Posts

Tell Me Who You Are and I Will Tell You What Is At Stake For You

“The more people chant about their freedom and how free they are, the more loudly I hear their chains rattling” – GEORGE ORWELL

ARE YOU A MAN?

If you are a man, your entire being, the appreciation of it, and the idea of your importance are at stake. Hillary takes any opportunity she can to eviscerate and emasculate men. I mean, we shouldn’t blame her, look who she married. Nonetheless, under a Hillary administration, affirmative action will be set up to target men. She will, without a doubt, come after you with a vengeance. Do not be surprised if men began to abandon their country in response to the persecution that she will unleash upon you for nothing else other than your gender. A globalist president would seek out to emasculate the country as a way to bring us down a notch, or two, or three in order to put us on an even playing field rather than the rest of the world, so why not begin with the men at home?

With Hillary, we will live in a nation that will have gone from “no means no” to even “yes means no” and every man guilty of having consensual sex with a woman will also potentially be guilty of rape as well for no other reason than that he is a man and men are rapists in Hillary’s America. Think I am being dramatic? Don’t risk it. This election has come down to self-defense and preservation of your rights and treatment as a man; do not let go of that just because society has been programmed to make you feel bad about it. Fight for yourselves. Take this country back. As a man, to cast a vote for her would be to vote to wage a war against yourself.

ARE YOU A WOMAN?

If you are a woman, you are a pawn to Hillary in her game of lies and deceit. She is using you. She is using you because you’re the easier target against her opponent. Although she wants you to think that you need her, she would be nothing without her ability to manipulate your support. She knows that Obama was the race president and she wants, very desperately, to be the gender president. Compare race relations and what is happening to the African-American population under Barack “The Race President Obama. Look at the beginning of Obama’s time in office to now, do you want to see the same thing happen to you as a woman just because Hillary wants to use you as a platform?

She wants to go down in history and a feminist trailblazer at any cost; even if that means women have to pay the price without even realizing it. She wants you to think that abortion is liberation, that the “wage gap” is strictly due to sexism, and that you’re a walking victim no matter where you go or what you do—which immediately puts you at a disadvantage at all times. How can you say you are empowering someone if you are always making that person the victim? Think about it.

ARE YOU AFRICAN-AMERICAN?

If you are an African-American, let me ask you, what do you have to lose? I mean that in the most respectful way possible but really, what has the current administration done or has Hillary promised to help heal the race relations in this country? Hillary Clinton has expressed her profound admiration for Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a leader in the eugenics movement in which she promoted the reduction of sexual reproduction and the sterilization of those individuals that she believed had “undesirable traits”. She fervently, yet discreetly, worked to place most of her clinics in primarily African-American neighborhoods. She undoubtedly believed in white supremacy and once wrote, “It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” It is important to know the origins of the people and the things we are supporting before we do so. Planned Parenthood was born out of the idea of white supremacy; do you want to support the candidate who admires the woman responsible for that?

I know that the media has instilled the idea that a white male president couldn’t possibly unify the country, but look what one of color has done in just eight years. People are worried that Donald Trump is going to take us back to a 1960’s America but, racially, we are already there, or at least on our way there, aren’t we? Agitating this race war is getting African-American people killed in the streets on what seems to be a daily basis.

Donald Trump has not only promised to work to heal the unruly situation between cops and the African-American community, but all crime against blacks—including black on black crime, which is the number one killer of black people in the united states. If black lives matter then they have to matter all across the board, not just the black lives taken by different races, but the black lives taken. Period. We can all agree that race relations in this country need to be healed, but protests and violence are not the ways to do it.

You are being crippled by the welfare state, making it possible for fathers to be taken out of your homes, for providers to be essentially useless and replaced by the government so that you’re forced to depend upon them rather than yourselves—the opposite of empowerment. FDR once said, about welfare, “The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.  To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.  It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy.  It is a violation of the traditions of America.” Donald Trump wants to take you off the narcotic that is welfare and has said repeatedly that he will work tirelessly to bring jobs to the inner cities as well as give you and your children the option to go to the best schools in the area you live.

Vote to heal this country, vote for unity.

ARE YOU A LEGAL IMMIGRANT?

I may be preaching to the choir here because you know what it means to abide by the laws and to work for what you get, but voting for Hillary means voting for open borders. Voting to open the borders and flooding the country with immigrants just invalidates the work and dedication that it took you to become a proud citizen of this country. It also makes it extremely difficult for you and your fellow immigrants to assimilate into the America you have a right live in.

ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL, BISEXUAL, OR TRANSGENDER?

Let’s face it; the LGBT community has been told, for much too long, that they had to vote democrat for in order to vote for equality. Things are different for you in this election. You are now in a post-Marriage Equality era, which means you no longer need to feel pressed to vote for all of the other damaging policies that fall under the umbrella of the liberal “equality” train. There are so many more important issues facing you today and there is a lot at stake for you in what may come next. You fought so hard for you rights but you can’t have rights if you don’t have a life. Hillary wants to bring in 550% more unvetted Muslim refugees into this country. Many of who are practicing a 9th century form of Islam that believes homosexuality is a sin. However, this is different than the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. What you have to remember with the Islamic faith is that it is not only a set of beliefs and teaching, it is a legal system as well. What does that mean? It means that, under their legal system of Sharia Law, it goes from a sin to a crime.

Now, let me preface what I am about to say by saying, I do not think all Muslims engage in the type of Islamic practice I am about to describe. There is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, one who follows a civilized form of their faith. However, there are many Muslims who don’t follow a civilized form, but a radical one. This is why Donald Trump has called for extreme vetting of refugees in order to keep us safe as well as protect law abiding Muslims in this country. With that being said, as a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender you need to understand that those who believe in the most extreme teachings of their Islamic faith believe that you should be thrown from rooftops, stoned, or even have “a wall toppled upon you as an evil-doer” according to the teachings of Abu Bakr.

Remember, just because the LGBT community has primarily voted democrat doesn’t mean that you can’t be the change in this election. Do not be shackled by the past. Embrace the candidate whose first priority is national security in order to preserve your safety to preserve your rights—your future depends on it.

ARE YOU A POLICE OFFICER?

Just for fun, I decided to Google “Cops for Clinton” and “Cops for Trump” and not surprisingly, I found nothing for the former and plenty for the latter. Maybe I am, again, preaching to the choir but humor me for a moment. Voting for Hillary will continue the disarmament of you and your fellow brothers and sisters in blue. If you value your lives and your jobs, do not give the most powerful position this country has to offer to a woman who has repeatedly vilified you for nothing more than doing your job. Recently, in Chicago, a female officer responded to a call for a car crash when she was savagely and ferociously beaten by a man under the influence of drugs, yet refused to use her weapon for fear of public backlash. This is a direct result of the war that the Obama administration has waged against police officers in America—the same war Hillary Clinton has begun to fight and will continue to fight if she wins on November 8th. Vote to protect yourself and your brothers and sisters.

ARE YOU IN THE MILITARY?

If you are in the military, most likely you, more than anyone else, do not wish to go into World War III. You probably understand, better than anyone else, that over the last eight years, our military has been depleted and weakened. Putting the Benghazi situation aside, it is as simple as voting for war or voting for peace.

