Tag Archives: political correctness

NUKES AND PIZZA! How Obama can Help ISIS Be More Politically Correct

pizza-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Barack Obama is negotiating with Iran and moving America toward an agreement that allows the terrorist state to obtain a nuke on a “phased plan.” A “phased plan” with Tehran is like reassuring potential victims that a psychopathic murderer is on the loose in their neighborhood with a Nerf gun, but not to worry because cops have a “phased plan” to provide the killer with a machete.

In other words, with the help of Barack Obama, Iran will graduate from being unable to annihilate Israel or do serious damage to the US, to being a formidable danger. And while that will certainly be disastrous in some ways, if Iran does lob a nuke at America, while widespread radiation poisoning will stress the system, all the dead people will lead to huge savings on healthcare.

Meanwhile, with Iran under control, ISIS still remains somewhat of a threat to the world.
In fact, right now ISIS’s attention seems to be directed toward Syrian Christians, 90 of whom they just kidnapped and will likely either decapitate or set ablaze, which, based on Barack Obama’s lackadaisical reaction to such atrocities, falls under the Hillary Clinton motto of “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

However, based on some of the dangers ISIS is broadcasting via Twitter, there do seem to be a few things the president can do to quell the problem, such as a kinder, gentler application of outreach and social justice.

At the recent “Solution to Violent Extremism” summit, Obama pointed out that he’s of the opinion that terrorists have genuine complaints and believes “legitimate grievances” can be addressed by communicating, engaging, mentoring, educating, partnering with, and supporting genocidal jihadists.

In an ironic twist, ISIS actually validated Obama’s strategy, indicating that remediation of the reprobate does have some credibility.

Take for instance ISIS’s recent vow to conquer Rome and “throw homosexuals off of [the] leaning tower of PIZZA.” In some circles such a proclamation might be disturbing, but to Obama, threats are often just desperate cries for help that need to be responded to in thoughtful ways.

Clearly, ISIS confusing Pisa (or pizza) with Rome indicates the group has members who are geographically challenged. But with Obama in charge, ISIS could be marching in the right direction once and for all. Besides, who better than the president who traveled to 57 states – not counting Hawaii and Alaska – to inform the terrorist group that the Tower of Pisa is located in the city of Pisa, which is four hours from the city they are threatening to conquer and pillage?

Moreover, promising to throw gays off an ancient south-leaning building may require specific intervention that, in lieu of an appropriate jobs program, includes things like architectural diversity, how to grasp geographic whereabouts, sensitivity training, education, and healthy eating.

Another red flag is that ISIS has chosen a building that falls into the disabled/handicapped category, which indicates the group is exploiting a structure that has already suffered 822 years of being the butt of jokes. Insensitive cartoonists have mocked architect Bonanno Pisano for eons, saying that he either had one short leg or a crooked neck.

Either way, the bottom line is that if ISIS wants to grow in respectability, they can’t give preferential treatment to members of the exclusive LGBT community.

ISIS singling out gays and lesbians as recipients of special treatment could be interpreted as favoritism. Choosing only one group over other historically underrepresented groups of people lacks the type of fairness Barack Obama specializes in.

It’s unclear what ISIS is eating, but it’s a dead giveaway that by mistaking Pisa for pizza, ISIS has pizza on the brain. Thankfully, after addressing ISIS’s tactlessness, helping them to get their geographic bearings, and schooling them on how to be more inclusive, there’s still education and healthy living.

Threatening to throw homosexuals off the “leaning tower of PIZZA” is sort of like ISIS threatening to throw adulteresses off the 47th floor of the Waldorf Salad Hotel.

Still, there’s a good chance that Michelle Obama, maven of healthy school lunches and superintendent of America’s “culture of health”, could address the ISIS pizza issue and make respectful and culturally-sensitive food suggestions to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on how to steer his soldiers toward healthier choices.

Last but certainly not least is the misspelling of Pisa, which indicates that Abu Abdulla Britani, also known by his twitter handle @abu_britani2, who tweeted out:

tweet

…may very well be a hapless victim of educational inequality.

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf has already informed America that “we can’t kill our way” out of war against ISIS. That’s why free community college may be the answer to steering enthusiastic young men like Abu Britani away from career goals that include “conquering Rome and establishing the justice of shariah.”

And what better way to shore up our reputation with the terrorist state of Iran than to suggest giving ISIS combatants refugee status in America with the promise of free community college?

