Posts Tagged Political Correctness
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff August 23, 2013 2:00 pm
Judicial Watch obtained Defense Department training materials on Friday that described conservative and civil liberties organizations as “hate groups.”
The training materials used by the Air Force were created to help students “recognize extremists ideologies.” The materials identified conservative values, such as individual liberties and states’ rights, as recruiting rhetoric used by “extremists.”
According to Judicial Watch:
Under a section labeled “Extremist Ideologies” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”
The documents were published by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute in January 2013. They cited the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center repeatedly as a source to use when identifying hate groups.
The documents discussed Islamic extremism only in reference to Sudan and 9/11.
Major Nidal Hasan, a former U.S. Army psychologist known to have extremist Islamic views, was found guilty on Friday for shooting 30 and killing 13 service members at Fort Hood in 2009. Hasan was also connected to the al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki, whom he emailed prior to the attack. His case was not cited in any of the materials provided to Judicial Watch.
Army commanders have targeted a new enemy combatant – truly delicious chicken. Fox News reports that an American soldier has been rebuked for serving Chick-Fil-A at his own promotion ceremony.
The Master Sergeant, who has asked to remain anonymous, is being represented by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.
The organization’s Executive Director, Ron Crews, told Fox News’ Todd Starnes:
“The unidentified soldier was investigated, reprimanded, threatened with judicial action and given a bad efficiency report” for sending an invitation to his colleagues requesting that they attend his promotion ceremony where Chick-Fil-A would be served.
The invitation read, in part: “In honor of my promotion and in honor of the Defense of Marriage Act, I’m serving Chick-Fil-A sandwiches at my promotion party.”
The bottom line is that this is one more example of a Conservative soldier being threatened, condemned, and marginalized because he supports traditional marriage in a new military climate where Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is nothing more than a fond memory.
The Defense of Marriage Act, though threatened with repeal by pending Supreme Court rulings, still remains a federal law. Though several states have chosen to recognize same-sex marriage, nationally, marriage remains defined as a union between only one man and one woman.
Mr. Crews explained that, “These stories are the ones that have not been told – about some of the more subtle ramifications of the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.”
It is this kind of clear discrimination against Conservative Christians in the military that led seventy-one Congressmen to demand that the rights of public servants like this master sergeant not be infringed upon by anyone in their chain of command – military or civilian.
Only time will tell who will be the last man standing in the shifting sands of the ever increasingly more complex culture war.
By: Ann Coulter 2/27/2013 03:45 PM
Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate, Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: “Why does anyone need (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc., etc.)?”
Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, “I don’t know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip.”
CNN’s Don Lemon, who does not fit the usual profile of the avid hunter and outdoorsman, demanded, “Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?”
Fantasist Dan Rather said, “There is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons.”
And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he’d hit on a real showstopper with, “I don’t know why anyone needs an assault rifle.” Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.
Since when do Americans have to give the government an explanation for why they “need” something? If that’s the test, I can think of a whole list of things I don’t know why anyone needs.
I don’t know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.
I don’t know why anyone needs to read about the private lives of celebrities. Why can’t we shut down the gossip rags?
I don’t know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never made a difference in any federal election.
I don’t know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.
I don’t know why anyone needs to have anal sex at a bathhouse. I won’t stop them, but I don’t know why anyone needs to do that.
I don’t know why anyone needs to go hiking in national parks, where they’re constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches and getting lost — all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions.
I don’t know why Karen Finley needs to smear herself with chocolate while reading poems about “love.” But not only do Democrats allow that, they made us pay for it through the National Endowment for the Arts.
In fact, I don’t know why anyone needs to do any of the things that offend lots of people, especially when I have to pay for it. I don’t mind paying for national monuments and the ballet, but if “need” is a legitimate argument, there’s no end to the activities that can be banned, forget “not subsidized by Ann.”
Democrats are willing to make gigantic exceptions to the “need” rule for things they happen to personally like. Their position is: “I don’t know why anyone needs to hunt; on the other hand, I do see why your tax dollars should be used to subsidize partial-birth abortion, bicycle lanes and the ballet.”
They’ll say that no one died in my examples (except abortion) (and bicycling) (and bathhouses) (and national parks), but the victims of mass shootings weren’t killed by gun owners. They were killed by crazy people.
How about keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people?
Liberals won’t let us do that — and yet they won’t tell us why anyone needs to live on sidewalk grates, harass pedestrians and crap in his pants. Those are precious constitutional rights, straight from the pen of James Madison, and please stop asking questions.
“I don’t see why anyone needs …” is code for: “I don’t do it, so let’s ban it.” The corollary is: “I enjoy this, so you have to subsidize it.”
Environmentalists say: “I don’t know why anyone needs to shower once a day — my French friends and I take two showers per month. We think we smell fine.”
That’s the difference between a totalitarian and a normal person. Liberals are obsessed with controlling what other people do.
As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called “assault weapons” are a “personal pleasure” and “mothers and women” have to decide whether this personal pleasure “is more important than the general welfare.”
The “general welfare” is every tyrant’s excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they “need” something simply because the government wants to ban it. That’s true of anything — but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.
The question isn’t whether we “need” guns. It’s whether the government should have a monopoly on force.
In liberals’ ideal world, no one will even know you don’t have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.
Meanwhile, we’re all required to subsidize their hobbies — recycling, abortion, the “arts,” bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc.
Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.