Hillary Clinton’s gross inaction as Secretary of State should be enough to disqualify her for the presidency altogether but since there can be no way you haven’t already thought of that, think of this: Do you want war? Or do you want peace? It’s as simple as that. Donald Trump, on Monday, said he would meet with Vladimir Putin as soon as November if he were to be elected. This shows leadership that would be unfathomable to the Clinton campaign. She relentlessly insults Putin and is salivating at the thought of sending you and your comrades off to war. We are not ready for a nuclear war with Russia, nor do we want that. You get to decide who will command you and who will fight for you rather than who will only ask you to fight for her. What will you choose?

ARE YOU A STUDENT?

Are you a college student working hard to educate yourself and acquire an education that will better your future? What if I told you that soon, there would be students who don’t have to work for what you are working to give yourself? What if I told you that the free tuition that Hillary Clinton is promising would nullify the degree you’re working towards? How would that make you feel?

Everything you have worked for or are working toward will be much nearly useless if it’s handed out like candy under another Clinton administration. Vote to preserve the work you’ve put in and the pride that comes with knowing that you created that opportunity for yourself out of hard work and dedication.

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?

Christian values are traditional values. Although Donald Trump has had a rocky past as far as marriage goes, the man he is now represents traditional values. He will fight for religious liberty rather than persecution of the values we’ve held tight to since the birth of the nation. Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a lying, murderous thief who has no respect for the sanctity of life. She ridicules Trump for denying that global warming is a problem, citing that he must not understand science. How could a woman who denies that there is life inside the womb, according to science, claim superiority in the subject?

If you vote for nothing else but this one issue, you still have at least done your job as a Christian to fight for the unborn and the right, that every human shares, to life.

ARE YOU A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?

If you are a law aiding citizen, you not only value the law but you respect it as well. If you elect the criminal that is Hillary Clinton, you are sending a message. You are sending a message that not only are you okay with her previous crimes but that no matter what she does as president, you condone. If she commits criminal acts as the commander-in-cheif, you will have no ground to stand on in opposing her. You’ll have known who she is and, even worse, you’ll have put the power in her hands to commit these crimes. She has been a criminal her entire life. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder have been instrumental in getting her where she is today. Just this week, we found out that officials under her in the State Department attempted to bribe FBI agents to unlawfully change documents AFTER they had been subpoenaed and accumulated as evidence in a criminal investigation.

In the legal system, legal precedent is a legal case or incident that establishes a rule. That rule is later taken in other cases to determine the case at hand with similar issues or actions. If we let Hillary Clinton’s past crimes go unpunished, it will set the precedence of the Clinton administration if she is elected.

Hillary Clinton, herself, has been repeating the words, “America is great, because America is good.” Well folks, Hillary Clinton is not good. She doesn’t do good, she doesn’t represent goodness, nor have her actions shown any interest in the common good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Vote for goodness. Vote for greatness. Vote for America.

Former DOD Official: Islamic Terrorists are ‘weaponizing political correctness’

Despite the devastation being wrought throughout the globe by Islamic jihadists, and the accelerated threat to the West since the emergence of the Islamic State, Western leaders continue to minimize this threat, believe jihadist propaganda, and adhere to political correctness.

Jihadists were slaughtering long before the Islamic State appeared, but the Islamic State’s zeal for conquest and destruction have taken the savagery to new levels, particularly with the persuasiveness of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who is well-grounded in Islamic theology and law, and wields them to stir fanaticism and militancy among his following.

Baghdadi — who has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies — is all the more dangerous particularly given the traditional rigidity of Islam, as Muslim scholars, leaders, mullahs and clerics are the only respected sources to interpret the immutable decrees of Islamic texts. Baghdadi is also well versed in the strategies of the more stealthy Muslim Brotherhood.

Leftist Westerners remain clueless as to the nature of this jihadist war against us. Former Department of Defense official Rich Higgins said in an interview that he knew that America was losing the war on terror when Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State and went on his rampage at the Pulse nightclub. Higgins stated that jihadists are “‘weaponizing political correctness’ and using narratives to collapse our understanding of the enemy and how to battle them.”

“Former DOD Official Warns America Is On The Wrong Track To Fighting War On Terror [VIDEO],” by Ginni Thomas, Daily Caller, July 2, 2016:

Former Department of Defense official Rich Higgins knew America was losing the war on terror when a terrorist attacked the Pulse bar in Orlando, killing 49 people and injuring over 50.

Higgins’ sister-in-law asked him if he was doing all he could to fight this enemy after seeing the carnage of innocent life. Now, Higgins is taking considerable risk to speak truthfully about the lack of strategic policy in our government’s war on terror.

In this exclusive video interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation, the former Department of Defense official explains how Islamists are “weaponizing political correctness” and using narratives to collapse our understanding of the enemy and how to battle them.

His expertise is political warfare and developing strategies to battle against the ideologies and tactics used to carry out terror attacks.

Political warfare includes both non-violent and violent actions working in synthesis, Higgins says. The left, with enemy-friendly Muslim Brotherhood allies, is able to control the dominant cultural narrative with the media and the government, blinding us in the war on terror and impacting how Americans think, he argues.

Higgins calls for a “strategic and operational pause” in America’s misguided battle to stop the terror. He would, instead, ask new leadership to develop a comprehensive political warfare plan, while removing the subversive policies and personnel causing America to lose this paramount battle.

He cites the “purges” carried out by law enforcement and intelligence officials throughout government, which Phil HaneySebastian Gorka and Steve Coughlin have made public….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State beheads men for “mocking Islam,” “pledging allegiance to infidels”

Jihadist group Hizballah has 100,000 missiles ready to strike Israel

The Phobia That Could Kill America

In today’s politically correct and multi generation indoctrinated America, the word phobia is often used to quiet patriots and Christians rather than make an honest point.  At one time in our nation, it an individual observed horrendous actions by someone, they could state the facts about what they saw, show a picture and the truth would be allowed to stand unchallenged.

There was also a time when Americans of all races considered American interests to be of the most utmost importance.  After all, most Americans were intelligent and well informed enough to understand that the importance of rational self interest and would not tolerate the concept of allowing the United States to be endangered just to appease those who have vowed to murder us.

At one time, the majority of sovereign citizens of America would at the very least cautious about continuing to allow special rights, or preferred treatment of illegal immigrants at the expense of tax paying Americans.  They are being forced to pay for the housing, medical care and education of illegal immigrants and their children.  That is not right, to say the very least.  In fact, it is completely unwise, but like I have said in my radio commentary, “The Edwards Notebook, wisdom has taken wing and flown back to God.

Dictionary.com defines xenophobia as unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners, just for being foreigners, or that which is foreign or strange.  Now, if Americans were running around espousing hatred towards legal immigrants, foreigners just for being foreigners, homosexuals just for existing, etc. etc. that would be one crazy thing.  But the problem is that American society is now so programed against common sense that people are calling those who want to protect the United States from harm, xenophobes, racists, bigots, and much worse names I cannot use in my family friendly column.

Let us take a look at the Muslim problem, for example.  Muslims have a millennium plus long history of plotting to overthrow non-Muslim nations, who’s citizens don’t bump their heads on little rugs to honor allah.  To this very day, racist Muslims consider black people to be raisin heads who are without souls.  They enslaved black Africans long before Europeans and later Americans did.  As you read these words of truth, the Muslims now own and abuse over 20 million slaves, mostly Africans.  In the United States, there are at least 22 known Muslim zones, where anti American sentiment is very strong, to say the very least.  But United States progressives and even some appeasing republicans look the other way without saying a simple word about this ongoing horror story.

