Trump slams ‘political correctness’ and gun control activists after London attacks – Washington Examiner

President Trump called for an end to political correctness when discussing terrorism following Saturday night's attack in London that left seven dead and almost 50 injured.

"We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse," Trump tweeted.

He then slammed London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who had tried to calm his city early Sunday morning with a statement that said there would be more police on the streets in the coming days and there's "no reason to be alarmed."

"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is no reason to be alarmed!'" Trump tweeted.

Two terrorist attacks took place in London on Saturday night. In one, terrorists drove a van at about 50 miles per hour into a crowd of people on London Bridge. At about the same time, multiple people were stabbed in a nearby part of London.

Police announced they shot and killed all of the suspects, who were wearing explosive vests. They did not have time to detonate those bombs. At least one innocent bystander was shot by police in the confusion, police said.

Trump poked at Democrats and other gun control activists Sunday morning as well, noting their silence in the wake of the attacks.

"Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!" he tweeted.

Not long after firing off that series of tweets, Trump left the White House for his Virginia golf course. While the White House wouldn't confirm Trump was golfing, he appeared to be dressed for the links, according to a press pool report.

His comments stirred up more outrage from critics on Twitter, but Khan himself couldn't be bothered to respond

Khan "is busy working with police, emergency services and the government to coordinate the response to this horrific and cowardly terrorist attack and provide leadership and reassurance to Londoners and visitors in our city," a spokesman said.

"He has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump's ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police including armed officers on the streets."

Excerpt from:

Trump slams 'political correctness' and gun control activists after London attacks - Washington Examiner

London a reminder that deadly political correctness perpetuates terrorism – The Hill (blog)

A toxic and deadly political correctness has enveloped Western Europe and enabled an unending wave of terrorist attacks. Refusing to utter the words radical Islamic extremism, opening the door to millions of half-vetted refugees and decrying the concepts of borders and assimilation have resulted in a culture in crisis a culture without democratic, freedom-loving identity and constantly under murderous attack from cancers within.

Seven dead in London. Twenty-two dead in Manchester. Twelve in Berlin. Eighty-seven in Nice. Forty-nine in Orlando. Thousands dead in the Middle East. All in the last year alone.

This is the reality we live in, and yet far too many have chosen to bury their heads in the sand of ignorance.

The fact that last Ramadan the Muslim holy month during which ISIS called for all-out war on infidels an Islamic terrorist attack occurred once every 84 hours. The fact that far-left Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted mistakes in admitting millions of refugees into her country. And the fact that 65 percent of all people convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in the U.S. were foreign-born, pointing to a clear, inextricable link between immigration and terrorism.

These are facts, in the face of which fictitious falsehoods are embraced.

To be sure, most immigrants are good and most Muslims are peaceful. But responsible leaders must nevertheless acknowledge the radical Islamic extremists that seek to cross our borders and kill our people.

America and Europe face a choice a choice between realism and idealism. While the American people chose the former on Nov. 8 in the election of Donald TrumpDonald TrumpGOP rep: Trumps tweeting very ill advised Arab nations risk gas insecurity over rift with Qatar After Saturdays attacks, the British election is more volatile than ever MORE, Europe and the establishment political classes in American society consistently choose the latter.

Angela Merkel chose idealism when she lectured President Trump at the NATO headquarters just over a week ago, saying it is not isolation and the building of walls that make us successful. The American courts have chosen idealism in striking down Trumps revised travel pause from seven countries where vetting proves impossible, despite the action being well within Trumps Article II powers. And Congress has chosen idealism in its refusal to allocate money for building a border wall along our southern border.

In stark contrast, President Trump has embraced realism full throttle. In addition to being maligned for his executive order on travel and his border wall, he was mocked by the severely out-of-touch chattering class for a slew of spot-on tweets in the aftermath of the London attacks, warning that [w]e must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. And he appropriately chastised London Mayor Sadiq Khan for suggesting there is no reason to be alarmed. This is the same London mayor who previously suggested that terrorism is just part and parcel of living in a big city.

Trumps realistic take was nevertheless shunned and rejected with flashy headlines.

"Donald Trumps ugly tweets on London are a step too far even for him," read the Telegraph.

Other headlines followed suit.

The Panic President.

Trump criticized for tweet on London mayor after bridge attacks.

We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse

At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"

Meanwhile, the twisted truth is that the London mayor, not President Trump deserves criticism for his soft, idealistic approach to terrorism.

Prime Minister Theresa May, for her part, took a tough, self-critical tone in acknowledging that the United Kingdom has shown far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.

But the time for words is over. The time for action is now. The words of European leaders ring hollow, especially contrasted with the actions of a president willing to defy political correctness in protecting the American citizenry.

Realistic, bold, unwavering action is not just advisable, but indispensible to protecting the homeland. Its easy to dismiss terrorism and point to its rarity, until someone you know and love becomes a victim of it. Our children, our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, our fathers will perish in a world of idealism.

Kayleigh McEnany (@KayleighMcEnany)is a graduate of Harvard Law School. She completed her undergraduate degree at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and studied politics at Oxford University.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Excerpt from:

London a reminder that deadly political correctness perpetuates terrorism - The Hill (blog)

Rep. King: ‘It’s Time to Put Political Correctness Aside’ | Fox News … – Fox News Insider

In the wake of another deadly terror attack in the United Kingdom, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says it's time to put political correctness aside and get serious about the threat of radical Islamic terror.

King, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and chairman of the House Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee, told Shannon Bream on "America's Newsroom" that all leaders should follow the lead of President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May and label these attacks "Islamist."

He said there are many counterterrorism actions we must take, but he prioritizes getting surveillance and intelligence on the Muslim community to prevent attacks before they happen.

"I don't know why anyone in the community who wants to stop terrorism would be opposed to that," King said. "We're not talking about breaking and entering, we're not talking about doing anything without warrants."

He said the reality is that we are locked in a war with radical Islamists who want to kill us, and the sooner we acknowledge that the better.

"It's time to put political correctness aside," King said. "That's why I was so pleased yesterday when Prime Minister May used the term 'Islamic extremism.' She used the word 'Islamist,' because that's where the threat it coming from."

CNN Host: Trump 'A Piece of S--t' for His Response to London Attack

Kerry Compares Trump to OJ Simpson on Climate Deal

London Mayor: British Capital 'One of the Safest Cities in the World'

Army Ranger Blasts London Mayor For Refusing to Mention 'Radical Islam'

Original post:

Rep. King: 'It's Time to Put Political Correctness Aside' | Fox News ... - Fox News Insider

Political correctness has strangled policy | Letters – Sun Sentinel

In the London Bridge terror attack, seven were left dead and 48 wounded, according to reports. ISIS takes credit while the media speculates about home-grown terrorists and the Trump travel ban.

What is clear is that the West is playing defense because the declaration of war has come only from radical Muslims, while political correctness has strangled policy and rhetoric for fear that moderate Muslims might be offended. Can anyone imagine our 1940's population not using the word "Nazi" for fear of offending Germans?

The Brits have capitulated. Sharia law reigns and police tiptoe through neighborhoods populated by locals and foreigners whose origins are unknown and unquestioned. The same is true in Paris, Brussels and a dozen other key European cities. And those liberals in America who support political correctness want open borders and sanctuary cities. These are invitations to repeat the London attacks here.

