bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘JIHADIST’

WARNING: ANGER THE PC AYATOLLAHS AT YOUR OWN RISK

In History, Humor, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on January 1, 2018 at 12:10 am

On June 8, 2010, newspapers around the world headlined the latest triumph of Politically Correct language.

The Israeli government had apologized for circulating a video parodying the lyrics of Michael Jackson’s hit, “We Are the World.” Its purpose: To mock terrorists from the Gaza flotilla smuggling arms into Gaza.

In early June, 2010, six Hamas ships set out in defiance of the Israel’s blockade of Gaza. One of those ships, the Mavi Marmara, suffered nine casualties during a subsequent Israeli raid on the flotilla.

In the video, Israelis dressed up as terrorists offer their own take on the incident through song.

Among its lyrics:

We’ll make the world
Abandon reason.
We’ll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa.
We are peaceful travelers
We’re waving our own knives.
The truth will never find its way to your TV.

Click here: The Flotilla Choir Presents We Con The World – YouTube

The Israeli Government Press Office distributed footage of the music video to foreign journalists on June 4, but then sent an apology to reporters just hours later, insisting it had been an accident.

“The contents of the video in no way represent the official policy of either the Government Press Office or of the State of Israel,” Israel’s Government Press Office later told CNN.

But the retraction did not stop “We Con the World” from becoming an Internet hit, getting over three million views in less than a week

By issuing such an apology the Israeli government forfeited a vital weapon in its ongoing struggle for not simply sovereignty but survival: Ridicule.

Every great tyrant has feared the laughter of his enemies. For that reason, the Roman Emperor Augustus banished the satirical poet, Ovid, from Rome and the KGB worked overtime to suppress anti-Communist jokes.

It’s clear that Israeli bureaucrats—like American ones—have caught the Political Correctness disease, where even the most criminally depraved are off-limits as targets for satire.

During most of the eight-year Presidency of Bill Clinton, the State Department applied the “rogue state” moniker to nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

In a 1994 lecture, Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, defined a rogue state as one that actively tried to undermine the international system.

But in 2000, the State Department declared that it would no longer refer to such nations as “rogues.” Instead, they would now be referred to as “states of concern.”

“Rogue,” said a State Department spokesman, was “inflammatory,” and might hamper the efforts of the United States to reach agreements with its sworn enemies.

In short, it’s become Politically Incorrect to refer to even our sworn enemies as enemies.

As Steven Emerson, president of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) puts it: “If you can’t name your enemy, how can you defeat him?”

During World War 11, GIs—and their commanders—routinely referred to German soldiers as “Krauts.”  Japanese soldiers were universally referred to as “Japs.”

Throughout the Vietnam war, North Vietnamese troops were called “gooks,” “dinks” and “Charlie.”  During the 1991 Gulf War, American soldiers called Iraqi soldiers “ragheads.”

Admittedly, that’s not the sort of language to use in polite company.

But there is nothing polite about war, and it’s unrealistic to expect those whose lives could be snuffed out at any moment to be Politically Correct in talking about deadly enemies.

The United States has been at war with Islamic nations since September 11, 2001. But terms such as “jihadist,” “jihadi” and “mujahedeen” are now officially forbidden by the Pentagon.

So is “Islamofascism,” a term often used to describe Islamic aggression against other countries—especially non-Muslim ones.

Similarly, the American government now seeks to impose the same Political Correctness restrictions on how to refer to daily invasions of its sovereign borders.

“Illegal alien” is taboo—although totally accurate. An “alien” is defined as “a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.”

And a foreigner who violates another country’s immigration laws is in that country illegally.

“Undocumented immigrant” is the new fashionable term to be used by all federal agents charged with enforcing Anmerica’s immigration laws.

Liberals feel that this sounds nicer, and won’t offend our “little brown brothers” south of the Rio Grande.

“Undocumented immigrant” makes it seem as though the mass violations of America’s national border are no big deal. You might even think the illegal alien simply lost his legal papers while sneaking across the border.