But if an American sovereign citizen dares to voice concern about the obvious motives of Muslims, who for the most part admit they refuse to assimilate into American society, they are wrongfully labeled as bigots, racists, islamaphobes, or xenophobes.

Yet the Americaphobe president Obama continues to endanger our beloved republic with his horrendous policies, such as fighting to prevent states like Arizona and Texas from protecting their borders and citizens from United States hating, ungrateful illegal immigrants.  Many of them are being accompanied by Muslim terrorists even as you are reading.  Other Americaphobes like the black lives matter gumps in Baltimore have threatened to kill presidential candidate Donald Trump.  Yet the same people who call patriotic Americans who defend our nation and way of life xenophobes, racists and bigots will not address the black lives matter gumps for their vicious verbiage.

It is becoming more difficult to identify Americans who actually give a darn about where we live in this country.  I am talking about the literal millions of Americans who refuse to respond to the horrendous policies of Obama and the bend over to please republicans in congress who have let the president literally get away with dismantling our military, flat lining our economy, dividing America racially, economically and politically.  While at the same time, Obama has ruined our relationships with most of our nations allies.  But yet, far too many people scream xenophobe at those wanting to protect our nation from destruction.

The United States of America has been a uniquely blessed nation like no other in human history.  But the self serving progressives who are hell bent on establishing a permanent socialist utopia have for too long been allowed to destroy this republic, bit by bit by bit.  One must come to the logical conclusion that those progressives who scream phobia labels at those who’s goals include making America great again are themselves the real bigots, Americaphobes and let us not forget, Christianphobes, constitutionphobes and even propertyrightsphobes.

My fellow Americans, if you appreciate this republic and desire to leave a better nation for your children and grandchildren, I strongly urge you to join in the worthy effort to help restore the principles that made her the onetime envy of the world.  Just because America wasn’t perfect by the unreal standards propped up by the hordes of progressive snivelers who could not care one little bit about real solutions to America’s problems.  If they did, the solutions they have enacted and promoted for decades would have improved, rather than have destroyed inner city neighborhoods, for example.

The choice is up to you, may we all remember to seek providential guidance in the effort to revive our constitutionally limited republic.  It helped the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, thus it can most assuredly help us.  Good knows we need it.

Man arrested for asking Muslim woman to ‘explain Brussels’

Arguably, Matthew Doyle was rude to confront a stranger, or even, in his later version, to ask her politely to explain something with which she had no involvement. He was clumsily expressing the frustration that many non-Muslims feel over the general failure of Muslim communities in the West to do much of anything to stop the jihad violence they say they condemn. Where, as I have asked hundreds of times, are their programs to prevent young Muslims from adhering to the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam? If they really reject that understanding, these should be everywhere.

One might call Doyle obnoxious, boorish, ham-fisted, whatever. But to arrest him for this is shocking, and demonstrates how much Britain has degenerated. Now being impertinent or unkind to a Muslim on the street is a crime? If so, then the UK is well on its way to adopting the rest of Sharia, and its days as a free nation are over. Also, how many Muslims have been arrested in Britain for asking non-Muslims rude questions?

Matthew_Doyle

“Croydon man arrested after confronting Muslim woman and telling her to ‘explain Brussels,’” by Adam Boult, Telegraph, March 23, 2016:

A man who tweeted about stopping a Muslim woman in the street yesterday, challenging her to “explain Brussels”, and lambasted on Twitter for his comments, has responded to the criticism today, insisting he is not some ‘far right merchant’.

Matthew Doyle, partner at a south London-based talent & PR agency, posted a tweet on Wednesday morning saying: “I confronted a Muslim woman in Croydon yesterday. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said ‘nothing to do with me’. A mealy mouthed reply.”

He was later arrested.

His tweet referred to yesterday’s bomb attacks on the Belgian capital’s main airport and Metro system that left at least 34 people dead and 198 injured. His comment went viral, being retweeted hundreds of times before he eventually deleted it.

Mr Doyle told the Telegraph he had no idea his tweet would be the “hand grenade” it has proven to be – and that Twitter’s 140 character limit made the encounter sound vastly different to how he thought it went.

“What everyone’s got wrong about this is I didn’t confront the woman,” he said. “I just said: ‘Excuse me, can I ask what you thought about the incident in Brussels?’”

“She was white, and British, wearing a hijab – and she told me it was nothing to do with her.

“I said ‘thank you for explaining that’ – and her little boy said goodbye to me as we went out separate ways.”

On Wednesday afternoon, he says, someone who’s been outraged by his comments “turned up at my door, gave me a load of abuse and tried to throw a punch at me.”

As for his more inflammatory tweets, Mr Doyle claims they’re intended as a joke, which people who know him would understand as “that’s absolutely not who I am.”

“I’m not some far-right merchant, I’m not a mouthpiece for any kind of racism or radicalism,” he says. “If I was xenophobic I wouldn’t live in London.

“I have a Muslim neighbour who got burgled, and I was one of the first people to go around to help.”

However, he says he does believe Muslims aren’t doing enough to speak out against terrorism.

“The horror that happened in Brussels could happen here,” he adds, “and your naive if you think London isn’t on some terror shortlist.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Hillary vs. Jihad: A Nightmare Scenario

Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch: “Christ was born in Palestine!”

It’s time for the Governments of Europe to Fall

It’s time for votes of no-confidence. It’s time for the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and more to fall. I’m not talking about violent revolution. There are mechanisms for the peaceful replacement of governments in most European nations at times when the existing government is seen widely to be inadequate for the task at hand. It is time to put those mechanisms to use. The existing governments are responsible for policies that have turned Europe into a war zone, and that war is just beginning. The political and media elites have failed Europe and the free world, and put Europe on a course toward civil war and bloodshed unseen on the continent since the days of Hitler.

A new Hitler is in Europe. It is not Donald Trump. It is not the “right-wing.” The new Hitler is very much like the old Hitler: he hates Jews. He has contempt for the historical patrimony of Western civilization. He means to rule by an iron fist and subordinate every other power to his will. He respects only strength, and despises weakness. The new Hitler is not just one man, but millions — millions who believe in an ideology that teaches warfare against and subjugation of free people under its heel.

Historically, Europe saw the threat that the men who held to this ideology posed, and shed blood to resist their advance. Now, the sons and heirs of those who gave their lives to make sure their children and their children’s children would live free have flung open the gates and invited in those who would enslave them. They have invited them into their countries in massive numbers, and vilified and ostracized anyone who dared note the lessons of history and the content of the invaders’ ideology.

This morning, as a result of these policies, Brussels is engulfed in chaos and the grief of blood shed in war. There will be much, much more to come of this.

It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. Europe, if it is to survive as a home of free people, must turn out its entire political and media establishment. This can still be done peacefully, and must be done quickly. If Europe is to survive as a home of free people, it needs governments who recognize that the “refugees” storming into their countries now include an untold number of jihad murderers who mean to kill their people and destroy their societies, and who have the courage to stand up and stop that refugee flow, and turn it back. Saudi Arabia has tens of thousands of air-conditioned tents for hajj pilgrims, and not one refugee. Why? Because they have noted, correctly, that there are jihad terrorists among the refugees.

