Print
E-mail
How To Kill Political Correctness Before It Kills Us
By HERB DENENBERG, The Bulletin
I’ve been doing consumer reports for over 34 years and, from my perspective, the No. 1 consumer issue is the sad state of the mainstream media. It has become something other than a segment of the media, and now can be correctly described as a propaganda organ of a Democratic Party controlled executive branch of the U.S. Government. What’s worse, it is totally biased, dishonest, and fraudulent and can no longer be trusted to deliver the information needed by the American people. It pulled off the biggest fraud in electoral history by pushing the election of President Barack Obama, and is continuing to work hand-in-hand with the Obama administration in destroying America as we know it. That’s why this column has so often focused on the sad state of the mainstream media on which the proper functioning of our society depends.
Here’s a perfect illustration of what that mean in practice. One of the strongest supporters of Islamic terrorism is our mainstream media. That’s because its political correctness means that the mainstream media doesn’t give the public the truth about the threat of radical Islam (or whatever you want to call it – Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, hijacked Islam, jihadism, etc.). In other words, if we don’t kill political correctness, it will kill us by making us unaware of the ongoing war fought by radical Islam against the U.S. and the West. If you can’t even identify your enemy and be honest in describing your enemy, you are a dead duck. President Obama and his administration are among the foremost practitioners of political correctness, and that’s one of many reasons the Obama administration is a threat to the survival of America. The infection of political correctness is as widespread as it is dangerous, but this column will focus on political correctness in the mainstream media.
Former President George H.W. Bush (Bush I), right after the Fort Hood jihadist attack, came up with one of the best definitions of political correctness: “The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures, off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.” The mainstream media censors-out news of radical Islam, making our enemies invisible.
If you analyze the bias of the dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media, you will find it is consistently on the wrong side of history, and runs contrary to America’s values. It is, in fact, anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-family-values, anti-law-enforcement, and anti-military. The mainstream media is also politically correct, and one consequence of that is the mainstream media’s downplaying or ignoring the threat of radical Islam. It is now politically incorrect to point out the dangers of the threat of radical Islam. So, the American Congress for Truth (ACT) has just published a Citizen Media Monitoring Guide, designed – in the words of Brigette Gabriel, president of ACT and a leading authority on radical Islam — “for citizens concerned about politically-correct driven media bias as it relates to radical Islam. As the Ft. Hood jihadist attack painfully demonstrated, political correctness can be more than annoying and frustrating — it can be deadly.”
The Guide gives this example: “In the hours and days following the attack, news anchors, commentators, and journalists bent over backwards to avoid characterizing the attack as a jihadist attack or a terrorist attack. One study found that between November 5 and November 10, fully 65 percent of the reports produced by ABC, NBC and CBS News did not mention the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism.’”
The deadly political correctness also meant that no alarm bells were sounded by the Fort Hood jihadist’s fellow-workers, by the mainstream media, or by federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Consider what the Fort Hood jihadist told the people at Fort Hood in a speech he delivered: He said he believed Sharia (Muslim law) should trump the U.S. Constitution (a view that is illegal and criminal for a military officer, as he is sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution). He justified suicide bombings. And he said the war on terror was a war on Islam. Those are not just “dots” to be connected. Those are oceans of information only fools could miss. Those are not only red flags, but they are also red flags burning in a swimming pool of gasoline. How could such red flags be ignored? They could, and that suggests that political correctness at Fort Hood was made possible by a much larger phenomenon – the atmosphere of political correctness created by the Obama administration in all agencies of the federal government, including the U.S. Army, and created by the mainstream media.
The Weekly Standard (Jan. 18, 2010) has a classic illustration of political correctness at where you would expect it in its purest and most dangerous form — The New York Times. It involves the question of profiling and whether airport and other security personnel should assume a 23-year-old Nigerian poses a greater risk than a frail 83-year-old grandmother from Nebraska. The Web site of The Times ran a piece entitled “Will Profiling Make a Difference?” by Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Mr. Marayati wrote:
“Focus on one particular ethnicity or country of origin, and the terrorists will recruit from somewhere else. Many terrorism suspects came from within the United States and European Union countries.”
In other words, as The Weekly Standard notes, this might mean al-Qaida will have to recruit among Scottish Presbyterians or Pennsylvania Mennonites, and it says that would be a great accomplishment. This kind of illogical left-wing garbage is what you would expect to find in The New York Times, but it gets worse. It turns out that Al-Marayati “is an odd messenger for The Times to have selected. Right after the 9/11 attacks, he went on a radio station in Los Angeles with this bit of psychotic logic:
“If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kind of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list, because I think this [the 9/11 attacks] diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”
The Weekly Standard concludes, “So, Marayati isn’t opposed to ‘profiling,’ after all. He just wants to focus on one particular country of origin [Israel].”
That example is not a wild aberration but the kind of political correctness that permeates The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media. That also shows you the importance of the campaign to fight political correctness on the question of radical Islam launched by the American Congress for Truth. In the Citizen Media Monitoring Guide, written by Guy Rodgers, the executive director of the American Congress for Truth, you will learn (in Ms. Gabriel’s words):
“Why it’s so important that citizens concerned about the threat of radical Islam recognize and expose politically correct media bias.
What ‘political correctness’ is and how it produces media bias that enables the advance of radical Islam.
How the average citizen can detect, define and expose such media bias.”
The Citizen Media Monitoring Guide is a 19-page publication that can be downloaded at the Web site of the American Congress for Truth (www.americancongressfortruth.org). The Guide also explains how people can get involved in the war against media political correctness by becoming part of a media monitoring unit being organized by ACT. The Guide states: “We are constructing a nationwide network of volunteer writers who will agree to monitor certain publications or broadcasts …If you are interested in either helping respond or helping coordinate your region of the country please send us an e-mail at member@americancongressfortruth.org.”
The Guide also contains useful information on how to approach media outlets that engage in political correctness and even includes sample letters to the editor.
One of the most important sections of this Guide explains its importance. It starts with this quote, “Whoever frames the debate and the terms of the debate is well on the way to winning the debate.” Then it notes “Islamists and their apologists and defenders want to frame the debate about ‘Islam’ as a recurring problem with insidious intolerance and anti-Muslim bigotry. If they succeed, public critique and criticism of radical Islam will be virtually suppressed.”
The Guide states how the debate must be framed: “The 21st century challenge of a supremacist political ideology, draped in religion, that for fourteen centuries has sought, and frequently succeeded, in conquering, subjugating, and killing non-Muslims. If we succeed, public focus will be on the truth about radical Islam’s political ideology, which is a focus Islamists desperately want to prevent.”
The Guide argues this is the wrong view of Islam: “Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few extremists.” This is in contrast to what it considers the correct view: “While there are many peaceful Muslims, Islam doctrinally and historically, is not a religion of peace.” When a culture defines Islam as the religion of peace it goes down the path of Europe: “Europe and Great Britain have already demonstrated to a watching world how impotent a culture will be in combating the rising tide of radical Islam when the threat is defined as ‘Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few extremists.’”
And it concludes, “America cannot afford to walk down this path. That is why detecting and exposing politically correct media bias is an absolutely essential element in the overall effort to defeat the threat of radical Islam. The stakes are very, very high.”
In case you’re not familiar with the American Congress for Truth, you should be. It is one of the leading players in the war against radical Islam. Its president, as indicated, is Brigette Gabriel, one of the leading authorities on terrorism (along with people like Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch). It has a distinguished Board of Advisors that includes R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA; Major Paul Vallery, retired U.S. Army; and Mr. Spencer.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Public Utility Commissioner, and as the Harry J. Loman Professor of Insurance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He has served as a consultant to many government agencies, has co-authored important laws such as the first no-fault law in a U.S. jurisdiction passed in Puerto Rico, and has testified frequently before Congress on consumer issues. You can reach Herb at www.advocate@thebulletin.us.
Here’s a perfect illustration of what that mean in practice. One of the strongest supporters of Islamic terrorism is our mainstream media. That’s because its political correctness means that the mainstream media doesn’t give the public the truth about the threat of radical Islam (or whatever you want to call it – Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, hijacked Islam, jihadism, etc.). In other words, if we don’t kill political correctness, it will kill us by making us unaware of the ongoing war fought by radical Islam against the U.S. and the West. If you can’t even identify your enemy and be honest in describing your enemy, you are a dead duck. President Obama and his administration are among the foremost practitioners of political correctness, and that’s one of many reasons the Obama administration is a threat to the survival of America. The infection of political correctness is as widespread as it is dangerous, but this column will focus on political correctness in the mainstream media.
Former President George H.W. Bush (Bush I), right after the Fort Hood jihadist attack, came up with one of the best definitions of political correctness: “The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain expressions, even certain gestures, off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.” The mainstream media censors-out news of radical Islam, making our enemies invisible.
If you analyze the bias of the dishonest and fraudulent mainstream media, you will find it is consistently on the wrong side of history, and runs contrary to America’s values. It is, in fact, anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-family-values, anti-law-enforcement, and anti-military. The mainstream media is also politically correct, and one consequence of that is the mainstream media’s downplaying or ignoring the threat of radical Islam. It is now politically incorrect to point out the dangers of the threat of radical Islam. So, the American Congress for Truth (ACT) has just published a Citizen Media Monitoring Guide, designed – in the words of Brigette Gabriel, president of ACT and a leading authority on radical Islam — “for citizens concerned about politically-correct driven media bias as it relates to radical Islam. As the Ft. Hood jihadist attack painfully demonstrated, political correctness can be more than annoying and frustrating — it can be deadly.”
The Guide gives this example: “In the hours and days following the attack, news anchors, commentators, and journalists bent over backwards to avoid characterizing the attack as a jihadist attack or a terrorist attack. One study found that between November 5 and November 10, fully 65 percent of the reports produced by ABC, NBC and CBS News did not mention the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism.’”
The deadly political correctness also meant that no alarm bells were sounded by the Fort Hood jihadist’s fellow-workers, by the mainstream media, or by federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Consider what the Fort Hood jihadist told the people at Fort Hood in a speech he delivered: He said he believed Sharia (Muslim law) should trump the U.S. Constitution (a view that is illegal and criminal for a military officer, as he is sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution). He justified suicide bombings. And he said the war on terror was a war on Islam. Those are not just “dots” to be connected. Those are oceans of information only fools could miss. Those are not only red flags, but they are also red flags burning in a swimming pool of gasoline. How could such red flags be ignored? They could, and that suggests that political correctness at Fort Hood was made possible by a much larger phenomenon – the atmosphere of political correctness created by the Obama administration in all agencies of the federal government, including the U.S. Army, and created by the mainstream media.
The Weekly Standard (Jan. 18, 2010) has a classic illustration of political correctness at where you would expect it in its purest and most dangerous form — The New York Times. It involves the question of profiling and whether airport and other security personnel should assume a 23-year-old Nigerian poses a greater risk than a frail 83-year-old grandmother from Nebraska. The Web site of The Times ran a piece entitled “Will Profiling Make a Difference?” by Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Mr. Marayati wrote:
“Focus on one particular ethnicity or country of origin, and the terrorists will recruit from somewhere else. Many terrorism suspects came from within the United States and European Union countries.”
In other words, as The Weekly Standard notes, this might mean al-Qaida will have to recruit among Scottish Presbyterians or Pennsylvania Mennonites, and it says that would be a great accomplishment. This kind of illogical left-wing garbage is what you would expect to find in The New York Times, but it gets worse. It turns out that Al-Marayati “is an odd messenger for The Times to have selected. Right after the 9/11 attacks, he went on a radio station in Los Angeles with this bit of psychotic logic:
“If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kind of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list, because I think this [the 9/11 attacks] diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.”
The Weekly Standard concludes, “So, Marayati isn’t opposed to ‘profiling,’ after all. He just wants to focus on one particular country of origin [Israel].”
That example is not a wild aberration but the kind of political correctness that permeates The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media. That also shows you the importance of the campaign to fight political correctness on the question of radical Islam launched by the American Congress for Truth. In the Citizen Media Monitoring Guide, written by Guy Rodgers, the executive director of the American Congress for Truth, you will learn (in Ms. Gabriel’s words):
“Why it’s so important that citizens concerned about the threat of radical Islam recognize and expose politically correct media bias.
What ‘political correctness’ is and how it produces media bias that enables the advance of radical Islam.
How the average citizen can detect, define and expose such media bias.”
The Citizen Media Monitoring Guide is a 19-page publication that can be downloaded at the Web site of the American Congress for Truth (www.americancongressfortruth.org). The Guide also explains how people can get involved in the war against media political correctness by becoming part of a media monitoring unit being organized by ACT. The Guide states: “We are constructing a nationwide network of volunteer writers who will agree to monitor certain publications or broadcasts …If you are interested in either helping respond or helping coordinate your region of the country please send us an e-mail at member@americancongressfortruth.org.”
The Guide also contains useful information on how to approach media outlets that engage in political correctness and even includes sample letters to the editor.
One of the most important sections of this Guide explains its importance. It starts with this quote, “Whoever frames the debate and the terms of the debate is well on the way to winning the debate.” Then it notes “Islamists and their apologists and defenders want to frame the debate about ‘Islam’ as a recurring problem with insidious intolerance and anti-Muslim bigotry. If they succeed, public critique and criticism of radical Islam will be virtually suppressed.”
The Guide states how the debate must be framed: “The 21st century challenge of a supremacist political ideology, draped in religion, that for fourteen centuries has sought, and frequently succeeded, in conquering, subjugating, and killing non-Muslims. If we succeed, public focus will be on the truth about radical Islam’s political ideology, which is a focus Islamists desperately want to prevent.”
The Guide argues this is the wrong view of Islam: “Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few extremists.” This is in contrast to what it considers the correct view: “While there are many peaceful Muslims, Islam doctrinally and historically, is not a religion of peace.” When a culture defines Islam as the religion of peace it goes down the path of Europe: “Europe and Great Britain have already demonstrated to a watching world how impotent a culture will be in combating the rising tide of radical Islam when the threat is defined as ‘Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few extremists.’”
And it concludes, “America cannot afford to walk down this path. That is why detecting and exposing politically correct media bias is an absolutely essential element in the overall effort to defeat the threat of radical Islam. The stakes are very, very high.”
In case you’re not familiar with the American Congress for Truth, you should be. It is one of the leading players in the war against radical Islam. Its president, as indicated, is Brigette Gabriel, one of the leading authorities on terrorism (along with people like Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch). It has a distinguished Board of Advisors that includes R. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA; Major Paul Vallery, retired U.S. Army; and Mr. Spencer.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Public Utility Commissioner, and as the Harry J. Loman Professor of Insurance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He has served as a consultant to many government agencies, has co-authored important laws such as the first no-fault law in a U.S. jurisdiction passed in Puerto Rico, and has testified frequently before Congress on consumer issues. You can reach Herb at www.advocate@thebulletin.us.
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
fatima wrote on Jan 18, 2010 6:55 PM:
" Mr. Denenberg is right on.
Right here in Philadelphia we hav a ticking time bomb of Muslim extremists. Beware courses offered by CAIR (which is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and supports terrorism) in "Understanding Islam." It's propaganda 101 and we need to start tackling them head on.
www.thereligionofpeace.com
www.jihadwtach.org
www.citizienwarrior.com
Thank you, Mr. D. "
Right here in Philadelphia we hav a ticking time bomb of Muslim extremists. Beware courses offered by CAIR (which is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and supports terrorism) in "Understanding Islam." It's propaganda 101 and we need to start tackling them head on.
www.thereligionofpeace.com
www.jihadwtach.org
www.citizienwarrior.com
Thank you, Mr. D. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
Abdulameer wrote on Jan 16, 2010 11:55 PM: