Political Correctness – a Deadly Infection

 Political Correctness – a Deadly Infection

Tom McLaughlin

Only recently have I become aware of the depths to which political correctness has permeated our culture. I knew it was bad, but I didn’t know how bad. It’ll be the ruin of us if we don’t kill it and comb its nits out of our hair.
I began to get a clue at a private reception for Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders in Washington last February. After Wilders was escorted out by his bodyguards (radical Muslims ordered him killed for making a movie called Fitna), I found myself in extended conversation with a young Defense Department analyst who had been tasked by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to research and report on the ideology of our radical Muslim enemies. He immersed himself in Islamic law and came to the conclusion that it’s the radical Muslims who appear to have the doctrinal base in Islam, not the moderates.
He said that most of the highest officials at the Pentagon rejected his brief. Then they rejected the young man himself – and that was during the Bush Administration. The Pentagon, he said, “as an institution,” wanted to believe that the Radical Muslim interpretation of jihad, which is holy war against infidels worldwide – convert them or kill them, was an aberration.
 I had hitherto believed that our National Security planners knew the threat, but were just being polite in their public statements. Not so, according to my young friend. Radical Muslims posing as moderates had more influence with Pentagon planners than he did, he told me. It was their advice the Pentagon was heeding. I’m withholding his name because that’s how he apparently wants it at this point. Last week he was interviewed by Bill Whittle of Pajamas TV (Go here, then click on “The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1”) and appeared only in silhouette as he told his story.
Next, Whittle interviewed a former FBI special agent (also a silhouette) who spent most of his 15-year career working on the Islamic movement in the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Islamic doctrine. He said our Department of Homeland Security is being advised by people from the Council for American Islamic Relations or CAIR. The trouble is, he claims, “they’re a front for Hamas – a Radical Islamic organization. The Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America – ISNA – a huge financial entity for Hamas in the United States.”
A little background for readers: The Muslim Brotherhood, according to author Robert Spencer, spawned both Hamas and al Qaeda. Khalid Sheik Muhammed, who planned the September 11th attacks for al Qaeda and goes on trial in New York City soon, belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now back to the anonymous FBI agent in Whittle’s interview: “CAIR and ISNA (both closely affiliated with Hamas),” he said, “are the two groups that DOD, DHS, the State Department all use to do their Muslim outreach in North America. They sit in on brainstorming about investigative techniques that our agents are using in the field.”
“I have to stop you,” said Whittle, “because, frankly, that sounds so absurd that I have to really make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the radicalized Muslim groups are invited in to learn our investigative techniques, that they’re invited in to get their feedback on how we’re going to fight against them? Is that what I understood you to say?”
“Yes,” he answered. “The General Counsel of the FBI invites them in as well as the ACLU and other groups in [to make sure that whatever our government agencies did] was okay and not offensive to these organizations. . . . that’s nothing short of outrageous.”
“So you’re giving away the farm in order to make sure their feelings don’t get hurt,” said Whittle.
Evidently, political correctness could be fatal.
“There’s no training for local law enforcement officials about the real nature of the threat,” said the agent. “The training they get is given by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“How did this happen?” asked Whittle. “How did [it] get this far?”
The Muslim Brotherhood has a long-term strategy,” said the agent. “They’re well organized with hundreds of front groups that support their public relations, their research arms, they have insinuated themselves into our largest universities. They have Muslim Student Associations (MSA), which is [sic] the first Muslim Brotherhood organization that formed in the United States in 1963. MSA is on every major college campus in the United States recruiting people to the Brotherhood on our own campuses.”
No wonder we haven’t captured Osama bin Laden after eight years.
When we know how closely foxes are consulted on the design our National Security chicken coop, we can begin to understand why the White House said they weren’t sure Fort Hood’s Major Hasan was a radical Muslim after he shot more than 40 of our soldiers while yelling “Allahu Akbar!” or why he said the Christmas Pantybomber was “an isolated extremist.” We can understand why this is not called a war with Radical Islam and instead is referred to as “Overseas Contingency Operations.”
Radical Muslims are fanatic, yes, but they understand us better than we understand ourselves. They know we’re so infected with political correctness that we’re more afraid of offending them than we are of losing a war to them.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom McLaughlin Tom is a history teacher and a regular weekly columnist for newspapers in Maine and New Hampshire. He writes about political and social issues, history, family, education and Radical Islam. E-mail him at tommclaughlin@fairpoint.net.

Majority Would Vote Against Obama

Majority Would Vote Against Obama

January 14, 2010 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (423) | Share This

By Reid Wilson

ObamaBiden1.jpgA year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the ’12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.

The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.

Obama’s first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.

Obama’s approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April. Only 41% say they trust Obama more than Congressional GOPers, while 33% pick the GOP over the WH. That 8-point gap is down from a 21-point edge Obama sported as recently as Sept.

Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period.

But as GOPers focus on taxes and spending, that message seems to be causing Obama the most harm. Among those who believe Obama’s policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition.

Meanwhile, those who think Obama’s policies are moving the country down the right track largely cite long-term benefits of his initiatives.

In the meantime, health care legislation is by no means popular, but a majority of Americans don’t oppose the legislation yet. 44% said they support the legislation under consideration, down 5 points from the last poll in Sept., while 46% oppose it.

The poll, conducted by Financial Dynamics, surveyed 1,200 adults between Jan. 3-7 for a margin of error of +/- 2.8%.

For more on the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll, see Ron Brownstein‘s take on a distrustful America and the withering green shoots after a year under the Obama admin. Full poll results are available here [pdf].

Obama’s Disengaged From The Electorate

Obama’s Disengaged From The Electorate

January 14th, 2010

by Tom Bevan, Real Clear Politics

 Obama doesn’t care what the people want, he wants to push his radical agenda

Today’s Quinnipiac poll shows that only 36% approve of the way Obama is handling the issue of “creating jobs” while six in ten disapprove. Incidentally, that’s a net 6-point decline for Obama on this question from just one month ago.

Forty-seven percent of those surveyed in the Quinnipiac survey – including a majority of Indpendents – say Obama has not spent enough time tending to the economy.

In the most recent CNN poll, the economy is the number one issue of importance to those surveyed by an order of magnitude, as it has been in every poll taken since President Obama entered office. Yet solid majorities in the CNN poll disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy (54%), unemployment (54%), and the deficit (62%).

Ditto the most recent CBS News/NY Times poll, where 44% say “the economy and jobs” are the most important problem facing the country and 47% disapprove of the way the President is handling the issue of the economy.

After a full year of almost exclusively focusing on health care – an issue that only 10-15% of voters say is most important to them to begin with and only 38.7% of the public now approves of the bills being rammed through Congress –  it’s no wonder 50% of voters in both the CNN and the Quinnipiac polls now say they do not believe President Obama shares their views on the issue of most importance to them.

Put another way, President Obama demonstrated during his first year in office that he either didn’t understand the concerns of the electorate or, worse still, he ignored those concerns to pursue his own agenda.

Read More:

Obama’s rapturous style versus tea party substance

Obama’s rapturous style versus tea party substance

January 14th, 2010

By: MICHAEL BARONE, Washington Examiner

 Substance versus style

In his New York Times column last week, David Brooks contrasted “the educated class,” which supports Barack Obama and his liberal worldview, with the tea party movement, “a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against, … the concentrated power of the educated class.”

Many conservatives read Brooks as putting down the tea partiers. I think he was indicating distaste for both sides. “I’m not a fan” of the tea party movement, he wrote, but he also noted, “Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the year.”

Still, it sounds like Brooks was indulging the conceit of so many liberals that they are, well, simply smarter than conservatives.

But when you look back over the surges of enthusiasm in the politics of the last two years, you see something like this: The Obama enthusiasts who dominated so much of the 2008 campaign cycle were motivated by style. The tea party protesters who dominated so much of 2009 were motivated by substance.

