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.

White House moves to restrict free speech and stifle dissent from Obama policies

By Robert Spencer

Right now they’re talking about restricting free speech in connection with dissent from the stimulus bill. Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform (of all things), writes this: “Update on Recovery Act Lobbying Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence,” from the Whitehouse.gov Blog, May 29 (thanks to James):

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

OMB will be consulting with agencies, outside experts and others about these principles and will publish detailed guidance, but we wanted to update interested parties on the outcome of the initial review. We consulted very broadly both within and outside of government (including as reflected in previous posts on the White House blog) and we are grateful to all those who participated in the process.


In “White House moves to restrict criticism of stimulus projects” at the Washington Examiner, May 30 (thanks again to James), Mark Tapscott explains the implications:

This is the Camel’s nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances. Let government restrict political expression – i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy – in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding. Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation.More on this as it develops. And trust me, it will develop.


With the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) making an all-out international effort to restrict free speech about Islam, including speech designed to alert non-Muslims to the motives and goals of the global jihad movement, and Obama making conciliatory gestures toward the OIC, it is not at all difficult to look down the path and see the day coming when it will Sharia provisions restricting speech about Islam will be in place in the United States of America, and it will be illegal to speak about the Islamic supremacist agenda.

Most, of course, will dismiss such concerns the way they always dismiss them: with a wave of the hand and an invocation of the First Amendment — as if the First Amendment were some kind of inviolate shield that cannot itself ever in any way be impeached or impugned. Would that it were so. But the Obama Administration is already showing how little it cares for free speech and open dissent. And with an Obama-compliant Supreme Court judging cases that challenge their actions and interpreting the First Amendment for us, what’s to stop the Administration from playing ball with the OIC and building wonderful new bridges with the Islamic world in this way?