Political correctness is a strategy used by secular progressives to silence opposition to ideas that are intellectually indefensible. Political correctness is only the pretense of tolerance, because it is limited to its own narrow-minded bias. There can be no free exchange of ideas where political correctness dominates the social norm. It is a Machiavellian tactic used even by the media to limit free speech. A.W.R. Hawkins speaks directly to the problem with political correctness:
Political correctness is a façade constructed in opposition to reality and sold as “tolerance.” Because of this, its purveyors are given to moral relevance and all who reject it are branded as “intolerant.” When properly implemented, it stifles our ability to think clearly.
Perhaps nothing epitomized this better than Reuters’ post 9/11 refusal to use the word “terrorist” in reporting the news of terrorists blowing up buildings, themselves, and others in acts of terror. Steven Jukes, Reuters global head of news, defended the refusal thus: “We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word ‘terrorist.’ To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack.”
I have just one question here: If we can’t speak the truth about terrorists determined to destroy our children, our culture and ourselves, when can we speak truth? (The politically correct response here is “what is truth?”)
We must understand that a major tenet of political correctness is that there is nothing more wrong than the act of pointing out what is wrong. Political correctness is understandably hostile to facts and its followers quite intolerant of anyone who refuses to budge on the fact that absolutes exist; for the rejection of absolutes is a most convenient way to open discussions about “the non-existence of God” in university classrooms throughout the country.
Continue reading A.W.R. Hawkins here. . . .
Filed under: Christianity, Culture, History, Politics, Religion | Tagged: News, Politics |
Samuel at Gilgal 
Seems clear cut to me, Barack Obama cannot become President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution. Please listen to the linked youtube, and if you can, point out exactly where its conclusion is erroneous. Since the United States Supreme Court will be under the same Constitutional constraints with regard to the cases now before it, I don’t see HOW the Supreme Court can find otherwise. But, again, if anyone’s got a legal theory Obama can use to get out of checkmate, have at it:
LikeLike