So there you have it. Barack Obama’s War on Terror includes a bomb for Tehran and some politically-correct suggestions on how to school ISIS on civility.

WHAT’S THE STORY? The Truth Behind Obama’s Defense of Islam

Ob-Islam-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Regardless of what Muslim adherents say, every time a terrorist beheads, shoots, or blows up civilized human beings, an unsolicited handful of world leaders feel it’s their duty to step forward to clarify that those doing the terrorizing aren’t really Muslims. That’s why someone should really find out who is convincing non-Muslim terrorists to pretend to be Muslim, because if ever there was cause for confusion, the “terrorists aren’t Muslim” issue is it.

From France’s President François Hollande to America’s very own President Barack Obama, apologists simply refuse to agree that those who openly admit dedication to the prophet Mohammed are fervent followers of the Islamic faith.

Although with great regularity Islamic extremists begin and end their bloodbaths by shouting “Allahu Akbar” and go enthusiastically to their deaths proud to be “avenging the prophet” Mohammed, for some strange reason President Obama feels it is his obligation to repudiate the testimony of martyrs.

Not only that, but a contradiction arises, because as the president has already proven with his “bitter clinger” remark, if a shooter were to shout “Praise Jesus” instead of “Allahu Akbar”, it’s highly unlikely similar PR would be offered on behalf of Christians.

Let’s face it – in the ongoing effort to place Christians in the crosshairs of progressive criticism, those on the left cannot afford to have Muslims out-evil the “right wing extremists” and Bible-thumpers. That’s why, regardless of how many body bags jihadists fill, Obama will always be at the ready to remediate the reputation of Islam in the eyes of those who see it for what it is.

So what if Muslims blow away political cartoonists for exercising the right to free expression. As evidenced by the Ferguson, Missouri street riots and the tacitly government-approved animosity directed toward police officers, here in Obama’s America, lack of tolerance exhibited by one group no longer justifies refusal to tolerate the intolerable in the other.

Yet the question here is why does Barack Obama refuse to take Muslim jihadists at their word?

Could it be because terrorism places Mohammed in a bad light, and according to a politically pragmatic president attempting to cultivate cultural and religious diversity, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam?”

Also, according to Barack Obama, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Therefore, by his insistence on portraying Islam in a light contrary to reality, what the president is actually doing is ensuring tolerance be extended to the intolerant.

As the body count continues to rise, Barack Obama continues to assert that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

Huh?

Who cares if three individuals declaring vengeance for Allah wreak bloody havoc on an iconic European city? If Barack Obama decides that Islamic “rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings,” then even if what he says is contradicted by what is actually happening, one way or another his complicated rhetoric will twist the truth and blatant lies will eventually be accepted.

Let’s not forget, this is Barack Obama, the man who has redefined everything from Hope and Change to what constitutes police “acting stupidly.” Therefore, why shouldn’t he also redefine Islam, even if doing so controverts the profession of faith by those willing to be die for their beliefs?

What’s odd is that this defense of Islam is coming from a man who claims to be a Christian. Then again, it’s probably easy for Obama to disavow the claims of terrorists who call themselves Muslims because, despite admitting belief in Jesus, the president lives a life alien to the creed Christ lays out for His followers.

By his own example, Barack Obama has shed much-needed light on individuals who identify with a religious dogma and then act in a way contrary to their stated beliefs. Whether the president realizes it or not, the benchmarks he’s put forth in defense of Islam are standards that can also be applied to his own dubious relationship with God of the New Testament.

In truth, when it comes to liberal social edicts that support abortion on demand, gay marriage and free contraceptives, the president of the United States is nothing more than another radical extremist who, instead of an AK-47 or a machete, uses a phone and a pen. Moreover, everything that is “honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely” has already been dumbed down and ascribed a new meaning, so why not Islam?

Even still, notwithstanding the president’s effort to whitewash the “religion of peace,” in addition to Obama’s dogged assertion that disciples of Mohammed blowing away shoppers in a deli merely for being Jewish has nothing to do with the faith they proclaim, there may be other, more useful benefits that can result from the president reinventing reality.

Maybe what Obama is doing has little to do with Islam. The same way basic concepts of freedom and fairness have been redefined, mischaracterizing Islam may be just another example of the world’s most dedicated cultural Marxist assigning different meanings to conventional perceptions in order to skew the truth and control the opinion of the masses.

