Political Correctness

Why Do We Fear Calling Obama a Socialist?

Posted on March 4, 2010. Filed under: General, Obama, Political Correctness, Politics, Socialism/Communism |

Great article! I, too, am sick of conservatives who are scared to call Obama what he is – a socialist!! You can’t fight an enemy if you can’t even identify who or what he is. It’s time for people to open their eyes and call it like they see it – our president is a socialist and is trying to turn us into a socialist nation. The sooner we admit it, the sooner we can defeat it.

Why Do We Fear Calling Obama a Socialist?

by Douglas MacKinnon

I am honestly confused. Why is it not permissible for us to call President Obama a socialist? Why do so many with a media platform dodge the question when asked point-blank if Obama is a socialist?

While obviously expected from those in the mainstream media who look upon Obama as an oracle, it’s disappointing and disingenuous when Republican “leaders” refuse to describe the president as a socialist.

Maybe some in the GOP and the mainstream media simply don’t know or understand the definition. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “socialism” as: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”

Even with the broadest of interpretations, Obama’s beliefs seem to fall within that definition.

The reason the president recoils from the words “socialist” and “ideologue” is the same reason certain Republican politicians refuse to define him by those names: Political self-interest and survival. It’s the same reason the far-left duplicitously runs from the word “liberal” and now substitutes “progressive.”

For the president, he seems to believe that should the country actually realize that he is in fact a “socialist” and “ideologue,” then he will be a one-term president at best. For certain GOP leaders, they seem to fear a mainstream media which will label them “politically incorrect,” “rude,” “offensive” or much worse should they assign those definitions to the president.

The president is so fearful of these two words that he has repeatedly gone out of his way to publicly deny he is an ideologue or a socialist. Why? As “brilliant” as the left tells us Obama is, maybe he doesn’t know or understand the definition of “ideologue.”

Turning to another well-respected source, the American Heritage dictionary defines “ideologue” as: “An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.”

Again, what is wrong with that? As a conservative, I’d certainly want a president who believed in traditional values, smaller government, lower taxes, the Second Amendment, personal responsibility and secure borders to be an “advocate of that particular ideology.” Don’t we want and need our presidents to be ideologues? Isn’t that the whole idea?

So, for the president to deny he is an “ideologue” is not only foolish and false, but an insult to the intelligence of the American electorate. The problem for the president is not that he is an ideologue, but that he’s a socialist.

Correct me when I’m wrong, but:

• Doesn’t the president want to greatly expand the federal government?

• Doesn’t he want and have government control of our automobile manufacturers?

• Doesn’t he want and have government control over our banks?

• Doesn’t he want a government-run national health-care system which will control one-fifth of our economy?

• Doesn’t he want to take money from the “elite” and redistribute that wealth to the “poor?”

• When running for president, didn’t Obama himself say, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

• Doesn’t his party want to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle conservative thought?

• Don’t all of these goals of the president and his party fall within the definition of “socialism?”

Obama has every right to be a socialist. Fortunately, our form of government still allows freedom of expression. Unlike Lenin or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela however, the president hopes — with a huge assist from the liberal intelligentsia — to recast the United States into a socialist nanny-state in small, incremental steps.

He may yet succeed. To paraphrase Edmund Burke — one of Obama’s favorite philosophers — “The only thing necessary for the triumph of socialism is for good people to do nothing.”

Well, one way to start to do something is to call Obama what he is: A socialist.

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/DouglasMacKinnon/2010/03/04/why_do_we_fear_calling_obama_a_socialist

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

The U.S. Needs to Learn from Europe – Don’t let the Islamic Radicals Take Over!

Posted on March 4, 2010. Filed under: Muslim Invasion, Political Correctness, Terrorism |

We have GOT to learn from other countries who have dealt with the Islamization of their countries. We can learn lessons from their mistakes as well as their good ideas.The article below is very interesting and shows us very well where we are headed if we keep being ‘politically correct’ and continue to ‘tolerate’ radical Islams’ demands!! Be afraid, be very afraid!!!! This article also reminds us that it is ridiculous to think that if you ban headscarves for Muslims you should also ban crosses for Christians or yarmulkes for Jews. These are very different issues and the article explains it well.

Anti-Islamization Proponents Should Take Cues from Europe

by Diana West

When the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders recently addressed voters in Almere, a Dutch city of 200,000 where his party handily won elections this week, he told them what to expect as his once-tiny, anti-Islamization party started flexing its new political muscle. Aside from lower taxes and other political staples, his plans for this city not far from Amsterdam include a ban on Muslim headscarves.

Wilders’ ban would apply to “headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions (that) receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality.” He continued: “And for all clarity: This (ban) is not meant for crosses or yarmulkes because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture and are not — as is the case with headscarves — a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology.”

Here, Wilders is distinguishing between the religions of Christianity and Judaism, and the religio-political ideology of Islam, noting not only the near-indigenous nature of the former, but also the encroaching totalitarianism of the latter. This is the crucial cultural argument to make if a cultural Reconquista of Europe from Islamization is to be successful.

Certainly, we have seen glimmers. Last year, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang party of Belgium led a winning campaign to ban the hijab – what he calls “the propaganda weapon of choice for the establishment of Islamic society in Europe” — in the Flemish schools of his country, making the same vital judgment call that Wilders did.

“(He) who defends the headscarf out of reasons of tolerance and pluralism has little or no understanding of Islam,” Dewinter said. “The hidden agenda behind the veil leads to segregation,” a veritable apartheid-regime, he explained, with which Islam seeks to control and dominate the West. Equating the Muslim head scarf with the Christian cross or the Jewish yamulke is “therefore incorrect,” Dewinter continued, identifying the headscarf as “the flag of a political ideology” in which it is not the individual religious experience that is central, but rather “the realization of a theocratic society based on sharia, or Islamic law.”

