Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Navy Seals Charged with Assault in Capturing Terrorist – Military Leaders Once Again Fail Their Own Troops

The American military leadership continues to show its fecklessness in sticking up for and protecting the backs of the very men and women it leads into battle. Close on the heels of the Islamic Jihadist murder spree at Ft. Hood that led the Army’s top general, one George Casey, to disgrace himself by declaring that as bad as the murders were, it would be even a greater tragedy if Army diversity should suffer, comes this story from the Navy.

Not to be outdone by the Army in prostrating before the liberal god of political correctness and sensitivity, the Navy now is prosecuting three Seals for allegedly assaulting a terrorist prisoner this past September. According to this Fox News story (link), the prisoner came up with a bloody lip after being transferred to Iraqi authorities and claimed that the Americans had done it. He is suspected of being behind the horrific murders and mutilations of the four American Blackwater security personnel in Iraq a few years back, a story that had shocked the nation. The news story notes that “[t]he military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.”

George Bush’s military leaders charged many servicemen with various war crimes, and to my recall the charges have been dropped one by one after lengthy investigations, though not before the accused and their families suffered much. George Bush’s Justice Dept. even went after Border Patrol agents. The American military leadership continues to periodically sacrifice men and women to show their bona fides to the liberal establishment, home and abroad, and to the Muslim world. This disgrace started under Bush and there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Obama will do anything but fan the fires.

John M Greco

Monday, November 16, 2009

Obama’s Health Care Push -- Destroy for Socialized Medicine

The Wall Street Journal reports (link) today that the Chinese are very critical of Obama’s fiscal management as they increasingly worry about the ability of America to repay its massive debt, much of which is owned by the Chinese themselves. And a big part of that fiscal mismanagement is Obama’s and the Democrats' relentless push for ObamaCare, with the unwillingness to try sensible alternative market-based and patient-centered reforms, all in the face of a massive federal deficit and unprecedented peacetime spending orgy.

Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson writes today (link) in a piece titled Obama’s Malpractice:

Recovering slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that … a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending, and curb massive future deficits…. So, what do they [the Democrats] do? Just the opposite. Their sweeping overhaul of the health care system -- which Congress is halfway toward enacting -- would almost certainly make matters worse…. The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it…. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them [Obama and the Democrats] to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.
So why are the Democrats pursuing this reckless and destructive path? John Steele Gordon writes (link) today at Commentary Magazine’s Contentions group blog:

Obama, Pelosi & Co. see this as a one-time opportunity to make socialized medicine inevitable. By destroying the current health-care system under the name of reform, they would make single-payer unavoidable…. [Obama] is bent on sharply shifting power in the direction of the government, away from individuals and the free market, and is willing to defy both the public and fiscal sanity to achieve this goal.
John M Greco

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Ft. Hood Jihad Attack Shows Lethal Liberal Political Correctness Infests the Army

I cannot get over the astonishing comments (link) by the leader of the United States Army, General George Casey: “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

A peacetime “political general” if there ever was one. He and undoubtedly many other higher-ups have lost their way in the fog of modern liberal political correctness. This general does not see that the primary and essential purpose of the American military is to protect America and Americans, not to celebrate diversity at the cost of security to those it should protect. To be sure, the American military should embody American cultural principles to the extent consistent with its purpose. Muslims have been serving in the military along side Christians, Jews, and people of other faiths, and should continue to do so, but only under the same rules for all, not under special hands-off, look-the-other-way rules especially for them. Evidence is streaming out that the Army has become so focused on not appearing anti-Muslim that it has become anti-everyone else. Thirteen Americans are now dead, and many others are wounded, because the Army looked the other way at numerous signs of an impending Jihadist attack, and indeed, evidence strongly suggests, created a culture of intimidation that has made soldiers afraid to report disturbing information about a Muslim lest it damage their careers. Will General Casey meet with and tell the wives and husbands, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters of the dead that “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse”? He was able to say those words for the liberal hosts of the Sunday morning political talk shows on the liberal networks; if he won’t say the same thing to the families of the dead he’s a coward.