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, laid out the guidelines for effective propaganda.  In his notorious book, The Prince, he wrote:

…Men in general judge more by the eyes than by the hands, for every one can see, but very few have to feel.  Everyone sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are….

Apparently, many people in government are now convinced: If you don’t admit there is a problem, the problem doesn’t exist.

ISLAMIC TERRORISTS: PC VS. REALITY: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 3, 2017 at 12:13 am

Islamics are quick to assert that they, too, are Americans. But getting Islamics to point out the terrorists within their ranks is an entirely different matter.

According to author Ronald Kessler, this has caused serious problems for the FBI. In his 2011 book, The Secrets of the FBI, Kessler notes the refusal of the Islamic community to identify known or potential terrorists within its ranks.

Says Arthur M. Cummings, the Bureau’s executive assistant director for national security: “I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here in [Washington] D.C. And he said, ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?’”

“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom were seeking to kill Americans,” replied Cummings. “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants. It’s the Muslims.”

Occasionally, Muslims will condemn Al Qaeda. But “rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about.’” said Cummings.

“They don’t want anyone to know they have extremists in their community. Well, beautiful. Except do you read the newspapers? Everybody already knows it. The horse has left the barn.

“So there’s a lot of talk about engagement. But, realistically, we’ve got a long, long way to go.”

At one community meeting, an Islamic leader suggested to Cummings that then-FBI director Robert Meuller III should pose for a picture with his group’s members. The reason: To show that Islamics are partners in the “war on terror.”

“When you bring to my attention real extremists who are here to plan and do something, who are here supporting terrorism,” said Cummings, “then I promise you, I will have the director stand up on the stage with you.”

“That could never happen,” replied the Islamic leader. “We would lose our constituency. We could never admit to bringing someone to the FBI.”  

Cummings has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” to refer to terrorism. Nor does he shy away from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”

“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.  

In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship:

“Our nation’s security and its cherished value of free speech has been endangered by the bullying campaigns of radical Islamic groups, masquerading as ‘civil rights’ organizations, to remove any reference to the Islamist motivation behind Islamic terrorist attacks.

“These groups have pressured or otherwise colluded with Hollywood, the news media, museums, book publishers, law enforcement and the Obama Administration in censoring the words ‘Islamist’, ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ in discussing or referencing the threat and danger of Islamic terrorism.

“This is the new form of the jihadist threat we face. It’s an attack on one of our most sacred freedoms—free speech—and it endangers our very national security. How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”

He has a point—and a highly legitimate one.

Imagine the United States fighting World War II—and President Franklin Roosevelt banning the use of “fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.

Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”

Then try to imagine how the United States could have won that life-and-death struggle under such unrealistic and self-defeating restrictions. 

It couldn’t have done so then. And it can’t do so now.

Then consider these Islamic terrorist outrages of our own time: 

  • The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which snuffed out the lives of 3,000 Americans. 
  • The 2004 bombing of Madrid’s commuter train system. 
  • The attack on the London subway in 2005.  The killing of 13 U.S. Army personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, by a Muslim army major in 2009. 
  • The bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013.
  • The kidnapping of 300 Nigerian school girls by Boko Haram in 2014. 
  • The slaughter of 12 people at a Paris satirical magazine that had published cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed in 2015.
  • The slaughter of more than 100 people in ISIS attacks across Paris in 2015.
  • A series of deadly terrorist attacks in Brussels, killing 31 and injuring 270 in 2016.
  • The mashing of eight bicyclists and pedestrians by a truck-driving ISIS supporter in 2017.

In every one of these attacks, the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.

In his groundbreaking book, The Clash of Civilizations (1996) Samuel Huntington, the late political scientist at Harvard University, noted:

The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”  

The West may not be at war with Islam—as countless Western politicians repeatedly assert. But Islamics have no qualms about declaring that they are at war with the West.

ISLAMIC TERRORISTS: PC VS. REALITY: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on November 2, 2017 at 12:12 am

The 2016 Boston Marathon was scheduled for April 18, 2016.

And local, State and Federal law enforcement authorities had been planning security for the event since October, 2015.