Maybe that’s a lot for Americans to take in, but they haven’t lived through the Islamization Decades that their European cousins have. As Europe’s neighborhoods, banlieues and cities have repeatedly seen, headscarf-friendly zones yield to other Muslim demands, from single-sex recreation and medicine, to a refusal to tolerate certain Western texts or foods, to the institution of Islamic banking, to the acceptance of jihadist treason in the mosques, to the entrenchment of Islamic marriage (forced and polygamous), to the ultimate recognition of Islamic courtrooms run according to sharia.

But take the French approach. After determining that the Muslim headscarf inserted religion into state-run secular schools, the French government in 2003 banned the headscarf in the public schools along with the Star of David, the yamulke, “large” crucifixes and the turban of the Sikhs. This decision made it appear as though the hijab hadn’t been singled out as a symbol of a specifically Muslim way of life that seeks to extend sharia. Thus, in the name of tolerance, all religious symbols were deemed provocative. In the name of inclusion, all were banned. This is precisely how the traditional (pre-Islamic) society dismantles itself, symbol by symbol, law by law.

And this is precisely why acknowledging and affirming the differences — “discriminating” — between Western religions and Islamic religio-political ideology is so important. Alas, it is also unthinkable for the average post-modern, multicultural Westerner. Rather than reject the symbols of imperial Islam, he capitulates, further stripping his civilization of its own identity, further enabling the Islamization process.

Now, the French government seeks to ban the full veil, or burka, in public buildings, a measure, as a recent Harris Poll tells us, that garners support from a whopping 70 percent of French respondents. Large majorities also support a ban in Italy (65 percent), Spain (63 percent), and the United Kingdom (57 percent). (A burka ban draws 33 percent support in the United States.)

Notably, that support plummets when other religious symbols are included in the burka ban. French support drops to 22 percent. Italian (10 percent), Spanish (9 percent) and British (4 percent) support follows. (American support drops to about 1 percent.)

Defiance of the multicultural orthodoxy is more popular in Europe than anyone imagined.

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2010/03/04/anti-islamization_proponents_should_take_cues_from_europe

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Bloody Cost of “Diversity”: The Fort Hood Massacre

Posted on February 25, 2010. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Military, Muslim Invasion, Political Correctness, Politics, Terrorism |

The more I hear about this incident at Fort Hood, the angrier it makes me. They KNEW this man was a radical and they did nothing about it!! That’s when ‘diversity’ and ‘political correctness’ gets us killed. It really disgusts me that this kind of thinking has seeped into the upper levels of our military. It needs to be stopped. Read below for more details on how much the army really knew about this terrorist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Numerous lives could have been saved if they had done the RIGHT thing instead of the POLITICALLY CORRECT thing!!!

The Bloody Cost of “Diversity”

Posted by Calvin Freiburger

Feb 24th, 2010

frontpagemag.com

We’ve known from the start that there were warning signs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s Islamic fanaticism well before the Fort Hood shootings, signs we suspected were ignored due to political correctness. But the other night, Sean Hannity called attention to a recent Boston Globe report confirming our worst fears. The report claims that Army officials knew Hasan was a radical, but “did not act in part because they valued the rare diversity of having a Muslim psychiatrist.”

Examples of Hasan’s radical behavior have previously been disclosed in press accounts based on interviews with unnamed Army officials […] But the Pentagon’s careful documentation of individual episodes dating back to 2005 and the subsequent inaction of his superiors have not been made public before. The Globe was permitted to review the Army’s more complete findings on the condition that it not name supervisory officers who did not act, some of whom are facing possible disciplinary action.

In searching for explanations for why superiors did not move to revoke Hasan’s security clearances or expel him from the Army, the report portrays colleagues and superiors as possibly reluctant to lose one of the Army’s few Muslim mental health specialists. The report concludes that because the Army had attracted only one Muslim psychiatrist in addition to Hasan since 2001, “it is possible some were afraid” of losing such diversity “and thus were willing to overlook Hasan’s deficiencies as an officer.”

[…]

In one classroom incident not previously described by the Army – which parallels another episode around the same time that has received press attention – Hasan gave a presentation in August 2007 titled “Is the War on Terrorism a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective.” But the presentation was “shut down” by the instructor because Hasan appeared to be defending terrorism. Witnesses told investigators that Hasan became visibly upset as a result. “The students reported his statements to superior officers, who took no action on the basis that Major Hasan’s statements were protected by the First Amendment,” the investigation found. “They did not counsel Hasan and consider administrative action, even though not all protected speech is compatible with continued military service.’’

Words are almost insufficient to convey the contemptible sickness of this situation. Thirteen American heroes are dead because of certain minds that held “diversity” to be of more worth than human lives. They wanted someone with the “potential to inform our understanding of Islamic culture and how it relates to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The question must then be asked: If you want to be informed, why not do the research yourself? Study the messages of extreme and moderate Muslims alike. Consult with experts on the subject from within and without the faith, like Irshad Manji, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and others. To suggest that these peoples’ only option in learning about Islamic culture was from one unstable soldier with known jihadist tendencies is beyond absurd. How useful did these people expect Hasan’s lessons to be anyway?

It’s hard to imagine a clearer, more damning indictment of leftist thought than the tragedy that we find at Fort Hood. The current commander-in-chief deserves serious blame for not doing something about this twisted dogma that has infected military officials. But the hard truth is that it didn’t start on his watch. For years, many people, like Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson (keeper of the “nuclear football” during the 1990s) have been sounding the alarm on the sorry state that President Bill Clinton left our armed forces in, and how, in many ways, military effectiveness has taken a backseat to political correctness. And for all the good President George W. Bush did in the War on Terror, this particular crisis evidently wasn’t on his radar screen.

