POLITICALLY CORRECT? WHAT’S THAT ALL ABOUT? — PART 1 was supposed be the first of four posts. However, because this is a blog, I write what I want, and I write what passion drives me to write. So I can get sidetracked onto a different topic easily enough, but there is this strange thing. Sooner or latter passion usually brings me back with even greater force to the topic from which I got sidetracked. In this case, that passion belongs to Donald Trump. Hence I will wrap up what was to be a four-part series with this post.
What is modern America’s primary failing? We don’t study the Bible; we are losing the advantages of our Christian heritage. Therefore, we have a difficult time discerning between honest men and women and demagogues.
What is the difference between honest leaders and demagogues? Demagogues scratch our itching ears. Honest leaders strive to speak the truth, perhaps even out of their love for their neighbors. Thus, when we have an election, to vote for the right person we must first seek to be honest with ourselves. We must discern between what we want to believe and the truth. What has happened repeatedly to Donald Trump is a case in point. The demagogues have charged The Donald with being politically incorrect.
What is the latest example of the Donald being politically incorrect? Donald Trump is now calling for an end to all Muslim immigration into the United States.
In a written statement late Monday afternoon, the Trump campaign said the Republican frontrunner wanted a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” As backing, Trump cited a controversial six-month-old survey from the right-wing Center for Security Policy finding that one-quarter of U.S. Muslim respondents believed that violence against Americans was justified as part of global jihad and that a slim majority “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” (from here)
Predictably, the establishment immediately charged the Donald with extremism. Of course, that included the RINOs.
Condemnations from Republicans quickly followed. Jeb Bush tweeted that Trump had become “unhinged.” John Kasich said Trump’s “outrageous divisiveness” was more reason why he was “entirely unsuited” to be president. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-shot Republican rival, tweeted that Trump had “gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric.” (from here)
In fact, as The Washington Times reported the criticism was international (Donald Trump defiant as Muslim ban draws widespread condemnation), but when The Donald stood his ground his rankings went up in the polls (here). What is politically correct may be what our elites demand, be it is not what many of us want.
Think about that constant refrain.
The terrorists have hijacked Islam. Most Muslims are not terrorists.
What happens if a Conservative starts to explain what the Koran says? Don’t we get told the Koran is like the Bible and the Bible says bad things too? Don’t we get told this by people who have never read either Koran or the Bible? So how do the politically correct know what they are talking about? How do they even know which people are the true followers of Islam? They don’t. They have no way of knowing whether the radical Islamists represent the true spirit of Islam. Afraid Muslims will hear, they may also not care to tell us what they really think.
When The Donald proposed to ban immigration from Muslim nations, the PC crowd raised the hue and cry that such discrimination based upon creed is unconstitutional. It isn’t. If it wanted to do so, Congress could exclude immigrants based upon their creed. However, our leaders cannot be trusted to discriminate based upon creed. So we probably don’t want to do that. Hence Senator Rand Paul offered up another option.
The Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)last week that would have suspended visas to the U.S. from “high risk” countries until new enhanced security processes are in place.
Paul’s amendment would have designated 33 countries as “high risk” and placed moratoriums on refugee resettlement and visa issuance to nationals from those countries until the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Director of National Intelligence certify and new processes to identify security risks.
The 33 countries included: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia,Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and the Palestinian Territories. (continued here)
As stupid as it sounds, our political elites refuse to restrict immigration. Period. No matter what! Hence their charges against Trump are just a smoke screen.
So why are our political elites so adamantly determined to keep our borders open and admit hordes of immigrants? The obvious answer is money. If you have capital assets in the United States, cheap labor makes those assets more profitable. For the sake of short term profit, our elites have deliberately chosen to ignore is the longcost to our country. We risk extreme violence, violence of the sort much of Europe may soon experience on a massive scale. In fact, at this point our elites may just be terrified of pissing off the Muslims in Europe.
The King Philip’s War (1675-1676) was the bloodiest war – per capita – in America. Twice as many casualties as a portion of the population than our American Civil War (a.k.a. The Recent Unpleasantness)! Seven times more bloody that WW II – FYI – for all “Greatest Generation” fans. Consider what happened and could happen again. (continued here).
Instead of hordes of people from a primitive culture settling into a more advanced society, the Stone Age Indians tribes in the New England area had to contend with English Pilgrims and Puritans. Inevitably, the local Indians and the Pilgrim/Puritan coalition clashed, and the Indians lost their lands and their way of life.
In retrospect, because the blood thirst of both the Indians and the Englishmen they fought is nearly forgotten, we now pity the poor Indians. Yet for the sake of our children it is also important we remember the lesson. The Pilgrims and the Puritans never had any intention of assimilating and becoming Indians. Yet, had it been feasible, there are some advantages to the life of hunter-gatherer. The Pilgrims and the Puritans had to work very hard, and the life of a hunter-gatherer was a bit easier, but the Pilgrims and the Puritans had not come to the New World to be Indians. They had come to be Pilgrims and Puritans.
Now the United States is being settled by Peoples from all over the world. Because of their associations with rabid terrorism, Muslims from the Middle East rank as the most strange and difficult immigrants. Hence, we have politicians calling for a stop of immigration from countries with terrorists, principally Muslim lands.
However, terrorism is only the visible tip of the problem. Unlike previous legions of immigrants, many recent immigrants have either entered the United States illegally or they have overstayed their visas (also illegal). Therefore, we have millions of people in our country who have no right to be here. Weirdly, we are even giving many of these people welfare and free public services. Unfortunately, their connections to and their loyalty to the United States is dubious at best. Given the continuing rate at which such people are arriving, we should expect many of these people will not assimilate. Instead, as the Pilgrims and the Puritans did in the 17th century, they may insist upon retaining their own culture and allegiances to the nations from which they came. They made even insist upon their own laws, like Sharia. Hence, when Donald Trump speaks about immigration, people listen.
Other Examples of Political Incorrectness
The are three big areas where political correctness tends to become an issue, discrimination based upon race, sex, and creed. The example above relates to discrimination based upon creed. What about race and sex?
Here is an example of political correctness running amuck based upon racial discrimination.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on Thursday blasted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for uttering what he called “racist ideas” from the bench of the nation’s highest court.
Scalia on Wednesday suggested it’s possible that some black students would benefit from being at a “slower-track school” instead of the University of Texas’ flagship campus in Austin, where Scalia suggested some of those students are “being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.” Scalia made the comment while the court heard arguments in an affirmative action case. (continued here)
Scalia’s crime? He questioned whether “affirmative action” is “good” racial discrimination. Given that the government is generally not suppose to discriminate based upon race, sex, or creed…… Is it possible that Democrats would also rather not talk about the quality of the intercity public schools that so many blacks attend?
Here is an example of political correctness running amuck based upon sexual discrimination. The subject is a December 3, 2015 article from the Center for Military Readiness (CMR).
Yesterday, President Barack Obama and Secretary Carter overruled the best professional advice of the U.S. Marine Corps in matters involving life, death, and national security. Secretary Carter also broke his own promise to base his decision on the quality of scientific research behind the military services’ recommendations. (continued here)
For as long as human beings have fought in organized, military units, armies have deliberately excluded women. Has combat changed that much? That is the point of the CMR article. In spite of the desires of so-called feminists, women and men remain different, and sensible people cheer that difference. Why? Well, there is the pleasure of sexual intercourse, but there is also something far more serious, the greatest honor that any human being might have.
Most of us have the opportunity to bring one or more babies into the world. When we watch our children grow, we can love them and show them how to love, or we can set them adrift and go about our personal business. If we do what we are supposed to do, we can live life with a clear conscience. As we watch our children grow, we can also learn things about ourselves we would otherwise never know. And we will have a family who will care about us and help us hold ourselves together as the years pass.
For it is in giving that we receive. — Francis of Assisi
When we have children — when we each give the people in our families what they need — we must discriminate based upon sex. Sometimes even our government has no choice except to discriminate based upon sex.
- King Solomon, Donald Trump, Pat Robertson, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Bill O’Rielly (rudymartinka.wordpress.com) – Here the author asks what is Islam. Is it a religion or a political ideology?
- Netanyahu repudiates Trump, who then cancels Israel trip (bearingdrift.com) – Think about the nature of Israel’s enemies. They are Buddhists, right? If Israel were to state the obvious, what would be the response?
- Our Troubles With Islam (www.varight.com) – Think about the following paragraph from Our Troubles With Islam.
However, we Americans face an incredibly difficult challenge. It is a fact that Muslims throughout the world who only recognize Islamic Law have been trying to force or kill the people who do not. How can we tell the difference between a person peacefully practicing an Islamic Faith and a person who believes in Political Islam – that is, in the entirety of Islamic doctrine? The fact is, we really can’t.
When we allow Muslims to immigrate to the United States from nations where Islamic terrorists are active, we have no way of knowing whether that person will be a good citizen or a terrorist. None of us can read minds.
- Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban Should Touch Off a Badly Needed Discussion and The ‘It’s Impractical Because They’ll Lie’ Objection to Trump’s Proposal Is Meritless (www.nationalreview.com) by Andrew C. McCarthy – McCarthy has established his creds as a Conservative expert on the threat posed by Islam.
- Forcing women into combat by Julie Pulley (www.washingtontimes.com) – Julie Pulley is a former Army captain, an Afghanistan veteran and a graduate of West Point.
- Nigel Farage: People Have Overreacted To Trump, He Is ‘Part Of The Democratic Process’ (pumabydesign001.com) – Here is another guy who is not politically correct.
Who really needs our help?
- Why Won’t the Obama Administration Label the Massacre of Christians in Iraq, Syria Genocide? (dailysignal.com)
- Despite ISIS, American Church Still Ignorant About Christian Persecution, Expert Says (www.christianpost.com)
- In California, 27 Iraqi Christian Refugees Refused Asylum (www.catholicworldreport.com)
Syrian Christians denied entry into the United States, archbishops say (www.catholic.org)
For more posts in this series please see OF TWISTED WORDS => FEMINISM.