Preamble to the US Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Preamble to the US Declaration of Independence:
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. “
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .”
Striking the balance between national security and fair and consistent respect for basic human rights is a challenge that will not go away until we resolve the issue. It requires us to conduct national dialogues as we confront events like the Fort Hood shooting. Many seem to believe there must be a conflict between these two concepts (National Security & Human Rights) but is there really? What IS America if not a country founded on respect for basic human dignity? This is the very concept that drew us together when we united against a repressive government to declare our independence. Had the motherland treated us with respect and dignity, there would have been little reason for us to revolt. Respect for human rights is therefore the corner stone of the foundation of our existence as a nation and we need to keep this in mind when we evaluate events like the Fort Hood Shooting.
The question before us now seems to be "does political correctness cross the line from defending human rights to enabling the enemies of America to accomplish their agenda which involves the extinguishing of human rights."
This is perhaps, the most important dialogue our nation will ever have. Hopefully, we will eventually break the code and uncover the right formula and clarify our position. But accomplishing this difficult task requires much patience, compassion communication, diligence and constant vigilance combined with a serious focus on national security.
Below is a one perspective of this latest event. There are others, and it is your obligation as and American to seek them out and join in the dialogue. There seems little doubt we will be offered many more opportunities to refine our position as a nation.
-Michael Jaquish- A Vigilant American
A Culture of Political Correctness
by Guy Rodgers
www.actforamerica.org
The horrific massacre at Ft. Hood has exposed the degree to which political correctness impacts government and military action — and media coverage.
Fox News contributor Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (retired) exhibited a courage and clarity that has been lacking in most media coverage when, during two different interviews I saw, he angrily and indignantly denounced what he referred to as a “culture of political correctness” in the leadership of the military.
He pointedly asserted that this was an act of Islamist terrorism, and listed just some of the telltale signs to back up his position. For instance:
Nidal Hasan opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would argue with his patients, vets returning from combat, against the justification for the wars.
Hasan said the “war on terror” was in fact a war against Islam.
There is evidence that Hasan believed “infidels” deserve beheading.
Internet postings in Hasan’s name months earlier compared suicide bombers to heroic soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.
Col. Peters went on to blame the culture of political correctness for the failure of the Army to take any action against Hasan, in spite of an awareness that Hasan held these views.
Other evidence of Hasan’s beliefs include statements he made to colleagues that Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military, and that they have the right to rise up against their “oppressors” — the United States.
A fellow student at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences complained about a presentation Hasan gave that “justified suicide bombings and spewed anti-American propaganda.”
Here’s the disturbing question that needs to be asked: Could this act of terrorism had been prevented had there not been such a politically correct reluctance to act on what was known about Hasan?
Imagine if the Army had acted. It’s easy to envision the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) indignantly blasting the Army with statements alleging “discrimination.”
Yet if the Army or law enforcement authorities had stepped in, taken action months ago, and brushed aside the typical and predictable rants from groups like CAIR, is it possible that twelve dead soldiers and one dead police officer would be alive today?
Why are so many in government and the military apparently afraid of “offending” a group like CAIR, which deserves to be investigated for its many questionable activities and ties to terrorists, not accommodated? (See our petition calling for such an investigation.)
But in the aftermath of this terrorist act, too few in the media or government have been willing to call it that. There has been a desperate search for another motive, the most common focusing on his mental state.
Edina Lekovic, communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), also appeared on Fox News. Lekovic was unequivocal in her remarks, claiming Hasan was “clearly disturbed” and comparing him to the killers at Virginia Tech and Columbine.
Remarkably, only a minute or so after making this unsubstantiated claim as if it were fact, when asked about any possible connection to Islam, she warned we must not “rush to judgment.”
But isn’t that precisely what Lekovic did when she asserted Hasan was “clearly disturbed?” Is she a psychiatrist? Did she examine him?
Of course not. What qualifies Lekovic to assert Hasan was like the Columbine killers? Nothing.
She did exactly what she is warning others not to. She “rushed to judgment.” And while anyone who is contending that this massacre has all the earmarks of a terrorist attack is challenged, no one on the Fox News program challenged Lekovic’s unverifiable claim falsely asserted as fact.
Why not? Political correctness?
More political correctness. Prior to killing 13 people on Thursday, Hasan gave away furniture and Korans, a telltale sign of a jihadist preparing for martyrdom.
So how does a Washington Post story characterize Hasan’s giving furniture away? As an act of kindness.
But the tide may be turning. Facts are stubborn things. There are just too many signs that Hasan was in fact a radical Muslim bent on jihad. Too many signs to be ignored.
ABC News last night ran a headline asking if the Army missed signs that Hasan was an Islamic extremist.
On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol referred to an AP story that quoted colleagues of Hasan at Walter Reed Hospital who admitted they did not report his suspicious actions due to fear of appearing to be discriminatory toward Muslims.
It may well be determined that Hasan had emotional problems. It may also turn out that he didn’t.
But as Brit Hume stated on Fox News Sunday, even if Hasan had emotional or psychological issues, the facts clearly point to the conclusion that Hasan was a radical Islamist who acted on his beliefs.