In the wake of 9/11, President Bush and many of his conservative supporters rightfully said we could not succumb to a pre-9/11 mindset, that we had to wrap our heads around the reality that our nation was at war. But, nine years later, with a jihadist killing spree on one of our own military bases and the Army’s top man worried not about how it happened but about “a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers,” it seems we have to ask ourselves if we really meant it.

LINK: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/24/the-bloody-cost-of-%E2%80%9Cdiversity%E2%80%9D-2/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Mall to Christians: God Talk Banned!

Posted on February 23, 2010. Filed under: Culture, Political Correctness, Religion |

Christians, is this enough to wake you up?? This happens to be a mall near me so it hits home even more.

“Under the mall’s rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics like religion or politics, unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.”

Mall to Christians: God talk banned!

Rules challenged as violating ‘principles of free expression’

Posted: January 30, 2010

By Bob Unruh

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man who talked to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.

The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.

Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of the conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen’s arrest for “trespassing.”

The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.

A short time later the charges were dropped, but the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.

After a Placer County Superior Court judge in 2008 affirmed the mall’s regulations, an appeal was launched to the 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento, and the briefs have just now been completed for that court’s review.

“It’s surprising that mall owners think they can arrest patrons for engaging in casual conservations,” said PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds. “While a ‘don’t talk to strangers’ rule may be good for kids, enforcing it against adults is absurd, and we think it violates California’s free speech guarantees.”

The case is being pursued under the state’s constitutional provision for free speech, which extends protections to private locations, because the First Amendment to the Constitution deals directly with government restrictions.

McReynolds said had the case been argued in federal court, it would have had to focus on the discriminatory nature of the mall’s restrictions.

“Singling out religious speech for punishment violates our most basic principles of free expression,” said PJI President Brad Dacus. “If anyone can be arrested for wearing a Christian T-shirt or mentioning God in a shopping mall, we have lost not only our freedom, but our sanity as a society.”

PJI affiliate attorney Timothy Smith of the Sacramento firm McKinley & Smith served pro bono as Snatchko’s lead counsel in the trial court and continues to serve as part of the appellate team.

McReynolds told WND the case focuses on the “draconian” limits set by the mall that were used to arrest the youth pastor. While those charges were dropped, the result of that case wasn’t a court-adjudicated precedent that could be used to protect others.

He said while reasonable regulations certainly are allowed, such as volume limits, targeting speech for banishment because of its subject is not.

“What they cannot do and did in this case [is target] political and religious speech,” he said. “They originally chose to arrest the youth pastor for striking up a casual conversation. Since then, they’ve dug in their heels and are standing firm in their belief they can do whatever they want.”

Oral arguments haven’t been scheduled by the court in the case, and there’s no time frame available yet for when a decision might be reached, McReynolds said.

But PJI’s brief to the court explained the issue.

“The underlying interest of defendants clearly relates to content. While the act of speaking is not generally prohibited, the act of speaking a particular message without a permit is,” the brief said. “Defendants argue that if they do not disagree with the message of the speech, and if the applications are accepted on a first come, first selected basis, the regulation is content neutral.

“Even if the defendants determined that the recipients of the speech might be uncomfortable due to the speech, such a basis for restricting plaintiffs speech is not content neutral.”

The mall’s regulations, besides disallowing commercial speech and speech about religion or politics, also include an exception for those subjects if a speaker knew the other person previously.

“Under the exemption, the plaintiff would have been allowed to have the same conversation in the same exact place if only he had previously met the people with whom he was speaking,” the brief challenged.

“The notion that an individual is not allowed to speak with a stranger about a non-commercial topic without first having their speech examined is preposterous, and is truly silencing in every sense of the word,” the brief said.

The mall’s rules require “a submission of the subject matter of the spoken or written speech,” the brief continued. “Defendants’ licensing process as a whole has a great deal to do with speakers’ message. Not only does the application process require an examination of the subject matter, but plaintiff was actually referred to the licensing application process only after the security guard listened to the content of plaintiff’s speech.”

Officials with Westfield Group, the corporation that owns the mall, did not respond to a WND message requesting comment.

The company’s website says it entered the U.S. market in 1977 by purchasing a single shopping center and today has 55 centers across the U.S. in key markets such as northern California, Chicago, southern Florida, Los Angeles, New Jersey, New York, San Diego and Washington.

“The Westfield Group is the world’s largest listed retail property group by equity market capitalization. The Group has interests in and operates a global portfolio of 119 high-quality regional shopping centers in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, valued at more than $62 billion. Westfield works with over 23,600 retailers across more than 10 million square meters of retail space,” it boasts.

Pacific Justice said Snatchko originally was confronted during a casual conversation with two other shoppers about faith when a store employee listened to the conversation and alerted mall security guards.

Besides the ban on conversations with strangers about religion or politics, the mall also bans any clothing with religious or political messages.

LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123535

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

12 Year Old Girl Arrested for Doodling on Desk

Posted on February 23, 2010. Filed under: Education Idiocy, Political Correctness |

Somebody please let me know when common sense returns to this country!! I am sick to death of idiots running things!

Girl’s arrest for doodling raises concerns about zero tolerance

By Stephanie Chen, CNN

February 18, 2010 10:22 a.m. EST

CNN.com

(CNN) — There was no profanity, no hate. Just the words, “I love my friends Abby and Faith. Lex was here 2/1/10 scrawled on the classroom desk with a green marker. Alexa Gonzalez, an outgoing 12-year-old who likes to dance and draw, expected a lecture or maybe detention for her doodles earlier this month. Instead, the principal of the Junior High School in Forest Hills, New York, called police, and the seventh-grader was taken across the street to the police precinct.

