“You don’t even have to have proof of citizenship” anymore.
Tory Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, quoted in the National Post, Feb. 13:
“I believe in personal liberty, even if I find some expressions of personal liberty a bit peculiar. I don’t think we should be regulating what people wear but when a citizen comes to deal with the government, particularly to exercise their right to vote, I think it’s entirely reasonable that we say we need to confirm who you are and a facial identification is a reasonable way of doing that,”
…Outbursts of public condemnation overturned a similar initiative earlier this year by Quebec’s Election Commission. The Commission was forced to reverse its consent to “burqa voting” when offended Quebec citizens and public interest groups threatened civil disobedience at election time. Highlighting the problem of double standards and arbitrariness, voters promised to attend polls with their faces covered by paper bags, sheets, hockey masks and other head coverings, and to assert “sensitivity” and special religious privilege as their justification for doing so.
“Elections Canada’s initiative violates the basic premise of public voting in Canada and the principle of equality of all Canadians before the ballot box. It is an invitation to fraud, misrepresentation and the debasing of our democratic electoral system,” said David Harris, CCD Senior Fellow for National Security.
Beyond the ballot box, religious face coverings have at times been misused in Canada and around the world to facilitate fraud and other criminal acts. Veiling has been used abroad to advance terrorist operations, including suicide bombings. Such risks compelled France to ban the burqa in certain public spheres, and the Netherlands’ government among others is considering doing the same. And last fall in Quebec, ADQ leader Mario Dumont went beyond the ballot box issue, stating that he did not “rule out the possibility of laws to make illegal the wearing of the burqa.” Yet some of Canada’s elites, apparently unfazed by the threat to electoral integrity and public safety, appear helpless in the face of radical lobbying in the name of “accommodation”.
Shocking Excerpts Read at Tucson School Board Meeting From A Book Used In The Controversial Ethic Studies Curriculum For Grades 3rd – 12th. This video has been added to my Native-American vs. Settlers post:
Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:
Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.
The Chronicle’s report is accurate.
If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.
I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward’s statement… Messy ball now firmly in White House court.
….“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.
The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”
[….]
Update: Brandon Kiser argues that this should change MMFA’s tax status.
Finally! NPR is showing its true colors again at the very top with the embedded liberalism (see firing of Juan Williams) of its “news” organization. This from NewsBusters:
In the wake of a video sting showing NPR executives making disparaging comments towards conservatives, National Public Radio announced Wednesday morning that it had accepted the resignation of its president Vivian Schiller. “The Board accepted Vivian’s resignation with understanding, genuine regret and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past 2 years,” said Board Chairman Dave Edwards.
The hidden-camera video, released Tuesday, showed NPR exec Ron Schiller, no relation to Vivian, calling the Tea Party “racist” and “xenophobic” and insisting that NPR would be “better off in the long-run” without the federal dollars that congressional Republicans have been seeking to rescind. A pair of NPR statements disavowed Ron Schiller’s comments, and specifically rejected his claims regarding NPR funding.
Vivian Schiller was also the target of criticism for her handling of the firing of Juan Williams from NPR for comments he made about Muslims that the station considered inappropriate. Schiller acknowledged in a speech at the National Press Club on Monday that the firing was not handled correctly.
Williams appeared on the Fox News Channel, where he is a contributor, on Tuesday night to denounce NPR for the revelations in the undercover video. “They prostitute themselves for money,” he had told Fox Nation earlier in the day.
…If you want to know why Michelle Litjens and other Republicans need a police escort around the Capitol, now you know. Click the image to watch.
After watching this video a few times, I think the union members were very near violence. This Democrat stepped in just in time. Either way this tactic the unions are using are the same one’s the Democrat Socialists used to install some unmentionables into power. Here is a section from an old post that I imported from an even older post from my old site:
[….]
For instance, a librarian at Ohio University recommended the book The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom and was voted on by his fellow professors 21-0 [with nine abstentions, so kinda like 30-0] as being a sexual harasser for recommending a conservative book. Sounds somewhat fascist to me.
See blog for Friday, April 14, 2006 (political commentary):
The political commentators of the same political philosophy, when on campuses are shouted down and threatened with bodily harm (Ann Coulter), when opposing viewpoints are not shouted down on university campuses, and the guests dont need bodyguards (Cindy Sheehan).
Libertarian Republican has a post that got me thinking.Since liberal Democrats (progressives) got these radical chieftains voted in by “poo-pooing” the Republicans concerns about Hamasd and the Palestinians, you get to see how illiberal these “liberals” really are:
According to the Telegraph, “Gaza’s elected Islamist rulers crack down on secular community” the List of some activities now banned by Hamas in Gaza, include:
1. Novels it deems offensive to Islam 2. Bars 3. Cinemas 4. Women walking outside in Western clothes 5. Male hairdressersFrom the Telegraph: In recent years, hardliners have burned down the cinemas. Their charred remains are still visible in Gaza City. Militants blew up the last bar in 2005.
Gaza women, whose attire once varied from Western pants and skirts to colourful traditional embroidered robes, began donning ankle-length loose robes.And don’t even dare walking outside with your wife without the correct documentation.
Continuing:
Today, plainclothes officers sometimes halt couples in the streets, demanding to see marriage licenses.
…After all the furor over alleged racist signs or words at Tea Party rallies, the media is ignoring the shocking fact that 12 of the 25 groups endorsing Delaware Democrat Chris Coons for the United States Senate over Republican Christine O’Donnell have turned up on the quite official list of the “One Nation Working Together” rally — as formal co-sponsors with supporters of the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. And, no kidding, the Communist Party.
Did I mention the Coons 12 are also holding hands with the International Socialist Organization? Plus the Democratic Socialists of America?
You read that right.
And Chris Coons is not the only Democrat receiving this same election support either.
Which groups is Coons accepting endorsements from, knowing full well the same groups have deliberately and quite publicly tied themselves to supporters of terrorism, Communism and socialism?
That would be these groups:
The UAW SEIU Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO Planned Parenthood People for the American Way International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Stonewall Democrats United Food and Commercial Workers International Union National Education Association Human Rights Campaign AFSCME
All to be found hidden in plain sight on both the official listing of sponsors provided by the One Nation Working Together rally organizers listed here and then over here as part of the 25 groups endorsing Chris Coons supplied by the official Coons for Senate website. Twelve of Coons endorsers — that would be one shy of half — signed onto the recent rally that listed the Communist Party USA as a co-sponsor. And ANSWER, the radical supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas. And the International Socialists. And the Democratic Socialists.
All of this — and not a peep, not one peep — from the media. CNN’s Howard Kurtz still maintains that Coons’ “Bearded Marxist” self-description was some sort of college prank that Sean Hannity somehow got wrong? Hello? Earth to Howard.
Let’s take a look at these groups the Coons campaign supporters have linked themselves to and which the media simply isn’t reporting. Let’s see what they believe and what others have said about them.
• ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism): Here’s what the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has to say about the charming folks at ANSWER who have been holding hands with The Coons 12. ANSWER has “repeatedly expressed support for terrorist groups determined to dismantle the state of Israel, including Hamas and Hezbollah.“
Got that? Hamas and Hezbollah. Groups sworn to the destruction of Israel. Terrorists responsible for who knows how many repeated and extraordinarily violent and murderous attacks killing Israeli men, women and children.
House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn (SC) recently accused Republicans of “aiding and abetting terrorism” because of their support for the Tea Party movement. With all due respect, Rep. Clyburn needs to clean out his own party first before he has standing to say anything on the subject.
Top Democrat Party activists Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin, through their group Code Pink, have spent the past eight years terrorizing soldiers, their families and public officials on the homefront while working with terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism abroad. Rather than being condemned and disowned, Code Pink is embraced by President Barack Obama and leading Democrats while being celebrated by the media.
The Code Pink Democrats have harassed wounded soldiers and their families at military hospitals in Washington, D.C. and San Diego; they have repeatedly targeted military recruiting centers for abuse; they cruelly taunted the children of military families at a White House Halloween party; they have terrorized government officials at their homes and they have led a campaign for the kidnapping of former President Bush and his wife Laura (for this they enlisted the support of the Muslim Brotherhood).
Abroad, the Code Pink Democrats have worked with state sponsors of terrorism including the governments of Saddam Hussein, Cuba’s Castro brothers, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syria’s Bashar Assad as well as the anti-American governments of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and Bolivia’s Evo Morales.
In December 2008, the Code Pink Democrats led a shoe throwing protest in front of the White House to celebrate an incident in Baghdad when an Iraqi “journalist” threw his shoes at President George W. Bush. This encouragement of violence against Bush was a propaganda bouquet by the Code Pink Democrats to their terrorist allies aroud the world.
These Code Pink Democrats have also worked with terrorists including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Sunni terrorists in Iraq and the father of Islamic terrorism: the Muslim Brotherhood. The Code Pink Democrats have bragged about giving cash and humanitarian aid to terrorists who target Americans, Israelis and free Iraqis.
(This is posted due to a conversation started on my LiveLeak account.) I have talked about the bias embedded in NPR previously, but few are aware of the embedded bias at the BBC. And so, I wanted to get a critique of their biases into the anals of PapaG. I often talk to people who see to think they are in am elite class of people when they mention they listen to the BBC. Don’t get me wrong, they bring stories about world events other news orgs miss. However, many people are not trained to get the bias behind their headlines. The Daily Mail, a UK newsdaily, has an interesting article from a while ago:
It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.
A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.
It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.
At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.
One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.
‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’
While the BBC admitted their bias and have tried to correct it, they still do not know what impartiality is — not to mention political correctness and multi-culturalism. Someone who worked at the BBC for some time (Peter Sissons, a 20 year veteran of BBC News) wrote in his memoirs about some of this culture of progressiveness at the BBC, to wit NewsBusters wrote on:
While liberal media bias is often easy to spot, it’s rare to see veteran journalists come clean on the biases of their own news outlets. But when one does, it’s hard to dispute the first hand account of the newsroom’s consistently leftist politics.
In his new memoirs, veteran BBC news anchor Peter Sissons details the startling depths of leftist politics that pervade coverage at Britain’s state-owned broadcaster. Leftism is “in its very DNA,” Sissions claims of the BBC.
In excerpts from the memoirs, titled “When One Door Closes”, published in Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper, Sissons details the groupthink mentality at the BBC:
At any given time there is a BBC line on everything of importance, a line usually adopted in the light of which way its senior echelons believe the political wind is blowing. This line is rarely spelled out explicitly, but percolates subtly throughout the organisation.
Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities. The EU is also a good thing, but not quite as good as the UN. Soaking the rich is good, despite well-founded economic arguments that the more you tax, the less you get. And Government spending is a good thing, although most BBC people prefer to call it investment, in line with New Labour’s terminology.
All green and environmental groups are very good things. Al Gore is a saint. George Bush was a bad thing, and thick into the bargain. Obama was not just the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, he was the BBC’s. Blair was good, Brown bad, but the BBC has now lost interest in both.
Trade unions are mostly good things, especially when they are fighting BBC managers. Quangos are also mostly good, and the reports they produce are usually handled uncritically. The Royal Family is a bore. Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.
In short, pick the default leftist position on any issue, and odds are it is the position held and espoused on air by the BBC.
And while leftist politics color the news at the channel, they also dictate its corporate structure and inner workings, according to Sissons. One’s politics, he writes, can dictate one’s success or failure in climbing the Company’s corporate ladder.
If Human Resources — or Personnel, as it used to be known — advise that it’s time a woman or someone from an ethnic minority (or a combination of the two) was appointed to the job for which you, a white male, have applied, then that’s who gets it.
But whatever your talent, sex or ethnicity, there’s one sure-fire way at a BBC promotions board to ensure you don’t get the job, indeed to bring your career to a grinding halt. And that’s if, when asked which post-war politician you most admire, you reply: ‘Margaret Thatcher’.
In fact, there are whole blogs that deal with the bias at the BBC. Biased BBC for instance. In one forum this was posted in relation to the memoirs of Peter Sissons being released:
Very interesting complete article, I encourage you to read it:
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”
Originally Posted by BBC Drama Commissioning Controller
“We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking.”
Ben Stephenson. BBC Drama Commissioning Controller
Guardian, July 16th 2009
Originally Posted by BBC Internal Report
“An internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias. That report criticised the BBC for coming late to several important stories including euroscepticism and immigration, which it described as ‘off limits in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone’.”
“BBC programmes are being undermined by the liberal culture of its staff”
Which is funny, as the BBC spends 86% of its recruitment budget on advertising in one unashamedly left-wing newspaper – The Guardian.
BBC spent a colossal:
1. Guardian £231,944
2. The Telegraph £32,535
3. The Times £6,159
The Guardian on itself: “…a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition.” The Guardian is also has a miniscule readership, Telegraph is read by more than twice as many people, and the Times more.
A round table. Take note that the point Carol makes is one I make about NPR:
For instance, NPR: 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments. (SOURCE)
Using CNN’s line of thought, Target stores have been inciting hatred since 1962! This reminds me of a few books on the PC lifestyle the Left loves to try and inflict on us all. A fun read on this topic was written by Michael Smerconish entitled Muzzled. In his opening sentences of his first paragraph he says this:
MUZZLED. In a word, it’s what we’ve become. Words and actions in this country have become MUZZLED by those among us in favor of political correctness who would sacrifice the rugged individualism that has been the hallmark of our nation. It’s a trend that has been building for a while but is now totally out of control.
And in the final sentences Smerconish writes a fictitious letter to his son. But with all this talk… is it not headed this way? I mean, if “crosshairs” can be scrubbed from TV, how long before the actual crosshairs? Which is why putting Constitutional judges on the Supreme Court is key. Here is that fictional ending:
You know your dad; I was never comfortable when they passed the mandatory handgun hand-in.
Maybe I should have seen it coming.
I mean, when Congress finally declared the NRA to be a hate group, the handwriting was on the wall.
But they really took the gun outlawing too far. I mean, when the citizen ban was expanded to police, that was just too much for me.
At Hot Air, Allahpundit wonders: How did America survive through all the years CNN aired this program
This weird 1984/Animal Farm/Fahrenheit 451/Brave New World way of thinking that infects the left is crazy! However, since the Democratic Party is leaning left these days, there is some history people should know about maybe why it is that the Left loves to control language in a Politically Correct fashion. Here is a decent 3-part YouTube presentation of the ideas behind this language control:
