Political Correctness: The Lie that Kills

Original Link

It’s been 36 days since the terrorist attack that left 14 dead, 32 wounded, and the nation scratching its collective head, asking why the Muslim extremist U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was so effortlessly able to perpetrate this act of jihad on American soil.

The reason, of course, is Political Correctness. Texas Rep. John Carter’s district includes Fort Hood and he is more than just a little concerned that our government has apparently learned nothing from this horrid event.

We must not wrongfully prejudge people. However, we also can no longer refuse to take the steps necessary to defend ourselves, as clearly was the case with the Fort Hood attack. We can’t allowpolitical correctness to intimidate Americans from speaking out against clear and present dangers out of fear they will be ridiculed or penalized for offending any group. We should have learned that lesson in 2001.

Let’s review the historical record beginning in 2001:

  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons – including Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, then of Northern Virginia – rammed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, killing 2,976 men, women and children.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attempted to bomb a U.S. airliner with a shoe bomb in December 2001.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked the Los Angeles airport in July 2002, killing two persons and wounding four.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons engaged in a sniping attack with a juvenile accomplice in the Washington area in October 2002, killing 10 and wounding three.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked his fellow U.S. Army soldiers in their tents in Kuwait in 2003, killing two and wounding 14 of his own comrades, a foreshadowing of the Fort Hood attack.
  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals attempted to plan the bombing of the Sears Tower in Chicago in August 2006.
  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki – now in Yemen – plotted in 2006 to attack the Canadian Parliament and other buildings in Toronto.
  • Muslim males with ties to radical Islamic groups and individuals – including the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen – were arrested in May 2007 for planning an automatic weapons attack on U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J.
  • A Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons attacked a U.S. Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., in June, killing two recruiters.

…which led to this:

  • Another Muslim male with ties to radical Islamic groups and persons, including Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen, stands accused of attacking our soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, killing 14 and wounding 32. Mr. Al-Awlaki is publicly praising Maj. Hasan as a “hero.”

…which could probably have been prevented, because of this:

The FBI and the Defense Department were aware that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with the same Mr. Al-Awlaki in Yemen with ties to the Sept. 11 attackers and the plot to attack Fort Dix, and that Maj. Hasan made verbal and written statements justifying attacks.

Maj. Hasan’s profile, associations, communications and actions were a perfect match with multiple previous attacks in this country that had killed nearly 3,000 Americans since 2001. Yet no action was taken.

So, what’s been done since?

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s chief concern apparently is not why the FBI and other authorities failed to prevent another attack, but whether the public might be led to blame Muslims in general, which would be politically incorrect. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that had no problem warning law enforcement agencies earlier this year of a supposed threat from “right-wing extremists,” defined as Americans who believe in the Constitution and oppose Obama administration policies.

Rep. Carter hastens to point out that the American public comprises, on the whole, “good people who have developed a very strong aversion to judging others because of their race, ethnic background, religion or factors other than individual character and conduct.” That said (and help me out here if this seems out of line):

…our virtue is being used as a powerful weapon against us by political extremists within our country and enemies without.

[…] when a Muslim male contacts the radical Islamic colleague of the Sept. 11 hijackers, the Fort Dix shooting plot and the Canadian Parliament bombing plot; tells responsible people that he sympathizes with our enemies; and claims that jihad against the United States is justified, somebody needs to stop him instead of failing to act from fear of violating the unwritten taboos of political correctness.

And why does this need to even be pointed out? Because:

We are letting political correctness destroy our nation. It cost the lives of 14 Americans at Fort Hood, and the current administration apparently has not learned a thing.

There is a simple definition of political correctness. It is just another word for a lie. When we say we have no need to fear or take action against people with clear ties to radical Islamic terrorists, that’s a lie.

We must start acknowledging the truth if we want to survive as a free nation.

God willing.

Perhaps this picture is too kind.

Muslim chef sues Britain’s largest police force, claiming religious discrimination because he was expected to cook bacon and pork sausages

From JihadWatch.Org

Stealth jihad in action: when Islamic law and Western customs conflict, in a Western country, which will have to give way? And what precedent will be set by the endless accommodation of Islamic rules and sensibilities? Either someone at some point will have the courage to call a halt and say that there will be no more accommodation of Islamic law at the expense of British custom and law, or the demands and accommodations will continue until the UK becomes a Sharia state.

“Muslim chef sues over pork request,” by David Sapsted for The National, May 9 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

LONDON // A Muslim chef is suing Britain’s largest police force, claiming he suffered religious discrimination because he was expected to cook bacon and pork sausages for breakfast.Hasanali Khoja is due to put his case against the Metropolitan Police to an employment tribunal, which starts a 10-day hearing in London tomorrow.

The case has caused outrage in the British press and has been seized on by far right political parties, being branded “the madness of multiculturalism” by the British National Party.

Mr Khoja, 60, whose claim is being backed by both the Association of Muslim Police and the National Black Police Association, says he was refused permission not to handle pork when he took a job as catering manager at a police headquarters in west London.

Instead, he said his supervisor suggested he wear gloves when preparing a “999 breakfast” – a policeman’s favourite that includes bacon, pork sausages and black pudding, which is made from pigs’ blood.

“I felt very unhappy about it. I was very upset and angry because it is not permissible in my religion,” said Mr Khoja, who is an adviser on Muslim food issues on the government’s Foods Standards Agency.

“I was threatened that management would sack me if I did not follow instructions. But I never enrolled to cook pork. I refused to do it. I never did it and I never would.

“I had a letter from the human resources department saying that I would not be required to cook any pork. But this was not exactly what I wanted as a guarantee.

“The Met has shown no sensitivity towards my religion. Their response has been ill-thought and discriminatory.”

Prior to moving to the west London headquarter, Mr Khoja worked at Hendon Police Training College, where he was not required to handle pork products.

“My original contract did not include any kind of cooking. I was hired as a senior catering manager,” he said. “I protested at the move [to west London] and at having to cook pork.

“I was placed on paid, special leave for a year. No Muslim in my position should have to face such harassment.”


Then find another job. Why must the job change to suit you instead of you changing to suit the job? Is there no job in all of Britain that does not violate your religious sensibilities?

This is a naked attempt to bully the police into granting more accommodations to Islam, not a genuine plea for rights. And some people are noticing:

However, his plight has generated little sympathy in the mainstream of British society. Richard Littlejohn, a columnist for the Daily Mail, wrote: “There are some stories which are so preposterous on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start.“Whoever heard of a chef being excused pork? Naturally, he now wants a large sum of money by way of compensation. The Met has a long and undistinguished record of grovelling to this kind of opportunist bullying.

“What astonishes me is that he ever applied for a job cooking for policemen in the first place. What, precisely, did he think they serve up in a police canteen – vegetarian samosas?

“If he had a fundamental objection [to cooking pork], he should go and work somewhere else. Hiring a chef who won’t cook sausages to work in a police canteen is like hiring a lifeguard who can’t swim.

“Typically, I would imagine, the police were so terrified of being accused of ‘racism’ that they took him on regardless.”



But Khalid Sofi, Mr Khoja’s lawyer, insisted there was “an important issue of principle at stake” in the case, with ramifications for the police and wider society in Britain.“He has genuine and strong religious beliefs and expects that they will be accommodated,” he said. “’The Met is a very large organisation and could easily have met his demands.

“Mr Khoja’s case raises the general question of the Met accommodating the needs of the Muslim community at a time when there is a lack of confidence in the police among Muslims.

“We are confident that we have a very good claim. Religious discrimination law obliges employers if possible to accommodate genuine religious needs.

“This case goes in to wider issues of diversity and I think it raises significant issues in the current climate.”

A spokesman for the National Black Police Association said: “It was suggested that he could wear gloves to cook bacon and sausages. This, of course, was no good because it is the principle involved and not about just handling the meat.

“It was all very, very nasty. They were telling him to do something that was against his faith.”


It is indeed about the principle involved and not about just handling the meat. It is about an attempt by Islamic groups to establish cultural hegemony in Britain, and to set themselves up as a privileged class to whom all others must cater.

Posted by Robert