Tucker Carlson’s Smackdown Of Muslim Apologist

Tucker Carlson’s Smackdown Of Muslim Apologist, by Joe Sanders.

When Georgetown University professor and Muslim apologist Engy Abdelkader joined the “Tucker Carlson Tonight” show to argue that Muslims are being unfairly blamed for Islamic terrorism in the United States, she came armed with facts and figures from the FBI and bogus arguments about white supremacy.

But the clearly outclassed educator wound up shooting blanks — and was no match for a sharp show host armed with common sense.

In a debate that was almost comical in its one-sided aspects, Abdelkader tried to turn Carlson’s questions about Monday’s terror attack on the campus of Ohio State University back on American society in general – and the old leftist boogeyman, the fabled white supremacist, right-wing extremist. …

Responding to Carlson’s question about how Muslim Americans in the United States might consider their religion at least somewhat responsible for terrorist acts in the United States that have killed more than 100 Americans and wounded 350 more over the past eight years, Abdelkader answered with what can charitably be described as nonsense.

As proof of her argument, Abdelkader cited statistics from the FBI, but eventually conceded the numbers related to “acts of terrorism” rather than the “victims” of terrorism. … The politically correct FBI in the Age of Obama might well consider some drunk teenager throwing a pork chop on a mosque front door an act of “right-wing extremism.” But it pales in comparison to, say, bombing the Boston Marathon (3 dead), shooting up a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, (49 dead), or deliberately driving into a crowd of students, then attacking with a knife at a university campus in Columbus, Ohio (11 injured).

“I’m an Episcopalian. And if you saw 100 people murdered by Episcopalians in the name of the archbishop of Canterbury in the last eight years, a lot of us in the church would say, ‘what the hell is this? And what can we do to stop it?’”

Notice the way the politically correct use language as a political weapon for pushing a self-serving point of view, never conceding the truth. Anything but reality. Where as most of us have conversations with some idea of arriving at a truth by considering contesting ideas and evidence and then reaching a resolution, the PC crew, as here, typically only use it to push an untrue view down your throat.

Don’t be fooled by PC people that they want a normal discussion aimed at arriving at the truth. Save yourself the time and bother — they only want to push a point of view.