Can Saudi Arabia protect itself and Europe cannot?

This is a war. It is a war for survival. It is a war that will determine whether Europe (and North America is not far behind) will live in freedom or slavery. The present European political and media elites are inviting the slavery of their people. They must be soundly repudiated. Too much is at stake to continue to countenance their self-delusion and fantasy. Those who are struggling to survive cannot afford to be unrealistic about what they’re facing. In the United States also, we need leaders who will speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the war we’re in. Surely there are some people in Europe who are both able to lead and willing to tell the truth. It is time for them to be peacefully installed in power — before it’s too late, as it very soon will be.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brussels Attack Not because of the Palestinian ‘occupation’

Hillary Clinton: US response to Brussels jihad mass murders must be “consistent with our values”

Islamic State supporters on social media scream “Allahu akbar,” celebrate Brussels jihad mass murders

Lutheran Social Services booklet on Muslims called ‘fantasy Islam’

Dr. Stephen Kirby writing at Frontpage Magazine analyzed the 61-page booklet prepared by one of the major federal refugee resettlement contractors, ‘My Neighbor is Muslim, Exploring the Muslim Faith,’ and tells us the shocking news that they relied on an Imam with highly questionable ties for the ‘enlightenment’ of naive Minnesotans about the goals of their “new neighbors.”

Jodi Harpstead is the CEO of Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota and as such is responsible for the deceptive booklet. She is making over $300,000 a year to seed St. Cloud and other Minnesota towns with Somali Muslims.

Frontpage:

Jodi Harpstead

Jodi Harpstead

In 2015 the Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota produced a 61 page booklet titled My Neighbor is Muslim, Exploring the Muslim Faith. The purpose of the booklet was to enable Lutherans to learn about Islam in order to better understand their “new neighbors” who were arriving as refugees.

Kirby then lays out his argument in great specificity (read it all!) and wraps up with this:

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota created a booklet seeking to educate non-Muslims about Islam and encouraging them to have a welcoming attitude toward Muslim refugees coming into their neighborhoods. Ironically, the Muslim imam selected to endorse this booklet appears to be a Hamas supporter, believes that Shariah Law should be enforced in American communities where Muslims are the majority, heads one of two mosques that have been the focus of articles about Somali youth leaving Minneapolis to fight for a terrorist organization, and was recently refused a government security clearance. Welcome to the neighborhood!

Part 2 will look at how Islam is presented in this booklet.  [watch for it!—ed]

See our many many posts on Minnesota by clicking here.   Lutheran Social Service has been resettling Somalis in that state for three decades.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Sen. Ben Sasse: Obama Has ‘Wreaked Havoc’ on America

US Refugee Admissions Program is secretive, elected officials are not given information

Refugees by the numbers

Political Correctness and Barack Obama

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 12, 2016 was criticized by many. For us, the people of the former Socialist countries, it had been a very familiar political theater. The carefully choreographed speech was brought from the stratosphere of illusion and a calligraphy of misleading, which had nothing to do with the reality on the planet Earth. We were not surprised—we are used to the political theater of Stalinist’s ideology, the only achievement of Soviet Socialism. President Obama’s speech represented a quintessential form of the Stalin’s Political Correctness, which has been nourished by the liberals in America for the last several decades.

You won’t find a person in America’s social media who doesn’t use the term Political Correctness every day and many times a day. In his interview with Fox, the former FBI deputy director Kostrome said to Judge Jeanine: “Political correctness is killing us.” He is right, PC was designed to harm and destroy Western civilization. Yet, I am not sure that all the people using the term are familiar with its agenda, etymology, and creator. The author and architect of the term is Joseph Stalin and knowing this fact will help many to grasp the world politics of the 21st century.

Barack Obama forces me to return again to this subject. When I read that 76 per cent of the American people loath Political Correctness (PC), my love for those people tripled. They did not know that PC was a Stalinist ideological invasion into their culture, they just felt it intuitively. I also knew that they are the fairest people in the world and their dislike for PC shows them to be very sensitive to the adversarial and harmful actions against American interests.

Political Correctness is the Ideological Tool of Soviet Socialism.

Political Correctness is the major method in fighting the war against Western civilization and implementing the ideology of Soviet Socialism, the topic I have been writing about for the last twenty years. I called this war WWIII. There are four main components in my definition of an asymmetrical WWIII. They are the following: Recruitment, Infiltration, Drugs, and Assassinations. Recruitment and Infiltration are inextricably connected. Neither could have been achieved without Political Correctness, which is falsely projects tolerance.

A famous Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski once said: “when a Socialist comes to power, you can expect concentration camps.”  He was right—violence is the main feature of Socialism. The perspective for the future Socialist world was expressed by Karl Marx in his slogan Proletarian of the world unite, which meant a violent world war. One hundred years later Joseph Stalin developed the Socialist intent in a more politically pronounced manner by camouflaging violence: One world Government under the Kremlin auspices. He used Political Correctness.

We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries went through that development, called Soviet Socialism. It was a war by the government against its own citizens–a multi-faceted war with different fronts, methods, shapes, and forms. Speaking different languages and living in different countries, we all came to America from a collective microcosm of Political Correctness—a false narrative to alter the nature of the Truth. There is no surprise that the American people are angered and frustrated—this is a response to Obama’s war against the population. He is following the same way Stalin did to build his Soviet Socialism, which had never worked.

Yet, many Americans are still infected by the virus of Stalin’s Socialism. The question is – how it was possible that a fraud, as I identified Stalin’s ideology of Socialism, survive for almost a century and still seduce a lot of people in the world today? The question I have been researching and investigating for many years discussing multi-faceted methods of the Stalin’s social model—one of them is Political Correctness.

Does anybody in America or the world know the architect of PC, its concept or the fundamental agenda behind it? Does anybody know the nature and crucial role those two words played in their lives for decades? The answer to the question will unite us: the former citizens of the Socialist countries and all of the people in the 21st century, as we all together in different times have been manipulated and brainwashed by these two words—Political Correctness.

It seems that the nature of those two words, is very neutral indeed. In fact, those words are not peaceful, on the contrary they represent the psychological tools or methods which are used to transform a political system by fraud, while simultaneously fighting its ideological opponents. To my knowledge Stalin was the author of those two words that were published for the first time in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia (News) in 1933, the time when major transformation was going on within the Soviet Union. Stalin called “Politically Incorrect” the leaders of the opposition. The American educator Herbert Kohl confirms my opinion:

“In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s. “

Writing about Stalinism and watching its ubiquitous application in the 21st century, I have offered my version of the matter several times before:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of lies, the long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”

And again I’d like to remind you about Stalin’s incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud. Stalin was so skillful at political intrigue that vast majority of people in the Soviet Union not only believed him, but adored him as a Messiah. Nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigue. Political Correctness had no opponents and reigned in the country—we lived inside a gigantic network of falsehood… And so lives America in the 21st century.

Look at America today. Due to the constant efforts of the Obama administration America is drastically transformed, like us, living in the Soviet Union, America lives today inside a gigantic network of falsehood created by Political Correctness. And this is not the end of the resemblances: our economy is going down the tube, the harm Obama has done to economy counts in billions, our morals are at their lowest level ever. All of this has a logical result—Socialism has never worked anywhere, it ended by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The history of the 20 century repeats itself in the 21st when manipulation and brainwashing of human minds goes undetected in America. We can’t continue down the path of “Democratic Socialism”: it is an oxymoron–Democratic can’t be Socialist and Socialism can’t be democratic. We must return to the values of our Founding Fathers. Now is the time to see clearly where we are going under the leadership of the party, called Democratic: Even the name is a false one. I am not sure that Trump, like the vast majority of Americans knows about source of PC, yet, with his magnetic and unique personality, he symbolizes them all. We are witnessing an uprising against the bureaucracy of the Washington political class.

“I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!” – Clint Eastwood

VIDEO: Excuse Me, Professor! Correcting the slant on campus

excuse me professor book coverToo often, the message students get in college is that government is the answer to all social and economic problems. This happens in classes on history, sociology, politics, literature, and even in economics. You can graduate having heard only one narrative: the market has failed, so it must be replaced by all-controlling government bureaucracies.

FEE president Lawrence Reed is the editor of a wonderful collection of essays that address myth after myth. The book is Excuse Me, Professor (buy it from FEE). The essays deal with a huge range of issues that confront students every day. Unless young thinkers have an alternative paradigm in mind, the cause of human liberty will continue to lose the intellectual battle.

In this presentation at the Acton Institute, Reed discusses his new book and why it is an important contribution to setting the record straight. (Talk begins around 4:30 mark.)

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) not sure if ‘enemy is connected to Islam’

Not only do the politically correct and willfully ignorant such as Senator Brown do all they can to avoid acknowledging that there is any connection between jihad terrorism and Islam, but they also enforce that willful ignorance upon the rest of us: unless you confess with his lips and believe in your heart that the Islamic State is not Islamic, you will be subjected to a chorus of opprobrium, along with ostracism and ongoing vilification.

“Dem Senator Unsure If ‘Enemy Is Connected to Islam,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 11, 2015:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) struggled to explain whether he believes there is a connection between Islam and terrorist forces aiming to launch strikes at the United States when questioned by another leading lawmaker Thursday evening on the Senate floor, according to video of the exchange.

Asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) during an exchange on the Senate floor if he believes “there is any connection between our enemy and Islam,” Brown appeared confused and struggled to respond.

“I’m sorry, excuse me?” Brown said in response to Sasse’s question.

When asked again if he believes there is any connection between the radicals waging terrorist attack on the West and Islam, Brown said he is not sure.

“I guess, I don’t know, I’m not here to debate this,” he said. “I don’t know exactly what that means, ‘A connection between our enemy and Islam.’”

“I know that semantics matter and the criticism of our president in this body is kind of front of center” as a result of the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., Brown continued….

The White House made clear this week it has a “strong belief” to not “treat the [Islamic State] terrorists as leaders of some religious movement.”

Sasse described this response as “lunacy.”

“This is lunacy,” he said. “First, while the White House is insisting that no one use the word ‘Islamic’ or note any connection between the war that we’re facing and some subset of Islam—even as the White House insists that no one use the word—their own preferred adjective—ISIL or ISIS—begins with an ‘I,’” Sasse said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

SB jihad accomplice: “There’s so many sleeper cells…it’s going to be big”

Glenn Greenwald falsely claims story of US Muslim arrested in Turkey was false

VIDEO: Political Correctness — The Islamic State’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

The Islamic State’s new weapon of mass destruction: political correctness.

It’s time for a real conversation about Radical Islam. Visit: http://go.clarionproject.org/numbers/

San Bernardino Shooting: Political Correctness Kills, Again

There was a tragic incident of climate change Wednesday, or so Barack Obama might say. As I was driving home that evening listening to the still sparse details on the San Bernardino shooting, the news report informed that there were two dead suspects, a man and woman. So I already knew more than the authorities were telling: I figured the two assailants were non-white, almost certainly Muslim. After all, if the police knew their sexes, they knew what they looked like. And if they’d been white, it would have been announced right away.

You see, I know the drill. When the suspects are non-white, politically correct authorities will never mention it for fear of condemnation. “Why are you calling attention to their race or ethnicity?!” they’ll be asked. Of course, they didn’t mind calling attention to their sex. In the leftist upside-down world, all characteristics are equal, but some are more equal than others. Really, the more consistently PC way of describing the terrorists would have been as “two sentient bipeds.” Because, you know, four legs good, two legs bad.

Then there’s the following, from CBS Los Angeles:

A man who has been working in the [Redlands] area [of terrorist Syed Farook’s home] said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said.  “We’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.”

Does it occur to this man that, in a way, he has blood on his hands? We don’t have to ask if it occurs to the media, academia and entertainment culture-killers who conditioned him to be politically correct that they also have blood on theirs. They probably blame the San Bernardino (SB) climate-change incident on white microaggressions.

It’s not that liberals don’t engage in profiling; it’s just that they do it all wrong. MSNBC wasted no time profiling the terrorists as possible pro-lifers, pointing out that a Planned Butcherhood facility was “just a few blocks away.” And recently, liberal senator Sherrod Brown averred that white males were a bigger threat to America than Muslim jihadists (this may be true about white males such as Sherrod Brown).

Downtown Brown was, of course, talking about mass shootings such as Columbine and Sandy Hook. He completely ignored that such incidents aren’t classified as terrorism for the simple reason that they’re not terrorism; they’re not generally perpetrated in the name of a cause but are the work of deranged minds. But no matter. The whole point is based on a lie to begin with.

As I reported last year using statistical analysis, it is a myth that an inordinate percentage of mass shooters are white.

In reality, mass shooters’ racial and ethnic backgrounds (insofar as major groups go) reflect the demographics of the overall U.S. population almost perfectly; the only exception is Asians, who, interestingly, are somewhat overrepresented. But, hey, the media have their narrative. And they’re stickin’ to it.

“Narrative,” you may note, was once used mainly in reference to fiction. I suppose it still is. And perhaps that’s a better name for our Teleprompter-reading “reporters”: narrators.

This brings us to the other Teleprompter reader, our Narrator in Chief. Obama called for gun control soon after news of the SB shooting broke, when what’s really needed is immigration control. But then Mr. Hussein couldn’t import any more refujihadis (hat tip: an American Thinker reader), who we know for a fact are coming in with the Mideastern Muslim migrants because the latter cannot be vetted. But, you know, eggs and omelets.

Obama never feels constrained by facts, but he probably assumed that, whoever the SB assailants were and whatever their motives, the guns just had a mind of their own. Perhaps he ought to recruit Little Lord Fauntleroy’s recessive-gene twin, Piers Morgan, to tell us how much lower gun-control poster boy Britain’s murder rate is than ours. Except that New Hampshire — with a higher gun-ownership rate than the U.K. — has a lower homicide rate. This is despite it, frighteningly, being just chock full of those dreaded white males (N.H. is 91.3 percent non-Hispanic white, versus 62.1 percent for the U.S. overall). And Dr. Thomas Sowell tells us there just might be a connection there.

Returning to profiling, there are other connections we could make. I am a member of one of the most profiled group in the nation: males. Police view males far more suspiciously than females because males commit an inordinate amount of crime. But if this is just, is it not also just to apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of crime? And if so-called “racial profiling” is “racist” and is verboten, isn’t sex profiling sexist? Shouldn’t it be eliminated with the same vigor?

Oh, yeah, four legs good, two legs bad.

Profiling is simply a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information in situations in which obtaining more information is not feasible. In the realm of policing and personal safety, it enables us to determine the probability that a given individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent. And we all engage in profiling, mind you, such as when avoiding a group of rough-hewn young men walking down the street or being distrustful of a sleazy-looking used-car salesman. Doctors do it when assessing what conditions and diseases a patient is likely to have (Pima Indians have the nation’s highest diabetes rate; blacks have high rates of prostate cancer). Children do it when being wary of petting strange dogs.

And then childishly destructive people tell us we should do it in every way — but one.

We can profile people based on sex, age, the car they drive, dress and even race. For instance, police may stop a white man driving through a bad inner-city neighborhood in an expensive car, figuring the probability is relatively high that he’s there to buy drugs. But this willingness to “racially profile” goes out the window when the matter is politically favored groups. That, my friends, is unjust discrimination. That is prejudice.

And it’s dangerous.

This aversion to politically incorrect “racial profiling” is even more ridiculous when the matter is Muslims. Note, low-info narrators, “Muslim” is not a race. It refers to a group defined by a set of beliefs, or doctrines. And since actions originate with thoughts, what you believe matters and is the best predictor of behavior. If you want to find a good prospective soldier or UFC cage fighter, for instance, you don’t look among the Amish.

Referring to the SB terrorism and pushing gun control, the NY Daily News’ Thursday cover reads, “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS.” No, He’s not. For He gives us free will, and you liberals are using yours wrongly and destructively. And you won’t fix it, either, because you’re spiritually diseased.

It will only be fixed by a sea-change in American culture, an about-face where political correctness becomes so stigmatized that exhibiting it means character and career destruction in the same way that being politically incorrect does today.

Political correctness kills. And for America to survive, it must die.

EDITORS NOTE: Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

CNN Always Blames Conservatives for Terrorism

John Nolte tells the truth. But it isn’t just CNN: numerous people who are putatively on the right, including Donald Trump, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and others who should know better but clearly don’t, lined up after our free speech event in Garland, Texas last May to blame us for the jihad terror attack on the event.

Planned Parenthood & Pamela Geller: CNN Always Blames Conservatives for Terrorism,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, November 30, 2015:

Chris Cuomo: “Now we get into why did it happen? The man charged with Friday’s murderous attack on a Colorado Planned Parenthood is probably a crazy extremist who did something sick and negative and wrong. But isn’t killing babies primarily for purposes of convenience provocative?

Alisyn Camerota: “What people are saying is that the business you are in, aborting innocent unborn children primarily for convenience purposes, is incendiary and provocative.”

Erin Burnett: “Is being caught on video talking so cavalierly about dismembering innocent babies and selling their parts stoking the flames? Do you think on some level, Planned Parenthood relished this attack?”

Carol Costello: “Is Planned Parenthood’s belligerent insistence on taxpayer funding a deliberate attempt to provoke and taunt?”

The questions above are fabricated. Not a single one of CNN’s left-wing anchors raised anything close to the idea that Planned Parenthood’s horrific abortion practices provoked last week’s violence.  Which is appropriate. What happened at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Friday afternoon was indefensible and evil. The only person responsible is the person who committed those three murders.

Throughout Monday, though, and on too many occasions to count, like the rest of the DC Media, CNN did attempt to blame conservative pro-lifers for provoking the Friday attack, this includes the Center for Medical Progress, a group that exposed Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish cottage industry involving the dismemberment of dead babies and the selling of those tiny body parts to the highest bidder.

And yet, if it means the left-wing network can blame conservatives, this very same CNN does see cartoons as a provocative taunt that makes the intended victim in some way responsible for the terrorism. (Donald Trump said the same thing, by the way).

Back in May, after Islamic terrorists tried to murder everyone at a Texas free speech event organized by Pamela Geller, CNN relentlessly attacked Geller for wearing a short free speech skirt. According to CNN, the bitch was begging for it.

Believe it or not, these quotes are real:

Chris Cuomo to Pam Geller: “Now, we get into, why did it happen? They’re crazy extremists. They bought into an ideology that is sick and negative and wrong, that’s fact. But what you did was calculated in a way that would be provocative.”

Alisyn Camerota to Pam Geller: “What people are saying is that there is that there is always this fine line of being intentionally incendiary and provocative.”

Erin Burnett to Pam Geller: “I mean, are you stoking the flames? Do you on some level relish being the target of these attacks?”

Carol Costello: “She can say whatever she wants but if this [cartoon] contest was set up to deliberately taunt or provoke, is that responsible?”

At CNN, no matter what happens, the political Right is always to blame.

Even for train crashes.

Today’s reminder of just how good Democrats got it … especially at CNN.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Apology to the World for U.S. on Climate Is Ridiculous

The Most Surprising Thing About the Colorado Springs Shooting

UK: Muslim rape gang member says 13-year-old victim seduced him

Obama administration gun-running scheme armed the Islamic State

Media Nixing Comments Sections: When “Civility” Really Means “Political Correctness”

When leftists start talking about “civility,” watch out for your freedom of speech. This again comes to mind with reports that some media outlets are eliminating online comments sections in civility’s name. And while it’s not a First Amendment violation (these are private-sector actions), it is largely motivated by the same mentality spawning speech codes on college campuses and “hate speech” laws overseas.

And as with those phenomena, the nixing of online comments is justified with noble-sounding sentiments. As the AFP recently reported, “Last month, Vice Media’s Motherboard news site turned off reader comments, saying ‘the scorched earth nature of comments sections just stifles real conversation.’ It instead began taking ‘letters to the editor’ to be screened by staff.”

That’s rich. What stifles conversation more than eliminating a comments section completely? As for “real conversation,” the content leftist media disgorge proves they haven’t the foggiest idea what that might be.

It’s also clear that some types of incivility are more unequal than others. Consider that the AFP also cites University of Houston communications professor Arthur Santana and writes, “‘Often the targets of the incivility are marginalized groups, including racial minorities,’ Santana said in the Newspaper Research Journal. Santana found readers referred to immigrants as ‘cockroaches, locusts, scumbags, rats, bums, buzzards, blood-sucking leeches, vermin, slime, dogs, brown invaders, wetbacks,’ among others.” Oh, the humanity!

Now, I’m not sure Prof. Santana knows what a “marginalized” group is, but I invite him to visit some left-wing sites and peruse what’s posted about Christians, and traditionalists in general. And consider these comments from under a viral 2012 YouTube video featuring a cute 6-year-old boy providing 10 reasons not to vote for Barack Obama:

  • can someone kill that child… to teach his parents a lesson!!!!
  • Where is Jerry Sandusky when you really need him? This kid needs a shower!
  • If I could id kill this kid. He’s somewhat racist and brings up obama stereotypes. Dumb redneck.
  • This child and his parents need to be euthanized.

And here’s one I’ve had to clean up (as much as leftists’ messes can be):

“GO F*** YOUR MOTHER YOU LITTLE ****-SUCKING HOMOPHOBIC GUN LOVING ****-SUCKER IF YOU WERE MY F****** KID I WOULD BE GIVING THE BIGGEST S**T KICKING OF A LIFETIME YOU LITTLE GOOD GOD FEARING GOOD FOR F****** NOTHING F****** ****-SUCKER!!!!!!”

