Women in Combat

In the past few days, Defense Secretary Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have lifted the ban on women serving in combat.  There are no no more gender barriers on military jobs. This certainly opens up the possibility that women may be included in a future draft.  Panetta appears not to have fully considered this part of the issue.  The feminists want us to think that men and women are the same.  They aren't.      

A friend (whose husband is military) shared this link on Facebook. I think it's definitely worth a read.  The woman veteran in the post writes about issues with the standards that must be met by any member of the military, the conditions that they face, and the problems that would most certainly arise from putting men and women together in these conditions.  She also discusses the cultural tendency of men protecting women that still exists, no matter how much the politically correct feminist types would like to ignore it, and the problems this would create in a combat situation.  She closes with this statement:  

"I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me."

Sending women into combat is a very concerning, though perhaps not very surprising, move.  One wonders what might happen if there were to be a draft and women were included.  Certainly there would be significant resistance, but would it be enough?

Odds 'n Ends

I have to mention this gem from Obama at a recent fundraiser:

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Hmmm. This reminds of another classic quote from Obama from back in 2008:

"[Small town Pennsylvania residents] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It's kind of hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama is an elitist. He clearly believes facts, science, and intelligence are all on his side, and those who disagree are prejudiced, ignorant, or not thinking clearly. In Obama's world, those who disagree with him are always motivated by irrational fears or xenophobic bitterness. His administration openly smears anyone who dares to question him -- from the Tea Parties to Fox News to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The man who campaigned on bridging our differences and bringing an end to extreme partisanship in Washington has become one of the worst partisan hacks in Washington.

I like The Denver Post's David Harsanyi column on this topic, found on realclearpolitics.com here. Harsanyi is not a social conservative and I don't always agree with him, but I find his sarcasm against the left quite refreshing.

***********************

On another note, one of my favorite liberals, Juan Williams, was recently fired from his position as political analyst for National Public Radio. Williams was fired for making allegedly bigoted comments about Muslims on The O'Reilly Factor a few days ago. Here are those "bigoted" comments:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

The CEO of NPR, Vivian Schiller, later added insult to injury by saying that Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and his "psychiatrist."

Even taken out of context, there is nothing bigoted about Williams' comments. He is expressing the feelings that many, probably most, Americans have when flying post-9/11. The comments were true and honest. Given that radical Muslims blew up four planes less than 10 years ago and that those same radical Muslims are still trying to attack us, such concerns are eminently reasonable. When you take Williams' comments in context, however, the ironic thing is that Williams was actually challenging O'Reilly to be more careful and more sensitive in his statements about Muslims.

However, context, honesty, and reasonableness don't matter in the least to the political correctness police, which is becoming stronger and stronger in our country and is threatening to stamp out any kind of honest discourse in the name of "sensitivity." Free speech is being muzzled in the name of tolerance. The left has succeeded in putting numerous topics off limits for debate for anyone who wishes to avoid being labeled as bigoted. Gay rights is one such area. Dare to deviate from liberal orthodoxy on this topic in any way, and you are guaranteed to be branded as a hate-filled anti-gay bigot. Even to advocate for something as reasonable as keeping the traditional definition of marriage, which seemed to be a point of universal agreement in our society just 10 or 15 years ago, now is considered intolerant and homophobic by "polite society." Preaching from the Bible against homosexuality is already illegal under hate crimes legislation in Canada. Does anybody doubt this will happen in the U.S. within a few years as well?

Another area that is off-limits is race relations, especially if you are white. Almost anything you say regarding race and race relations in this country, no matter how innocent, is likely to be taken out of context and used against you. I have been watching Bill O'Reilly for years and I guarantee there is not a racist bone in his body. I remember how viscerally angry he became a few years ago when covering a story about an alternative, non-school sponsored high school prom in Georgia where blacks where prohibited from attending. Bigotry is something he hates with a passion. And yet, this man has been called a racist repeatedly for daring to have honest discussions about race relations on his program. In trying to brand Rush Limbaugh a racist last year, liberals completely manufactured a quote out of thin air, despite the fact that two black men frequently fill in for him on his program and his long-time radio assistant is black. Even Bill and Hillary Clinton were accused of racism back in 2008 for daring to campaign against a black man for president. Liberals deduce all kind of racist code in simple anti-Obama slogans such as "take our country back," a phrase that has nothing to do with race and was used by Howard Dean against the Republicans a few years ago.