Washington will feel differently when the late news features radical attacks whose victims include the relatives of our most liberal representatives. You can bet on that.

Richard Klitzberg, Boca Raton

Here is the original post:

Political correctness has strangled policy | Letters - Sun Sentinel

Trump blasts London mayor, political correctness after terror attacks – USA TODAY

British authorities said on Saturday there are reports of multiple casualties following a major incident on London Bridge. (June 3) AP

President Trump(Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)

WASHINGTON President Trump responded to the terror attacks in London by taking aim at Londons mayor, political correctness and gun control.

In a series of early morning tweets, the president derided and misrepresented Mayor Sadiq Khan's attemptto calm Londoners after the third terror attack in Britain in less than three months.

At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!" said Trump.

In responding to the attacks, Khan told Londoners theres no reason to be alarmed by an increased police presence over the coming days while vowing of the terrorists that we will never let them win.

We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse, Trump said on Twitter. On Saturday night, police said sevenpeople died and at least 48 were injured after a van plowed into pedestrians on London Bridge and assailants went on a stabbing rampage at nearby Borough Market.

In a final tweet, Trump also seemed to blast the gun control debate in the United States. Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck! said Trump.

Britain has stricter gun laws than in the U.S. and prohibits semi-automatic rifles. In 2011, the U.K. had0.07 gun homicidesfor every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000.Further, the U.S. permits individuals on its terror watch list equal gun rights, including purchasing high-capacity weapons like the one Omar Mateen used last year to kill 49 people at an Orlando night club.

Trump's criticism of the mayor drew fire from Republicans in the U.S., including Doug Heye, a strategist and former top aide to House Republican leadership.

"I can't imagine Theresa May tweeting like this to the mayor of Orlando or San Bernadino," said Heye.

London police say Youssef Zaghba lived in East London, like his two accomplices in the deadly rampage. USA TODAY

1 of 15

British counterterrorism investigators searched two homes Monday and detained "a number" of people in the investigation into a van and knife attack in the heart of London that left seven people dead and dozens hurt. (June 5) AP

2 of 15

A major incident was ongoing in central London on Saturday night, with reports of a van hitting pedestrians on the London Bridge and stabbings in a nearby area. Time

3 of 15

Police say the three male attackers were wearing fake suicide vests. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

4 of 15

President Donald Trump says Americans are renewing their resolve to protect their country and their allies from a "vile enemy." Speaking publicly for the first time since the latest London attacks, Trump said "this bloodshed will end." (June 4) AP

5 of 15

People in the UK have responded to the deadly London Bridge attack with sorrow and distinctly British humor, hailing a man pictured walking away from the mayhem holding a pint of beer as a tongue-in-cheek symbol of defiance. (June 4) AP

6 of 15

Terror struck at the heart of London on Saturday night as attackers killed six people in a series of vehicle and knife attacks before police shot them dead. (June 4) AP

7 of 15

A 19-year-old student nurse believes she owes her life to a taxi driver who warned her about the attack in London Bridge on Saturday. Rhiannon Owen was using an ATM when a taxi driver shouted at her "You have to run! They've got a knife!' (June 4) AP

8 of 15

Haiwen Xu is a street performer from Exeter, U.K. who traveled to London after the London Bridge terror attack to play her handpan. USA TODAY

9 of 15

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community members gathered at London Bridge on Sunday to show solidarity according to spokesman Usman Khan. USA TODAY

10 of 15

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has strongly condemned the recent terror attacks in London and Manchester, saying tougher measures are needed as "terrorism breeds terrorism" and attackers copy each other. (June 4) AP

11 of 15

Just hours after two violent incidents occurred in London, President Donald Trump doubled down on his call for a travel ban on social media. Susana Victoria Perez (@susana_vp) has more. Buzz60

12 of 15

London is on high alert following a terrorist incident Saturday night, which police say killed at least seven people and injured 48. Time

13 of 15

British authorities said on Saturday there are reports of multiple casualties following a major incident on London Bridge. (June 3) AP

14 of 15

London police say they are dealing with an incident on London Bridge. (June 3) AP

15 of 15

Third London attacker identified by British police

More detained in London Bridge attack probe

What to know about the London Bridge attack

12 arrested in connection to London Bridge, borough market attack

Trump: U.S. 'will do everything to help U.K.'

Raw: Man flees London attack while holding beer

London attack leaves 6 dead; Police shoot 3

London eyewitness: 'I was so scared, i just ran'

Street performer travels 200 miles to London to play 'healing instrument'

Members of international Muslim group show solidarity London Bridge

UK PM: We must turn minds away from violence

Trump accused of politicizing London attacks on Twitter

Theresa May responds to London Bridge attack

Multiple casualties reported in London incident

Raw: Police respond to incident on London Bridge

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sDMt3L

More:

Trump blasts London mayor, political correctness after terror attacks - USA TODAY

How political correctness kills credibility – Baltimore Sun

While welcoming a conference on the connections between universities and slavery, history professor and Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust apologized for her university's contacts with the horrible institution of American slavery. According to the New York Times, President Faust observed that "only by coming to terms with history can we free ourselves to create a more just world." The conference discussed reparations, and ways to abolish any historical recognition of Harvard's 18th and 19th century faculty and benefactors who practiced or defended the enslavement of their fellow human beings.

Strangely, despite Harvard's focus on global citizenship rather than the American variety, President Faust never condemned Harvard's substantial ties with Saudi Arabia, a nation-state that only came around to abolishing slavery in 1962. Should not Harvard come to terms with this history?

Nor did President Faust mention China, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco or any of the 26 nation-states representing most of humanity that abolished slavery after for some long after 300,000 Union soldiers died in large part to end American slavery.

Nor did President Faust apologize for certain 20th century Harvard faculty who defended Communist regimes that enslaved hundreds of millions. According to The Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, Marxist governments killed over 80 million people in the 20th century. North Korea and Cuba add to the death toll well into the 21st century. State ownership of the means of employment, including the news media, remains a form of systematic exploitation that only Bernie Sanders, and some professors, have the mendacity to defend.

How can university-based intellectuals condemn exploitation in traditional regimes while ignoring it in "progressive" ones? Should not Harvard consider reparations for those still living victims of Marxism? Do not they merit a museum, a conference or at least a debate?

Sadly, colleges don't do debates. In my 40 years in academia, I can recall only four. As Peter Beinart reports in The Atlantic, the same week as the Harvard conference student activists at Middlebury College violently disrupted a talk by conservative American Enterprise Insitute scholar Charles Murray. His interlocutor, left-leaning political science professor Allison Stanger, landed in the hospital after escorting Mr. Murray away from a hostile mob, some wearing ski masks.

If masked Trump supporters committed this kind of violence at a rally, the news media and academia would be all over it, and rightly so. Yet save for two local affiliates in Vermont and Boston, National Public Radio, which features regular accounts portraying the Trump movement as fascist, failed to cover events at elite Middlebury, where leftist blackshirts did everything short of book burning to stop the free exchange of ideas.

What gives? Historically, as political scientist Stanley Rothman showed in "The End of the Experiment" (meaning the American Experiment), after the 1960s, New Left activists worked their way up in cultural, media and educational institutions, gaining power and developing a politically correct etiquette. Unlike prior elites, many had little support for American institutions and only conditional backing for constitutional values like free speech. Consider, for example, the attempts at 90 mainly elite colleges and universities to disinvite (mainly conservative) speakers.

Whatever their good intentions, in the same way that overwhelmingly white institutions often ignore minority concerns, the overwhelmingly left leanings of the media, Hollywood and academia make it natural for members of those cultural institutions to exaggerate threats to freedom from the right, and ignore or even defend those from the left.

Though largely unconscious, this political correctness undermines the credibility of elite institutions to judge fitness for public office, something an essentially unfit showman, Donald Trump, exploited all the way to the White House.

A Baltimore native, Robert Maranto (rmaranto@uark.edu) is the 21st century chair in leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.

More:

How political correctness kills credibility - Baltimore Sun

Choose Wisely: Political Correctness Or A Retreat To Conservative Censorship? – The Pavlovic Today

President Trump has no time for political correctness. What about you?

Beginning with the very inception of the country, conservative censorship has dominated the United States of America as a way to moderate public opinion. Beginning in the twenty-first century, however, a new kind of censorship dominated the headlines, schoolrooms, and workplaces of America: liberal political correctness. With the rise of right-wing ideals and isolationism, will we witness

This new liberal PC mentality seemingly accentuated a widespread shift from a traditional, religion-based outlook to the more contemporary inclusive, modern toleration-based outlook.

Political correctness has been criticized recently. From comedians to politicians, the doctrine is criticized for limiting free speech, overacting to even slightly offensive comments, and overall, acting as the thought police. The most obvious, essentially unmissable advocate against political correctness is, of course, President Donald Trump. At the first GOP debate, he stated that he has no time for political correctness, after replying to questions demanding why he has called women pigs and dogs in the past.

This societal censorship did not have liberal origins, however. Many forget that conservative-based censorship was ubiquitous in the twentieth-century. In 1918, for instance, the Sedition Act was enacted, effectively making it impossible to speak out against the United States government. The act barred any type of anti-government criticism that was profane, scurrilous, or abusive language. The penalty for such an offense? $10,000 and/or twenty years in prison. Eugene V. Debs, a prominent American socialist, was imprisoned for making an anti-war speech in 1918 under a similar law.

Even in 2013, almost one hundred years later, right-wing censorship is prevalent. Neil Gaimans book, Neverwhere, was banned in a New Mexico school after a parent complained of a sex scene and The F-word.

The Harry Potter series has come under attack for promoting witchcraft. One of the most thought-provoking and moving works of literature in recent memory, Brave New World, was also criticized for its anti-religion and anti-family values.

Literature has not been the only thing censored. The Pentagon Papers, published in part by The New York Times in 1971 were released after the government threatened to punish the company under the same law the aforementioned Eugene V. Debs was put up against. The Times later stated the papers were a great example of the widespread lying and censorship enacted by the Johnson administration.

The public-school superintendent in Georgia, Kathy Cox, was proposing banning the word evolution so as to not offend more conservative parents. The absurdity of this proposal is simply astounding.

However, with the growing backlash against liberal PC, we may see a retreat to conservative-based censorship. The pendulum of political influence may very well swing back to these kinds of restrictions. This development is doubtlessly influenced by the retreat of globalization and the possibility of the end of democracy as we know it.

Follow this link:

Choose Wisely: Political Correctness Or A Retreat To Conservative Censorship? - The Pavlovic Today

Political Correctness Hits Annual Easter Egg Hunt In Britain – Daily Caller

5575301

Plans to take the Easter out of an annual Easter egg hunt in Britain are under fire as an unnecessary act of political correctness.

Both the Church of England and Prime Minister Theresa May have condemned the move by the National Trust, a conservation charity responsible for organizing the annual event.

Last year it was called the Easter egg Trail. This year it is being promoted as the Great British Egg Hunt with Easter being lost in the transition.

This marketing campaign . . . highlights the folly in airbrushing faith from Easter, said an official statement from the Church of England that was sent to The Washington Post. A church spokeswoman added that senior church leaders are adamantly against the re-branding.

Some 300,000 children are expected to attend this years hunt, held at 250 sites owned by the National Trust, a charity that promotes conservation. It partners with Cadbury, the maker of the chocolate eggs for the hunt.

Finger-pointing is already underway as to who decided to remove the reference to Easter.

The National Trust is in no way downplaying the significance of Easter, a spokesman told the Telegraph, placing the blame for the growing fiasco on Cadburys board of directors who are responsible for the branding and wording of our egg hunt campaign.

Prime Minister May is a member of the National Trust, and she has not minced her criticism of the charitys decision to bow to political correctness especially since it wasnt even under any pressure to do so.

I think what the National Trust is doing is frankly just ridiculous, May told ITV Nanews. Easters very important. Its important to me, its a very important festival for the Christian faith for millions across the world.

Though Easter has been banished from all event advertising, it can be found on Cadburys website, which contains a reference to consumers of chocolate being welcome to Enjoy Easter Fun if they participate in the annual egg hunt.

Cadbury tiptoes around the Christian origins of the festival, assuring people of their multicultural bonafides in a statement that even includes atheists: We invite people from all faiths and none to enjoy our seasonal treats.

Archbishop John Sentamu of York said Cadbury is adding insult to injury by renaming the event because the companys founder, John Cadbury, was a devout Quaker who recognized the Christian significance of Easter.

To drop Easter from Cadburys Easter Egg Hunt in my book is tantamount to spitting on the grave of Cadbury, Sentamu said in a statement.

He built houses for all his workers, he built a church, he made provision for schools, Sentamu said. It is obvious that for him Jesus and justice were two sides of the one coin.

Follow David on Twitter

Continue reading here:

Political Correctness Hits Annual Easter Egg Hunt In Britain - Daily Caller

When Republicans defend Republicans’ bad behavior, we justify ‘political correctness’ – Mooresville Tribune

When Republicans defend Republicans' bad behavior, we justify 'political correctness'

Donald Trump's presidential campaign almost ended with his "grab them by the p -- -- -- y" riff. Last month, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, stood by his statement that "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies." Last week, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly watched a clip of Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, speaking on the House floor and mocked her by saying, on air: "I didn't hear a word she said. I was looking at the James Brown wig."

Enough Americans voted for Trump last year to prove that his unprecedented crassness wasn't fatal to his political aspirations. King has gotten away with a series of racially inflammatory remarks (Remember "calves the size of cantaloupes?"). O'Reilly offered an apology, but instead of taking him to task, the Daily Caller's Jim Treacher argued that critics were playing a racial "gotcha" game. CNN commentator Ben Ferguson deflected blame from O'Reilly by wondering aloud, about Waters, "Isn't she a racist for saying that the white guy, who was elected president, who had done nothing wrong, but get elected, should be impeached?" And former Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Georgia, played down O'Reilly's comments by saying, "It always seems like it's OK to make fun of a conservative, but liberals are off -- you can't touch 'em. . . . Making fun of Maxine Waters's hair, making fun of Donald Trump's hair, I don't know what the difference is."

Go far enough back and recall that after Missouri Rep. Todd Akin suggested that women possess innate biological defenses against "legitimate rape," his fellow Republicans, former Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, still endorsed his 2012 Senate bid, calling him the candidate of "freedom-loving Americans."

I'm not naive enough to be stunned by Akin, King, O'Reilly or Trump, but as a Republican, I continue to be dismayed by the willingness of fellow Republicans and conservatives to overlook, rationalize and excuse this type of behavior. And each time I see conservatives defending, or looking away from, other conservatives' noxious behavior, I become less and less sure that liberals aren't justified in taking the sometimes-condescending, always-disapproving "politically correct" approach that they do in these all-too-predictable episodes.

Maybe liberals are so "P.C." because conservatives keep making excuses for bad behavior.

I didn't always think this way about liberal highhandedness toward Republicans. I used to co-sign the typical conservative rejoinder to political correctness, which generally goes something like "Life's not fair, so please get over yourself." My feelings were rooted in my experiences as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic graduate school environment, where my liberal colleagues routinely derided my political views.

That case against political correctness was used to great effect in the 2016 presidential election, starting at a GOP primary debate when then-candidate Donald Trump addressed the litany of derogatory statements he's made toward women by saying: "The big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people, and I don't, frankly, have time for total political correctness."

But even if there's a grain of truth to Trump's logic, in general, it's not a catchall that makes it OK when a politician -- or anyone -- takes a cheap shot that's uncivil and degrading at best, and sexist or racist (or both) at worst. Impatience with political correctness isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for a future president to mock a disabled reporter. Ritual deployment of the supposedly un-P.C. phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't a foreign policy.

And it's not just being politically correct to publicly scrutinize the serial allegations of sexual harassment against O'Reilly. If even half of what's been alleged by women who say he harassed them is true, he's a disgrace, and so is any conservative or Republican who decides that what he's done doesn't merit consequences just because O'Reilly's shame might also be cheered by liberals. Already, 20 companies have announced that they're pulling advertising from O'Reilly's show, even though it's the gold standard when it comes to cable news ratings. The question now is whether self-respecting conservatives and Republicans will stand on principle or if, as former Republican Capitol Hill communications director Tara Setmayer wrote recently for Cosmopolitan, they continue to circle the wagons around him just because he's on their team.

If that's what they do, it would be pretty indecent, but it would also turn out to be bad politics.

Yes, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wisconsin, was rewarded for choosing expediency over morality by endorsing Trump's candidacy even as he condemned Trump's attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage as "the textbook definition of a racist comment." In doing so, Ryan confirmed an unsettling truth: When some in the Party of Lincoln witness racism, it's not necessarily a dealbreaker. Indeed, the GOP won big in 2016 embracing the same rhetoric I'm calling out now -- rhetoric we said we were leaving behind in the 2013 autopsy report commissioned after Mitt Romney's 2012 defeat.

But antagonism is only a short-term strategy. Trump lost the popular vote with our current demographic landscape by a margin of almost 3 million, and demographics are rapidly changing, not in his favor. Republicans who treat 2016 as the rule rather than the exception will come to regret it.

More important is acknowledging, before we try to beat political correctness into extinction, is that it's not political correctness to expect common courtesy and respect. And it's not a burden on a politician or anyone else to refrain from making sexist and racist remarks. It's both the right thing to do, and an approach in keeping with the values that the Republican Party is supposed to stand for, including judging all people as individuals, not caricaturing them because of their race or gender.

It's hard to deny that we've become a society where people are put out by the smallest slights, real or perceived. Conservatives are right to bristle at left-wing condescension, and liberals would be foolish to ignore that their elitism helped fuel Trump's rise. But this cuts both ways, and every time conservatives and Republicans let an O'Reilly slide -- rather than take a stand in favor of common decency - the "politically correct" scorn of liberals becomes just a bit more justified. Hoping that the GOP becomes the Party of Lincoln again may be wishful thinking. But if that's what we aspire to, no longer defending the indefensible would be a start.

- Wright is the author of "On Behalf of the President: Presidential Spouses and White House Communications Strategy Today" and a board member of the White House Transition Project. She begins a teaching appointment in the Department of Politics at Princeton University in the Fall 2017 semester.

Sign up for the Todays WorldView Newsletter The Washington Post.

Washington Post News Service (DC)

4/5/2017 9:30:21 AM Central Daylight Time

Continue reading here:

When Republicans defend Republicans' bad behavior, we justify 'political correctness' - Mooresville Tribune

Marvel V.P. Admits Political Correctness Killed Comic Sales … – FrontPage Magazine


FrontPage Magazine
Marvel V.P. Admits Political Correctness Killed Comic Sales ...
FrontPage Magazine
While the Marvel-Disney monster has been ruling the box office, Marvel Comics sales have been having serious issues. One obvious factor was trying to force ...
ICv2: Marvel's David Gabriel on the 2016 Market ShiftICv2
G. Willow Wilson / So About That Whole ThingG. Willow Wilson
ICv2: Marvel Retailer Summit -- Day 1ICv2
Gizmodo -Fortune
all 122 news articles »

See the article here:

Marvel V.P. Admits Political Correctness Killed Comic Sales ... - FrontPage Magazine

Editorial: freedom of speech in an era of political-correctness, part two – Daily Sundial

Though there should always be legal and moral standards to how we go about exercising our freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition, political correctness does not actually infringe on anyones freedom of speech.

However, political correctness (PC) culture can contribute to social division or polarization. The contemporary philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, argues that political correctness doesnt really allow you to overcome racism. Its just oppressed controlled racism. As any culture that becomes dominant in a given area, a number of sub-cultures are bound to form in response and sometimes for the mere sake of opposition. When speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos openly state I just want to burn it down, theyre making intentional provocations that stem from the sheer desire to oppose majority thought.

On one hand, we have the ability to cultivate a space around ourselves where we dont have to hear or expose ourselves to different opinions. We can un-friend people on social media, walk away from a politically charged family dinner, and ignore reading or listening to particular media sources that do not share the same value system as ours. However, this mentality just further polarizes people, undermines inter-community relations and severely limits our own ability to grow as individuals.

To exercise our freedom, the kind that is not necessarily governed by any nation or piece of paper but that is governed by our own critical, reasoning, minds, we must question how genuine our thoughts truly are. Since context plays such a crucial role in the formation and expression of ones thoughts, whether it be in the context of PC or anti-PC culture, reasoning and introspection are necessary. As the 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said in Critique of Pure Reason, there is nothing higher than reason.

When individuals feel that their freedom of speech is being violated, they feel they cannot speak for fear of retaliation or some social form of excommunication. Jon Ronson explores the consequences and nature of our modern democratization of justice via online shaming in his novel, So Youve Been Publicly Shamed. He writes, we are defining the boundaries of normality by tearing apart the people outside it. In this vicious cycle, weve reached a level of polarization where the minds power to reason begins to stale. It becomes easier to stew in anger than to deconstruct and answer whats so righteous about that righteous indignation.

If an opinion is held solely because it dwells in an echo-chamber of whispers or because its written in stone, then the holder of such an opinion is not using their natural privilege as a human being to use critical thinking before expressing the truth, or their truth, as they believe and reason it to be. Freedom of speech is arduously protected in America and exercised in many ways, but its nothing without the freedom to reason.

Kant goes on to state, thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. Therefore, sincerity in words and reasoning behind those words helps illuminate the point of solidarity, that steady point on a precarious path. To teeter from thoughts and words that are subjective truths and that hold reason far beyond intuition is where one risks falling into the trap of a narrow-minded perspective. In addition, processing words solely by their context of communication can also lead someone to succumb to that frame of mind.

Freedom of speech, as its protected by our government, allows for us, our peers, colleagues, friends, neighbors, the disenfranchised, the silent, the underrepresented, the overlooked, to have a voice. No one should be pressured or forced into quietude, not when we have both the constitutional freedom of speech and the natural freedom to reason. Every time we pick up a microphone to speak, sit behind a computer to type, or march behind a picket sign, its not just what we say, but why we say it that matters.

Read the rest here:

Editorial: freedom of speech in an era of political-correctness, part two - Daily Sundial

Littleproud: program is ‘political correctness gone too far’ – Warwick Daily News

ONCE upon a time, fairy tales were a staple of children's reading material, but the traditional tales have come under fire in Victoria for promoting traditional gender roles.

A teaching aid in the Respectful Relationship program wants state school students to examine the roles of characters in classic stories like Beauty and the Beast, Snow White and Cinderella and compare them to modern stories challenging gender norms.

Preschool books and toys could also be audited to determine whether they promote gender stereotypes, under the Victorian government plan to address family violence.

Member for Maranoa David Littleproud has weighed in on the debate and urged parents and teachers not to let political correctness get in the way of a good story. I

"Domestic violence is a scourge in our community but I don't think asking very young children to pick apart a fairy tale to find the sexist elements is the answer - it's simply political correctness gone too far and I don't want to see it in Queensland," Mr Littleproud said.

"Fable legends Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen's traditional fairy tales are about life lessons and convey morals but remember these were written more than 100 years ago and should be read as they are, not through an adult-enforced magnifying glass.

"Contemporary story-tellers - like Disney-Pixar's Inside Out and Disney's Frozen - are great as they explore views on mental health and shifting gender roles but they're movies and don't offer the same enrichment as reading a book.

"Reading, writing and arithmetic should be a school's foundation and domestic violence education and positive role models are key to breaking the cycle.

"Science backs up the importance of reading so please don't stop reading to your kids."

The Respectful Relationships program, which claims children as young as four can exhibit sexist behaviour, was recommended by the family violence royal commission.

Critics of the the program however claim it exposes children to gender theory and notions of gender-based violence too early.

Original post:

Littleproud: program is 'political correctness gone too far' - Warwick Daily News

Nick Ferrari: Political correctness is turning our police into social services – Express.co.uk

GETTY

Police in Durham are to hand out free heroin to drug users. They say it will both cut crime and save money and will encourage addicts to keep to the straight and narrow.

But the cost per addict per annum is an eye-watering 15,000. This is utter nonsense. All this will achieve is to give addicts clean fixes.

Surely the only aim here should be to get these addicts off drugs and its darned difficult to envisage how that would happen.

Campaigners say that addiction is an illness akin to cancer and the victim should be treated in a similar fashion. In some instances there will be some justification for that view.

When will our PCs stop being so PC?

Nick Ferrari

Someone unfortunate enough to have little or no parental guidance, who then goes on to fail at school, finds it impossible to get a job then has a disastrous relationship with a partner, is likely to seek something that numbs the ceaseless pain and dims consciousness of their appalling situation.

Obviously, sympathy and help should be afforded to them, but giving them free heroin is not the answer. Then, there are those who commit a litany of offences to fuel their habit and the insanity of this madcap scheme will actually reward them.

So lets get this straight: taxpayers cash will be spent to fund a criminals lifestyle and the drugs handed over by the police. Who came up with this idea, Pete Doherty?

GETTY

Current legislation against drugs has failed and the long line of police chiefs who have promised to wage war on drugs have come up empty-handed.

Its not entirely their fault as, in many cases, the courts have failed to impose the sorts of sentences that could be seen to have any effect but the prevalence of drug use increases by the day.

The drugs are easier to come by and are cheaper and the money the dealers can make continues to increase as demand soars.

Justifying the plan in Durham, Chief Constable Mike Barton said: We need to get over our moral panic about giving people heroin as part of a treatment plan. Our primary concern is to prevent crime... Addiction is a medical problem not a criminal justice problem.

And there we have it. A senior police officer lecturing us about why we need not panic over giving free drugs to junkies. What if one of these addicts has 18 months of free heroin and then goes back to crime?

Do you suppose we get our 22,500 back? No, me neither.

Sadly, this is just another step in the path of decline for our police who are being turned into social workers. Their authority is constantly diminished and then politicians are baffled when crime increases.

On Friday it was revealed that knife crime has increased to the highest level in six years and this is in no small way due to the restrictions imposed on police by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary to limit the amount of stop and searches.

Police have to explain why they are stopping a possible suspect and then give them a sheet detailing everything that took place.

GETTY

While I am not advocating people being routinely dragged off the streets and hurled into the back of a van by police and kept in a darkened cell for hours, surely the balance has gone the other away.

There are still plenty of good police officers out there, I speak with them regularly on my call-in breakfast radio show, and they are even more frustrated with how their hands are tied than we are.

The role of the police is to protect us and lock up the bad guys. Positioning themselves almost as NHS outreach workers is not the way forward, but just when will our PCs stop being so PC?

It is a scandal that many of the relatives of those who lost their lives in the calamitous Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were not invited to the unveiling of a memorial to the fallen by the Queen in London last week.

PA

More than 600 servicemen and women laid down their lives in those wars so who on Earth took the decision not to offer invitations to their families?

Occupying some of the best seats, instead, were members of the Royal Family and current and former senior politicians, which is right even in the case of Tony Blair, the man who took us into the disastrous wars, as he would have been damned if he did attend and equally damned if he did not.

However, why were former ambassadors invited instead of proud family members? It wouldnt have brought all those brave men and women back, but it would have showed how much the lost ones were valued.

What is it with this Government and doctors? As if they are not bruised enough after their lengthy battle with the junior doctors there is now a plan to allow patients to name and shame GPs with long waiting times.

Architects of the scheme say it will encourage surgeries to improve. Cobblers. It will sour the relationship between patient and doctor and demoralise our GPs yet further.

Read the original post:

Nick Ferrari: Political correctness is turning our police into social services - Express.co.uk

Give political correctness a failing grade – Canoe News – Canoe

Michele Mandel, Postmedia Network Mar 10, 2017

, Last Updated: 10:19 PM ET

Its time we gave rampant political correctness on campus a failing grade.

A Ryerson University student is told she can only use feminist sources for her paper and dont bother consulting Statistics Canada. Its part of the patriarchy.

A University of Toronto professor is threatened and vilified by peers and students because he dared to use his right to free speech and refuse to use gender neutral pronouns.

A renowned criminal lawyer is told she isnt welcome to speak on campus by womens studies students who object to her defence of Jian Ghomeshi on sexual assault charges.

When did institutions of higher learning decide there is only one way to think and anything outside that world view can be censored and silenced? And why are we funding this insanity?

A business and marketing major at Ryerson, Jane Mathias is taking a sociology elective. The 21-year-old wanted to write a paper about the gender gap myth but was told by her instructor that her premise is wrong.

Instead, she should write about the glass ceiling and consult only feminist sources. Do NOT use business sources. They blame women. The reality is patriarchy, the instructor wrote in her e-mail. Not even government agencies such as Statistics Canada would be considered acceptable scholarly sources, she said, because they usually reproduce mainstream stereotypes, assumptions and misconceptions.

Are you kidding me?

Dr. Jordan Peterson was bemused at my surprise. I know, when you first discover it, you say What the hell; whats going on here? he acknowledged. Unfortunately, its pretty par for the course. This is standard practice.

He should know. The U of T psychology prof ignited a firestorm of criticism last fall from trans activists, faculty and students when he ran afoul of the PC police by posting a video on his YouTube channel saying that he wouldnt use gender-neutral pronouns such as they, ze and zir. Protesters called for his dismissal and someone poured glue into the lock of his office door.

Wheres the intellectual discourse, the room for contrary views?

This is the thing people dont understand about postmodernism: postmodernists dont debate. They dont believe in debate, its not part of the creed, Peterson argued.

All these ethnic studies, gender studies, most of the humanities, a good chunk of the social sciences, its all gone down the postmodern rabbit hole. Theres no debate. Its a political war. You dont talk to the other side.

Dialogue with those you dont agree with would be giving them a platform and respect they dont deserve. Instead, you just shut it down. This is how it is. This is a university, he sighed. It sure would be nice if was unbelieveable, but unfortunately, its how it is.

So Mathias was told her paper was offside even before shed typed a word. Shes basically telling her shes wrong before shes heard her argument, the professor said in exasperation. Your premise is wrong? Guess what, thats what you decide after you read the essay.

Theres no room for critical thinking or alternative argument. Isnt that what university is supposed to be about?

Everything bad is about patriarchy, scoffed Peterson said. Why does hunger exist? Patriarchy. Why does suffering exist? Patriarchy. Its so pathetic.

Many students tell him they fear their only way to get good grades is to shut up and toe the party line. I tell them you never, ever bend what you think to suit a professors whim. Thats not education.

That, he said, is indoctrination.

So whats the solution? His advice is almost as radical as some of the ideas he protests.

Cut the university funding by 25% until they sort themselves out. Id starve them because some decisions have to be made. But failing that, people have to wake up and understand where theyre sending their children.

Universities have become little more than cults and Ive seen them do serious damage to their students mental health.

Read Mandel Wednesday through Saturday.

Read the original:

Give political correctness a failing grade - Canoe News - Canoe

Political correctness sends ACC from Tobacco Road to Brooklyn – Power Line (blog)

For decades, the ACC basketball tournament has been held almost exclusively in North Carolina, along Tobacco Road. Between 1954, the first year of the tournament, and 1975, it took place in that state every year.

Following a trip to Landover, Maryland in 1976 (where Virginia won its first championship), the tourney returned to North Carolina for six of the next eight seasons. After a few visits to Landover and Atlanta, it was held in the Tar Heel State for 11 consecutive years, and 14 out of 15.

During the 51 year period I have described, North Carolina teams usually made up less than half of the ACC. I dont ever recall them comprising more than half, though they might have during the very early years before I was a fan.

Yet, the ACC consistently bestowed a home state advantage on Duke, North Carolina, North Carolina State, and Wake Forest, at the expense of Maryland, Virginia, and Clemson and (at various times) South Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Florida State.

Clemson has never won the tournament; it has been the runner-up only twice. Florida State has won it once (Atlanta); Virginia has won it twice (once in Maryland); Georgia Tech has won it three times (twice in Atlanta).

Maryland even though it had a great program in the 1970s, the first half of the 80s, most of the 90s, and the first several years of this century only won the tournament twice during this period (1984 and 2004). During this era it had as many trips to the Final Four as it had ACC championships. (The Terps also won the tournament back in 1958).

Fairly recently, the ACC added teams from all over the place e.g. Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Miami, Notre Dame, and Boston College (meanwhile, Maryland left the conference). North Carolina schools now make up less than 30 percent of the league. Yet, that state has hosted five of the last seven tournaments.

It would have held this years tournament too. However, political correctness accomplished what sports equity could not it drove the ACC tourney out of North Carolina.

The event is currently taking place in. . .Brooklyn. No ACC team is located in that area. The closest, I think, is Boston College, more than three and a half hours away.

At last, a truly neutral court.

The ACC moved its tournament in response to North Carolinas bathroom law. Its the same spirit of political correctness that caused the NBA to move this years all-star game from Charlotte to New Orleans and the NCAA to move two rounds of its mens basketball tournament out of the state. I expressed my disgust with this practice here.

Today, the Washington Post, without mentioning how the ACC tournament landed in Brooklyn, tried to make that borough look like a natural fit. It noted that Frank McGuire, who was a big deal coach 50 years ago, was a New Yorker who recruited successfully in that city.

No disrespect to McGuire, Charlie Scott, or Kenny Anderson, but I think this is a case of any port in a political storm. If the ACC hadnt been able to find a non-North Carolina venue in the continental U.S., I suspect it was prepared to go to Alaska. Heck, former ACC stars Trajan Langdon and Carlos Boozer came from there.

The ACC tournament isnt a big deal these days, given the inflated, incoherent nature of the conference and the fact that a large number of its teams will make the NCAA tournament regardless of what happens in Brooklyn. Unless youre a fan of one of the semi-finalists, theres not much reason to watch the event this weekend. That the conference pulled the tourney out of North Carolina for political reasons is a good reason not to watch it.

Read the original:

Political correctness sends ACC from Tobacco Road to Brooklyn - Power Line (blog)

‘La La Land’ is the Ultimate Victim of Hollywood’s Political … – Heat Street

Memories of the epic Oscars mishap might be receding but a different sense of injusticeto La La Land, completely unrelated to Warren Beattygetting the wrong envelope, still lingers.

On the surface, it might be difficult to argue that a movie that just won sixAcademy Awards is a victim of anything. But its time to ask: is La La Land a victim of sex, gender and racial politics?

Moonlight is a good movie, a lyrical chronicle of growing up poor, gay and black in America. Yet this movie has been made many times before (from Tea and Sympathy in 1956 toBlue is the Warmest Colorin 2013). The twist is that this time, its a black kid. MahershalaAli deserved his Oscar. But is Moonlight the best movie of the year?

By contrast, La La Land is a deceptively simple movie. The operative word here is deceptive. It seems like an old-fashioned movie, but its not. Its an homage to sentimental Hollywood musicals that is never sentimental itself.

It tells one of the oldest stories in the book. Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy loses girl. Also, much has already been said about La La Land. The seemingly uncut opening scene is a magic trick that will be taught in film schools forever. While its devastating that the boy doesnt end up with the girl, if he had the movie would be another stupid Hollywood musical with a happy ending.

La La Land is in fact about art, what it means to be an artist and what you have to sacrifice to become one. Dedication to ones craft at the expense of all else, is one of writer-director Damien Chazelles themes (see the painful break-up in his previous film Whiplash).

When the two characters first meet, theyre in la-la-land, in other words, immature, and confused. By the end of the movie, they have achieved what they set out to do. They made each other better and put each other on their proper paths. Their relationship was not a failure; it was essential to their development as artists. But are they happy? The look of resignation on Mias face as Sebastian simply nods, as if to say Its OK, speaks volumes in the last shot.

While Ryan Gosling cant sing and Emma Stone isnt much better, this is not supposed to be My Fair Lady.It had to be two actors singing badly and dancing imperfectly. The point is that ordinary people can do extraordinary things when inspired, by love or by art, as were the filmmakers here.

It would be meaningless if they were great singers and dancerstheir craft is jazz and acting, not singing and dancing. It is not coincidental either that they make beautiful music together and that the singing and dancing stops once their relationship begins to sour. It was planned.

The point of making a musical (Dancer in the Dark for instance) is exactly to contrast the real life struggles, non-musical scenes, with ones imaginary world (La La Land) where everything is beautiful like an Astaire and Rodgers musical number. Chazelle may be only 32, but with La La Land he has made a true masterpiece.

However, the movie has committed several sins against politically correct Hollywood. To begin with, it had the audacity to be commercially successful, making over $371 million worldwide.

Hollywood doesnt like rewarding success with an Oscar (look at Steven Spielbergs blockbuster Oscar track record orAlfred Hitchcock, arguably the greatest director of all time, only having won an honorary Academy Award).

More importantly, La La Land has been accused of political incorrectness by various groups including women, blacks and jazz lovers. Critics havecomplained about the moviesgender politics.

Morgan Leigh Davis noted in theLA Review of Books that Mia is not much more than a bystander in her own story: Sebastians drive and dedication are more textured than Mias, and it is his melody that recurs through the film to denote particularly important moments in their relationship. Er, its called a musical motif. Sebastian is the author of their relationship who, byintroducing her to jazz and taking her to see Rebel Without a Cause, is teaching her about life.

Sebastian is director Chazelles alter ego and therefore, the driving force behind the movie. The movie is essentially told from his point of view. Maybe it would have been different if a woman had written and directed it. But a woman didnt.

Worse yet, the movie has been hammered for racial politics. Critics who are perhaps still getting over Trumps election accuseChazelle of agreeing that life was better in the 1950s because America was segregated, since the movie is a throw back to the musicals of the 1950s.

This is absurd. George Michael, Toyota Prius, Soft Cell, cell phones and other elements featured in the film didnt existed in the 1950s. This is not a political movie by any stretch of imagination.

La La Land is about being dedicated to art and the sacrifice that is required in pursuit of that dream. To interpret it as promoting racism is using unbelievably convoluted logic? Do wecriticize Apollo 13 because none of the astronauts were black?

Over at MTV News, Ira Madison III claims: If youre gonna make a film about an artist staying true to the roots of jazz against the odds, youd think that artist would be black.

So the claim goes, Sebastian wants to save jazz, but that is not acceptable because he is white. According to this line of reasoning, Chet Baker, Buddy Rich and countless other white jazz musicians should be wiped from the history of jazz merely because as they happen to be caucasian.

There have been numerous other criticisms about the paucity of black leads (er, John Legend?), homosexual leads, and misguided accusations of intellectual snobbery. But once again, this is not a movie that explores the themes being questioned.

The backlash against La La Land exactly accounts for why so much of mainstream America hates the two Coasts. Why does every show, every movie, every cartoon have to have a homosexual, a minority, or a disenfranchised character?

Isnt that reverse discrimination? Isnt it precisely the kind of thinking that is dividing us further into two people who dont understand each other?

We are not African-Americans, or Native-Americans, or White-Americans. We are all simply Americans, said Teddy Roosevelt over 100 years ago. Chazelle, a jazz drummer in his own right, has made a deeply personal movie about creative dedication. The movie is based on his experiences.

Is he supposed to apologize because he happens to be white, straight, and a man? His protagonist is his alter ego. Wouldnt it be hypocritical if Sebastian was black? (And while were on the subject, didnt we just have a President who is black but went out of his way to help white rich Americans more than any other group?)

Hollywood prides itself on being politically correct and gender, sex, race and socioeconomic-class inclusive.

Moonlight, a far inferior movie to La La Land, won because it is about being poor, gay, and black.

In the current political atmosphere, what could be better than sending a strong messages while 100 billion viewers are watching.The overriding message? Take that Mr. Trump, we told you all right! Talk about a Hollywood ending.

The perceived cultural shortcomings stacked against the political correctness represented byMoonlightrobbed La La Land of its rightful Best Movie Oscar.

See the rest here:

'La La Land' is the Ultimate Victim of Hollywood's Political ... - Heat Street

Political correctness is curtailing free speech: Letters – LA Daily News

Political correctness is curtailing free speech

Re Does America have a free-speech problem? (Question of the Week, Feb. 27):

Yes, we are losing our ability to speak freely in public. It started with the politically correct movement on our college and university campuses.

To this day, I do not understand the people who objected to the naming of football teams after ethnic groups such as the American Indian. I always thought that the American Indian warrior was a very brave and furious warrior fighting for the right to live as and where he wished. To me, he is to be admired. The warriors on football teams must have felt the same way when their team was carrying the names that represented American Indians.

It used to be that discourse of differing ideas and ideologies was welcomed, especially on college and university campuses. How it seems that any differing ideas from the popular belief of the day are not to be allowed to be uttered in public or published.

The professor who told her students that Donald Trump is a good person was admonished for her beliefs. If she prefaced her statements with the statement that they were her opinions and opened the classroom up for discussion between the differing opinions, she should have been applauded and not punished, regardless of the subject she was supposed to teach.

Irving Leemon, Northridge

Its about how you say it

There is no free speech problem in America. A problem occurs only when people speak in a rude, violent or insulting manner.

Richard Metzger, Porter Ranch

How could they forget?

Re 2nd Oscars gaffe: Living woman pictured during In Memoriam (Feb. 27):

Its sad that certain deceased stars failed to make the cut for the Oscar memoriam segment. How about less time for parachuting candy and Jimmy Kimmel holding up kids?

Among the treasures of talent in the industry not mentioned: Gloria DeHaven, Alan Young, Robert Vaughn, Tammy Grimes, Rita Gam, Patricia Barry, Marvin Kaplan, Fritz Weaver, William Shallert, James Stacy, Robert Horton, Garry Shandling, Charmian Carr and Miguel Ferrer.

The 20-member Oscar committee that chooses those to be memorialized bring much pain to the heirs, families and friends of those left out. Disgraceful. They should be ashamed.

Wink Martindale, Calabasas

Advertisement

Here is the original post:

Political correctness is curtailing free speech: Letters - LA Daily News

Misguided political correctness is problem | Letters To Editor | union … – Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

It is high time we stop with the delusion regarding the true meaning of political correctness. The ugly truth is that it is nothing more than Marxist mind control.

A good case in point is the incorrect use of words like immigrant, undocumented migrant, etc. In a country founded on the rule of law, aliens that infiltrate our borders illegally are law breakers, not immigrants!

Acceptable immigration is based on legal entry into a country, utilizing a realistic quota that insures assimilation, in order to guarantee that newcomers embrace American values, respect our culture and the heritage that belongs to our countrymen.

We are witnessing a major threat from a ramped, uncontrolled change in demographics that is a serious threat to our sovereignty.

Many of these same groups, while taking advantage of our misguided government handouts, show their gratitude by demanding we conform to an unacceptable foreign culture at the demise of our value system, and yes, even to change our judicial system to a maniacal system, the likes of Sharia Law.

What ever happened to good old Yankee common sense? As of late we have been plagued with totally irresponsible leaders who have failed miserably by not enforcing the existing immigration laws. As a result, we are now faced with a difficult, controversial challenge in how best to devise an equitable solution.

The one thing that has become perfectly clear would indicate that uncontrolled immigration is a threat to the country and a way of life that generations before us have been willing to die for.

Yes, we are a benevolent country that embraces immigration. However, unenforced immigration without quotas and conditions that require respect of our laws and value system including assimilation, cannot be allowed to continue unabated in its present form.

Wake up America! It looks as though Nikita Khrushchev was correct after all when he said, America will self-destruct from within!

Today, we are witnessing the demise of a civil America assisted by these same arrogant foreign trespassers involved in anti-American demonstrations, embedded with uncontrolled hooligans committing acts of violence and the destruction of private property.

All this in the name of PCs misguided tolerance of irresponsible free speech!

See original here:

Misguided political correctness is problem | Letters To Editor | union ... - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

Donald Trump Is Actually The Most Politically Correct Politician Of Them All – Huffington Post

Over the weekend, Donald Trump lied to the American people by claiming that former President Barack Obama subjected him to illegal government surveillance during his successful campaign for the presidency.

This lie led me to an epiphany.

Donald Trump is without a doubt, the most politically correct, autocratic postmodernist politician I have ever witnessed. People say hes this untrained, different kind of president one without all the deceit, political correctness and narcissism that defines the image of a stereotypical politician. But he is all of those things. This is why I cant stand him and why I am willing to insult him by calling him a liar and a hypocrite despite my respect for the American presidency as an institution.

Its not that his policies or ideas are wrong. Ill respectfully take on someone who is wrong but open minded, as well as principled and well-intentioned any day. Its that his autocratic tendencies and outright lies to the American people are part of a personality which can only be described as inherently political in that it is diametrically opposed to the concept of objective truth so long as that truth does not serve his political agenda.

Thus, he is eminently politically correct. Just with a different set of politics than the autocratic postmodernists of the left, also known as social justice warriors or regressives.

Trumps method of lying, that is making utterly baseless accusations with infinitely significant implications to serve his naked agenda of dominance over others exposes him as the very thing which he despises most. A typical, politically correct politician.

Trumps treatment of the media shows his autocratic tendencies. He will say anything and silence anyone no matter the facts, so long as it serves his political agenda. If political correctness is now thought to be signified by an autocratic tendency to silence others that dont align with ones accepted politics, then Donald Trump is not a president fighting political correctness. He is in fact contributing to it by creating an autocratic, postmodernist bubble on the right that rivals the one on the left. He does so by spouting utter, right-wing nonsense with exactly zero evidence to support his claims.

In lieu of evidence, what Trump does have is the very same thing that left-wing, politically correct zealots have. That is merely an uncanny ability to shout that which is untrue so loudly and confidently that others who trust you via your shared political alignment will dogmatically believe it out of an underlying, slavish devotion to you and your shared politics.

This slavish devotion can be described as the delusion of partisanship or as politically correct behavior when it has implications in government policy. The manipulation of this slavish devotion can be called demagoguery. It can also be called lying.

Since he is President, everything Donald Trump says publicly has policy implications. And what hes saying are lies. Out and out, boldfaced lies to the American people to serve his own agenda of right-wing political correctness.

The only way to truly fight political correctness is with truths which may happen to serve either the left or right. These truth are designated as such by virtue of the evidence presented to support them. Donald Trump has no evidence. Donald Trump is a liar. His lies serve his political agenda and only his political agenda. So, Donald Trump is that which he and his supporters claim he is the antithesis of, thus he is a hypocrite to boot. He is a typical politician and a highly politically correct one at that.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Is Actually The Most Politically Correct Politician Of Them All - Huffington Post

Why ‘rage is not a policy’ – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF SOCIAL ORDER: CHRONICLING THE RISE OF THE PRISTINE SELF

By Howard S. Schwartz

Palgrave McMillan, $99.99, 199 pages

We usually think of the culture wars as being a competition between the broad groups we currently call progressives, and conservatives, each of which has a general concept of a just society. While they intensely disagree, each group understands the others goals. Historically, each has tried to win people over; remember the old 1960s demonstrators approach, are you aware of the students ten demands? May I give you a copy? Lately, though, we see rebelliousness without goals, and the careful honing of the sensibilities to a level of refinement that can perceive the remotest connection to an offense, real, intentional, or not. We, left and right alike, drape a blanket called political correctness over it all, and sit, baffled, as though we tuned in late and missed most of the plot. Butch Cassidy summed it up for us: who are those guys?

Rage is not a policy. So said Tom Brokaw on the Feb. 23, 2017 edition of Morning Joe. He was talking about the Berkeley students rioting to block a controversial speaker from the campus. They are privileged people at that university. Mr. Brokaw said, and they cant hear somebody who comes and has a message [contrary to their ideas]? I think its outrageous The 2016 mess at Mizzou was somehow triggered by: a drunken white lout who used a slur in a black gathering; an anti-gay insult; and an anonymously drawn swastika in human feces. Oberlin College was overwrought over a non-existent Klansman and a racist and anti-Semitic prank played by students who said they were trolling. Yale melted down over opinions about Halloween costumes. Occupy Wall Street occupied space and made noise but never presented a set of demands at all. There are more. Who are those guys?

Howard S. Schwartz thinks he knows them and offers to make an introduction by means of a fascinating book titled, Political Correctness and the Destruction of Social Order: Chronicling the Rise of the Pristine Self. Mr. Schwartz uses psychoanalytic techniques to explain perplexing recent politically correct phenomena. He theorizes that we are seeing the actions of a kind of narcissist that demands that all contacts from the world at large be loving nurturing, and affirming, and who believes such a state of affairs to be a right, of which he or she has been deprived by the social structure.

Such people subconsciously wish to live in the imaginary state of infants who receive all nurture and protection from the mother. This state of affairs, which never existed outside of infantile perception, can only exist if the entire world is maternally nurturing and loving to them as opposed to being objective and demanding or even, merely indifferent. It is also atomistic because each such person wishes to be the center of the loving world.

However, the world in reality is objective, demanding and indifferent. Such people, therefore mistrust and even hate all social structure, seeing it as being inherently oppressive. Society to them is not an organically developed and positive, if flawed, system of guidelines, and agreed norms of behavior, but rather something wrongfully imposed, that blocks the maternal nurturing world they seek and steals from them their personal freedom and uniqueness. This they unconsciously and symbolically identify with the paternal principle. Hence they deeply resent and feel rage towards the patriarchal system, (and of course, white males), they attack toxic masculinity, and they seek to pull down the existing cultural structure without anything to replace it. After all, a replacement social structure is in fact, just another social structure.

The beliefs of such people take a religious quality. Therefore, what opposes them is evil. White males, as the creators/beneficiaries of the patriarchal system, and of white privilege, are the source of the evil. They and their works must be rooted out, even at the loss of the basic conventions necessary for people to interact. Consider the University of Washington, Takoma, which finds that grammatical standards are racist and must die. So much for laws, contracts, scholarship and even love letters.

Mr. Schwartz plentiful examples in the book, including several mentioned above, begin to make sense under his analysis. If he is right, the challenge for progressives and conservatives of good will is this: how does one compromise with people who have no program to propose? What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Joseph Sullivan chairs the advisory board for the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.

View original post here:

Why 'rage is not a policy' - Washington Times