Funny thing, though, we didn’t hear about the pressing need to eliminate comments sections after displays such as the above, which aren’t unusual in the vile netherworld of leftist websites (the Left is governed by irrational emotion). It’s only now — in the midst of an anti-establishment revolution, as represented by support for Donald Trump and the anti-migration demonstrations in Europe — that we hear, “Oh my, Scarlet, the Internet is so full of meanies! Cover your virginal eyes!”

Let’s be clear: This has little more to do with “civility” than Marxism has to do with improving the lot of “workers.” And while some sites claim that nasty comments sections alienate readers, the feature likely yields a net gain in traffic; after all, it does inspire return visits by those who do participate. So what does largely drive this “civility” concern?

Political correctness.

It’s all about the media’s effort to control the narrative. Think about it: a reporter crafts his propaganda.

Then this is undermined by commenters saying that the emperor-media have no clothes.

For example, a news piece may quote a few citizens talking about how Muslim migrants in Europe have fled danger and have to be accepted in compassion’s name. But then commenters not only point out that most are military-age males, weren’t actually imperiled, are Sharia-minded and have no intention of assimilating, but also exhibit great zeal while doing so, illustrating that the anti-media side has the facts and great passion. And the combination of ethos, logos and pathos is very powerful.

And here’s another example (these are random; countless others could be cited): an article will reflexively refer to, let’s say, French National Front leader Marine Le Pen as “far right.” This can be effective because what’s assumed is learned best.

That is, it can be effective unless commenters point out that she takes mostly statist positions and only distinguishes herself by opposing Muslim immigration. Then pop goes the agenda.

So the media shape a message and then commenters point out that it’s misshapen and shape another. The media report in one way and commenters provide a kind of counter-reportage. And this can be intense. Consequently, when I see an article in certain news organs about, for example, immigration or a black-on-white bias crime, I generally know to expect something such as the following message below it: “Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.”

But as they might write in comments sections:

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments criticism on this politically correct article.”

Ftfy.

Because that’s what it really means. Under such pieces — especially when Drudge links to them — you can expect comments to run 15 or 20 to 1 against the article’s narrative. So the site won’t accept comments “currently” — or later or ever. For such complete commenter repudiation of the content turns a would-be brainwasher into an “is” laughingstock. It’s not virginal eyes that might be offended by commenter incivility that the media worry about, you see, but naïve eyes that could be opened by commenter insightfulness.

Then there’s the threat to political correctness itself. It is the leftist media’s preferred social code, and they want us to assume it’s everyone’s preference. But comments sections replete with politically incorrect postings (the good, the bad and the ugly) prove that pcness is much like the old Soviet Union’s state ideology: most everyone fears the ideological machinery of the powers-that-be — but relatively few truly subscribe to the ideology itself.

In a way, the shutting down of comments sections is akin to quelling street demonstrations. There’s strength in numbers, and these sections are virtual demonstrations where citizens can come together and speak truth to power; they enable people to join a phalanx of philosophical soul mates. Instead of asking, “Am I alone in thinking this article is bunk?” you can know that millions stand with you. But it serves the mainstream media’s agenda if you think you’re alone.

The AFP article also mentions how forcing people to post comments under their real names, as Facebook does, encourages “civility.” Many leftists love this idea, but it’s more rank hypocrisy. It’s easy to feign principle and bloviate about how people should be man enough to take ownership of their opinions when yours are politically correct. But we live in a time when ex-CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign from Mozilla Corporation for supporting marriage, a real-estate agent was fired for complaining about the flying of a foreign flag on U.S. soil, and pizza-shop owners were forced into hiding by death threats merely for saying they wouldn’t cater a faux wedding. We live in a time in which treason is the elitist norm. So why do some liberals favor the elimination of Internet anonymity? Well, how else can you know whom to persecute?

Having said this, true Internet incivility is a problem. I’ve often lamented the profanity rife on the Web (kids sometimes see these things, you know), a phenomenon that just further coarsens society. But that’s not mainly what Leftists complain about when sanctimoniously speaking of “incivility”; in fact, they’re the very ones who mainstreamed profanity (unfortunately, too many conservatives follow their lead), as Hollywood movies attest. Yet their lying tongues are far worse than their dirty mouths. For the worst kind of incivility is insincerity in discourse.

William F. Buckley once observed, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” This is the main reason Internet comments sections may shock and offend liberals. They like their echo chambers and don’t want to hear other views. It’s “out of sight, out of mind.” And because they want to control minds, they don’t want you to hear other views, either.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

The Poison of Political Correctness

The politically correct control freaks are on the move and way beyond crazy.  For example, political correct lemmings are so goofy they want to let terrorists and other illegal immigrants into America while attacking cumulus clouds in their wacky environmental movement war on the United States.  Of all places, Philadelphia the city of brotherly love, where the Founding Fathers assembled at Independence Hall and declared freedom from British tyranny just a few years ago witnessed it’s tyrannical mayor unleash his powerful government wrath against the Boy Scouts.  He threatened to boot them out of their historical national headquarters because at the time Boy Scout leaders were still holding on to the Christian principles that were the hallmark of that organization.

As surely as the world turns the politically correct freaks continue to bring their misery into the days of our lives.  The political correct freaks have invaded just about every single segment of our republic. Even when it comes to the protection of our country from enemies their politically correct influence endangers our safety.  So now the U.S. Justice Department according to assistant Justice Department director John Carlin is going on the muscle against domestic terrorism.

John Carlin, head of the Department of Justice national security division announced the new Domestic Terrorism Division will focus on domestic threats.  He added, “In order to ensure that we are gaining the benefits of the information and input from those eyes on the ground from around the country, and in recognition of a growing number of potential domestic terrorism matters around the United States, we have created a new position to assist with our important work in combating domestic terrorism.”  Carlin went on to emphasize what he called the increasing risk from homegrown terrorism and specifically white supremacy.

Carlin also pointed out “We recognize that over the past few years, more people have died in this country in attacks by domestic extremists than in attacks associated with international terrorist groups.”  To put it bluntly, what a crock of politically correct garbage.  First of all, this is a nation of laws.  If the government would enforce the laws already on the books without politically correct influences, the government would strongly deal with enemies both foreign and domestic.

There is no logical reason for the Department of Justice to take this politically correct approach.  However the government has become a rouge enforcer of globalist political correct dogma at the expense of America and the unalienable rights of “We the People.”  Mr. Carlin said that the D.O.J. will specifically emphasize white supremacy.  Big whoop Mr. Carlin, where was the Justice department after Louis Farrakhan spoke about the need for ten thousand brave men to kill?  Where is the Justice Department when Americans are needlessly murdered by illegal immigrants let in by the federal government that has so-far refused to build proper fencing and effectively guard the American borders?

The politically correct freaks have taken over almost all of the far too many government departments in addition to the Department of Justice.  It seems as if Department of Justice officials are gearing up to work in concert with Obama administration plans to bring over a United Nations inspired international police force that is supposed to go after domestic extremists. This kind of evil is in lock step the politically correct freak who prefer the rights of illegal immigrants, animals, trannies and muslims who hate all non-muslims above the unalienable rights of you and I.

The politically correct freaks don’t believe in your right of self-protection.  That is one of the reasons it was easy for president Obama to announce he wanted to politicize the gun issue.  To him it was more important to drum up support for taking guns from law abiding sovereign citizens than showing gratitude to Chris Mintz, who bravely tried to save others from knuckle dragging murderer. Thanks but no-thanks to politically correct freaks, it was easy for the cowardly murderer to go after people he knew would be unarmed thanks to a politically correct work environment that discourages good people from protecting themselves.