After all, the president’s socialist vision hinges on framing a make-believe world. That’s why the left’s most valuable tool is still propaganda. So, although initially the president’s “terrorists aren’t Muslim” posturing seemed confusing, on second thought it may not be confusing at all.

Barack Obama’s attempt to redefine a 1,400-year-old religion to suit his political agenda may have nothing to do with protecting Islam. Instead, shielding Muslims from condemnation may be part of an ongoing effort to remake, redefine, and impact reality so dramatically that what will finally take hold is unquestioning compliance.

Using Shock Collars as a Sensitivity Training Tool

Shock-CollarOriginally posted at The Blacksphere

In a world where freedom of choice reigns, in liberal states like New York and Washington “my body my choice” includes everything except for what one chooses to put into and come out of one’s mouth.

In New York, the Department of Education is not only slowly implementing vegetarian-only school lunches, but they’re also banning certain words from standardized tests.  In Seattle, Washington, the city is advising workers that certain words be avoided in official documents and discussions.

Seattle city personnel recently received an internal memo from Elliott Bronstein, chief spokesman for the Office for Civil Rights.  Mr. Bronstein strongly suggested that offensive or disruptive words such as “citizen” and “brown bag” be abolished in the workplace.

Bronstein, grateful that “Luckily, we’ve got options,” requested that instead of “brown bag,” city employees substitute the words “lunch-and-learn” or “sack lunch.” As for the distasteful word “citizen,” Mr. Bronstein recommended considering the feelings of non-citizens by referring to everyone as “residents.”

Despite good intentions, a problem does arise; let’s face it, especially in government, nobody’s perfect 100% of the time. So hopefully there’s money available in state and city budgets to utilize – and someone wise enough to suggest – that some gentle punishment in the form of shock collars be integrated into ongoing sensitivity training.

In the case of a forgetful mishap, a gentle jolt of electricity should break the habit for those foolishly referring to skin color when talking about lunch bags and pocketbooks. As for thoughtless Seattle citizens, if they should lose their heads and casually mention to coworkers that over the weekend they watched the old Orson Welles movie Citizen Kane, such offenders would be guilty of unruly speech.

In New York City things get a bit more complicated, because the list is much longer and more finely tuned. The New York City Department of Education, headed up by school chancellor Dennis Walcott, has decided to ban a whole host of disturbing words from standardized tests.

Walcott said the Department of Education is not being politically correct, they’re simply attempting to guide test developers. Walcott insisted, “So we’re not an outlier in being politically correct. This is just making sure that test makers are sensitive in the development of their tests.”

And allowing the word “ballet” but forbidding use of the word “dance” does what, exactly, to accomplish that educational objective?

Anyway, on the list are 50 examples which include words like “dinosaur,” “birthday,” “Halloween,” and “hurricanes.”   Not included on the forbidden list are words like condom, abortion, homosexual, amnesty, or food stamps.

Because of the diversity of the student body, the Big Apple will be working hard to revamp city-issued standardized tests.  Flushed from future exams will be all unpleasantness associated with words that the financially less fortunate might find upsetting, like “croquet,” “laptop” and “vacation.”

A word of caution: Before New York City goes any further, someone should consider how little people feel about the word “big” in “Big Apple.”  And more importantly, in consideration of environmentalists, shouldn’t New York City educators hearken back to the big alar/apple scare?

All things considered, we’re in a bit of a quandary, because anyone uttering one word, regardless of what they’re saying, could make deaf-mutes feel inferior. Then again, what about the effect on quadriplegics if words were outlawed and replaced with gestures?

Whether it’s big apples or small nuts, deaf-mutes or quadriplegics, in order to be diverse and inclusive, rather than expose students to the vast array of life’s economic, religious, and workaday experiences, the city of New York has decided it’s best to just exclude any mention at all of any type of individual life circumstances.

As for struggles like sickness, disaster, disease, poverty, and homelessness, with Obamacare and government intervention, worrying about those and similar frivolities will soon be a thing of the past and unnecessary to broach in federally-funded venues. The same holds true for any mention of success, wealth, or privilege.

Still, whether test developers are fitted with sensitivity shock collars or not, things can still get dicey because for example, “cows” can be either a benign animal or problematic subject matter for Hindus and PETA types.  What about “balls” being a sticky subject for certain men?  Not to mention the word “happiness,” which could be considered an offensive allusion to gays, and “sugar,” a stumbling block for diabetics.