So it was only natural that these agencies wanted the public to know the Marathon would be as safe as more than 5,000 law enforcement officers could make it.  

The Boston Marathon 

“‘Leave the worrying to us’: Security Ramped Up for Boston Marathon,” read the headline of the April 16 issue of USA Today.

And it gave the reason for this: Three years earlier, on April 15, 2013, two bombers had wreaked havoc at the finish line of the race.

It also named the bombers—brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev—whose terrorist act killed three people and injured about 264 others.  

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

It further noted that Tamerlan had died in a shootout with police three days after the marathon–and police had captured Dzhohkar several hours later. (He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death.)

But the story said nothing about their citing Islam as the reason for their murderous rampage.

Click here: ‘Leave the worrying to us’: Security ramped up for Boston Marathon

The April 16 edition of The Boston Patch carried this headline: “Boston Marathon 2016: Security Changes You Can’t See All Around You.”

The article stated that most of these precautions couldn’t be revealed. Then it added that even though law enforcement officials hadn’t identified a credible threat to this year’s Boston Marathon, “recent events make the world feel less safe today than in 2013.” 

But the article said nothing about those “recent events,” such as:

  • In 2013, two Muslims butchered and beheaded a British soldier on a busy London street.
  • In 2014, an ax-wielding Muslim slashed two New York police officers before being shot by other cops. 
  • In 2015, Muslims slaughtered 12 people at a Paris satirical magazine for publishing cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed. 
  • In 2015, more than 100 people were murdered in ISIS attacks across Paris. 
  • In 2016, a series of Islamic terrorist bombings in Brussels killed 31 and injured more than 300.

Nor did the story say that all of these “recent events” were carried out by followers of the Islamic religion. Or that the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.

Click here: Brussels attacks add urgency to Boston Marathon security | US News

On April 6, 2016, The Boston Globe announced: “Tight Security Planned for Upcoming Boston Marathon.”

The story noted that, in drawing up their security arrangements, “authorities analyzed terrorist attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Calif., and Brussels in recent months.”

The San Bernardino attack had occurred on December 2, 2015. 

The story said that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, had slaughtered 14 people and wounded 22 at a Department of Public Health training event and birthday party.  

Related image

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook

But the article did not inform readers that Farook and Malik were Muslims acting in the name of Islam.

The story quoted Harold Shaw, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston Field Office, as saying: “San Bernardino taught us something very significant. They [the killers] were not on the radar.”

But the article omitted “something very significant”: Farook and Malik had melded perfectly into American society before their outrage.  

Thus, the only factor that could have put them “on the radar” as potential terrorists was their being Muslims.

And in an America driven by Political Correctness, noting that would have been verboten.

Click here: Tight security planned for upcoming Boston Marathon – The Boston Globe

NBC News carried a story on “How the Boston Marathon is Using Security Technology.”  

The story then described how police used a high-tech partner, Esri, to track, in real-time, the progress of the morning’s race.  

“When you look [at] security, there’s three legs to the stool: People, process and technology,” said Arnette Heintze, CEO and co-founder of Hillard Heintze, an investigation and security risk management company. 

Click here: How the Boston Marathon is Using Security Technology – NBC News

Yet for all the gushing kudos leveled at the new uses of sophisticated technology for keeping people safe, one thing was conspicuously ignored.

The opening paragraph, “Three years after a deadly bombing at the Boston Marathon….” left unnamed those had made the use of this technology necessary–Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  

Nor did it mention that Dzhokhar had laid out, in a note, his reason for attacking innocent men and women: “We Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all.  

“Well at least that’s how Muhammed wanted it to be forever. The ummah [Islamic community] is beginning to rise.  

“Know you are righting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, how how can you compete with that. We are promised victory and will surely get it.”

Click here: Text from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s note left in Watertown boat – The Boston Globe

Of all the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates in 2016, only Donald Trump dared to say the politically un-sayable: Islam is at war with us.  

And this candor—coupled with repeated Islamic atrocities—gained him both the Republican nomination and the White House.  

KNOWING THE ENEMY, BUT REFUSING TO NAME IT: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 27, 2016 at 1:25 am

Since October, 2015, local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies had been planning security for the 2016 Boston Marathon.

With the event scheduled for April 18, authorities wanted to assure the public that the Marathon would be as safe as more than 5,000 law enforcement officers could make it.

Yet, many of the articles written about security for this upcoming event refused to identify the enemy responsible for spending millions of dollars and stationing thousands of local, State and Federal law enforcement officers to protect 30,800 runners and one million spectators.

That enemy: Islamic terrorism.

On April 18, Massive.com carried a story on “Boston Marathon: 2016 security: A look inside the MEMA bunker in Framingham.”

The article noted that on the day of the Marathon–April 18–more than 200 members of 60 Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies gathered at the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA)

Among the agencies represented: The State police, the FBI, the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Their task: “Keeping 30,800 runners and one million spectators safe.”

But–safe from what?  Or who?

The article noted that, owing to the 2013 attack:

  • More ambulances and wheelchairs were positioned near the finish line.
  • Medical tents were also positioned closer to the finish line.
  • Communications were improved with trauma centers and operating rooms.
  • Each community had safe havens where runners could take shelter in an emergency–and could be picked up by buses.
So there could be no doubt that a huge effort–and expense–had been undertaken to protect tens of thousands of people attending this event.
Yet there was absolutely no mention as to what enemy could justify going to such huge expense in effort and money.
Could it be…Islamic terrorists?
During the Cold War, the Government had never hesitated to name the Soviet Union as America’s foremost enemy.
The United States has been the target of Islamic attacks since the 1970s.
In his groundbreaking work, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington wrote in 1996:
“During the 15 years between 1980 and 1995…the United States engaged in 17 military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed against Muslims.  No comparable pattern of U.S. military operations occurred against the people of any other civilization.

Samuel P. Huntington (2004 World Economic Forum).jpg

Samuel P. Huntington

On September 11, 2001, Islamics turned four passenger jetliners into flying bombs and slaughtered 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.
Since 9/11, the United States has been actively engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.
The war that Huntington warned was coming has erupted into fullscale conflict, with no end in sight.

Related image

Yet the most important officials in Washington, D.C. refuse to name the enemy they are spending billions of dollars to fight–and protect American citizens against.

As a result, those officials who dare to name that enemy stand out as beacons of honesty and courage.

One of these is Arthur M. Cummings, the FBI’s executive assistant director for national security.

Cummings has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” in referring to terrorism.  Nor does he shrink from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”

“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.

“I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here [Washington, D.C.].  And he said ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?’

“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom are seeking to kill Americans,” replied Cummings.  “It’s not the Irish.  It’s not the French.  It’s not the Catholics.  It’s not the Protestants.  It’s the Muslims.”

In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship:

“Or nation’s security and its cherished value of free speech has been endangered by the bullying campaigns of radical Islamic groups, masquerading as ‘civil rights’ organizations, to remove any reference to the Islamist motivation behind Islamic terrorist acts.

“These groups have pressured or otherwise colluded with Hollywood, the news media, museums, book publishers, law enforcement and the Obama Administration in censoring the words ‘Islamist,’ ‘Islamic terrorism,’ ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ in discussing or referencing the threat and danger of Islamic terrorism.

“This is the new form of the jihadist threat we face.  It’s an attack on one of our most sacred freedoms–free speech–and it endangers our very national identity.

“How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”

Emerson has a point–of utmost relevance.

Imagine the United States fighting World War II–and President Franklin D. Roosevelt banning the use of “Fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “Imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.

Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”

Then try to imagine how the United States could have won that life-and-death struggle under such unrealistic and self-defeating restrictions.

It couldn’t have done so then.  And it can’t do so now.

KNOWING THE ENEMY, REFUSING TO NAME IT: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 26, 2016 at 12:05 am

The 2016 Boston Marathon was scheduled for April 18.

And local, State and Federal law enforcement authorities had been planning security for the event since October, 2015.

So it was only natural that these agencies wanted the public to know the Marathon would be as safe as more than 5,000 law enforcement officers could make it.  

The Boston Marathon 

“‘Leave the worrying to us’: Security Ramped Up for Boston Marathon,” read the headline of the April 16 issue of USA Today.

And it gave the reason for this: Three years earlier, on April 15, 2013, two bombers had wreaked havoc at the finish line of the race.

It also named the bombers–brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev–whose terrorist act killed three people and injured about 264 others.  

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

It further noted that Tamerlan had died in a shootout with police three days after the marathon–and police had captured Dzhohkar several hours later.  (He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death.)

The story said nothing, however, about their citing Islam as the reason for their murderous rampage.

Click here: ‘Leave the worrying to us’: Security ramped up for Boston Marathon

The April 16 edition of The Boston Patch carried this headline: “Boston Marathon 2016: Security Changes You Can’t See All Around You.”

The article stated that most of these precautions couldn’t be revealed.  Then it added that even though law enforcement officials hadn’t identified a credible threat to this year’s Boston Marathon, “recent events make the world feel less safe today than in 2013.”

But the article said nothing about those “recent events,” such as:

  • In 2013, two Muslims butchered and beheaded a British soldier on a busy London street.
  • In 2014, an axe-wielding Muslim slashed two New York police officers, before being shot by other cops.
  • In 2015, Muslims slaughtered 12 people at a Paris satirical magazine for publishing cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed.
  • In 2015, more than 100 people were murdered in ISIS attacks across Paris.
  • In 2016, a series of Islamic terrorist bombing attacks in Brussels killed 31 and injured more than 300.

Nor did the story say that all of these “recent events” were carried out by followers of the Islamic religion.

Click here: Brussels attacks add urgency to Boston Marathon security | US News

On April 6, The Boston Globe announced: “Tight security planned for upcoming Boston Marathon.”

The story noted that, in drawing up their security arrangements, “authorities analyzed terrorist attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Calif., and Brussels in recent months.”

The San Bernardino attack had occurred on December 2, 2015. 

The story said that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, had slaughtered 14 people and wounded 22 at a Department of Public Health training event and birthday party.  

Related image

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook

But the article did not inform readers that Farook and Malik were Muslims acting in the name of Islam.

The story quoted Harold Shaw, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston Field Office, as saying: “San Bernardino taught us something very significant. They [the killers] were not on the radar.”

But the article omitted “something very significant”: Farook and Malik had melded perfectly into American society before their outrage.  Thus, the only factor that could have put them “on the radar” as potential terrorists was their being Muslims.

And in an America driven by Political Correctness, noting that would have been verboten.

Click here: Tight security planned for upcoming Boston Marathon – The Boston Globe

NBC News carried a story on “How the Boston Marathon is Using Security Technology.”  

The story then described how police used a high-tech partner, Esri, to track, in real-time, the progress of the morning’s race.  

“When you look [at] security, there’s three legs to the stool: People, process and technology,” said Arnette Heintze, CEO and co-founder of Hillard Heintze, an investigation and security risk management company. 

Click here: How the Boston Marathon is Using Security Technology – NBC News

Yet for all the gushing kudos leveled at the new uses of sophisticated technology for keeping people safe, one thing was conspicuously ignored.

The opening paragraph, “Three years after a deadly bombing at the Boston Marathon….” left unnamed those had made the use of this technology necessary–Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  

Nor did it mention that Dzhokhar had laid out, in a note, his reason for attacking innocent men and women: “We Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all.  

“Well at least that’s how Muhammed wanted it to be forever. The ummah [Islamic community] is beginning to rise.  

“Know you are righting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, how how can you compete with that. We are promised victory and will surely get it.”

Click here: Text from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s note left in Watertown boat – The Boston Globe

PC: CONCEALING THE TRUTH WITH LIES

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics on July 14, 2014 at 10:37 am

On June 8, 2010, newspapers around the world headlined the latest triumph of Politically Correct language.