The politically correct freaks in the form a homeowners association are so ensconced in evil and stupidity, they recently turned their bigoted ire toward Donna Morey of Hatfield Pa.  Why? Because she dared to fly a small blue star flag in her upstairs bedroom window in honor of her son’s military service.  Ms. Morey said that she had been flying the flag for nearly a year, but recently got a call telling her that she could be running afoul of the rules, in the complex where she lives.  The silly rules state that only white or off white window treatments may be visible from outside of the house.  Her son Donald Morey is a major in the army who has served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.  By the way, the Blue Star Flag is traditionally displayed by families of active servicemen and women.

Last but not least, the immoral politically correct freaks also continue to show their unyielding disdain of presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson.  Simply because he, like yours truly refuses to act, speak, or believe the way that the politically correct freaks (or progressives) want him to.  In other words, Dr. Carson tells the truth concerning economics, abortion, American history, etc. and God forbid, he loves America and wants to see the reestablishment of proper moral instruction.  By the way, a return to good moral instruction and faith in God will go a long way in helping Americans make better choices, even at the ballot box.  Something the politically correct freaks don’t want to happen.

Standing up to Islam: The West Redefines Itself to Death

If Ann Coulter were to live in Russia, her writing would probably be similar to that of Yulia Latynina, one of my favorite Russian-language political commentators and critics of Putin’s government.

Latynina’s latest column, I believe, must be shared with all people living in Western countries, or at least with those not yet trapped inside the intellectual maze of their own invention. In this conflict of civilizations, winning requires clarity of vision — something the West no longer has due to its postmodernist obsession with recalibrating and redefining itself.

West redefines itself

Below is my somewhat loose translation of Latynina’s column — “loose” because, as you will see later, precision sometimes is the enemy of clarity.

“I’m all for free speech, but…” proclaims the chorus of Western intellectuals following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, imagining that their role in this tragedy is to make simple things look complicated. They are gravely misguided: there are no “buts” in that script.

In the 1940s, as scientists began to develop the theory of quantum electrodynamics, they discovered a weird problem in their equations: the electron mass seemed to be correct in the first approximation, but all further attempts to define it more precisely resulted in impossibly divergent series. The more they tried to refine the number, the more absurd it became, with the electron mass growing to infinity.

Finally the American physicist Richard Feynman introduced a cut-off point, suggesting to subtract infinity from infinity. In a work that won him the Nobel Prize, Feynman came up with a procedure called “renormalization.” Roughly speaking, it prohibits endless refinements and claims that the first approximate value is the most correct. In other words, don’t kill yourself with infinite refinements and use Occam’s razor.

West redefines itselfIt seems we now need a similar cut-off point in order to understand what is happening in the real world. Whoever brings “renormalization” into public life will also deserve a Nobel Prize because, frankly, we’re killing ourselves with infinite refinements.

The facts are as plain as a road sign: the French journalists were murdered for exercising free speech. They were real live people. The Islamists did it in order to intimidate the free world and take away its freedom of speech.

“But…” we hear from all directions, “but…”

“…But those cartoons were offensive to believers.”

“…But they overstepped all sorts of boundaries.”

“…But this is merely a mutual misunderstanding of each other’s cultural traditions.”

“…And anyway, let’s not confuse terrorism with Islam, which is a peaceful religion.”

“…And are you saying that Islam somehow promotes extremism? Are you really equating Islam with terrorism? That sounds like fascism! Shame on you!”

“…And aren’t you forgetting that different cultures have different values?”

“…And why all the fuss about those dead journalists when more people are getting killed in the Iraqi war?

West redefines itself

And so on and so forth, until after five or six loops of such “divergent series,” the plain fact of a brutal murder transforms into an infinitely complex cultural phenomenon. And with it, anyone speaking against Islamic terrorism transforms into a narrow-minded bigot, ignorant of traditional cultures with their spiritual values, someone who unjustly smears all Muslims and forgets that the West is guilty before the Third World for colonialism.

Allow me another math metaphor. There is a mathematical concept of a “fuzzy set.” It is vital in developing artificial intelligence and recognition technologies because our world, as it were, consists of fuzzy sets.

We call some women “beautiful” and some others we call “ugly.” We say that some countries are “free” and some others are “dictatorships.” But if we begin to refine our arguments, we will often find out that “free” countries lack certain freedoms, or that an “ugly” woman has a shapely chin, an attractive nose, or at least a mysterious color in her eyes. That’s because beauty and freedom are fuzzy sets. And if your goal is infinite precision, you’ll find neither beauty nor freedom.

Some things don’t need to be precise.

As for the mutual misunderstanding of each other’s cultural traditions, let’s make one thing clear: some traditions are better than others.

At one time India had a tradition of self-immolation of widows in the husband’s funeral pyres. The British colonizers could say, as modern intellectuals do, that this was just a different cultural tradition they had to respect. But the British disrespected local traditions and put up gallows next to the funeral pyres. Anyone who tried to throw a widow into the fire was hanged right next to it. That was the end of the burning of widows.

West redefines itselfThe Maori in New Zealand had a cultural tradition of cannibalism. A young warrior would not obtain a proper social status until he’d cut off the head of a man from another tribe. Once again, the British could start talking about the drama of mutually misunderstood cultural values, but they chose to ban cannibalism and head-hunting.

The Aztecs had a tradition of human sacrifice. But the narrow-minded bigot Hernando Cortes, who conquered Tenochtitlan, was not a multiculturalist and so he told the priests, their hair covered in dried human blood, to knock it off. That almost cost him his life, his victory, and Tenochtitlan.

The world has plenty of other spectacular cultural traditions. Some cultures practiced artificial cranial deformation by binding the heads of their infants. Others are still cutting out the clitoris of their young girls. The Etoro people of Papua New Guinea have a remarkable cultural tradition of all-inclusive pedophilia, as they believe young boys must ingest the semen of their elders daily from the age of 7 until they turn 17 to achieve adult male status and to properly mature and grow strong. The procedure is mandatory — “it’s for the children,” don’t you know.

So not all traditions are equal. Some traditions are absolutely evil. Europe, too, has given up on some of its traditions, like the burning of witches. And China has stopped the foot binding of little girls, along with its time-honored tradition of death by a thousand cuts.

Some may be surprised, but Islam at one point has also abandoned a few traditions. For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century Muslims didn’t blow anyone up for free speech. On the contrary, their best leaders, such as Kemal Ataturk, or Mohammed Zahir Shah, or Reza Pahlavi brought their respective countries closer to Western standards.

West redefines itselfIt was only after the West betrayed its own standards by adopting moral relativity and multiculturalism, that former Ataturks and Zakir Shahs were replaced by Bin Ladens and the Kuashi brothers.

In this sense, the problem with the modern world is not the strengthening of Islamism. It is the weakening of the West, which keeps refining, recalibrating, and redefining itself to death.

It’s a fool’s errand, to look for precision in the world of fuzzy sets. As theoretical physicist Feynman once said, “it is really quite impossible to say anything with absolute precision, unless that thing is so abstracted from the real world as to not represent any real thing.”

At this point in history, precision is the enemy of clarity. The West needs renormalization.

West redefines itself

 EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The American Thinker.