Why Gillette’s lunge to political correctness will bomb

American Thinker

By Monica Showalter

Gillette’s new ad, browbeating men through a #MeToo and “toxic masculinity” pitch, supposedly to persuade men to buy their razors, is so revolting it’s possible to think it’s satire.

There is also a 30-second version, which doesn’t even seem to be about selling razors:

Seriously, did a spy from Schick get into the Procter & Gamble advertising agency and concoct an ad sure to turn potential customers off?

Continue reading

Your Beliefs Are No Longer Allowed

https://i1.wp.com/recruitingdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-21-at-1.59.55-PM.png

Image via recruitingdaily.com

 

American Thinker

By Taylor Lewis

 

American progressives have fnally gone all the way to a totalitarian vision, demanding control over not just your behavior, but your thoughts and beliefs. This as the price of simply living without being attacked.

And hats off to Erick Erickson for naming it first. The former RedState honcho and Never-Trumper called it right, and no, I’m not talking about his near-demonic hatred of President Trump.

Last year, Erickson released a book with a title he popularized: You Will Be Made to Care: The War on Faith, Family, and Your Freedom to Believe. The book is a summation of an argument Erickson has long made. As the sexual left makes progress on its biggest projects — same-sex marriage, transgenderism acceptance, pronoun wordplay — they are increasingly unwilling to brook resistance.

Do you believe in traditional marriage but don’t care that gays marry? Think it’s OK teenagers take hormonal injections to swap genders but it’s not right for your kids? Don’t really give a hoot about someone who identifies as “xe”?

Well, too bad, sucker. The new dispensation doesn’t care for your waffling. Going forward, your private beliefs must align with your public stance. No exceptions made or allowed.

A New Obama? The Media Starts Selling Abdul El-Sayed

In a May 3, 2016 file photo, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, Director of the Detroit Health Department, gives his remarks during the Mayor’s Summit on Health Equity in Detroit. (Clarence Tabb Jr./Detroit News via AP)

On August 24, the Guardian ran an unusually long profile of one Abdul El-Sayed, a 32-year-old Muslim doctor and son of Egyptian immigrants who is already campaigning heavily for governor of Michigan, even though the election won’t take place until November of next year. The headline on Drew Philp’s article dubbed El-Sayed “the new Obama.”

It was the ultimate puff piece, shameless in its utter lack of objectivity and balance, and it began, as such pieces invariably do, with an anecdote calculated to win sympathy for the subject. When he was seven years old, writes Philp, El-Sayed “sat in the eye of Hurricane Andrew,” drinking juice “while swaddled under mattresses between his father and stepmother, who was holding El-Sayed’s newborn baby brother just home from the hospital.”

What does this story have to do with anything? For Philp, it is a metaphor: “At the moment,” he suggests, “American politics feels a bit like being in the eye a hurricane.” Donald Trump is ready to attack North Korea; neo-Nazis paraded in Charlottesville. “No one man can stop the hurricane,” admits Philp. “But in Michigan, a grown-up El-Sayed is now having a go, trying to keep the storm at bay.” El-Sayed, you see, seeks “not just to win, but also to change American politics itself” by becoming “the first Muslim governor in US history.”

Philp goes on to depict El-Sayed as a progressive hero who is struggling against an army of Yahoos. He follows El-Sayed to Adrian, Mich. (“Trump country, white and Christian,” and “the kind of place with lots and lots of American flags”), where the candidate is introduced to an audience by a transgender man (“a brave choice for a region still coming to terms with gay rights, let alone trans rights”). El-Sayed shares “his personal story” with the audience, then goes into some “soaring rhetoric” about “hope and commonality.”

When he takes questions, one “clearly agitated man” asks him about sharia law. El-Sayed replies by saying that he supports separation of church and state and that he wouldn’t take away anyone else’s right to pray and wouldn’t want that right to be taken from him either. (He has made it clear that he prays several times a day.) For this, the audience gives him “an enormous round of applause” – even though El-Sayed’s answer is a total dodge.

Continued….

9/11 Anniversary: We now prefer, not victory, but self-doubt, guilt and victimhood

https://i2.wp.com/static2.businessinsider.com/image/5230798c69bedd671ea48e7d-1200/911-september-11th-attacks.jpg

Image via businessinsider.com

 

Family Security Matters

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

For me, September 11, 2016 is a more significant date than September 11, 2001. It demonstrates how far we have sunk as a nation in a scant fifteen years.

We now have a political-media narrative of negativity and defeat; one that labels patriotism as hate speech, promotes tribalism as opposed to national unity and fosters the notion that the United States is the embodiment of evil in the world.

We now have a President who enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies, one whose divisive rhetoric and destructive policies are deliberately designed to weaken and humble a great nation.

We now have political correctness as a substitute for the First Amendment.

We now have a flag, a pledge of allegiance and a national anthem that are considered offensive.

We now have a Democrat Party of coffeehouse communists and Islamic groupies, willing to embrace lies, corruption, government malfeasance and obstruction of justice as politics as usual.

We now have a Republican Party dominated by globalists, obsessed with the acquisition of personal power and profit, uninterested and unwilling to defend the rights, liberties and well-being of American citizens.

We now have a media that manipulates rather than informs, a blunt political tool of the ruling class that bears all the hallmarks of Soviet journalism: selective reporting of the news, disinformation and a willing subservience to the establishment’s agenda.

We now have a military leadership that has replaced combat readiness with social engineering; a senior cadre selected for its political malleability and deficit of moral courage; one always eager to choose what is right for their careers rather than what is right for the country.

We now have an education system that weakens our ability to transmit to the next generation the values and traditions upon which the United States was built; one formulated to narrowing the range of thought in order to make independent thinking literally impossible; one dedicated to the systematic destruction of language as “microagressions” or simply making statements that are patently untrue.

https://socialismisnottheanswer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/c4f13-9-11-flag-1024x768.jpg

Image via wreallywrandom.blogspot.com

We now have a country that is coming apart, not just the United States the sovereign nation, but our Constitution, our culture, our traditions, all of what “America” has come to mean.

It is time to take America back.

Political Correctness Strips the South of All Vestiges of Slavery While Ignoring Islam’s Contribution

https://i1.wp.com/thedixieflag.com/theme/Default/img/slide1.jpg

Image via thedixieflag.com

 

Family Security Matters

by LT. COLONEL JAMES G. ZUMWALT, USMC (RET)

For those who grew up in the South, the opening lines of “Dixie” ring loud and clear:

“Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton,

Old times there are not forgotten…”

But, as political correctness continues to rear its ugly head, much Southern history may soon be forgotten.

Written in 1859, Dixie became an instant hit and, during the Civil War, a great inspirational song for the Confederate army.

But PC now filters American history-evidenced most recently at Vanderbilt University. PCers will surely become Dixie-bound upon learning about the songwriter’s transgression.

Before sharing it, let us examine Vanderbilt University’s experience.

Continue reading

DHS May Ban “Religiously-Charged” Terms Jihad, Sharia to Avert “Us versus Them” in Anti-Terror Programs

words-Large

JUDICIAL WATCH

 

Four years after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) purged anti-terrorism training material determined to be offensive to Muslims, its umbrella agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may eliminate divisive Islamic terms like “jihad” and “sharia” in government programs targeting radicalization among youth.

It’s political correctness run amok and the Obama administration has played a central role in promoting it by caving in to the demands of various Muslim rights groups. In this latest case a Homeland Security Advisory Council is recommending that, to avoid “us versus them” when discussing extremism, certain “religiously-charged” terminology must be avoided. This includes using “American Muslim” rather than “Muslim American” and rejecting religious, legal and cultural terms like jihad, sharia, takfir and umma. Jihad is the holy war that propels Islamic terrorism. Sharia is the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists-including the world’s most violent groups such as Al Qaeda-and their jihadism. Takfir and umma are Arabic terms that mean apostasy and Muslim community.

Continue reading

Muslims don’t assimilate, they infiltrate

Family Security Matters

LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD

 

Let us first, dispense with the pretense.

Every notion we in the West have adopted in terms of dealing with Muslims, both individually and collectively, is wrong.

It is a policy based more on political correctness than on rational analysis, more on a misunderstanding of culture than religion.

The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought, a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them, similar to the tactics used by the political left, when they hurl the accusations of “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe” and “hate-speech.”

It became the role of Islamist lobby organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to depict themselves as civil-rights groups speaking out on behalf of a Muslim American population that was allegedly besieged by outsiders who harbored an illogical, unfounded fear of them and regularly accusing the American people, American institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. Of course, FBI data on hate crimes show that such allegations are nonsense.

Continue reading