In this age of moral relativism, one must be careful about the use of labels. The politically correct who have made a movement out of redefining labels mold and shape the language until it no longer resembles reality. They admonish anyone who doesn’t play along. Liberals are now called “progressives.” Socialists are now repackaged as “justice campaigners.” Anyone who dares go back to the old language is thus labeled “intolerant.”
The transformation of what and who we can call a terrorist is apparently now changing, too. A group of American Muslim groups is demanding that John McCain stop using the word “Islamic” to describe terrorists. Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times, “We’ve tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community.” McCain has refused to drop the word. And with good reason. Are all Muslims terrorists? No, but these days most terrorists are Muslims.
It’s not an attempt to besmirch an entire religion. We didn’t make a big deal about their religion as it pertains to their terrorist acts. They did. These psychopaths kill in the name of Islam. It would be different if it were an isolated pocket such as the occasional nut who blows up an abortion clinic because of his Christian beliefs. These Islamic terrorists are not only all around the world in sizable numbers, their support from other Muslims is in the millions.
A recent poll showed that better than 80 percent of Jordanians support suicide bombings at least some of the time. Extremism has gone mainstream in many countries and calling these terrorists what they are is completely appropriate. What surprises me is that Mr. PC, John McCain, hasn’t caved to their requests.
So what is a terrorist? I wonder if you took part in the bombing of federal buildings, police stations and other government targets you would be considered a terrorist. Let’s say the organization to which you belonged declared war against the United States and had as its stated goal “the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world Communism.” Would you be a terrorist? Not if you’re Bill Ayers. He was and is such an unrepentant terrorist who says, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” He evaded justice on the lam for over a decade. Due to prosecutorial misconduct, the charges against him were dropped. He ended up a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. He also befriended a neighbor of his, served on the board of a local charity with him and contributed to his campaign when he ran for office. That neighbor is Barack Obama.
Obama says Ayers is no different from another friend of his, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who advocates the death penalty for abortion doctors. Nice try, Barack, but there’s a world of difference between someone who thinks doctors who kill babies should be held accountable and a self-avowed communist and enemy of the United States who was once a member of a terror organization and, instead of regretting his past conduct, thinks he should have conducted more acts of terrorism.
Obama is certainly not alone in his mainstreaming of Ayers. The Washington Post sought to legitimize Ayers in a piece entitled, “Former ’60s Radical Now Considered Mainstream in Chicago.” He may be considered mainstream in Chicago, but not to the rest of level-headed, law-abiding America. Despite attempts to alter the language, a terrorist is still a terrorist.
Phil Valentine is an author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host with Westwood One. For more of his commentary and articles, visit philvalentine.com.