Alexa’s hands were cuffed behind her back, and tears gushed as she was escorted from school in front of teachers and — the worst audience of all for a preadolescent girl — her classmates. “They put the handcuffs on me, and I couldn’t believe it,” Alexa recalled. “I didn’t want them to see me being handcuffed, thinking I’m a bad person.” Alexa is no longer facing suspension, according a spokeswoman for the New York City Department of Education. Still, the case of the doodling preteen is raising concerns about the use of zero tolerance policies in schools.

Critics say schools and police have gone too far, overreacting and using well-intended rules for incidents involving nonviolent offenses such as drawing on desks, writing on other school property or talking back to teachers. “We are arresting them at younger and younger ages [in cases] that used to be covered with a trip to the principal’s office, not sending children to jail,” said Emma Jordan-Simpson, executive director of the Children’s Defense Fund, a national children’s advocacy group.

Snip-

But one thing is sure: Alexa’s case isn’t the first in the New York area. One of the first cases to gain national notoriety was that of Chelsea Fraser. In 2007, the 13-year-old wrote “Okay” on her desk, and police handcuffed and arrested her. She was one of several students arrested in the class that day; the others were accused of plastering the walls with stickers.

At schools across the country, police are being asked to step in. In November, a food fight at a middle school in Chicago, Illinois, resulted in the arrests of 25 children, some as young as 11, according to the Chicago Police Department.

The Strategy Center, a California-based civil rights group that tracks zero tolerance policies, found that at least 12,000 tickets were issued to tardy or truant students by Los Angeles Police Department and school security officers in 2008. The tickets tarnished students’ records and brought them into the juvenile court system, with fines of up to $250 for repeat offenders.

The Strategy Center opposes the system. “The theory is that if we fine them, then they won’t be late again,” said Manuel Criollo, lead organizer of the “No to Pre-Prison” campaign at The Strategy Center. “But they just end up not going to school at all.”

His group is trying to stop the LAPD and the school district from issuing the tickets. The Los Angeles School District says the policy is designed to reduce absenteeism.

And another California school — Highland High School in Palmdale — found that issuing tardiness tickets drastically cut the number of pupils being late for class and helped tone down disruptive behavior. The fifth ticket issued landed a student in juvenile traffic court.

In 1998, New York City took its zero tolerance policies to the next level, placing school security officers under the New York City Police Department. Today, there are nearly 5,000 employees in the NYPD School Safety Division. Most are not police officers, but that number exceeds the total police force in Washington, D.C.

In contrast, there are only about 3,000 counselors in New York City’s public school system. Critics of zero tolerance policies say more attention should be paid to social work, counseling and therapy.

“Instead of a graduated discipline approach, we see .. expulsions at the drop of a hat,” said Donna Lieberman, an attorney with the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

We see … expulsions at the drop of a hat.

–Donna Lieberman, ACLU attorney

“If they have been suspended once, their likelihood of being pushed out of the school increases,” she said. “They may end up in jail at some point in their life.”

One of Lieberman’s clients was in sixth grade when police arrested her in 2007 for doodling with her friend in class. The child, called M.M. in court filings to protect her identity, tried to get tissues to remove the marks, a complaint states.

Lieberman says police subjected M.M. to unlawful search and seizure. A class-action lawsuit, filed in January on behalf of five juveniles, is pending. It maintains that inadequately trained and poorly supervised police personnel are aggressive toward students when no criminal activity is taking place.

Several studies have confirmed that the time an expelled child spends away from school increases the chance that child will drop out and wind up in the criminal justice system, according to a January 2010 study from the Advancement Project, a legal action group.

Alexa Gonzalez missed three days of school because of her arrest. She spent those days throwing up, and it was a challenge to catch up on her homework when she returned to school, she said. Her mother says she had never been in trouble before the doodling incident.

New York attorney Joe Rosenthal, who is representing Alexa, plans to file a lawsuit accusing police and school officials of violating Alexa’s constitutional rights. New York City Department of Education officials declined to comment specifically on any possible legal matters.

“Our mission is to make sure that public schools are a safe and supportive environment for all students,” said Margie Feinberg, an education department spokeswoman.

Several media outlets have reported that school officials admitted the arrest was a “mistake,” but when asked by CNN, Feinberg declined to comment specifically on the incident. She referred CNN to the NYPD.

The NYPD did not return CNN’s repeated phone calls and e-mails. It is unknown whether charges will be pressed against Alexa.

Kenneth Trump, a security expert who founded the National School Safety and Security Services consulting firm, said focusing on security is essential to the safety of other students. He said zero tolerance policies can work if “common sense is applied.”

Michael Soguero recalls being arrested himself in 2005 when, as principal at Bronx Guild School, he tried to stop an officer from handcuffing one of his students. A charge of assault against him was later dropped. He says police working in schools need specific training on how to work with children.

In Clayton County, Georgia, juvenile court judge Steven Teske is working to reshape zero tolerance policies in schools. He wants the courts to be a last resort. In 2003, he created a program in Clayton County’s schools that distinguishes felonies from misdemeanors.

The result? The number of students detained by the school fell by 83 percent, his report found. The number of weapons detected on campus declined by 73 percent.

Last week, after hearing about 12-year-old Alexa’s arrest in New York, he wasn’t shocked.

“There is zero intelligence when you start applying zero tolerance across the board,” he said. “Stupid and ridiculous things start happening.”

LINK: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/new.york.doodle.arrest/index.html?hpt=C1

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Fort Hood Report: Why No Mention of Islam? Political Correctness Takes Over

Posted on January 21, 2010. Filed under: Military, Muslim Invasion, Political Correctness, Terrorism |

This is unbelievable!!! It makes me sick that the upper echelons of the military are going the way of political correctness! Political correctness is what will allow this to happen again.

The Fort Hood Report: Why No Mention of Islam?

By Mark Thompson / Washington

The U.S. military’s just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect’s view of his Muslim faith. And as Congress opens two days of hearings on Wednesday into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission. (See TIME’s photo-essay “The Troubled Journey of Major Hasan.”)