This whole affair is a massive disgrace to the Army command structure and a betrayal to Americans. One would not have thought that the rot of liberal political correctness would have infested the Army, but it obviously has to horrific consequence. We have an immense scandal, and one imagines that lots of people should be fired over this but probably won’t be. Knowing what I now know, I do not have faith in either the Army or the Obama Administration to honestly get all the facts and properly fix things to minimize the chance of future deadly internal Jihadist attacks. For the modern American Army, it seems that scrutiny of a Muslim, even when seemingly warranted by myriad danger signs, is regarded as anti-Muslim and violative of its foremost purpose and principle – “diversity.” The Army used to sacrifice lives to defend America; now it sacrifices lives to defend diversity.


Related Posts:

US Army Has Been Choosing Diversity Over Security; After the Ft. Hood Jihadist Murder Spree, Will the Army Take Responsibility?

On the Ft. Hood Muslim Terrorist Mass Murder & Military Liberal “Political Correctness”

Monday, November 9, 2009

US Army Has Been Choosing Diversity Over Security; After the Ft. Hood Jihadist Murder Spree, Will the Army Take Responsibility?

As more stories about the Ft. Hood Islamic Jihadist mass murder come out, one thing is becoming clear – the United States Army has chosen “diversity” and liberal political correctness over the physical security of our country and that of its own soldiers. Anyone watching TV or reading the papers has now seen multiple current or former colleagues of the Ft. Hood Jihadist relate how they were uncomfortable with his often-professed radical Islamic ideology and anti-Americanism, how he had had counseling, but that nothing seemingly was done about him by Army authorities out of fear of appearing anti-Muslim.

Army Chief of Staff General George Casey appeared yesterday on the NBC News interview program “Meet the Press.” Here’s my partial transcript; the clip is available on You Tube.
Host David Gregory: “How did the Army miss this [increasingly unstable guy]?”
Casey: “I don’t want to say we missed this. We’re starting to see [Islam-related] anecdotes like this come out, [but] I worry a little bit about speculation like this based on anecdotes….” After describing how there will be a thorough investigation, the results of which we all should wait for, Casey stated “Right now, it’s way too soon to be drawing any conclusions about what his motivations were.”
Gregory asks about possible anti-Muslim backlash in the Army:
Casey: “Our diversity, not only in the Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
Losing some diversity would be worse than what, General Casey? Eradicating the Army of vocally pro-Jihadist Muslims would be worse than what, General Casey? No statement from Casey about how the Army never has and never will allow liberal political correctness and special sensitivity toward Muslims to endanger this country or service men and women. Not a whit. Only that diversity is all important, trumping security. And Casey calls the Jihadist murder spree a “tragedy,” as if it were a tornado or a flood, something out of the Army’s control.

And this interview was not an aberration. Casey repeated this line of thought on other interview shows (link). His attitude is a disgrace, and helps explain why numerous Army personnel were afraid to forcefully speak up and/or take action against the man who became a Jihadist murderer for fear of Army repercussions against them. A fish rots from the head down. General Casey should resign – he has failed the Army and his country, and his attitude is patently a danger to service men and women going forward.

Linda Chavez writes (link) at Commentary's blog Contentions:
Taken at his word, Casey’s chief concern seems to be not protecting American soldiers from death at the hands of a jihadist in their midst, but preventing a “backlash” against “diversity” …. The statements were offensive on several levels. It’s as if our leaders — civilian and, in this case, military — believed that Americans are a pack of bigots who’ll be beating up innocent Muslims on the streets and vandalizing mosques if given the least excuse. That hasn’t happened, even in the aftermath of 9/11…. From President Obama on down, including the military chain of command, government officials seem to want to squelch legitimate questions about the role that Hasan’s religious views played in his decision to open fire at Fort Hood. That kind of willful myopia will breed suspicion and distrust among the American people and put servicemen and women at risk. And if Gen. Casey truly believes that “diversity” is more important than protecting his troops, he should hang up his uniform.
In WWII, to take just one of innumerable examples, Italian Christians fought Italian Christians, German Christians fought German Christians, and Japanese Americans formed one of bravest combat units in the war. This country should expect no more and no less from service men and women of any ethnic background or religion, including Islam.

