The Islamic Lynching of Herman Cain

At last Monday's debate in New Hampshire among Republican presidential hopefuls, journalist Josh McElveen asked candidate Herman Cain about his stance on having a Muslim serve in his administration if he were elected president. One can watch the exchange by clicking here. Cain basically said...

"You have peaceful Muslims and you have militant Muslims – those that are trying to kill us. And so when I said I wouldn't be comfortable I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us," the former Godfather's Pizza CEO said during the first major GOP primary debate in New Hampshire


He added, "I do not believe in Sharia (Islamic) law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period."

I really don't see a problem with what Cain said. Perhaps the mainstream media can turn their nose up at Cain in this instance for not properly genuflecting before the Alter of Political Correctness three times and saying.. Islam is a religion of peace..Islam is a religion of peace..Islam is a religion of peace..


The whole exchange reminded me of an article by Bert Prelutsky from a couple of months ago in which he detailed the monumental error of discussiing conservative principals to a heavily democratic (read: Liberal) Rotary Club luncheon in Los Angeles. After finishing his opening remarks, Prelutsky then...

"... asked for questions. Therein, I made my biggest mistake. First off, instead of posing a query, the lady who had delivered the invocation took me to task for not pointing out that most Muslims are good people, and that some of her best friends are followers of Islam. I opined that most Germans were not Nazis and most Russians were not Communists, but Americans hadn't constantly been called upon to make that distinction. And just because most Muslims weren't blowing up Israeli school buses and pizza parlors, and weren't murdering American soldiers and pregnant women at Fort Hood and elsewhere, didn't mean a heck of a lot of them didn't favor bringing Shariah law to America or that they hadn't been contributing to terrorist organizations through Islamic charities until the FBI shut them down.


At that point, she stormed out."

As it usually is when liberals are confronted with inconvenient little things known as FACTS. And it's not like certain individuals arent trying to introduce Sharia Law in American courts either. And this is in addition, of course, to Harvard University's Islamic Finance project which seeks which seeks "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector". This in spite of complaints that Shariah Compliant Finance increases the risk of "securities fraud, consumer fraud, racketeering, antitrust violations, material support for terrorism and aiding and abetting sedition."



On a related note, earlier today while at Pamela Geller's blog Atlas Shrugs, I noticed the neat badge that one can install on their blog from the nice people ovar at thereligionofpeace.com. You can see it on the right as it tallies the number of attacks committed in the name of Islam just since 9/11. I defy anyone to show me a single religion that comes even close to these numbers, and if one visits their site, the following facts become clear...

• 
  
  "More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
  
  
  



• More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
  
  
  



• Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.
  
  
  



• 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years."

But rather than the media trumpeting these facts, isnt it so much more fun to point out to Mr. Cain just how backward his way of thinking is? For an encore, perhaps the complicit media in this country could write a hard-hitting piece about how rearranging the deck chairs on the H.M.S. Titanic would have bought those folks considerably more time. Or they could ask Obama such penetrating questions like what his favorite color is and then speak at length about what it reveals concerning his personality. It would only be par for the course for such eager serving lapdogs.