Read More:

Some Advice for the Republican National Committee

Some Advice for the Republican National Committee

By Larrey Anderson

As a retired state senator, I have been in and out of politics most of my adult life. As a result, I have come to know, and have remained acquainted with, some fairly prominent members of the GOP and, in particular, the RNC. Because I have seen the inner workings of the RNC, I would like to offer the Republican National Committee some practical advice.

I want to set up my recommendations to the RNC by telling two stories about a couple of very different — and high ranking — former members. (I will change the names of these two people for reasons that will soon become obvious. I will call them RNC official Joe and RNC official Casey.)
RNC official Joe (a very high-ranking member) recently resigned his post after pleading guilty to stalking.
A lawyer, Joe pulled down close to seven figures a year for…doing nothing. Joe was a typical political hack. This wannabe politician spent thirty years behind the scenes, starting his “employment” for the GOP by becoming a state chairman for the Republican Party. Joe climbed his way up the RNC ladder. During his ascent, Joe acted as a part-time lobbyist, a part-time government “adviser,” and eventually, a part-time stalker of a married woman. One newspaper reported:
[Among other positions,] he is administrator of the state Catastrophic Health Care Program, or CAT fund, and an attorney for … Counties Risk Management Program, or ICRMP. [Joe’s] work for government agencies brings his law firm more than $600,000 annually.
Unfortunately, Joe’s sort of  livelihood is not unusual among the people who run the RNC. These are people who love the limelight but know they either can’t or don’t want to make the effort to be elected to public office. The last thing they are interested in is finding a real job — so they figure out how to survive in and milk the political system.
Let’s move on to a more positive (yet sadder) story: RNC official Casey also recently resigned from the RNC — but this was a very different (and unusual) situation. Casey grew up in the Midwest and worked in a small, family-owned store. Casey had a love of America, freedom, and our Constitution. Casey wanted to do something to help save America. Casey started at the bottom of the RNC, answering phones and fetching coffee for RNC officials like Joe.
Casey held no jobs outside the RNC, did no lobbying on the side, and rose to a prominent position under the last Bush administration through hard work and dedication. Casey was paid a moderate salary. Casey worked for the RNC because she believed that she could help make America a better country by being active in GOP politics at the highest level.
Casey decided to resign right after the last presidential election. She was deeply disturbed by the influx into the RNC of a whole new crop of Joes. These were mostly John McCain’s people, who were intent on making the GOP a much bigger tent with such brilliant ideas as passing cap-and-trade legislation (to save the planet and entice “moderates” into the party) and granting amnesty as quickly as possible to millions of illegal immigrants (again, for the greater good of that ever-elusive bigger tent).
Casey had had enough. Disheartened and discouraged, she left the RNC.
Sadly enough, many loyal conservative Republicans feel the same about the GOP as Casey did about the RNC. In fact, a Rasmussen poll taken last month found this:
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.
Remember, the “Tea Party” is not a real political party. Yet more Americans would vote for a non-existent Tea Party candidate than they would for a real, live Republican candidate.
We hear Republican Party apologists warn us all the time about the dangers of forming a third political party. Here is a newsflash for those people: Look at those Rasmussen numbers. The Republican Party already is a third political party. And it is running behind what is little more than a semi-organized group of (rightly and righteously) disgruntled patriots.
In 1994, the GOP promised us via the Contract with America a smaller, honest, and accountable federal government that would abide by the Constitution. We believed them and gave them majorities in both houses of Congress. Then, during their ten years in power, they gave us No Child Left Behind, Medicare drug entitlements, more than 10,000 pork-barrel projects, and (after they had lost their majorities) they even helped pass the first TARP bill. In short, they lied, and then they lied some more. Conservative Americans know this, and most conservatives do not trust the GOP anymore.
The numbers don’t lie. Conservative Americans trust a politically nonexistent “Tea Party” more than they trust the politically stagnant GOP.
Here, then, is my advice for the Republican Party, and in particular, the RNC:
1) Get off K Street and get onto Main Street.
The Republican leadership launched the “K Street Project” shortly after the Party took control of the Congress in 1994. The idea was to pressure D.C. lobbyists to hire and contribute to the GOP, since the GOP was now the majority.
Apparently, no one in the GOP is smart enough to figure out that the lobbyists don’t care about political parties or political ideologies — they care about political power. As soon as the power of the GOP was seen as waning, the K Street gang jumped ship.
The big money is now tightly controlled by the Democrats, from payouts (actually a form of blackmail) from the TARP bills to outright bailouts of major industries.
In the meantime, Main-Street America has heated up. Tens of millions of Americans are demanding what I call “populist constitutionalism.” We want lower taxes, less federal control and regulation of our lives, and a return to basic constitutional principles of real federal government. In short, we want both the 9th and 10th Amendments taken seriously and enforced.
The RNC has to greet Tea Party people with open arms, letting them know they are welcome in the GOP. Forget about trying to co-op the leadership and make them into insiders. This is a grassroots phenomenon, so the message must go throughout the GOP to make the new folks comfortable participating in Republican Party affairs.
As I have shown elsewhere, the GOP (and this includes the RNC) has a long history of awarding leadership positions to those who hang around the longest. In other words, it is a Joe, not a Casey, who has historically gotten the plum position at the GOP and the RNC.  This cronyism has to stop…now.
2) Enough IPP already.
IPP stands for “Incumbent Protection Program.” No institution in the world is better at “IPPing” than the RNC. Witness the GOP’s endorsement and financing of Arlen Specter over…well, anybody. (No, I am not talking about the race of 2004 — I am talking about less than one year ago.)

