recruiters under the MAVNI program likely will be immigrants with language skills critical to national security, such as Arabic, Chinese, Pashto or Persian.
DACA status is granted by the Department of Homeland Security and includes a background check.
On average, the military recruits about 5,000 noncitizens each year, nearly all of them permanent U.S. residents, or so-called "green card" holders. Starting in 2006, the military began accepting some foreigners with nonpermanent visas, such as students or tourists, if they had special skills that are highly valued.
After entering military service, foreigners are eligible for expedited U.S. citizenship. Since 2001, more than 92,000 foreign-born service members have become citizens while serving in uniform.
The MAVNI program began in 2008 and remains a pilot program. The Pentagon notified Congress on Thursday that the program, which was due to expire at the end of this fiscal year, will be extended for another two years and will for the first time include DACA-status immigrants.
The military services are not required to accept recruits under MAVNI. In recent years, the Army has been the only service to accept a significant number of recruits under the program. The Air Force has accepted only a few and the Navy and Marine Corps have not sought MAVNI recruits in recent years.
Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin told the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney in an interview last week that he believes President Obama is going to cut a deal with Iran allowing the country to have a nuclear weapon on the advice of his adviser Valerie Jarrett because she “is Persian, she’s an Iranian.”
“I think the administration has essentially, and probably because of the advice of Valerie Jarrett — who is Persian, she’s an Iranian — I think that because of her influence that the president has made some very bad decisions with regards for support for the Iranian nuclear program,” he said.
Boykin and Gaffney also discussed the alleged “penetration” of the U.S. government by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Gaffney, who helped start the right-wing smear campaign against Hillary Clinton aide Human Abedin, asked Boykin, “What is the state of the penetration of our government, not just by the Huma Abedins and the Hesham Islams of the world, but more broadly as evidence of the civilization jihad that’s being waged against us by the Muslim Brotherhood especially?”
Boykin responded by asserting that after 9/11, counterterrorism authorities hired a large number of Arabic translators, “a large percentage” of whom “actually wound up working for the other side.”
He went on to lament what he called “the total infiltration of the intelligence community” by people he believes to be Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood agents, including the counterterrorism chief responsible for many of the targeted killings of Al Qaeda officials, reportedly a Muslim convert. He also repeated the “strong rumors” that CIA director John Brennan has converted to Islam.
“What we do know is that there are penetrations at every level of our government, to include homeland security, to include the military, to include the intelligence community, to include the Congress,” he said. “There are penetrations by nefarious elements, by people that are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, by people who are associated with Al Qaeda. And by the way, Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are really all the same thing.”
“And the Islamic State and Boko Haram and the rest of them,” Gaffney added. “And the Iranians, too, with their differences on different points of theology, are very much part of this Sharia enterprise and the global jihad to impose it.”
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly appeared on “Secure Freedom Radio” with Frank Gaffney last week to point the blame at undocumented immigrants for increasing the national debt, overburdening social welfare programs and inciting a health crisis in the United States.
To supposedly remedy these issues, Schlafly called for a moratorium on immigration, arguing that the most recent waves of immigrants aren’t willing enough to integrate into American society. “The American people want the borders closed and we need a pause in our immigration. That’s what happened after the big immigration of the 1920s,” she said. “We had a pause and they all assimilated and they learned English and they learned to adapt to American ways. But the people coming in now, it’s not even clear they want to be Americans.”
She said that she learned from Rep. Michele Bachmann that the border is insecure and that “there’s no fence, they’re bringing in all kinds of disease and Obama’s not doing anything to stop it.”
Schlafly added that “a lot of these so-called kids who are coming in” are “tough cookies.”
Schlafly breathlessly described a scenario in which the knee-jerk dependency of immigrants on federal assistance programs would cripple the economy.
“They’re people who have no understanding or familiarity with the concept of limited government,” she added. “When you let these people in who will immediately go on the welfare system — you know, the Boston bombers came in, went right on the welfare system. That’s the reason for the enormous spending and debt we have, because we keep bringing in people who really can’t support themselves.”
Schlafly brought up her childhood during the Great Depression — arguably an era that saw one of the largest periods of federal government intervention — claiming that Americans were resilient enough to fend for themselves and didn’t need to seek out government aid. “[Immigrants] expect big government to take care of them, to solve their problems, and that’s not the way most Americans think,” she said.
“I grew up during the depression, and we didn’t look to government to solve our problems. And we grew up to be what they called the Greatest Generation.”
Conservative columnist Diana West does not approve of the Obama administration’s decision to send U.S. troops to West Africa to help fight the Ebola epidemic at its source by building treatment centers and training medical personnel. In fact, West told Frank Gaffney on “Secure Freedom Radio” last week that the mission shows that the president does not have “an American agenda” and is instead embracing “a totalitarian government structure.”
“How could they possibly do that with some non-Americans and not enable American citizens in uniform to be returned here?” he asked.
“Well, I think this goes back to the original question which does have to do with the fact that we have leaders with a global agenda, not an American agenda, who have all the power at the moment and certainly act as if they do,” West said.
“It’s exactly this idea that there is nothing special about America or Americans,” she continued. “Another point to get to is the notion of a commander in chief with so little regard for his forces…that he sees them as pawns in a global game of ideological utopia.”
“This is where you start seeing the development of a totalitarian government structure,” she said.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media said in an interview with Frank Gaffney yesterday that the National Security Agency “should be monitoring our own president,” implying that the president could in fact be a Russian agent.
“We can’t just assume that some of these people supposedly on our side are just misguided and have been led astray,” he said. “We have to look at evidence of infiltration.”
He then implied that President Obama himself could be part of this “infiltration,” saying that it was “no accident” that Edward Snowden “ended up in Moscow” and citing conspiracy theories around labor activist Frank Marshall Davis, who was a friend of the president’s family when he was growing up, to claim that the president was “mentored as a youth by a pro-Soviet Communist Party operative.”
Why wouldn’t the Obama administration allow Kurdish Peshmerga members to come to America and receive flight training so they could be given quality helicopter gunships and destroy ISIS? Can anyone explain what the strategy and objective is here in lifting this ban with a nation that is or should be on the terrorist watch list?
Sorry, but I can only explain this one way: Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamist in his foreign policy perspectives and supports their cause. You can go back and listen to his 2009 speech in Cairo, where Muslim Brotherhood associates were seated front and center.
All the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence points to that conclusion. The pivot away from the Middle East seems to be nothing more than an opportunity to enable Islamists and their goals. Anyone supporting this Libyan ban being lifted is indeed an enemy of this state.
The Obama administration’s foreign policy doctrine is self-described as “don’t do stupid s@#t”. But I guess that all depends on what your ultimate goal is.
What a surprise, people have had enough of Sarah Palin.
Frank Gaffney says that Richard Mellon Scaife was "a founding father in his own right."
What a surprise, Tim LaHaye, who made a fortune writing about the End Times, thinks people don't study the Book of Revelation enough .... so he wrote another book about it!
Sen. Rob Portman "is confident that his position on gay marriage has not crippled his ability to be a national candidate." Good luck winning the GOP presidential primary with that position.
Finally, "life is a lot simpler when you’re a liberal": "For one thing, you don’t have to be bothered by silly things like facts; you can just make up your narrative as you go along and, thanks to our abysmal public education system, most people will never know that you lied through your teeth. You also don’t have to worry about understanding many complex issues, and how to respond to criticism of your position on those issues. Being a liberal, you’re wrong on pretty much everything anyway, so there’s no need to waste your time trying to articulate a factual, intelligent response.
Conservative pundit Frank Gaffney has a great idea to dissuade young migrants from escaping violence and economic hardship in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras: cut off their foreign aid!
In today’s “Secure Freedom Minute,” Gaffney says the Obama administration should declare that such countries “are not eligible for our foreign aid” until the immigrant “invasion” ends.
We can’t see how that could possibly go wrong.
Barack Obama visits Texas today, but not its border areas. He’s not interested in evidence that his policies have encouraged an ongoing invasion by tens of thousands of illegal child and other aliens. The President just wants Congress to give him nearly $4 billion to “manage” the resulting crisis. Unfortunately, he would spend much of it in ways that will encourage more such invaders to come here. For example, lots of this emergency funding would go to provide housing, food, transportation and lawyers for the illegal aliens. These would be inducements for further invasion. Congress should just say “No” to such spending and ensure that the countries enabling the invasion – namely, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico – are not eligible for our foreign aid until they stop it, and repatriate the invaders.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank attended the event, and wrote about an ugly exchange in which a Muslim woman in the audience asked a question about Muslim representation at the event, and was met with a tirade from Gabriel, who told her that the “peaceful majority” of Muslims was “irrelevant,” made a comparison to Nazi Germany, and demanded to know if the woman was an American.
Now, Gabriel is responding to criticism of her remarks in trademark fashion, by attempting to smear the woman who asked her the question.
In a fundraising email yesterday, Gabriel claimed that she had found “additional information” about the woman that “begins to bring into more focus the possible real reason for her ‘question’ at Monday’s event.” Gabriel breathlessly reports that the woman, Saba Ahmed, has been active in politics before (not a huge surprise for someone attending a panel event in Washington). She then tries to link Ahmed to an attempted terror plot in Portland (Ahmed was a family friend of the suspect, and has not in any way been implicated in it). And to top it all off, Gabriel reports that Ahmed was once arrested for something completely unrelated.
This line of attack should not come as a huge surprise from someone who has used similarly tenuous connections to claim that former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin was a Muslim Brotherhood agent, an accusation that Gaffney repeated at the panel.
Gabriel concludes her email by repeating her remark from the panel that “it is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage” and asking for money from her supporters.
Although the only focus of Monday’s Heritage event was getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attack and holding those responsible accountable for their actions (or lack of action), my panel was asked a rather unusual question by a woman in the audience, Saba ‘Queen’ Ahmed – a woman portraying herself as a young Muslim student concerned about the discrimination of Muslims.
Ms. Ahmed has been described by many in the media as a “young Muslim law student.” However as is so often the case, there is just a little more to the story.
The additional information we found about Ms. Ahmed begins to bring into more focus the possible real reason for her “question” at Monday’s event – and a possible explanation about why she attended the discussion and left immediately after her question and our exchange:
She is CEO/President of Saba Ahmed, LLC a Washington, DC, lobbying firm.
She is the friend of the family of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, the Somali-American accused of attempting to bomb a Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony in 2010. (In fact, here is a photo of her leaving his court proceedings!)
She is a former candidate for U.S. Congress. (Right: Image from her campaign website)
She has been active in Democratic politics as well as with the radical “Occupy” movement.
She was an assistant of former Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and also for U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).
She was arrested for a “stalking incident” in Florida.
I am glad that I had the opportunity to address Ms. Ahmed’s comments directly and respectfully – even though they had nothing to do with the issue of the event. It was an important educational moment.
I stand by how I closed my remarks on Monday:
It is time we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs, and start calling a spade a spade.
I have received letters and e-mails from all over the country in support of my response to Ms. Ahmed. I am humbled by, and appreciative of, this support and encouragement. And I want you to know that I intend to continue standing up to individuals like this who seek only to misrepresent the truth and who use the liberal media to spread falsehoods about the Islamist threat that surrounds us.
UPDATE: On Sean Hannity's program last night, Gabriel again attacked Ahmed, saying “she took the limelight instead of standing up as an American.” Hannity then spent several minutes hounding Ahmed.