The Political Incorrect Blog

Archive for January, 2006

CNS News reported today that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group, says President Bush should stick to politically correct terminology when he refers to Islam in his State of the Union address.

Last October, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush identified and  described the "evil" ideology behind terrorism. From his speech on October 6, 2006:

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus — and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda — paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, is a Muslim civil rights group that is the equivalent of the ACLU which was originally organized by the communists. Both groups defend the "rights" of individuals who have been regarded as terrorists.

So we will see how President Bush responds to CAIR’s request tonight at his State Of The Union speech

What would America be like if Islam Sharia Law became the Law of the Land. Ayesha Ahment takes a humorous look at a political correct America under Islam Law.

By Ayesha Ahmed

Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:"Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.

Americans should give a serious thought to CAIR’s agenda.. If Islam and sharia is adopted in America, It will be great. . .

Muslims are right. Non of the existing Islamic countries are truly Islamic, that is why they don’t progress and most of them are poor, corrupt and miserable. We must implement  100% sharia and sunna to get full benefits of Islam. Inshallah we will try to do it in USA to make it the first real Muslim country after the days of rightly guided khalifas Consider the following advantages:

- America can go to jihad against non Muslim countries. It will bring immense wealth in booty and millions of captured women. Canada and Mexico can be easy targets and are conveniently located for easy assault and hauling of booty.

-Since slavery will be allowed  government can open  slave  markets to sell it’s  20%  share of the captured women.

-Captured women/slave-girls  can provide affordable domestic help for house wives and clean enjoyable sex for their husbands. -Enslaved  men can  be used as farm labor and factory workers at a much  lower cost than unionized labor.

Read the rest of this entry »

From Stop The ACLU!

Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform.

A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy.

The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty.

Many of the ACLU’s former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.

But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU’s press release: “We view the jury’s verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion.”

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled “The Nuremberg Files,” after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called “baby butchers.” …

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

None of the anti-abortion group’s intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants’ First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one’s side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one.

…Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century’s great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past.

That’s why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU’s urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants.

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for “breaking the necks” of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

I would argue that the Constitution doesn’t protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn’t the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU’s curious commitment to “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU’s absolutist views and of the ACLU’s campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self–a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.” “But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

It seems that the many of the ACLU’s greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn’t doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeopardy the very liberty they claim to protect.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board.

As Christians, we take for granted the existence of Christ. But not in an Italian court. An atheist has filed a complaint against a Catholic priest who is accused of unlawfully asserting what many people take for granted: that Jesus Christ existed. In some areas of the world, it is not politically correct to admit their faith in Jesus.

Satan, the great accuser or the author of lies is having his day in court.

The Rev. Enrico Righi was named in a 2002 complaint filed by Luigi Cascioli after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus did indeed exist, and that he was born of a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

Cascioli, a lifelong atheist, claims that Righi violated two Italian laws by making the assertion: so-called "abuse of popular belief" in which someone fraudulently deceives people; and "impersonation" in which someone gains by attributing a false name to someone.

The Rev. Enrico Righi and many other Christian scholars believe Cascioli does not have a case against Christ’s existence. It is noted that Christ has been proved to be real by many non-Christian historians, especially many who were contemporaries of Christ.

Cascioli’s motives become clear in his statements to the press:

Cascioli says he fully recognizes that his case has a slim chance of succeeding in overwhelmingly Catholic Italy, but not because his argument is lacking.

"We aren’t optimistic — unless the Madonna makes a miracle, but I don’t think that will happen," he joked.

Cascioli says he is merely going through the necessary legal steps in Italy so he can ultimately take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to pursue the case against the church for "religious racism."

"I was born against Christ and God," he said. "I’m doing it (the complaint) now because I should do it before I die."

This is an overt attack on Christianity. According to Cascioli, the belief in Jesus is the equivalent to "religious racism" and he wants the case taken to the very secular , U.N sanctioned, European Court Of Human Rights.

Already many Europeans believe God is dead.

Source article from NBC17.com

It is not secret that Senator Kennedy is anti-Alito. During the Senate confirmation hearings he exposed his true colors as in his bizarre and racial behavior during the hearings. Even some of his fellow Democrats are questioning his behavior of not letting up on his anti-Alito feelings.

The Traditional Values Coalition, last week released the following press release on Kennedy’s last gasp attempt on discrediting Alito. But he has only discredited himself:

“Senator Ted Kennedy’s anti-Judge Alito speech today before the Center for American Progress is yet another display of how out of touch Kennedy is with American values and beliefs,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty today. “Apparently Kennedy isn’t satisfied with his bullying and character assassination of Judge Alito during the Senate hearings. He seems determined to keep on mischaracterizing Alito’s record up until the moment the judge is confirmed in the Senate—and he will be confirmed.”

Mrs. Lafferty continued, “I am not surprised by Kennedy’s rash statements against Alito. He’s playing to the radical fringe elements of the Democrat Party, but he is becoming a caricature of himself as a ranting, out of control and irresponsible legislator. He’s embarrassing his party and certainly looks foolish to all but the most leftwing political operatives.

