Political correctness and islam. They do not belong together.

The three toxic stews of the west have been discussed here more times than I care to recall. These three stews are Political Correctness, Diversity and Multiculturalism. They are poisonous to freedom and fly
in the face of our Constitution.


This next opinion has to do with how the left, progressives and others who think islam a noble and peaceful religion ideology and what we are looking at down the road with islam. There is NOTHING to be gained by such treatment of islam. Nothing was gained in the past and nothing will be gained in the future.

How many more millions of innocent victims will be killed in the name of islam and sharia law? I really do not want to know.

***************************************************************************************

Political correctness is wrong when discussing islam
By An Infidel Forever


Here is a partial list of European publications reporting on the recent murder of two American airmen in Frankfurt, Germany: The London Telegraph, The New English Review, Deutsche Zeitungen (German Times), Deutsche Welle (German TV), Bild (a tabloid, mainly celebrity news and gossip), and finally (perhaps most importantly) Bundesregierung Deutschland (official press releases of the German Federal Government).


None of these sources fails to mention that the terrorist who murdered our two servicemen is “Islamic.”


But neither our own commander-in-chief, President Barrack Hussein Obama, in whose service and at whose command those servicemen stood ready to die, nor any major U.S. news source (except The Wall Street Journal) describes the “terrorist” as “lslamic” — which he indisputably is, according to the above (mainly) respected and reliable news sources, including even the official German government news release.


According to reporter Laura Stevens, writing from Karlsruhe, Germany, in The Wall Street Journal, the killer “demonstrated radical tendencies ... (and) on his Facebook profile ... made plain his Islamist political tendencies,” as well as, when he murdered our servicemen, shouting “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is Great” — the “justification” of radical Islamist believers for murdering non-believers, whom radical (irrational?) believers of Islam call “infidels” — thus people destined only for enslavement, or death (Surah 9:29-33, Quran).

Is it not time to ask (or is it already too late?), “What exactly is it about the lslamist religion today that may foment, if not, evidently, encourage, such irrational radicalism?” And what is the responsibility of rational “peaceful” Islamists to condemn such behaviors, given that — as Obama assures us, “Islam is a religion of peace”? We believe Obama, of course.


In our study of American history, we learn that public opinion in America and elsewhere, prior to the outbreak of World War II, was divided on the clear reality of announced Axis plans (mainly Japan and Germany) for bloody conquest; there was doubt as to their announced intent and capability — a reluctance to admit the unpleasant reality of the obvious.


The prime minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, returned from a conference with Hitler, stepping off the plane with a big grin, waving a document, a “nonaggression pact” of some sort, proclaiming, “There will be peace in our time!”


And there were, in our own country, many authoritative people talking about the “peaceful” intentions of the Axis powers, saying, “Another world war is just not in the realm of possibility of rational men.”


The operative term, of course, was (and is) “rational.” After the awful killing and wounding of tens of thousands of brave American soldiers, sailors and Marines, as well as countless others among our allied nations, in battle operations around the globe, and, as subsequently revealed, after the unspeakable horror, the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews and countless others judged suitable only for enslavement or death by the fanatical axis “religion” of fascism, with its irrational intent to create a “utopia” — a perfected new world order — victory was won at unimaginable sacrifice and cost.


As horrendous, as high, as the price of that victory was, it will seem modest by comparison when the next bill for our apparent willful ignorance, our apparent incredible blindness, comes due. For the weapons of yesterday were, and are, simple, crude and obvious compared to the weapons of today and possibly tomorrow: biological and atomic.


The problem of Islamic extremism, of hatred of the “infidel,” of those judged unfit to live, so characteristic now in many quarters of contemporary Islam (but rare in the centuries of enlightened multicultural character and climate during Islam’s past greatness, when much of Europe dwelt in the barbaric “dark ages”) will never be solved by clinging to childish, flaccid notions of “political correctness”; or a childish reluctance to “name the thing”; or a willful, childish ignorance of those who desire our destruction.


John Howard, the very successful and second-longest serving prime minister in Australian history, leader of the Liberal Party (read “Conservative,” in contemporary American terms), in his autobiography, “Lazarus Rising,” observed that the most important struggle in the 21st century would be the fight against Islamic terrorism and its allies.


One is forced reluctantly to conclude that there are those in our present government, and its liberal cheering section in the mass media, who might qualify as “allies,” albeit (we hope) unwitting ones — or at least, perhaps, “useful idiots.”


To imagine President Obama making such a trenchant observation as that of Prime Minister Howard requires quite a stretch indeed. In fact, one might go so far as to say it will never happen, could never happen.