The Israeli government had apologized for circulating a video parodying the lyrics of Michael Jackson’s hit, “We Are the World.”  Its purpose: To mock terrorists from the Gaza flotilla smuggling arms into Gaza.

In early June, 2010, six Hamas ships set out in defiance of the Israel’s blockade of Gaza.  One of those ships, the Mavi Marmara, suffered nine casualties during a subsequent Israeli raid on the flotilla.

In the video, Israelis dressed up as activists offer their own take on the incident through song.

Among its lyrics:

We’ll make the world
Abandon reason
We’ll make them all believe that the Hamas
Is Momma Theresa
We are peaceful travelers
We’re waving our own knives
The truth will never find its way to your TV

Click here: The Flotilla Choir Presents We Con The World – YouTube

The Israeli Government Press Office distributed footage of the music video to foreign journalists on June 4, but then sent an apology to reporters just hours later, insisting it had been an accident.

“The contents of the video in no way represent the official policy of either the Government Press Office or of the State of Israel,” Israel’s Government Press Office later told CNN.

But the retraction did not stop “We Con the World” from becoming an Internet hit, getting over three million views in less than a week

By issuing such an apology the Israeli government forfeited a vital weapon in its ongoing struggle for not simply sovereignty but survival: Ridicule.

Every great tyrant has feared the laughter of his enemies. For that reason, the Roman Emperor Augustus banished the satirical poet, Ovid, from Rome and the KGB worked overtime to suppress anti-Communist jokes.

It’s clear that Israeli bureaucrats–like American ones–have caught the Political Correctness disease, where even the most criminally depraved are off-limits as targets for satire.

During most of the eight-year Presidency of Bill Clinton, the State Department applied the “rogue state” moniker to nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

In a 1994 lecture, Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, defined a rogue state as one that actively tried to undermine the international system.

But in 2000, the State Department declared that it would no longer refer to such nations as “rogues.” Instead, they would now be referred to as “states of concern.”

“Rogue,” said a State Department spokesman, was inflammatory, and might hamper the efforts of the United States to reach agreements with its sworn enemies.

In short, it’s become Politically Incorrect to refer to even our sworn enemies as enemies.

As Steven Emerson, president of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) puts it: “If you can’t name your enemy, how can you defeat him?”

During World War 11, GIs–and their commanders–routinely referred to German soldiers as “krauts.”  Japense soldiers were universally referred to as “Japs.”

Throughout the Vietnam war, North Vietnamese troops were called “gooks,” “dinks” and “Charlie.”  During the 1991 Gulf War, American soldiers called Iraqi soldiers “ragheads.”

Admittedly, that’s not the sort of language to use in polite company.

But there is nothing polite about war, and it’s unrealistic to expect those whose lives could be snuffed out at any moment to be Politically Correct in talking about their enemies.

The United States has been at war with Islamic nations since September 11, 2001.  But terms such as “jihadist,” “jihadi” and “mujahedeen” are now officially forbidden by the Pentagon.

So is “Islamofascism,” a term often used to describe Islamic aggression against other countries–especially non-Muslim ones.

Similarly, the American government now seeks to impose the same Political Correctness restrictions on how to refer to daily invasions of its sovereign bordeers.

“Illegal alien” is taboo–although totally accurate.   An “alien” is defined as “a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.”

And a foreigner who violates another country’s immigration laws is in that country illegally.

“Undocumented immigrant” is the new fashionable term to be used by all federal agents charged with enforcing our immigration laws.

Liberals feel that this sounds nicer, and won’t offend our “little brown brothers” south of the Rio Grande.

“Undocumented immigrant” makes it seem as though the mass violations of America’s national border are no big deal.  You might even think the illegal alien simply lost his legal papers while sneaking across the border.

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, laid out the guidelines for effective propaganda.  In his notorious book, The Prince, he wrote:

…Men in general judge more by the eyes than by the hands, for every one can see, but very few have to feel.  Everyone sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are….

Apparently, many people in government are now convinced: If you don’t admit there is a problem, the problem doesn’t exist.

%d bloggers like this: