Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

[American_Jihad]

Freind: From Political Correctness To Nelson Mandela, A List Of Biggest Winners in 2013

By Chris Freind, Delaware County Daily Times
Posted: 01/09/14

We have discussed the biggest losers from last year, so now it’s time to spotlight those who won ---though not always conventionally.

Political Correctness: A winner every year, PC has shown its incredible ability to not just persevere, but thrive, thanks mainly to people not demanding an end to the insanity. Sure, we’ve heard about crazy elementary school suspensions, stupid workplace rules, and educators banning tag and ballplaying --- which only permits them to feel good about themselves, while making their students miserable --- but perhaps the best PC story of the year recently took place in Texas.

Young school students had made Christmas cards for bedridden veterans, yet VA officials, in a move that made Scrooge look downright angelic, refused to allow the children’s holiday wishes into the hospital because they contained those vile and offensive phrases “Merry Christmas” and “God Bless You.” Yep, surely those who sacrificed so much for their country would have gotten sick to their stomachs after receiving such insensitive handmade cards.

How do the people who make such rules still have jobs, and who are the idiots that follow them?

We have become a nation of pansies, scared to take on the extremely small but very vocal PC police who day in and day out erode the freedoms so many died to protect. Losing rights forcibly is bad enough, but voluntarily giving them away is inexcusable. Here’s hoping political correctness doesn’t make next year’s Winners list.

...

Freind: From Political Correctness To Nelson Mandela, A List Of Biggest Winners in 2013

 

[American_Jihad]

GRETA: Political Correctness Turns Silly and Twisted for One Shopkeeper​

By Greta Van Susteren
1/23/14


OK, let's go "Off the Record" for just a minute. I don't know about you, but I think this is silly, it's sort of twisted political correctness, morphing into a shopkeeper who simply wants his store and his clients to respect each other and to show respect by their dress.

So check out his store sign. Do you have any problem with that? Well, the New York City Commission On Human Rights does, they sued him, scaring him with a lawsuit, saying it discriminates against women because the commission claims the sign is not gender neutral. Really?

The last time I looked, guys wear shorts and they even wear shoes, most of them. It is his store, if you don't like the store, if you don't like the sign, just don't shop there. It's that simple.

...

GRETA: Political Correctness Turns Silly and Twisted for One Shopkeeper - Fox Nation

 

[American_Jihad]

CNN anchor jabs progressives for political correctness
Questions whether left 'more intolerant' than conservatives
Published: 8 hours ago. Updated: 10/30/2015

Cheryl Chumley

Don Lemon, a CNN news anchor not exactly known for a conservative viewpoint, took a very public stab at progressives during his recent broadcast, asking his guests a point-blank question: Are those on the far left becoming "more intolerant" than those on the ideological right?

Lemon's question was posed in context of discussing Bryan Stascavage, a former U.S. Army military intelligence analyst and Wesleyan college student who was vilified for penning a college newspaper opinion that was entitled, "Why Black Lives Matter Isn't What You Think," as reported by WND. After the piece ran, Stascavage, who suggested the movement wasn't entirely justified in its condemnation of cops, was verbally attacked and the student government voted to cut funding for the publication.

...

CNN anchor jabs progressives for political correctness

 

[American_Jihad]

Evangelist Franklin Graham Blasts Political Correctness — and Reveals Exactly What He Believes Society Desperately Needs
Oct. 30, 2015 7:44am Billy Hallowell

Evangelist Franklin Graham railed against political correctness this week, writing in a post on his Facebook page that Americans “need truth” and that society had better start being “concerned about being spiritually correct.”

Graham implored fans to embrace the spiritual values that he believes truly matter, publishing his comments after the latest GOP debate.


“I agree with Donald J. Trump and Dr. Ben Carson on this issue — political correctness is not what we need. We need truth,” Graham wrote. “Many Americans, and I am one of them, are fed up with political correctness. Our society had better stop being so concerned about being politically correct and start being concerned about being spiritually correct!”

Graham also said that citizens and the country, alike, need to turn their “hearts to almighty God.”

...

Evangelist Franklin Graham Blasts Political Correctness — and Reveals Exactly What He Believes Society Desperately Needs

 

[Rustic]

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times ​

Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton


Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?

I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."

Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

---

MORE: Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times

Political correctness the Bible for the moderates and the spineless...

 

[Rustic]

13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules​

By Doug Giles / 11 July 2012

---

1.Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.

2.It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

3.Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

4.Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.

5.Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.

6.The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

7.The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.

8.Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.

9.If you’re in a gunfight:
– If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
– If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
– If you’re not moving, you’re dead.

10.In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!

11.If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

12.You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.

13.You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

Read more: 13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Very nice, by the way, buy more guns and ammo...

 

[American_Jihad]

The Bible and Political Correctness
...

EXAMPLES OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN ACTION
A proclamation banning "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion of students from conversations," was issued at the University of Connecticut.
A controversy erupted at Harvard Law School when Ian MacNeil, a visiting professor, quoted Lord Byron: "And whispering, 'I will ne'er consent' -consented." The Harvard Women's Law Association was offended and denounced it as a "sexist insult."
Professor Stephan Thernstrom, a distinguished professor of history at Harvard, was forced to drop an undergraduate course after he was harassed because he used the term "Indian" instead of "Native American."
During the Persian Gulf War, officials at the University of Maryland asked students not to hang American flags and pro-war banners from their dorm windows. "This is a very diverse community, and what may be innocent to one person may be insulting to another," according to Jan Davidson, a University of Maryland Official.
Many perceive the Confederate Battle Flag as an offensive symbol of repression of blacks, so it is being forbidden to be flown in may states.
The "Tomahawk Chop" is an insensitive gesture that is demeaning to "Native Americans."
Using names like Indians, Braves, and Warriors, for athletic teams is insensitive.
The National Council of Churches has recommended that the 500th anniversary of Columbus discovery of America be a time of "repentance" for starting "centuries of genocide."
Freshmen cannot be called freshmen, because that has "gender specific" connotations. Must be called "new students."
The nickname "Ragin' Cajuns" was attacked because it was claimed that "Ragin" spelled backwards was a racial slur.
When the NCAA endeavored to set minimum academic standards for athletes, they were charged with a "covert racist agenda." John Thompson, Georgetown basketball coach walked off court during a game to protest the "racist" policy.

DEFINITIONS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Peter Jones, in his book, THE GNOSTIC EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, (P.#3). states, "America is still number one, but unfortunately she is number one in homosexuality, feminism, divorce, the destruction of family values, abortion, political correctness, and the occult humanistic spirituality of New Age religion."

In , THE CULTURAL CHURCH, p.#77 LaGard Smith, says, "'Political correctness' is nothing more than a benign catch phrase for 'the liberal agenda.' In other words, you and I have to toe the liberal line on issues like abortion, gay rights, and radical feminism, or else be reported to the sensitivity police for being intolerant."

Tom Olbricht of Peperdine University, in a personal response to my request for a definition of "political correctness" wrote, "It means to be proactive withthe current cutting edge consensus (whatever or whoever that is, perhaps best represented by the left wing media trend setters) in conception and vocabulary in respect to ethnicity, cultural diversity, and gender."

William J. Bennet, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, a federal agency under President Reagan, in his book, THE DEVALUING OF AMERICA, declared, "Politically Correct" thinking is the term given to thepolitical orthodoxy that is pervasive on many college campuses. It insists that students be "politically correct" -meaning left wing- in speech and opinion,particularly on issues having to do with homosexuality, feminism, race, "Eurocentrism," "colonialism," and the like. In reality, it is an academic thought police, the new McCarthyism of the left."

ENTERING THE PC ZONE
Just as Rod Serling warned you about entering the Twilight Zone, when you encounter any of the concepts or terms listed below, be aware that you are entering the PC Zone and that reality will not be what it has always been.It will be subtlety distorted so that right is defined as wrong, and wrong is defined as right. Bear in mind God's warning against such people in Isaiah and Malachi.

Isaiah 5:20-2120 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, andprudent in their own sight!

Malachi 2:17 17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in thesight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment? (KJV).

Some of the politically correct terms and buzz words are:

Truth is subjective.
There is no ultimate truth, hence what is truth for one person may not be truth for another.
Morality is subjective.
There is no absolute standard of morality, therefore, no one should ever condemn any act or practice of another.
Consciousness raising.
People who hold strong opinions or positions on a topic or issue only do so because they are self-centered and do not understand those they disagree with. Consciousness raising seminars are conducted by corporations, government agencies, and private organizations in order to remove these "narrow mind sets."
Sensitivity
Judges sentence men charged with being "sexist" to "sensitivity training" which may well be part of a "consciousness raising" program.
Victim
Everyone is a victim. That is the justification for why Johnny can't read - he is a victim of a broken home. It is the justification for why criminals are excused with little or no penalty for their crimes - they are victims of society and should be held in sympathy.
Multiculturalism
This concept has ended the "melting pot" phenomena that made America great. It has encouraged "separatism" of nationality, race, and language. Where once immigrants stove to learn English and fit in, now they are told toretain their own language, culture, and traditions and flaunt those of America.
De-constructionism
De-constructionism is the re-writing of history. We must deny the Holocaust ever occurred because it might hurt the feelings of modern Germans.
Homophobe
Roughly interpreted, homophobe means "fear of homosexuals." Any one opposed to homosexual behavior must be so opposed because of deep seated doubts of their own sexuality. Interestingly enough, no homosexual can ever be a "heteraphobe."
Sexist
It is a unique phenomena that no woman, even those who are ardent advocates of 'Women's Liberation" can be considered a "sexist." Only males are capable of this deviant behavior.
Racist
Again, only the male, and specifically a white male, will ever be charged with being a racist. No black can ever be a racist even if, like Farrakhan, he advocates black supremacy and separatism!
Pro-choice
This term is used by those who have made a woman's choice for her. She must not be given any alternative solution to an unwanted pregnancy but termination of the pregnancy. Her only choice is to have an abortion.


PROMOTERS OF POLITICALLY CORRECT THOUGHT
Political Correctness has had such wide-spread and rapid acceptance because of those who promote it. They are the liberal minded who are in positions of influence and power. They are primarily in academia, the news media,Hollywood, and political offices. As such, their voices have access to tools and techniques to promote their agenda. In spite of the massive re-education efforts made by those advocating political correctness, Americans are beginning to see the fallacy of the concepts. William Bennet, in THE DEVALUING OF AMERICA, page 174, said "Left-wing academics have so publicly offended common sense that the American people now reactto them not only with outrage, but also with ridicule."
...

The Bible and Political Correctness

 

[American_Jihad]

'Political Correctness' about Islam Causing Abandonment of ISIS Sex Slaves
Why a British filmmaker removed a heroine nun from his film about her work rescuing Yazidi and Christian girls.
November 18, 2015
Phyllis Chesler

Western “political correctness” about Islam has not only led to terrorist attacks in European, Israeli, and American cities—but it has now also led to the cruel abandonment of the Yazidi and Christian sex slaves still being tortured by ISIS.

In 2014, Sister Hatune Dogan had been rescuing Christian and Yazidi girls from ISIS captivity for eight months, but she was desperate. If only the world could see the harm being done, understand that rescues were possible, people would open their hearts and their wallets.

...

However, Watts removed the nun from his prize-winning film, Escape from ISIS. He did not tell viewers to send funds to the Hatune Foundation to help with further rescues.

Watts decided that the rescues could take a back seat while he set up his own online charity to build a psychiatric center in the UK, to do the work that the Hatune Foundation had already been doing for years.

Now, with the French and American retaliatory bombing raids of ISIS, Watts may also have inadvertently condemned the captive girls to death.

At one of his many sites, Watts claims to have raised 37,000 pounds.

Until his own charity is up and running, Watts directs people to the Amar Foundation. He also names one of Sister Hatune's go-betweens, Khaleel, and directs that funds be sent to him via the Amar Foundation, via Western Union (!), or to a Jerusalem-based foundation, The Springs of Hope, which, he alleges, sends couriers into ISIS territory with money.

On November 13th of this year, Watts wrote to me: “Anyone looking for information on how to help the rescues and contribute to the rehabilitation of the freed women can find information on my blog: www.edwardwattsfilms.com/blog and look for the two entries marked 'Donations'.”

Is Watts simply out to personally capitalize on human tragedy? That’s been known to happen. Has he cut a deal with one of Hatune’s "fixers" or go-betweeens? That's also been known to happen in this part of the world.

Or, is this a matter of political differences trumping a matter of life and death and riding roughshod over the truth?

That seems to be the case.

On July 29, 2015, two weeks after his film aired in the United States on Frontline on PBS and in Britain on Channel 4, Watts testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the American Congress. He told the Committee that: "It's worth noting that ISIS's extreme interpretation of Islam is not shared by the majority of Muslims in the territory under their control." Watts said that only Yazidis are kept as sex slaves because they are not considered People of the Book as Christians are.

This is a lie. Muslims have been kidnapping, torturing, enslaving, and murdering Christians merely because they are Christians for centuries, both in Iraq and in other Muslim countries. Sr. Hatune fled Muslim persecution in Turkey where the Muslim genocide of Christians (Armenians) took place.

Sister Hatune does have a different view of ISIS and of Islam.

According to Hans Erling Jensen the film's producers explained that “her prominent statements about Islam and ISIS would shift the focus of the discussion about the film and would overshadow the relief work.”

Sr. Hatune said that “Islam is ISIS and ISIS is Islam; they would have a lot in common, even though ISIS pursues them with more barbaric means.” Sr. Hatune also mentioned that “atrocities like beheadings and crucifixions [are] justified by verses in the Quran, and have been going on in Iraq long before ISIS. Saudi Arabia is also conducting beheadings and other draconian punishments.”

...

'Political Correctness' about Islam Causing Abandonment of ISIS Sex Slaves

 

[American_Jihad]

November 21, 2015
America's Potential Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
By Dennis P. Halpin

...

The current uproar on American campuses, specifically at the University of Missouri and at Yale, has not reached anything near a level of Red Guard violence. Yet the video of Mizzou Assistant Communications Professor Melissa Click, calling for “muscle” for use against a student reporter and then attempting to grab his camera, displayed a fanaticism worthy of any Red Guard. And the Yale student shouting obscenities at Professor Nicholas Christakis and demanding his firing because of an email his professor spouse sent out concerning freedom of expression in the wearing of Halloween costumes brings to mind past scenes of chanting Red Guards waving little red books giving the “Quotations of Chairman Mao.” On November 18th Yale News reported that Yale President Peter Salovey had emailed students his support for Professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis, rejecting demands that they be fired. Such mindless, intolerant, and vulgar Red Guard-like demands are indeed unworthy of America’s great institutions of higher learning.

As with Mao’s Red Guards, the current American student movement has been galvanized by an attack on university administrators. The Red Guards accused university officials of “intellectual elitism” and “bourgeois tendencies.” A number of university officials were toppled, just as in the recent case of the University of Missouri president.

In China, fired school administrators were then forced to perform such degrading labor as cleaning toilets. Fellow students were also subjected to Red Guard ridicule for “bad class” backgrounds (usually descendants of the landlord class, capitalists, or intellectuals) in a manner similar to the current attacks on “white male privilege” on some U.S. campuses. The labeling by the Red Guards of individuals as “capitalist roader” was as devastating as the current labeling as “racist” is in America.

The Red Guards sought the repression of any divergent ideas. The cancellation of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s scheduled appearance at commencement ceremonies at Rutgers University last year by student protestors is one more example of political correctness run amok. Putting aside concerns for free speech and academic freedom, Ms. Rice and her historic achievements, including becoming the first black woman to serve as secretary of state, represent that very diversity and merit-based achievement which the student culture warriors claim to so highly prize. And besides, Ms. Rice likely would have had some very sage advice to give young graduates just setting out on their post-academic careers. The loss was for the Rutgers students and their tuition-paying family members.

Another example is that of demonstrators at political rallies seizing microphones and attempting to shout down speakers such as in a recent case with Senator Bernie Sanders.This mindless thuggish behavior displays a total disregard for that civil political discourse which is the hallmark of a free society, in sharp contrast to Maoist China.

American university students should recall that one of the greatest proponents of political correctness in the twentieth century was Chairman Mao. China paid a terrible price for a decade-long closure of its universities and the resulting lost generation of students sent to labor in the remote countryside. American diplomat David Dean recalled this scene in his memoirs Unofficial Diplomacy: The American Institute in Taiwan, pages 60-61: “Mary and I were witnesses, watching from a window in our apartment in Beijing, to a sad ‘ceremony’ sending hundreds of students out to the far reaches of China… And there were crowds of parents weeping bitterly as their children boarded the special buses. Some would never see their son or daughter again. Being sent down to the countryside frequently meant permanent exile.”

The great debate of the decade-long Cultural Revolution over “red versus expert,” i.e. that strict adherence to Maoist ideology was more essential than any technological or scientific expertise, deprived China of those very skills later promoted by Deng Xiaoping’s “four modernizations.” As a result, Mao’s China remained an impoverished, isolated backwater out of sync with the economic boom then engulfing such neighbors as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. Is that ideologically-driven backwardness the future for America that today’s student demonstrators desire?

America’s coming Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution on its college campuses will not involve a formal school shutdown or an exile of students to remote sections of the Rocky Mountains. It will lead, instead, to a shutting down of ideas and an erosion of those academic skills vital to prepare America’s students for a challenging global economy. Mizzou professor Melissa Click, for example, reportedly specializes in research on “50 Shades of Gray readers and fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga.” As university students in developing economies study science and engineering, how will a greater knowledge of Lady Gaga make American students ready to compete in the global marketplace?

With the accelerating costs of a college education, as exemplified by millennial voters’ expressed concerns over the debt serving of their student loans, one would think that they would demand more content from their universities and their professors. Curriculum based on political correctness and sensitivity training seems a prescription for a declining America. Only when China threw off the fanatical political focus of the Cultural Revolution in favor of the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping did it rise to be the world’s second-largest economy. America’s coming potential Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is, thus, a likely roadmap for economic, political and cultural disaster.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/americas_potential_great_proletarian_cultural_revolution.html#ixzz3sC9NgjXp

 

[American_Jihad]

December 8, 2015
Political Correctness More Deadly than ISIS
By Brian Joondeph

Which is a bigger threat to America? Terrorists or political correctness? Seems like an easy answer. PC is just an idea, whereas terrorists shoot people and blow things up. But which is easier to stop or contain?

I contend that if the PC movement went away, America would have a much easier time fighting terrorism. Meaning that political correctness will be our undoing, despite the best efforts of intelligence, law enforcement, and the military.

It took the FBI three days to reluctantly acknowledge that the San Bernardino shooting were an act of terrorism. President Obama also took several days before calling the shooting an “act of terror” but still hedging on assigning blame. The smart set in the media made fools of themselves attributing the shootings to everything from Planned Parenthood, despite the clinic being a mile away, to the usual canard, “workplace violence.”

To anyone following the news, especially after the recent Paris attacks, within hours it was fairly clear what the San Bernardino shooting was about. Islamic terrorism. But in the world of political correctness, this is “the cause which must not be named” for fear of offending Muslims.

In the wake of the Colorado Springs shooting, it was perfectly fine to label the shooter a “Christian terrorist” despite a neighbor saying he’d never heard the shooter talk about religion. If it turns out that Robert Dear carried out the shootings in the name of Christ, then call him a Christian terrorist. We know the female San Bernardino shooter pledged support to ISIS, so it would be fair to call her an Islamic terrorist.

Yet we can’t. Neither could President Obama in his Sunday night oval office address. He did say the shooters were, “embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam.” Only 70 percent of U.S. Muslims have a very unfavorable view of al Qaeda, meaning that close to a third may actually accept this “perverted interpretation.”


Major Nidal Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” before he opened fire killing 13 people at Fort Hood. Yet the U.S. government called this “workplace violence.” Not Islamic terrorism, the phrase which is not politically correct.

So why not call it what it is? If it’s Christian terror, so be it. But same with Islamic terror. Instead those who describe it accurately are demonized. Ask Donald Trump. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will bring the full force of the U.S. Department of Justice down on anyone using “anti-Muslim rhetoric that edges toward violence.” The last part is quite vague giving the justice department wide latitude in determining the extent to which “rhetoric edges toward violence.”

...


Read more: Articles: Political Correctness More Deadly than ISIS

 

[American_Jihad]

Republicans Take a Stand against the PC Jihad at the Terror Debate
“Political correctness is killing people.”
December 16, 2015
Daniel Greenfield

The Republican debate may have been taking place in Vegas, but over it hung the shadows of the killings in San Bernardino. And many of the Republican candidates stepped up vowing a tougher fight against the Islamic State and other foreign enemies of the United States, including Russia and North Korea.

There were divisions over many of the details, but there was also a consensus that the war had to be won, the military had to be rebuilt and that the truth about terrorism had to be told.

“The war that we are fighting now against radical Islamist jihadists is one that we must win. Our very existence is dependent upon that,” Ben Carson said, after calling for a moment of silence for the victims of the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack.

Throughout the debate, Carson made political correctness into his target. America was a patient, he warned, who “would not be cured by political correctness.” He urged us to “get rid of all this PC stuff” and argued that we must do the right thing without worried about being labeled “Islamophobic”.

Specifically referencing the Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum from the Holy Land Foundation trial by name, Carson suggested that one of its tactics entailed using our own political correctness against us.

Ted Cruz agreed that political correctness is crippling our resistance to Islamic terror, stating, “It is not a lack of competence stopping us, it is political correctness.” Referencing the San Bernardino Jihadists who pledged allegiance to ISIS, the Tsarnaev brothers and Nidal Malik Hassan, Cruz warned that, “Political correctness is killing people”.

“Our enemy is not violent extremism,” Cruz said. “It is radical Islamic terrorism. We have a president who is unwilling to utter its name.”

Trump, Cruz and some of the other candidates took a firm and politically incorrect stand against Syrian Muslim migrants. “They're not coming to this country,” Trump stated flatly. “We will not be admitting Jihadists as refugees,” Cruz said.

Some candidates on the stage disagreed. Jeb Bush warned that such a proposal will push the Muslim world away. “It will push the Muslim world, the Arab world away from us,” he pleaded. Kasich also spoke of “Our Arab friends.” Christie claimed that he had fought Islamic terror “with the Muslim-American community".

Jeb argued that the United States could not beat ISIS without Muslim aid. “We can't disassociate ourselves from peace loving Muslims. If we expect to do this on our own, we will fail,” he claimed.

Ted Cruz however pointed out that the head of the FBI had admitted that the Syrian refugees could not be vetted. Christie and other candidates also referenced the FBI statement as a basis for halting the Syrian migrant resettlement program. Rand Paul even noted that every terror attack had occurred as a result of legal immigration. Though there were indeed illegalities in some of the major terror cases.

Cruz positioned immigration as a vital part of the War on Terror. “The front line with ISIS isn't just in Iraq and Syria; it's in Kennedy Airport and the Rio Grande”. He also pointed out that even Bill Clinton had “deported 12 million illegal aliens.”

“This is an issue we have to be 100 percent right on,” Rubio conceded, warning of the consequence, “If we allow 9,999 Syrian refugees into the United States, and all of them are good people, but we allow one person in who's an ISIS killer -- we just get one person wrong, we've got a serious problem.”

All the Republican candidates on stage vowed to be tough on ISIS, but they differed over topics such as the NSA, the treatment of terrorists who are American citizens and regime change.

“If you're an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we're not going to read you your Miranda rights. You're going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country,” Rubio boldly warned.

“We have to put America’s security first,” Christie urged.

Defying boos over his suggestion that Syria’s access to the internet should be shut down or eavesdropped on, Trump challenged them, “These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you're -- you're objecting to us infiltrating their conversations?”

...

“We’ve opened up a very big discussion that needed to be opened up.,” Trump said early on in the debate. And that may be the best description of this debate that continues, not only in Las Vegas or in San Bernardino, but around the tables of American households all across the country.

Republicans Take a Stand against the PC Jihad at the Terror Debate

 

[American_Jihad]

Our Timid Military Leaders
Will political correctness threaten national security?
December 17, 2015
Walter Williams

This month, President Barack Obama's defense secretary, Ashton Carter, decreed that there will be 220,000 combat military jobs offered to women — including in Army special operations forces and the Navy SEALs. He said, "They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat ... and everything else that was previously open only to men."

Technological changes since the time of the M60 Patton, embodied in the M1 Abrams tank, mean that a woman can probably drive a tank. But what if track pads or a tank track has to be repaired in the field and under enemy fire? Such repairs pose a significant physical challenge to men, who generally have far greater strength than women. Will our military leaders relieve women from such a task, claiming that demanding equal performance creates a "disparate," sexually discriminatory impact?

Then there's hand-to-hand combat training, which comes near the end of the Army's basic training. Recruits spend a few hours facing off against each other in pugil stick bouts. Pugil sticks are padded training weapons used since World War II by each branch of the military to train service members for hand-to-hand rifle and bayonet combat. The object of the training is to subdue your opponent. Women are at a severe disadvantage because upper-body strength really counts. Given the timidity and character of today's military leaders, I predict several possibilities: Training with pugil sticks will be banned, or servicewomen will train only against other servicewomen, or, if the training is integrated, servicemen will be court-martialed if they knock out or knock down a servicewoman. Even if our military leaders fudge this aspect of training, what happens in actual combat when hand-to-hand skills are called upon? I wouldn't be surprised if today's military leaders call for an amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions to make the hand-to-hand killing of a female fighter a war crime.

What about other training standards? The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance.

...

Our Timid Military Leaders

 

[Katzndogz]

Political correctness is something every one can battle individually. Just stop doing it.

 

[American_Jihad]

January 6, 2016
To Be, or Not to Be Offended
By Deana Chadwell
New York City is proposing a $250,000 fine for using the wrong pronoun in reference to a transgendered person. Really?! How would you know which pronoun to use? Why would a he that used to be a she be upset if one slipped up and used the feminine pronoun? Accidents happen, especially where confusion abounds. Are we now to ask about genitalia before we address a person with a Ms. or a Mr.?

No, that won’t work. Caitlyn reportedly still has his/her male genitalia. But I digress -- it’s too easy to wax sarcastic with all of this, and I know there’s also some real human suffering here, and my concern really isn’t the transgendered movement. It is with all the fuss about being offensive.

Where, on what planet, in what list of thou-shalt-nots, among what tribe of people is being totally inoffensive the most important moral value? And who has the authority in a free society to determine for the rest of us what is or is not an assault on general sensibilities?

I can hear the libertine voices shouting, oh yeah? Aren’t you offended by pornography? No, because it’s avoidable -- but I do feel protective of the people porn damages, the marriages that are destroyed, the careers damaged, the minds twisted. I’m even more concerned for those who produce the pornography -- especially the very young. True morality has nothing to do with who’s offended. It has to do with limiting the chaos in society.

Being offensive is a breech of etiquette, not of morality. Being offensive is belching loudly, swearing like a stevedore, farting in church. It’s a failure of proper manners and decorum; it has nothing to do with political opinions, religious faith, or human morals. Case in point:

There’s a house in my town on a road I occasionally travel that never fails to catch my eye. It’s purple. Not a soft lavender or a gentle mauve, but a violently, poisonously, passionate purple. It offends every aesthetic sensibility I possess. And yet, there it sits in defiance, offensive in every sense of the word. I can as I drive by look away, but its presence is so commanding, the offense so great, that, like a car wreck by the road, it’s hard to tear my eyes away.

Nevertheless, these chromatically intrepid folk had no moral obligation to check with me before they bought that paint. They had no local ordinance to go by. They chose that color because 1) it was being thrown away so they got it cheap, 2) they’re color blind, or, most likely, 3) they actually like that macroaggressive shade.

And, last I checked, people, outside of HOA’s, are still free to choose a paint color that pleases them. Would I feel the same if they had chosen, in solidarity with the gay movement, to paint this house in rainbow colors? Whereas, I find it appalling that God’s promising symbol, the rainbow, has been co-opted by a group of people who use it to mock the very God who offered the promise, the offensiveness of the house would remain the same.

And my inability to do anything at all about it remains the same. My being offended is not, nor should it be, a matter of law. I haven’t been denied anything I want or need. I am not required to drive down that street. I don’t have to look that direction when I do.

The gay couple in Portland who wanted the wedding cake, could have obtained one at dozens of other groovier bakeries than the Klein’s. The couple wasn’t being excluded unlawfully; the Klein’s had served them before. Their wedding wasn’t in jeopardy, nor was their health or wealth or wellbeing. They were simply offended by the bakery owners’ stance. That the Klein’s were offended by the gay couple’s wedding plans seems not to be an issue, which I don’t understand.

These storeowners, however, have been fined an exorbitant amount of money and had all their bank accounts completely stripped of funds just before Christmas -- for offending someone, someone of what I call “the whiney class.” These are people who claim a special dispensation and demand that they never be offended, slighted, or snubbed in even the slightest way. Some blacks claim the right to never be called on anything, and demanding such deference is a big part of the Muslim stealth jihad; evidently being even close to bacon will undo their spiritual journey to their personal clutch of virgins. Atheists appear to be of the opinion that no one should ever say anything about God; they evidently find His mention disturbing and references to His Son ever more disorienting. Feminists appear to be upset by anything men do.

I’ve lost track of the people we have to tiptoe now that our most important right is some imaginary privilege to never have our opinions, our suppositions, our biases questioned. Which amendment is that? “The right to have and hold opinions without ever having to defend them, or having to know anything at all about the issue, or be presented with any contrary opinions shall never be abridged, especially by Christians.” Is that how it works?

I am offended now and then. I’m offended by TV shows, obviously written and filmed in a land where 50% of the population is gay or transgendered. I get cranky about that not because of the gayness as much as by the untruth of that ratio. I’m offended by people extolling those who lie, cheat, finagle, and steal. I’m offended by criminals getting away with murder, and by my guns having to take the blame for it. But -- I would never sue anyone over my disquiet and revulsion. I live in a free country; I can take it.

I am not offended by the behavior of ISIS and orthodox Muslims; I’m horrified. It’s not simply offensive to rape a little girl to death; it’s pure evil. It’s not merely offensive to slice off a Christian’s head, or burn him alive, or nail him to a cross. Those things are terrifying. I grew up thinking mankind had left those barbaric cruelties in the distant past.

I’m not upset by people calling me names, nor by those who speak to me rudely because they disagree. I’ve learned that such behavior simply means they can’t win the argument in spite of their arrogant posture.

This business of having to cow-tow to the overly exaggerated feelings of those whose misbehavior has left them with uber-fragile egos is exhausting. Should we be polite? Of course. Loving? Why not? We are all God’s creatures and we should treat all people with the respect that warrants. Until…

Until I, and those I love, are threatened. Roseburg is only an hour away from me and I teach in college. And my school, a small, moneyless Bible college, is being harassed by our state over our gay marriage stance. That threatens my career -- all because someone is worried that something someone says on our tiny campus may offend someone. I mean, we don’t ever conduct weddings or bake cakes or actually do anything that could interfere with a gay couple’s wish to marry. So why are we being attacked? I’m not offended; I’m mad.

America has grown half a population with no backbone, no resilience, no interest in truth and the discomfort that often accompanies its discovery. Americans -- can you believe it? -- are all fussy about “microaggression” and not at all aware of the macroaggression that will be ours to deal with if we can’t face the truth about morality, about our enemies, and about God.

God’s not real receptive to whiners.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She taught high school English for 30 years and currently teaches writing and speech at Pacific Bible College in Medford, Oregon.

New York City is proposing a $250,000 fine for using the wrong pronoun in reference to a transgendered person. Really?! How would you know which pronoun to use? Why would a he that used to be a she be upset if one slipped up and used the feminine pronoun? Accidents happen, especially where confusion abounds. Are we now to ask about genitalia before we address a person with a Ms. or a Mr.?

No, that won’t work. Caitlyn reportedly still has his/her male genitalia. But I digress -- it’s too easy to wax sarcastic with all of this, and I know there’s also some real human suffering here, and my concern really isn’t the transgendered movement. It is with all the fuss about being offensive.

Where, on what planet, in what list of thou-shalt-nots, among what tribe of people is being totally inoffensive the most important moral value? And who has the authority in a free society to determine for the rest of us what is or is not an assault on general sensibilities?

I can hear the libertine voices shouting, oh yeah? Aren’t you offended by pornography? No, because it’s avoidable -- but I do feel protective of the people porn damages, the marriages that are destroyed, the careers damaged, the minds twisted. I’m even more concerned for those who produce the pornography -- especially the very young. True morality has nothing to do with who’s offended. It has to do with limiting the chaos in society.

Being offensive is a breech of etiquette, not of morality. Being offensive is belching loudly, swearing like a stevedore, farting in church. It’s a failure of proper manners and decorum; it has nothing to do with political opinions, religious faith, or human morals. Case in point:

There’s a house in my town on a road I occasionally travel that never fails to catch my eye. It’s purple. Not a soft lavender or a gentle mauve, but a violently, poisonously, passionate purple. It offends every aesthetic sensibility I possess. And yet, there it sits in defiance, offensive in every sense of the word. I can as I drive by look away, but its presence is so commanding, the offense so great, that, like a car wreck by the road, it’s hard to tear my eyes away.

Nevertheless, these chromatically intrepid folk had no moral obligation to check with me before they bought that paint. They had no local ordinance to go by. They chose that color because 1) it was being thrown away so they got it cheap, 2) they’re color blind, or, most likely, 3) they actually like that macroaggressive shade.

And, last I checked, people, outside of HOA’s, are still free to choose a paint color that pleases them. Would I feel the same if they had chosen, in solidarity with the gay movement, to paint this house in rainbow colors? Whereas, I find it appalling that God’s promising symbol, the rainbow, has been co-opted by a group of people who use it to mock the very God who offered the promise, the offensiveness of the house would remain the same.

And my inability to do anything at all about it remains the same. My being offended is not, nor should it be, a matter of law. I haven’t been denied anything I want or need. I am not required to drive down that street. I don’t have to look that direction when I do.

The gay couple in Portland who wanted the wedding cake, could have obtained one at dozens of other groovier bakeries than the Klein’s. The couple wasn’t being excluded unlawfully; the Klein’s had served them before. Their wedding wasn’t in jeopardy, nor was their health or wealth or wellbeing. They were simply offended by the bakery owners’ stance. That the Klein’s were offended by the gay couple’s wedding plans seems not to be an issue, which I don’t understand.

These storeowners, however, have been fined an exorbitant amount of money and had all their bank accounts completely stripped of funds just before Christmas -- for offending someone, someone of what I call “the whiney class.” These are people who claim a special dispensation and demand that they never be offended, slighted, or snubbed in even the slightest way. Some blacks claim the right to never be called on anything, and demanding such deference is a big part of the Muslim stealth jihad; evidently being even close to bacon will undo their spiritual journey to their personal clutch of virgins. Atheists appear to be of the opinion that no one should ever say anything about God; they evidently find His mention disturbing and references to His Son ever more disorienting. Feminists appear to be upset by anything men do.

I’ve lost track of the people we have to tiptoe now that our most important right is some imaginary privilege to never have our opinions, our suppositions, our biases questioned. Which amendment is that? “The right to have and hold opinions without ever having to defend them, or having to know anything at all about the issue, or be presented with any contrary opinions shall never be abridged, especially by Christians.” Is that how it works?

...

Read more: Articles: To Be, or Not to Be Offended

 

[Interpol]

No, the scourge of our times are ignoramuses like this OP who flood the internet with utter bullshit.

 

[Norman]

Political correctness is simply a way of garnering power with the use of lies, sophistry and rhetoric. The cure is simply to take none of it. Never apologize on the basis of political correctness.

They are of course not for the freedom of speech - except for themselves. This sort of contradictory logic is the basis of communism, as such it is no wonder it's coming from the good old masters of evil.

 

[American_Jihad]

January 13, 2016
Finding the Real Anti-PC Presidential Candidate

By Robert Weissberg


Multiple explanations exist for Donald Trump’s popularity, but one stands out above all: his willingness to violate that taboos of Political Correctness and speak the unvarnished truth on such hot button topics as immigration and Islam. Nearly all Americans are angry at being lied to and having to watch themselves as if they lived in Stasi-run East Germany. Who wants to risk ending a career by admitting that some groups are more crime-prone or intelligent than others? Or announcing that men are naturally better suited to combat than women and having this self-evident pronouncement treated as an embarrassing gaffe that requires immediate groveling and begging forgiveness? In a nutshell, Trump is unafraid to speak truth about the overly sensitive, easily offended groups protected by the mendacious “establishment.” Now, at last, millions of potential voters long starved for honesty have a champion.

As Trump refuses to fold, it is inevitable that his rivals (and perhaps the Democratic nominee) will grasp the benefit of similarly embracing this anti-PC view. We can already see hints of this copycat strategy in the new “tough” Jeb Bush commercials.

But while it is all too easy to be anti-PC in the abstract, the proof of a candidate’s seriousness can only be displayed in the specifics. With that in mind, let me propose a five-question test to assess a candidate’s aversion to PC that could, in principle, devastate a political career. Destroying careers is not, however, our aim; rather, the goal is to calibrate the sincerity of those who condemn PC on the cheap. We do not expect perfect frankness; more important is how they hem and haw and run for cover when asked “offensive” questions.
The list is tentative and I invite suggestions.

...


Wouldn’t it be reassuring to have a president who stood fast if a million angry feminists marched on Washington to protest the president’s refusal to back down on his rejection of sexism as the culprit in the gender-related wage gap? This Margaret Thatcher-like gutsy display would surely be noticed in Russia, Iran, and Syria. Yes, many might disagree with him on this particular issue but almost everybody would be proud of his moxie. Compare this walking tall response with Obama’s effort’s to win support among Arabs by shameless pandering in his infamous Cairo speech or his spineless negotiations with Iran.

GOP candidates in the single digits might take a hint from Trump -- show the American public that you can speak awkward truths in the face of hysterical PC criticism. You are probably going to lose anyhow, but if you are going to sacrifice millions in futile campaign spending and endless rubber chicken banquets, die for a good cause, and, given our current political landscape overflowing with dishonesty, what could be a more noble cause than killing the beast of PC.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/finding_the_real_antipc_presidential_candidate.html#ixzz3x960itrW

 

[American_Jihad]

The P.C. Chronicles: Bill of Writes, Lloyd Billingsley
Dispatches from the Political Correctness battlefield.
January 20, 2016
Bruce Thornton

Political Correctness has become a major theme of the primary season, and with good reason. President Obama makes “Islamic” verboten when describing jihadist terror, and plays endless variations on the “nothing to do with Islam” tune in order to protect the sensibilities of Muslims. Privileged Ivy League students whine about “microagressions” and “safe spaces,” and force groveling apologies from a Yale professor who suggested lightening up on Halloween costumes. Feminists and the Obama administration peddle lies about the “rape epidemic” on college campuses, and set up star chambers to prosecute offenders. At the University of Missouri, a “media professor” barks “I need some muscle over here” to prevent a journalist from exercising his First Amendment rights. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s politically incorrect blunt comments have contributed to his lead in the polls.

All this may seem new to people like progressive journalist Kirsten Powers, who wrote a book recently decrying the intolerance, illiberalism, and censorship indulged by her political comrades. But as Prospero says, “Tis new to thee.” As Lloyd Billingsley’s collection of outstanding articles and reviews documents, the p.c. plague has been spreading for a long time, and during all that time commentators like Billingsley have been battling the disease with the antidote of sound argument, empirical evidence, meticulous research, and intellectual rigor.

Billingsley is the Policy Fellow and Communications Counsel at the Independent Institute, and a contributor to numerous newspapers and journals, including Heterodoxy, the print precursor to FrontPageMag, where he is a regular contributor. He also has authored many books, including Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Movie Industry. A constant theme in his work has been the baleful effects of political correctness, particularly the nexus it creates of left-wing ideology, big-government bureaucracy, power-hungry politicians, and venal opportunism. The 44 essays and reviews in this collection comprise a fine-grained, detailed history of political correctness over the past three decades, and the toll it has taken on individuals and institutions alike.

In his Introduction Billingsley provides a useful and compact definition of political correctness that the subsequent essays flesh out.

Political correctness dead-bolts the mind and rigs an alarm system that demonizes any challenge to orthodoxy . . . [it] divides society into an oppressor class and a victim class, and elevates group rights over individual rights. In this view, individuals have only the distinction of drops of water in a clear pond . . . Politically correct superstition is now dominant, a veritable jihad of junkthought, and increasingly deployed by government.

And that dominance has empowered and enabled Barack Obama, “the first counterrevolutionary president, shrink-wrapped in statist superstition and deploying the machinery of the state against political opponents and those journalists who dare speak the truth to power.”

The essays illustrate in specific detail how these generalities are manifested in every dimension of our lives. The movies are a major theme, as popular culture is perhaps the most effective way to insinuate leftist ideology into the public square. As famed Comintern agent Willy Muezenberg said in 1925, a “pressing need” of the Communist Party was “the conquest of this supremely important propaganda unit.” “Hollywood’s Missing Movies” explores why “since the Berlin Wall fell, or even the decade before that, no Hollywood film has addressed the actual history of communism, the agony of the millions whose lives were poisoned by it, and the century of international deceit that obscured communist reality.” It is as if, Billingsley continues, “since 1945, Hollywood has produced little or nothing about the victory of the Allies and the crimes of National Socialism.”

...

The P.C. Chronicles: Bill of Writes, Lloyd Billingsley

 

[American_Jihad]

Political Correctness Is Dying, Even in France
BY MICHEL GURFINKIEL
FEBRUARY 5, 2016

French socialist Christiane Taubira -- the minister of justice, also known as the “keeper of the Seals” -- formally resigned last week over what she called “a major political disagreement” with French socialist President François Hollande on anti-terror policies.

At stake was a constitutional amendment known as the Protection of the Nation Constitutional Act (Loi constitutionnelle de Protection de la Nation) that would strip persons who join ISIS or other jihadist networks, or who commit “grave crimes against the life of the Nation,” of their French citizenship.

The measure is largely symbolic. Still, it is immensely popular: according to anOpinionWay/Le Figaropoll, it is supported by 85% of the French as a whole, 80% of the socialist voters, and even 64% of the hard-left voters.

But Taubira, who was supposed to endorse and defend it as the minister of justice, claimed that it unfairly differentiated between the ethnic French and other groups of French citizens. Indeed, a first version targeted only binationals and had to be corrected. Taubira resigned nevertheless. Hollande and the socialist prime minister Manuel Valls may have preferred she stay.

Taubira, 63, can be described in some ways as the French Barack Obama.

She was born in the French overseas county of Guiana, an enclave in South America. She was initially affiliated with local independent parties. Then, she admitted that secession from France was an unrealistic proposition: Guiana, a place as large as Austria or nearly as large as Maine, is underpopulated (250,000 inhabitants) and derives most of its GDP from French subsidies and investment. She then joined French mainstream politics with a new ambition: taking the lead of the“neo-French,”the combined non-Caucasian overseas and immigrant communities. This was a smart gamble, since this constituency is rapidly growing in numbers and assertiveness: from 10% of the global French population in the 1990s to 15% today, and -- according to demographic projections -- to 20% or more in the 2020s.

Her first step was to draft a “politically correct” law in 2001 -- the Taubira Law -- that retroactively declared the Atlantic slave trade and slavery “crimes against humanity.” It turned her into an icon.

One year later, she ran as a dissident left-wing candidate in the 2002 presidential election, thus depriving socialist candidate Lionel Jospin of a fraction of the national vote and preventing him from taking part in the second ballot. The socialist leadership got the message: they made sure in subsequent elections to have her on their side, whatever the price.

...

Political Correctness Is Dying, Even in France

 

[American_Jihad]

Why the Left Loves Language Games and Word Play
The politics of language corruption.
February 15, 2016
Walter Williams

George Orwell said, "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." Gore Vidal elaborated on that insight, saying, "As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate." And John Milton predicted, "When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation." These observations bear heeding about how sloppy language is corrupting our society.

The Atlantic magazine reported that public schools are nearly as segregated in 2012 as they were in the late 1960s. An Education Next series commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Coleman Report includes an article by Steven Rivkin, "Desegregation Since the Coleman Report," that holds that American schools are still segregated. In 2001, Harvard University's Civil Rights Project press release stated, "Almost half a century after the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Southern school segregation was unconstitutional and 'inherently unequal' ... racial and ethnic segregation continued to intensify throughout the 1990s."

...

Before we invest resources into worrying about such matters, we might focus on language corruption, because it is polluting our thinking, resulting in inept and dangerous social policies.

Why the Left Loves Language Games and Word Play