Perhaps the RNC has learned (by now) that Specter is a Democrat. But don’t count on it. The RNC has a long history of “discouraging” primary opposition to incumbent Republicans. (Even worse, the RNC has discouraged opposition by conservatives to liberals anointed by the GOP.) This is part of the reason why people are leaving the GOP in droves for the nonexistent Tea Party. Better to have no menu at all than the one stale item offered so frequently on GOP menu.

If the GOP wants to remain alive (and thrive) it needs to promote, not discriminate against, non-incumbents running against the candidates ordained by it and the RNC establishments.
It turns out that the majority of Americans do want “hope and change.” We just want it to start with the GOP.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of The Order of the Beloved, and the memoir Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/some_advice_for_the_republican.html at January 14, 2010 – 08:41:16 AM EST

Ending Corruption in Washington

Ending Corruption in Washington

By Vasko Kohlmayer

Even as our government officials claim that the worst of the recession is behind us, their actions hardly indicate that they believe it themselves. The financial reform bill that the House of Representatives passed last month authorizes the Federal Reserve to provide up to $4 trillion in emergency relief to big banks the next time things come crashing down. This flies directly in the face of the oft-heard assurances that the bailout spree is over. Obviously not, as the House is laying the groundwork for the continuation of the money bonanza.

And what a bonanza it promises to be. The authorized figure is far more than anything we have seen so far. To give a sense of scale, it exceeds by a factor of five the amount of President Obama’s stimulus package.
The bill is the brainchild of Barney Frank, the ultra-liberal chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Believe it or not, this is the same Barney Frank who has been calling for tighter regulations of Wall Street and its practices. And yet at the same time, this man is prepared to give the bankers unprecedented amounts of money. How can this be?
If we want to understand why a politician takes the positions he does, we can usually figure it out by following the money. Barney Frank is no exception. A recent article by Kevin Connor offers some revealing data and facts. Since rising to a leadership position on the House Financial Services Committee in 2002, Frank has been getting almost half of his campaign contributions from what is referred to as FIRE. The acronym stands for the finance, insurance, and real estate industries. In other words, some fifty percent of Congressman Frank’s campaign cash is supplied by that bundle of special interests loosely referred to as Wall Street. So liked is Frank by them that they have made him a leading beneficiary of their generosity on Capitol Hill. Notes Connor:
Only two members of the House have taken in a larger share of their money from Wall Street over the past two campaign cycles – Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat, and Spencer Bachus, a Republican. And during the 2006 cycle, Frank took in more money from FIRE than any other Democratic member of the House, and all but a few Republicans.
In light of the above, Frank’s willingness to authorize $4 trillion for his benefactors should come as no surprise. The truth is that Barney Frank is in the back pocket of Wall Street, and judging from his “reform” bill, his sponsors are getting an excellent rate of return on their investment. This is, however, something Frank would not want his liberal base to figure out, given that in public, he poses as the scourge of unscrupulous financiers. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The case of Barney Frank shows the cancerous corruption at the heart of our system, whereby lawmakers write favorable legislation in exchange for bribes. To make the whole racket even more perverse, such legislation often involves massive transfers of cash. In practical terms, it means that politicians use the power of the state to take money from one group of citizens and give it to the special interests who finance their careers.
Many people think that to stamp out this corruption, we need some reform bill that would regulate how campaign donations are given and received. But this is a futile hope. There have been bills of this kind, but politicians have always found ways around them. After all, such bills must be written and passed by the very people whose conduct we seek to regulate. Because of this, we can be certain that the measures they propose will be weak and loophole-ridden.
Neither will it do to vote the bums out. This has also been tried before, and always with the same result: Most of those who replace the bums eventually turn into bums themselves. We saw it in 1994 when the Gingrich Republicans, riding a wave of national disgust with congressional shenanigans, threw out the spendthrift, earmark-addicted, special-interest-beholden Democrats. But barely a decade later, one could hardly tell the difference between the new boss and the old one, and in 2006, the latter were sent packing by an angry electorate. The Democrats who took their place promised the most ethical Congress in history. Instead, we got a gang of thieves whose pilfering of our national wealth makes Bernie Madoff look like choir boy.
The problem is not that all our politicians are inherently corrupt before they come to Washington. Surely not many travel to the nation’s capital hoping to end up as harlots of special interests. But such is human nature that only a few can resist for very long the perverse incentives of the corrupt system. It is not unreasonable to assume that many of us would stumble in just the same way were we to find ourselves in their position.
The way to fight this is not by forcing our congressmen to write self-correcting legislation, but to deal with the problem at its root, which is Washington’s ability to regulate almost every aspect of our lives. This in turn invites two kinds of bribery, which are in Beltway-speak euphemistically called “campaign contributions.” Bribes of the first kind are given by those who seek to escape onerous regulations that Congress constantly threatens to impose. Bribes of the second kind are made by those who wish to appropriate other people’s wealth. Many bribes are given with both objects in mind. Barney Frank’s latest piece of legislation bears unmistakable evidence of this double-play. Bribed to the hilt, Frank concocted a bill that essentially gives Wall Street a free pass while authorizing immense amounts of money for the next emergency.
The only way to get rid of such corruption is to deprive Congress of its vast regulatory powers. There is truly no reason why politicians should superintend any portion of the private sphere. Finance, health care, energy, housing, farming, and all the rest should be left wholly to the market, since the market invariably delivers goods and services in the most economical and cost-efficient manner. Every time politicians decide to regulate, they only make matters worse. There is not a single regulatory regime that would make the working of any part of our lives more efficient or less costly. It is no accident that those areas that are most heavily regulated — such as health care and finance — tend to be the most problem-ridden. But this does not bother Barney Frank and his colleagues a bit, because their ability to control and regulate is the main source of their clout and cash.
If we want our lives back, we must strip politicians of that power. They are not supposed to have it in the first place. The federal government was not established to run every aspect of our lives. It was set up for the primary purpose of protecting the lives, liberty, and property of American citizens. But these days, our federal representatives show little zeal for safeguarding these. And when it comes to liberty and property, it would seem that their desire is to take away as much as they can.
We are now paying the price for losing sight of this country’s founding principles and granting politicians extra-constitutional powers in the misguided belief that they would solve our problems. That was an unwise thing to do, because instead of the goodies they promised, they have delivered abuse, theft, and corruption. We need to look no farther than Barney Frank’s “financial-reform” legislation to see it.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/ending_corruption_in_washingto.html at January 14, 2010 – 08:39:41 AM EST