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan’s view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military’s activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report’s silence on Islamic extremism “shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,” he told TIME on Tuesday. “It’s definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens.” (See pictures of Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s apartment.)

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn’t in keeping with the military’s ethos; it’s a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren’t afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy’s onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn’t drill down into Hasan’s motives. “Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations,” West said. Added Clark: “We certainly do not cite a particular group.” Part of their reticence, they said, was to avoid running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan that is now under way. Both are declining interview requests before their congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said. (Read TIME’s cover story on the Fort Hood massacre.)

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. “The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam,” says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. “Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for.”

The Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is limited in scope. Despite the title of its report — Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood — there is only a single page dedicated to the chapter called “Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator.” Much more space is given to military personnel policies (11 pages), force protection (six pages) and the emergency response to the shootings (12 pages).

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said he was “disappointed” because the inquiry “does not adequately recognize the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism to our military,” and added that the homeland-security panel he chairs will investigate. The Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood agrees. “The report ignores the elephant in the room — radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy,” says Republican Representative John Carter. “We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you’ve done something offensive to society.”

The report lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, saying that “religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor” and that “religious-based violence is not confined to members of fundamentalist groups.” But to some, that sounds as if the lessons of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, where jihadist extremism has driven deadly violence against Americans, are being not merely overlooked but studiously ignored.

LINK: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+(TIME%3A+Top+Stories)5

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Sick of Political Correctness: Stop Worrying About Backlash against Muslims

Posted on November 15, 2009. Filed under: Media Bias, Military, Muslim Invasion, Political Correctness, Terrorism |

I am so sick of people being blind to the fact that the Fort Hood killings were done by a Muslim and could have been prevented if we had not been politically correct!!!! Hasan was a Muslim and there were a lot of signs pointing to the fact that he was anti-American and needed to be booted out ot the military. These IDIOTS who don’t want to acknowledge that and who keep warning us about ‘backlash against Muslims’ make me want to puke!!! The bigwigs in the military, the MSM, Obama’s administration – they are all covering this up and trying to be politically correct and it’s disgusting!!

P.C. Can Kill

by Rich Tucker

Cynthia Hall tried to warn us, but we didn’t listen.

Hall, as you may recall, was a 51-year-old Fulton County sheriff’s deputy assigned to escort alleged rapist Brian Nichols to court in 2005. Alone. He was a strapping six foot, 200-plus pounds. She stood five feet, maybe around 100 pounds; it would be impolite to ask a woman how much she weighs. It was also impolite, apparently, to ask whether she could handle her prisoner without help. Oh, and Nichols was unshackled, so jurors wouldn’t jump to conclusions about him.

The story is tragic, if predictable. Nichols overpowered Hall, almost killing her in the process. He shot and killed four more people before he surrendered to police. They were all victims, it seems, of a political correctness that insists we ignore physical differences and pretend deputies such as Hall can handle desperate prisoners such as Nichols.

But we’re good at ignoring unpleasant truths in polite society. Truths such as the fact that Army Maj. Nidal Hasan was anti-American and shouldn’t have been in the military.

Hasan, of course, is the 39-year-old army psychiatrist who allegedly killed 13 people and wounding 42 more at Ft. Hood in Texas last week. How can we know he was anti-American? Because he said so.

“It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” Hasan told fellow doctors during a PowerPoint presentation at Walter Reed Medical Center two years ago. He was supposed to be giving a lecture about a medical procedure of his choosing. Instead, he gave a jeremiad about “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.”

Hasan concluded that the “Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” But, apparently blinded by political correctness, nobody at that presentation insisted that Hasan be drummed out of the service. So, he allegedly went ahead and created his own “adverse events.”

We hear a lot of talk about “connecting the dots,” but that’s impossible to do without offending political correctness. For example, imagine that, on Sept. 11, 2001, airport security had stopped and arrested all the men who ended up hijacking the four planes that day. There would have been no tragedy, but there certainly would have been a backlash — against the security forces.

The New York Times would have editorialized that the men were victims of “flying while Muslim.” The government would have been pressured to change its security procedures to make sure Muslims received no scrutiny when they tried to board planes. Instead of talking about “connecting the dots” the mainstream media would have tried to avoid reporting on the existence of dots. (Why were so many Muslim young men trying to board the same plane? Why did they have utility knives? Why so many one-way tickets?) Continued…

There will always be those who aim to ignore the obvious. “Could the alleged crime spree have been prevented if he had been escorted by a male deputy?” Annie Chiappetta at ABCNews.com wondered about the Nichols case in 2005. “Law enforcement experts and Nichols’ own lawyer think not.” Uh, right.

In a similar vein, many today are eager to ignore Hasan’s religious outbursts. “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told CNN. “I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”

There’s no backlash, of course. And there never has been. Not after the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa. Not after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Not after the September 11 attacks. Not after Ft. Hood. And there won’t be after the next attack by Islamist extremists, either.

Our military has, for years, been colorblind. People got ahead based on the “content of their character” rather than the color of their skin or their gender. Sadly, even the military has started embracing political correctness. Hasan is a big example of that.

As a smaller example, the Navy changed the composition of the color guard it sent to Yankee Stadium for a World Series game last month. “Midshipman 2nd Class Hannah Allaire was selected because her presence would make the service academy look more diverse before a national audience,” The Washington Post explained on Veteran’s Day. Maybe the Navy’s new campaign should be “celebrate diversity, fraudulently.”

As a nation, we need to worry about the threat of Islamic extremists and political correctness, not the threat of a backlash. Political correctness kills. If we don’t drop our insistence on it, we’ll find ourselves mourning more victims.

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/RichTucker/2009/11/13/pc_can_kill

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Islamic Center in Carmichael (Sacramento) May Have Ties to Terrorism

Posted on November 12, 2009. Filed under: Muslim Invasion, Political Correctness, Terrorism |

Don’t you find it amazing that so many bad things can be done in the name of Islam (like the shootings at Fort Hood), yet we keep being politically correct so as not to offend Muslims. Here we have another Islamic center seized by the Feds but I’m sure people will keep warning us that there should be no backlash against Muslims. I’m sick of hearing it!! We need to be very wary of Muslims and we need to keep a close eye on them, their mosques, and their ‘charitable’organizations! We are stupid if we don’t!

Islamic Center In Carmichael May Have Ties To Terrorism

Matthew Keys FOX40 News | mkeys@tribune.com

November 12, 2009

 SACRAMENTO – FOX40 News has learned an Islamic non-profit located in Carmichael is one of four buildings targeted by federal agents for allegedly funneling money to the government of Iran.

The non-profit organization, located at 4836 Marconi Avenue, is being seized by federal agents who believe the organization may be in complete control by the government of Iran.

According to the Qoba Foundation’s website, the center provides services for Islamic burials, marriages and family consultation and mediation.

A civil complaint filed in federal court by the New York District Attorney’s Office in New York asked for the “rights, titles and interests” to property located in Houston, New York, Carmichael and Virginia. The complaint also requested the seizure of funds from eight bank accounts associated with the Alavi Foundation, a non-profit Islamic organization based out of New York.

The complaint was filed after federal agents suspected the Alavi Foundation and related organizations were funneling money in Iran, possibly in support of terrorist training and activities. Executive Order 12957, issued by President Clinton in 1995, bans the export of any American supply, including currency, to Iran.

“The actions and policies of the Government of Iran constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,” Clinton’s Executive Order reads.

In 2005, Executive Order 13382, issued by President George W. Bush, clarified the Clinton order to include the blockage of American goods and services to Iran that could “provide financial, material, technological or other support for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

The civil complaint, filed in federal court early this year, accuses the Alavi Foundation of being under the direct control of the “Islamic Republic of Iran, and has been providing numerous services to the Iranian Government.” The complaint accuses the Alavi Foundation of “running a charitable organization for the Iranian Government” and transferring funds between the Alavi Foundation’s headquarters in New York and financial organization Bank Melli, which is controlled by the government of Iran.

The Alavi Foundation’s website reveals the charitable organization was founded in 1973. The website also says they do not make charitable donations outside of the United States, with the exception of occasional donations to Canadian organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service. It’s unclear if any Canadian organizations are currently being watched by government officials domestically or internationally for money transfers to Iran.

Generally, the federal government will not seize religious organizations, citing First Amendment rights to worship freely.

LINK: http://www.myphl17.com/ktxl-news-mosque1112,0,3376366.story

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

When Will White America be Off the Hook for the Sins of the Past?/Obama’s Racism and Reparations

Posted on July 9, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Obama, Political Correctness, Politics, Reverse Discrimination |

There are 2 great articles below!

When will White America be off the Hook for Sins of the Past?

By Lloyd Marcus

 Oprah, a black woman, is the richest and most influential woman in America and possibly the world. Michael Jackson’s memorial service merited live coverage by a large number of television networks.

Did I mention that the president of the United States of America is a black man? With blacks only 13% of the U.S. population, none of these extraordinary black achievements could have happened without tremendous support from white America.

 So, when will white America be off the hook for sins of the past? When will Democrat pitchmen and women, such as Janeane Garofalo, cease selling the myth that America is a racist country? When will Affirmative Action, which basically says blacks have been screwed in the past, so now it is fair to screw whites, end? When will so-called black leaders, such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, quit poisoning the minds of blacks with hate and victim-hoodism by preaching that America is controlled by racist rich white people? What else has to happen for the “BIG LIE” to end?

 As ridiculous as this sounds, the U.S. Senate lead by Democrats apologized for slavery. I guess as a black man, this is supposed to make me feel good. The resolution said it was important for Americans to apologize for slavery “so they can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all people of the United States”.

 Well excuse me, but what the heck have we, as a country, been doing for the past 150 years? America has “moved forward” in every way. What a crock of touchy feely politically correct yada, yada.

 This silly irrelevant apology is all about “reparations” more commonly known as “gettin’ paid”. While the Senate’s apology carried a disclaimer that this will not lead to reparations, Democrats are fighting to change that. I am so sick of democrats buying black votes with checks and handouts which keep them dependent.

 The hideous thing about this scam, is that it further sends the message to young blacks that being born black in America comes with “issues”; you’re a victim and somebody owes you something. If these politicians truly gave a hoot about young blacks, they would be empowering them with the truth. “You are blessed to be born in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet, America! Education, hard work and doing the right thing will get you where ever you want to be.”

 I remember when the “Star Trek” TV series hit the airways. I LOVED that race was not an issue among the multi-racial expert crew. But how can we get to that level, if the very people who claim to care the most about racial harmony continue playing the “race card” whenever it serves their selfish political purpose?

 A very ugly thing is going on in America. Due to a lack of education regarding our history, the Constitution and what has made America great, politicians are extremely successful spewing divisive rhetoric, entitlement, victim-hoodism and class envy. “Hate the rich! Hate Whitey! Vote for me! I’ll give you their stuff! I’ll MAKE them do right by you!” Totally disgusting! This is NOT my America.

 Still, God has a remnant, a band of patriots growing in strength and numbers to take back our country. Though my heart is heavy, my faith and hope are STRONG. We WILL renew and restore America!

Lloyd Marcus, Singer/Songwriter of the “American Tea Party Anthem”, is President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color). 

LINK: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/when_will_white_america_be_off_1.html

 

 40 Acres and a President

By L.E. Ikenga

 During the election, despite having been portrayed as America’s first post-racial candidate, Barack Obama actually represented the complete opposite. With astonishing cunning and guile, a type that his opponents could have never imagined possible, Obama and his campaign unabashedly and tenaciously used race to goad Americans into believing that voting for him would right the wrongs of America’s racial history.

Obama audaciously rode on the coattails of black America’s historical circumstances in order to win the presidency. He deceived the nation into believing that he too was a “typical black person” and that a vote for him would offer a (painless) way for paying back all that whites had done to blacks and their ancestors. However, as one writer put it, “[Obama] steps into the benefits of black progress (like Harvard Law School) without having borne any of the burdens”. By polluting the election with the foul stench of payback politics, and by dumbing-down the “black experience” for the historically ignorant and apathetic, Barack Obama was able to win what I call the Reparations vote.

 But possessing the African coloanial mentality that he does, Barack Obama knew better. Indeed, with all due respect to the late Alex Haley, his national best selling book Roots: The Saga of an American Family does not tell the story of every person of African descent who lives in this country. Obama was perfectly aware of this — but to win the election, he played the fool.

I speak candidly about all of this because of one very inconvenient truth about myself. I am a direct descendant of West African slave-traders. I come from a long line of people who for centuries made an exorbitant amount of wealth doing one thing particularly well: selling — especially selling people. My Igbo ancestors, sold slaves to other Africans and to Europeans. Whenever, I travel back to that land of my ancestors I always ask to be taken to the museum that holds the relics of that horrible past. The chains and shackles that once held the ankles and wrists of those waiting to be sold are still there even though the money made from them is long gone.

 I finally stopped crying over those relics a few trips ago. Instead, I’ve learned to just shake my head. Also, know that as a descendant of African slave traders living in this country, I am not unique in any way. To the contrary — though I am invisible, I am at the same time one of many.

 The reality is that Africans traded a great many slaves and there is no way of talking around this. During various epochs of their histories, Africans of all sorts from all across the African continent engaged in the business of owning and selling slaves. The Igbos alone, are said to have sent millions of slaves to the Americas during the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. No matter how many people try to circumvent this issue, it is a historical fact. It is also one of many inconvenient truths that need to be fully exposed and accounted for in order to put America’s racial history within a more realistic context.

 If America is to ever begin a real move towards racial healing and reconciliation then it must take a resolute stand against those who seek to distort and refashion history for their own gains. It is time to move away from the insipid, one-dimensional, and cherry-picked view of racism in which professional race-baiters continue to engage us. It is time to tell the many other sides of the story of bigotry and racism in America. It is time to stop holding one group of people completely accountable for all of the racial horrors of our nation’s past. It is time for a change.

All of that being said, here is another reality: Barack Obama is obsessed with race — but not in the way that you might think. Like so much else about himself, Obama has worked tirelessly to hide this fundamental truth from the American people. During the election, he was successful in doing this because unlike other well known race babblers (some of whom have also aspired to the presidency), Obama was smart enough not to rebel too forcefully — in public — against the racism that once held back millions. Instead, he rebelled against a contrived sense of racism and bigotry that he claimed had the potential to hold him back from his dreams of moving into the White House.

 He did a great job of making whites feel guilty if they did not vote for him and blacks feel entitled to having him as their first black president. If this tactic worked to guarantee Obama the presidency, I wouldn’t put past him to use it as a means for confiscating and redistributing private wealth.

 Obama is clever. When his back has been up against a wall regarding race, he’s offered soft platitudes against the injustices of the past while feigning reverence towards what blacks once went through in this country. (For instance, he did this during his race speech in Philadelphia, when the Reverend Wright controversy threatened to derail his chances for the presidency). But Obama couldn’t care less about what black people in this country have gone through. What Obama cares about is using race as a means for creating a platform for one of his many wealth redistribution schemes. Reparations are a form of wealth redistribution.

 Unbeknownst to many Americans, Congress has been quietly and diligently working to enact legislation that would study the viability of Reparations for black Americans. In June of this year, the Senate voted to formally apologize to black America for slavery and racial segregation — but apparently this is not enough for some lawmakers. They want more; given everything that the Obama administration has been pushing on the American people, I would not be surprised if the issue of Reparations soon becomes a real part of the national conversation.

 Make no mistake. Though Obama said during his campaign that he did not believe in Reparations outright, he is lying. Americans need to stop taking this man at face value. Obama has reneged on most if not all of his campaign promises; if need be, he will do the same with this one. Obama used payback politics to get the vote and if he can get away with it, he will also use it to financially destroy this country.

 In his article, “Barack Obama’s Lost Years”, Stanley Kurtz writing for the Weekly Standard certainly did his best to expose Americans to the Obama agenda especially as it pertains to race. Though I think that Mr. Kurtz missed the mark regarding the roots of Obama’s cultural pedigree, he nevertheless adeptly underscores what those of us who have been paying close attention already know: Obama is a divisive and race-conscious politician who will stop at nothing to “spread the wealth around” in an attempt to equalize and control the citizens of this country.

 Kurtz begins with this overview:

Even more revealing are hundreds of articles chronicling Obama’s early political and legislative activities in the pages not only of the Hyde Park Herald, but also another South Side fixture, the Chicago Defender…The pages of the Hyde Park Herald and the Chicago Defender thus offer entrée into Obama’s

 In a section of the article subtitled, “The Centrality of Race”, Kurtz continues with this:

 Yet the question of race plays so large a role in Obama’s own thought and action that it is all but impossible to discuss his political trajectory without acknowledging the extent to which it engrosses him. Obama settled in Chicago with the declared intention of “organizing black folks.” His first book is subtitled “A story of Race and Inheritance,” and his second book contains an important chapter on race…

Indeed, race functions for Obama as a kind of master-category, pervading and organizing a wide array of issues that many Americans may not think of as racial at all. Understanding Obama’s thinking on race is a prerequisite to grasping his views on spending and taxation.

 In addition to Kurtz’s article there is also another more troubling piece of information that indirectly but conclusively links Obama to Reparations. Obama donated tens of thousands of dollars to Trinity United Church — a church that is on record for openly and forcefully supporting Reparations for slavery. In another article, “Obama and the Drive for Slavery Reparations”, Cliff Kincaid connects some very interesting dots.

 According to Kincaid, Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor and pastor not only stood as “the keynote speaker at the 2007 annual conference of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America”, but he is also on record for saying the following:

The Biblical principle of true repentance is that the offended party is given compensation to take up for that which has been stolen from them, the losses that have been inflicted upon them and their families.

 And…

In 2001, Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ passed a resolution declaring that:

 WHEREAS: The institution of Slavery is internationally recognized as crime for which there is no statute of limitations,

 AND WHEREAS: Uncompensated labor was demanded from enslaved Africans and their descendants for more than two centuries on U.S. soil;

 AND WHEREAS: The principle that reparations is the appropriate remedy whenever government unjustly abrogates the rights of a domestic group or foreign people whose rights such government is obligated to protect or uphold has been internationally recognized…

 Kincaid’s article also reveals that Trinity United Church had other prominent members that viewed Reparations as the only viable way of dealing with the injustices of slavery. Trinity United Church — located in Chicago, a city sometimes referred to as the “de facto center of the slavery reparations movement”-is the church that Obama used to build credibility within the black community. I find it impossible to believe that Barack Obama, a politician who before his inauguration as president, was on record as never taking a stand on anything, would take a stand against the black elite establishment on Reparations — one of their most beloved pet projects.

No matter how the educated and “well meaning” liberal elites try to serve it up, the Reparations debate is not a difficult or complicated issue. Bottom line: just don’t do it! Besides being morally outrageous and financially imprudent, a move towards paying Reparations is sure to expose a slew of inconvenient truths about racism and bigotry in America in a way that many will not be prepared to deal with. America’s racial history is very complicated — and using Reparations as the springboard for examining these complications will prove to be risky business.

 There are other ways for us to come clean on issues regarding race. I implore Americans to stand together on this one. Don’t let Reparations for slavery ever happen.

 LINK: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/40_acres_and_a_president.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Vicious Academic Liberals:More Discrimination on College Campuses

Posted on June 24, 2009. Filed under: Education Idiocy, Liberal Idiots, Political Correctness, Reverse Discrimination |

Heaven forbid we should let people into universities on their merits and hard work! This idiotic view that we let people in based on ‘diversity’ is so racist and unfair that it makes me sick! But that’s the way it is in the public universities. Apparently these university officials would be appalled if we had too many Asians in our schools. Unbelievable! It is so evident that liberals are the racist ones and conservatives are color-blind. Whoever scores the highest should get in, period!

Vicious Academic Liberals

by Walter E. Williams

Ward Connerly, former University of California Regent, has an article, “Study, Study, Study — A Bad Career Move” in the June 2, 2009 edition of Minding the Campus (www.mindingthecampus.com) that should raise any decent American’s level of disgust for what’s routinely practiced at most of our universities. Mr. Connerly tells of a conversation he had with a high-ranking UC administrator about a proposal that the administrator was developing to increase campus diversity. Connerly asked the administrator why he considered it important to tinker with admissions instead of just letting the chips fall where they may. His response was that that unless the university took steps to “guide” admissions decisions, the University of California campuses would be dominated by Asians. When Connerly asked, “What would be wrong with that?”, the UC administrator told him that Asians are “too dull — they study, study, study.” Then he said to Connerly, “If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it.” Connerly did not reveal the administrator’s name. It would not have done any good because it’s part of a diversity vision shared by most college administrators.

 

With the enactment of California’s Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial discrimination in college admissions, Asian enrollment at UC campuses has skyrocketed. UC Berkeley student body is 42 percent Asian students; UC Irvine 55 percent; UC Riverside 43 percent; and UCLA 38 percent. Asian student enrollment on all nine UC campuses is over 40 percent. That’s in a state where the Asian population is about 13 percent. When there are policies that emphasize and reward academic achievement, Asians excel. College officials and others who are proponents of “diversity” and equal representation find that outcome offensive.

To deal with the Asian “menace,” the UC Regents have proposed, starting in 2010, that no longer will the top 12.5 percent of students based on statewide performance be automatically admitted. Students won’t have to take SAT subject matter tests. Grades and test scores will no longer weigh so heavily in admission decisions. This is simply gross racial discrimination against those “dull” Asian students who “study, study, study” in favor of “interesting” black, white and Hispanic students who don’t “study, study, study.”

This is truly evil and would be readily condemned as such if applied to other areas lacking in diversity. With blacks making up about 80 percent of professional basketball players, there is little or no diversity in professional basketball. Even at college-level basketball, it is not at all unusual to watch two teams playing and there not being a single white player on the court, much less a Chinese or Japanese player. I can think of several rule changes that might increase racial diversity in professional and college basketball. How about eliminating slam dunks and disallowing three-point shots? Restrict dribbling? Lower the basket’s height? These and other rule changes would take away the “unfair” advantage that black players appear to have and create greater basketball diversity. But wouldn’t diversity so achieved be despicable? If you answer yes, why would it be any less so when it’s used to fulfill somebody’s vision of college diversity?

Ward Connerly ends his article saying, “There is one truth that is universally applicable in the era of ‘diversity,’ especially in American universities: an absolute unwillingness to accept the verdict of colorblind policies.” Hypocrisy is part and parcel of the liberal academic elite. But the American people, who fund universities either as parents, donors or taxpayers, should not accept this evilness and there’s a good way to stop it — cut off the funding to racially discriminating colleges and universities. 

LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/06/24/vicious_academic_liberals

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...