Mark Steyn asks (link) at National Review Online the broader question about who the more dangerous enemy of Western culture is, and he doesn’t think it’s a bunch of Islamic Jihadists in a cave in Afghanistan.
So who's nuttier? The [Ft. Hood Jihadist] guy who gives a lecture to other military doctors in which he says non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats? Or the guys who say "Hey, let's have this fellow counsel our traumatized veterans and then promote him to major and put him on a Homeland Security panel? Or the Army Chief of Staff who thinks the priority should be to celebrate diversity, even unto death? Or the columnist who, when a man hands out copies of the Koran before gunning down his victims while yelling "Allahu akbar," says you're racist if you bring up his religion? Or the Secretary of Homeland Security who warns that the principal threat we face now is an outbreak of Islamophobia? Or the president who says we cannot "fully know" why Major Hasan did what he did, so why trouble ourselves any further?
In the larger context, the Ft. Hood Jihadist murder spree is just part of the ongoing attack on Western culture by the Unholy Alliance (link) of radical Muslims and anti-Western leftists and ultraliberals. It will be a long struggle.


Related Post: On the Ft. Hood Muslim Terrorist Mass Murder & Military Liberal “Political Correctness”

Sunday, November 8, 2009

From the Politburo to Obama -- Twenty Years After the Berlin Wall the Left Still Attacks Western Civilization, But Now from Within

Musing on the 20 year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the false sense of triumph over communist ideology that it inspired, Melanie Phillips, writing (link) in the Daily Mail, reminds us (not that much reminder is needed) that the far left simply switched tactics and now attacks us from within:
Soviet Communism was a belief system whose goal was to overturn the structures of society through the control of economic and political life. This mutated into a post-communist ideology of the Left, whose no-less ambitious aim was to overturn western society through a subversive transformation of its culture.

This was what might be called 'cultural Marxism'. It was based on the understanding that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion. Transform the principles that these embody and you can thus destroy the society they have shaped.

This key insight was developed in particular by an Italian Marxist philosopher called Antonio Gramsci. His thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals -- who are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today. Gramsci understood that the working class would never rise up to seize the levers of 'production, distribution and exchange' as communism had prophesied. Economics was not the path to revolution.

He believed instead that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society. So he advocated a 'long march through the institutions' to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out. This strategy has been carried out to the letter.

This Through The Looking Glass mindset rests on the belief that the world is divided into the powerful (who are responsible for all bad things) and the oppressed (who are responsible for none of them). This is a Marxist doctrine.
Fourteen months ago, Melanie Phillips wrote, also in the Daily Mail, about one of Gramsci’s acolytes:
The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism.
His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’.
And who, Phillips writes, reportedly idolized Alinsky, was trained in community organizing by “the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago, worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi … is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method,” … and who “himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method”?

Star pupil Barack Obama himself.


Friday, November 6, 2009

On the Ft. Hood Muslim Terrorist Mass Murder & Military Liberal “Political Correctness”

Yesterday an American-born Muslim Army doctor opened fire on unarmed Army personnel in the Fort Hood military base in Texas, killing 13, as of now, and wounding 29 while shouting the seemingly now-requisite “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great” in Arabic). Liberal media, as always, are turning themselves into pretzels to avoid even mentioning (link) that the killer is a Muslim and that Islam was connected in any way.

The Army has a lot to answer for, but given the atmosphere of liberal speech censorship commonly referred to as “political correctness,” I seriously wonder if it will even ask the questions, let alone formulate solutions, especially considering that the commander-in-chief is extremely deferential to Islam, being culturally some unique blend of Islamic and radical Christian influences admixed with the radical leftist views, as he grew up, of his family and their friends.

Here are the facts in evidence at this time. An American-born devout Muslim Army psychiatrist begins to exhibit increasingly angry behavior about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and praises Muslim suicide killers. He had received at least one poor performance review as a doctor, and in the past had to be counseled to behave better with patients. He had scrawled Arabic on his apartment door in Maryland. He was training on his own with small arms, unnecessary for his job as a doctor. The Army transfers him to Fort Hood from the D.C. area for a reason as yet unknown, and this year promotes him to the rank of major. He comes to the attention of authorities because of pro-jihad internet postings. The Army’s response to all this: as yet unknown.

How enervated the military has become from liberal “political correctness” about what is being referred to as “Muslim soldiers with attitude” remains unclear, but every honest and attentive American will have very strong suspicions and will form rebuttable presumptions.

Former soldier Ralph Peters has justifiably harsh words (link) in the New York Post:
The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood. Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.
Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.
Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.
There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I’m ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.
Stephanie Gutmann, author of The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars, writing (link) at The Corner at National Review Online, reminds us of history:
This is not the first time American soldiers have been victims of politically correct policies. In 2000, Navy brass were so concerned about appearing to be "sensitive guests" in Yemen's Port of Aden, that sailors patrolling the deck of the U.S.S. Cole were not allowed to carry loaded weapons. The ship did not deploy "picket boats" and establish a perimeter. In other words, the destroyer was totally unprotected when a small motorized skiff packed with explosives steered by two men, now believed to have been al-Qaeda, plowed into its hull, killing 17.
Even two hours after the attack, as the wounded ship listed in the harbor, sentries spotted yet another small skiff motoring deliberately toward them. One [sentry] raised his rifle and aimed, not to shoot them — he couldn't have — but in the spirit (as he told Navy Times) of "Nobody's getting near this ship." Almost immediately, his superior told him, "Let me tell you something about the rules of engagement. You can't point a loaded weapon at these people. That's an act of aggression."
The U.S. military would like to pretend it's not about defense and aggression, and it's sacrificed many young men and women to maintain this fiction. How many more victims of political correctness can we afford?

John M Greco

Monday, November 2, 2009

The Pelosi House Democrat Health Care Bill – Why the Lies?

The House Democrat/Pelosi Health Care Bill, HR 3962, is finally out. Connie Hair writes (link): “The new bill is essentially the same bill as the old bill -- H.R. 3200 -- but they’ve added an extra thousand or so extra pages of statist policy, bringing the bill in at a whopping 1,990 pages of nationalized medicine.” The same massive government take-over of heath care, the first step of a two-step maneuver to fully nationalized government-run health care, combined with budget trickery so egregious one can only call it an outright lie to the American people. The Wall Street Journal calls it (link) “among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.” There’s no good – just the bad and the ugly.

The bad is that the usual Democrat wish list is all there. There’s the government run plan (link), the so-called “public option,” that would lead to Medicaid for all from de facto government-employed doctors. There’s the mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance or pay a fine, the constitutionality of which has been challenged (link), and as well the costly mandate that employers must offer health insurance to workers (link). The bill includes an expansion of Medicaid (link), where roughly half the costs will be kicked on to the states, many of which are functionally bankrupt. And as expected, what’s not in the bill is lawsuit reform -- in fact, there is specific language to prevent states from enacting meaningful “tort” reform (link).

But the ugly is the how the Democrats purport to pay for all this largesse -- it will cost about $1.3 trillion, or over $1,300 billion, over 10 years, much more than the "net" $894 billion number the Democrats are touting (link). Much of the money will come through higher income taxes and other assorted taxes and fees, like those on medical device manufacturers. And much will come from more than $200 billion of cuts to Medicare, led by a massive reduction in payments to doctors (link) that are mandated by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (link), but which the Dems will try to repeal in an action separate from the heath care “reform” bill, thus eliminating elsewhere the “savings” they are counting in their bill -- a disgraceful lie to the American people.

But here’s the big Democrat disgrace: In order to pretend that this massive, unprecedented spending will be “budget neutral,” even beyond the trickery involved with the Bill’s spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that they know will never happen, the Democrats must resort to egregious and transparent “budget trickery” (link): “the bill relies on some of the same budgetary gimmicks as the Senate Finance Committee's bill. Once again, we see that the Democrats backload the spending provisions into the final six years of the CBO's 10 year budget window to make it appear cheaper. Specifically, the CBO says the bill's gross spending will be $60 billion in the first four years, and $995 billion in the next six years (or 94 percent of the total).” In other words, roughly 10 years of revenues but only 6 years of spending in the Bill that the Congressional Budget Office, which looks at only the first 10 years, declared to be budget neutral.

It is beyond belief that any American political party, let alone one as large and important as this one, would resort to such blatant and transparent lying and trickery to convince Americans of their falsehoods that this Bill will pay for itself and not add to the national deficit, leaving aside for the moment its destructive content. This sordid episode is perhaps the best indication of what the Democratic party leadership really thinks of the American people – that we are simply proles who must be tricked into supporting what the liberal elite thinks is in our (and no doubt its) best interest.

John M Greco