Rep. Peter King

An Ethics Mystery: Why Can’t Democrats Be Honest Or Responsible Regarding The Syrian Refugees??

/ Jack Marshall / 82 Comments
"Repeat after me: WE CAN SCREEN THE SYRIAN REFUGEES! THERE IS NO DANGER! NO DANGER"

“Repeat after me: WE CAN SCREEN THE SYRIAN REFUGEES! THERE IS NO DANGER! NO DANGER”

The question of whether to accept Syrian refugees is not, or should not be, a partisan one. It’s simple logic, duty and priorities, as I wrote here. A needy group has an unknown component of deadly members capable of killing Americans. Until or unless those members can be identified and separated from that group, it would be irresponsible to admit them into the country. The Paris bombing vividly illustrated the risk of ignoring these facts. So why are Democrats and their pundit allies making statements attacking those who acknowledge them? You know, just because they are conservatives and Republicans who tend to think that all of President Obama’s policies are misguided doesn’t mean they can’t be right occasionally.

I have been searching for a single persuasive, fact-based argument that justifies the risk of accepting thousands of Syrians. In fact, I have been searching for one that wasn’t dishonest, an appeal to emotion over reality, or a cheap excuse to engage in race-baiting, now the Democratic Party’s favorite pastime.

I’d love to hear one. I’d love to be convinced. If the nation can take in the suffering refugees without vastly increasing the chance of a bomb going off in the a restaurant I’m eating with my family, hurray!

Such arguments just aren’t there, however. Instead we are hearing: Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce and Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments
President Obama, disgracing us all.

President Obama, disgracing us all.

It is fools like Rep. Peter King who make it so easy for partisans in the media to diminish anything any Republican says, and to dismiss all criticism of President Obama, even when it is legitimate.

But it’s even worse than that.

Long Island Republican Representative Peter King thought Obama’s tan suit was inappropriate for him to appear in while commenting on anti-terrorist policies. Not a bunny costume, not a hula skirt, not a barrel and two straps, mind you. A tan suit and a tie. (The President looked great; if only he sounded one-tenth as impressive as he looked.) King—I can’t believe I’m writing this— actually said..

“There’s no way, I don’t think, any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday. I mean, you have the world watching. For him to walk out — I’m not trying to be trivial here — in a light suit, a light tan suit, saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about, and he said that’s the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy. This is a week after Jim Foley was beheaded, and he’s trying to act like, you know, real Americans care about the economy, not about ISIS and not about terrorism. And then he goes on to say that he has no strategy.”

I’m not going to insult anyone reading here by explaining why the tan suit indictment is so bizarre, foolish and wrong. King’s comments, however, transcended his idiotic sartorial indictment. By combining this silly, silly, silly complaint—personally, I find Peter King’s brain inappropriate—with substantive criticism, he allowed the Masters of Spin at the White House and elsewhere to trivialize any criticism of the President’s statement yesterday, and it deserved to be criticized.

How can any objective and rational citizen respect a political party that includes in its leadership someone so jaw-droppingly stupid as to not merely think this, which is bad enough, but not to realize the damage he does to the public trust in Congress, the government, and his party by  saying it in public?

We are being governed by hysterics, children and boobs.

God Save The United States of America.

______________________

Facts and Graphic: New York Magazine

 

 

The Tears of Keith Ellison

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

The grand drama at Rep. Peter King’s Congressional hearings investigating the radicalization of American Muslims last week was provided by Rep. Keith Ellison, who broke down crying while telling the story of a Muslim-American hero, Mohammed Salman Hamdani, who rushed to lower Manhattan on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 to assist in rescue efforts, and died in the collapse of the World Trade Center. Ellison said:

After the tragedy some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic faith. Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was in league with the attackers only because he was Muslim. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were fully exposed. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be defined as a member of an ethnic group or a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens.

I found the performance odd and vaguely troubling, and now that I’ve thought about it for a few days, I know why. The statement by Ellison, who converted to Islam, and the tears that accompanied it, raise a few ethical issues, beginning with the Ethics Alarms standard, “What’s going on here?” Continue reading →