“His appearance at the Center for American Progress, a think tank run by former Clinton officials and funded by atheist George Soros, says much about Kennedy’s commitment to the radical left’s politics of personal destruction. Destroying a person’s character based upon lies, distortions, and innuendos, is now standard practice for Kennedy and his far left allies. He began this practice when he smeared Judge Robert Bork in 1987.

“Americans know Alito and like him,” says Mrs. Lafferty. “Polls indicate that most Americans favor Judge Alito and support his views of judges, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Only fringe elements of the far left continue to support Kennedy’s politics of personal destruction.

“Since his confirmation hearing, Judge Alito has gained the editorial support of dozens of newspapers throughout the U.S.,” said Mrs. Lafferty. “Even the liberal ‘Los Angeles Times’ has come out in favor of Judge Alito for the Supreme Court. It is becoming clearer than ever that Kennedy and his ilk are a shrieking minority of leftwing ideologues whose views should be ignored by Americans.”

Last week during the Alito hearing, Ted Kennedy attacked Alito’s membership to an all-male club at Princeton as racist because of an article written by one of its members in 1983.

Ted Kennedy read only a small part of the article. The National Ledger reports:

The excerpt was from a 1983 article and began: “People nowadays just don’t seem to know their place.  Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they’re black and Hispanic.  The physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports.  And homosexuals are demanding the government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.  And now . . . and now come women.”
 
Kennedy read the passage, except for the last sentence, which was strange considering his extensive history of respecting women, with all the solemnity he could muster.  But surely he was joshing when he acted as though he took the article seriously. 

(The reference to Ted Kennedy’s history of respecting women is to Chappaquiddick and an incident in 1991 in a Florida bar where he took his son and nephew, picked up two women brought them back to his place which one of them was raped by the nephew.)

Ted Kennedy this week announced he is dropping out of Harvard’s all-male Owl Club. He has been a member for 50 years and he states he just learned it banned women.

Was he sleeping when he was at the club?

Did he not notice the absence of females? 

Was Judas misunderstood and is he really a good person?

The Vatican recently announced that Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane was really a good person who was just doing the will of God. But, in the Gospel of Luke, it states that Judas was possessed by Satan. The Vatican’s plan to clear Judas is in conflict with the Gospel of Luke.

Is the Vatican implying Luke is wrong? Or, is this an attempt by the Vatican to be politically correct in the eyes of the Jews?

According to the UK Times Online:

The move to clear Judas’s name coincides with plans to publish the alleged Gospel of Judas for the first time in English, German and French. Though not written by Judas, it is said to reflect the belief among early Christians — now gaining ground in the Vatican — that in betraying Christ Judas was fulfilling a divine mission, which led to the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus and hence to man’s salvation.

But there is hope this rewrite of the bible fizzles. Not all Vatican scholars agree on this rewrite.

Some Vatican scholars have expressed concern over the reconsideration of Judas. Monsignor Giovanni D’Ercole, a Vatican theologian, said it was “dangerous to re-evaluate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers.” The Gospels tell how Judas later returned the 30 pieces of silver — his “blood money” — and hanged himself, or according to the Acts of the Apostles, “fell headlong and burst open so that all his entrails burst out”.

It is believed that this move to clear Judas is in response to Pope Benedict XVI desire to please the Jewish community. By clearing Judas, a Jew, of his evil deed, the Vatican hopes to build a favorable dialog with the Jews.

This fits into the ecumenism agenda of the Vatican which is to unite all faiths which many Christians see this clearly as a compromise with the Christian faith. 

FALCON, Colo. – A school board member at a Colorado school district has contacted the Alliance Defense Fund asking for information affirming the school board’s legal right to reestablish the name of its December holiday vacation as "Christmas Break."  In recent years, schools have used the more generic term "Winter Break" to designate that holiday on their official calendars.

"The school board’s interest in returning to the original ‘Christmas Break’ calendar reference is a matter of common sense," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson, who provided the board with the information it needed.  "It’s ridiculous that we have come to the point where it takes an act of political courage to call December 25th exactly what it is–Christmas."

The school board member contacted ADF requesting information on the subject because board members had submitted a proposal to change the name of the holiday vacation back to "Christmas Break" on the school calendar.  ADF sent a letter to the school board affirming their right to do so, informing them of all the constitutional principles involved in religious expression and what public schools are legally allowed to do.

"ADF has informed board members of all the constitutional reasons why it’s okay to put ‘Christmas Break’ on their school calendar," said Johnson.  "ADF has also offered to defend this school board if the ACLU or any of its allies sues them over this issue.  It’s great to see local leaders taking a stand instead of pretending that December 25th has no particular meaning at all."

Johnson’s letter to the school board can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/BarthaLetter.pdf.

As part of ADF’s Christmas Project, ADF-allied attorneys contacted nearly 11,000 school districts nationwide in 2005 to inform them of the truth regarding religious expression at Christmastime.  For more information on the project, visit http://www.saychristmas.org/.

ADF is a legal alliance defending America’s first liberty–religious freedom–through strategy, training, funding, and litigation