Worst than that, if Seattle and NYC decide one day to merge lists, or the federal government decides to regulate all words, terms, and expressions, those found bringing  “junk food” in a “brown bag” to school or work could find themselves expelled or banned from city jobs for life.

That’s why in the interim, while the government puts the finishing touches on a program that trains American citizens what to eat, how to think, what to believe and what to say and in what context they can say it, a shock collar pilot program could definitely facilitate a vital long-term goal.

Fairness, Fuses, Fertilizer and Fanaticism

serpent-and-dove1I have been trying for years to come to a place of being able to understand what to me is an obvious dichotomy between cultural sensitivity, which is defined as “knowing that differences exist between cultures, but not assigning values to the differences (better or worse, right or wrong)” and the definition of culture which is, “a way of life of a group of people–the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.” Based on these definitions, if we do not accept every culture without judgment, do we become guilty of being culturally insensitive?

If we couple together moral relativism, which the definition implies, and cultural sensitivity we find ourselves trapped in an inescapable paradox. There are groups of people whose cultures are such that the destruction of others makes up the cumulative foundation of all they believe in. As a nation we have suffered great loss as a result of the ethnic expression of jihad war tactics. It is confusing though, aren’t those we presently consider our dire enemies considered such purely on the collective programming of their murderous, fanatical minds?

As a nation if we are to be culturally sensitive, by staying true to the definition, we cannot and should not assign values to any other people group’s cultivated behavior, knowledge, values or motives. If we make an excuse for any one group and then choose to condemn or judge any culture negatively we have entered and under-girded the anathema sphere of insensitivity.

We presently live in a nation where we are sensitive to everything except what is morally right; in turn we are bringing upon ourselves our own destruction from within. We bestow the rights and honor of American citizens on barbarians who hate everything that we are. We’re like people who don’t lock the doors to their homes because they themselves would never steal. We’ve lost the understanding of the Scripture that says, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16) New American Standard Bible (©1995). The result is that the standard of right and wrong has become muddied and grey. There is no definition or direction and we find ourselves lost in a foggy forest at night unable to discern where to turn, what to do or how to escape the dilemma we find ourselves in.

We need to acknowledge the fact that we are doomed, if in order to remain sensitive, we have to forfeit our standard of right or wrong based on a definition, which beckons us to “…not assign values to our differences.” Moreover, if we question the incarceration and treatment of uncivilized, murderers and demonize governments, which strive to protect themselves from destruction, it is we who’ve been deceived. Cultural relativism to be true to what it is must remain amoral, regardless of the consequences of exposure to our civilization or national well being. We can’t have it both ways… either we are, or we aren’t.

Terrorism is warfare tactic in a religious jihad, which is and will be extended worldwide. It is very much a way of life to certain people groups. Their behaviors, beliefs, values and symbols are directly related to the destruction of any living thing or practice that contradicts their interpretation of their holy book. Not only are they deeply rooted and steeped in the culture of terrorism but they fervently communicate and pass on these beliefs and tactics to the next generation of martyrs they are zealously cultivating. This is their culture, are we now to judge it and be credited as insensitive? I think not. Haven’t we already given credibility to their cause by bestowing on enemy combatants American civil rights? Haven’t we extended a gesture of kindness by acknowledging the human rights of inhuman individuals who would behead  kindergartners in a heartbeat?

Why do we stop there? Why not supply Camp 3 Guantanamo Bay prisoners with new machetes as a good faith example of our cultural sensitivity and understanding of a cause that is exemplative of their culture? How about fuses, fertilizer and dump trucks? Shouldn’t we make sure that our detainees have a venue to express themselves, either while still in Cuba, or better yet when they are moved to Pennsylvania to a minimum security facility in John Murtha’s district? Why do we shake our heads in disbelief when we hear that, a teenage suicide bomber killed at least 35 people, including five members of parliament in Afghanistan…wasn’t he just culturally expressing himself?

Our beliefs are contradictory. We are caught in a quandary. We can’t apply moral relativism to one issue or one action and then not to others. If we do, we’ve become what we despise. Either we decide what is right and what is wrong on all levels and establish a standard, or we step aside and champion the diversity of different cultures, we erase the moral code and finally establish relativism as our god, even if it means the destruction of our nation, our lifestyle and all that we hold dear. In a land where choice reigns supreme, the choice is now ours.

%d bloggers like this: