Friday, December 23, 2011


“I don’t believe it is helpful to frame our adversaries as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add… This is not about political correctness.”

— Paul N. Stockton

In the video below, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, attempts to get a straight answer from Paul Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs.

Watch Sec. Stockton squirm and writhe in his (successful) attempt to avoid using the words “Islamic” or “Islamist” as modifiers for “Al Qaeda”.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

It is as if Mr. Stockton had received a post-hypnotic command not to say “Islam”, “Islamic”, or “Islamist” in association with “Al Qaeda”…


RonaldB said...

Paul Stockton seemed like a wind-up robot in that hearing. There was no intelligent engagement on his part whatsoever.

National Public Radio had the same syndrome. They has an hours-long program on the 9-11 responders, never mentioning the word "Islam", "Islamic", or "Islamist". They also totally left off naming "al-Quaeda". It was like they were commemorating an earthquake.

The next time they sent me a request for contributions, I wrote them if they were going to filter their news through political correctness, they would have to get their donations from people who supported political correctness.

Chiu said...


"Islamic" is just as valid a qualifier (or "behavioral indicator") as "violent" and "extremist". Not everyone with extreme views (about, say, the amount of frosting it is appropriate to put on a cupcake) or prone to violence (say, professional athletes or soldiers) is necessarily at war with us anymore than all Muslims are. But you put all three of those descriptors together, and you've got a problem.

You New said...

Robin B. Good point: Even terms like Al Queda are discriminatory for the left: anything Islam is good.

Learn this "progressive" technique:

1. Hold to an official lie
2. Use technique to stop discussion:
a. avoid question
b. self-sensorship
c. demand that others censor themselves.

You see, progressives can't just come out and say that there is not such thing as violent Islam, since they know that would be utterly nonsensical and an obvious lie. Instead they ban themselves from talking, then demand you must ban yourself, too.

Mr. Stockton would say that GOV and the Anti-Islam Movement is actually supporting Al Qaeda in their propaganda campaign to influence the minds of good Muslims. We are the bad guys for helping Al Qaeda.

They say that if you do not comply with the self-censorship, you will be culpable for Violent Islam. (Oops, I forgot, their is no violent Islam! That's why they are stuck in the headlights.) But a New Violent Islam will appear if you dare to complain!

If it appears one day (of course it will and it has) it's going to all be YOUR FAULT!

This is all about who's fault it is. Get it? We are being set up.

With a world of leftist ninnies like Stockton, it is no wonder that Fjordman is blamed for his halfwit countryman.

Lungren deserves credit for pushing this guy. I like his ornery "You're messing with the wrong guy" look.

babs said...

Stockton is just one more on a long list of idiots that unfortunately have a lot of power over our lives.

Anonymous said...

This is really a robot programmed by Xenu disguised as Obama and his Alien supporters who want to take over Earth.

"Are we at war with Islamists?"

"No Sir, its Al Qaeda and its allies."

"I know that, but can Al Qaeda be described as an exponent of violent Islamism?"

"No Sir, its Al Qaeda and its allies."

christian soldier said...

Good on Lungren!!!R-CA-

Wish other PC oriented govt 'servants'
would get off of their POC high horses and "nail it" as did Lungren!!

there are still strong Patriots in CA---
this Californian has observed ...

Merry CHRISTmas - my Patriot friends...

christian soldier said...

hope you got my comment-