Islam is yet another area that is increasingly becoming off-limits for civil discussion. Left-wing editorial after left-wing editorial declared opposition to the Ground Zero mosque (supported by 70% of Americans) to be bigoted and xenophobic. Two members of The View walked off the set when O'Reilly made the undeniably true statement that the Ground Zero mosque should not be built because "Muslims attacked us on 9/11." They claimed his statement was bigoted because he failed to identify these Muslims as "extremists." You see, in today's PC world, it doesn't matter whether what you say is true if it's perceived as insensitive. Facts and truth must take a back seat to tolerance. Of course, tolerance is not really so tolerant after all, since it declares whole categories of speech and thought to be off-limits. Such "tolerance" is the reason that Major Hasan was able to shoot up Fort Hood last year. His military peers and superiors knew that he was a ticking time bomb, but were afraid to say anything negative about him because he was a Muslim and they didn't want to run afoul of the PC police.

Juan Williams is a liberal, but he is an honest liberal and deserves better than how he was treated by NPR. It is scandalous that this left-wing outfit is getting taxpayer money. The Republicans should cut off all taxpayer funding for NPR if they take control of Congress next year. Williams' article about his firing is on foxnews.com and is well worth reading. Check it out here. And I would urge all of my readers: please don't give in to the PC police. It is time that all of us as Americans stood up against this increasing threat to free speech in our country. Don't be afraid to speak out on the issues and to say what you believe. Don't lend your support in any way to politicians and journalists who peddle this pseudo-tolerance.

The FBI Is Compromising Homeland Security

There are many challenges facing our country today. Unemployment sits at nearly 10%, our deficit and national debt are exploding, our businesses are being taxed and regulated to death, and our first-rate health care system is being taken over by incompetent government bureaucrats. Yet, for all these domestic policy and economic challenges, I feel that the greatest challenge we face as a country is the threat of radical Islam. A bad economy makes our lives miserable and an ever-encroaching federal government reduces our liberties, but radical Islam threatens our very lives and the very existence of our country.

The thing that frustrates me the most about this issue is that so many politicians don't seem to recognize the seriousness of the threat -- or worse, don't seem to feel there is a threat at all. National security should not be a partisan issue. Whether Republican or Democrat, we should all stand united to fight terrorism and radical Islam. Yet, over and over again, terrorism issues become Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal -- when they should be America vs. Islamic terrorism. If conservatives are the only ones serious about fighting Islamic terrorism, then we have no chance of winning the fight.

The latest outrage comes from the FBI. Recently the FBI granted a VIP tour of our country's top-secret counterterrorism facilities to Sheikh Kifah Mustapha -- a man with close ties to Hamas and deeply involved in terrorism financing. Apparently this is part of our country's "outreach to the Muslim community." You probably haven't heard anything about this on the news, because the media has been blacking out this story. In fact, an ABC reporter accompanied Mustapha on the tour and filed a report about it, completely omitting any reference to Mustapha's radical terrorist connections. I only found out about it through email updates from Act for America, a grassroots organization founded to fight radical Islam in America. You can read more about this on bigpeace.com (a project founded by Andrew Breitbart) here and here.

I can't say how angry this makes me. Our country's national security is being compromised in the name of tolerance. And no one seems to care -- at least none of our elected officials or media reporters. According to my email from Act for America, many of their members called the FBI to express their concern. The FBI responded rudely and claimed that the story was a lie. Good to know that the FBI not only lets terrorist sympathizers into their top-secret facilities but also lies about it to concerned Americans. Folks, someone at the top approved Mustapha's access, and we need to find out who and why. Here is the letter I sent to my congressman and senators regarding this issue:

I am writing to ask you and your [House or Senate] colleagues to investigate why the FBI invited Sheikh Kifah Mustapha on a VIP tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center. Mustapha has close connections to Hamas, was named an unindicated co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, is at the top of our terrorist watch lists, and recently was dismissed from the Illinois State Police chaplaincy program after failing a background check. There is no way a man like this should be given access to a top-secret counter-terrorism facility. Please encourage your colleagues to speak out on this issue and to launch a congressional investigation to determine how this happened and who is responsible for approving it. I feel strongly that the security of our country MUST be a top priority, and I know you feel the same way.

Sadly, I don't think anyone in the Obama Administration is losing any sleep over this. In fact, I doubt that Obama would have any problem with this. He might have personally approved it, for all I know. Just consider the behavior of Obama and his administration over the past two years when it comes to Islamic terrorism:

1. Attorney General Eric Holder launched an investigation into the CIA for their enhanced interrogation techniques against known terrorists -- techniques that saved thousands of American lives and that were legal at the time they were used. The Obama Administration has made any aggressive forms of interrogation against terrorists illegal. That should help our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks.
2. Obama is trying to shut down our top-notch terrorist facility at Guantanamo Bay, either releasing the terrorists held there or bringing them to the U.S.
3. Attorney General Eric Holder decided to bring Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed to the U.S. to provide him with the full rights of American citizens and a civilian trial in New York City, despite the fact that he had already pleaded guilty in a military tribunal.
4. Obama's Department of Homeland Security stopped using phrases like "acts of terrorism" and "radical Islam," preferring instead more politically correct terminology like "man-caused disasters." How can you defeat an enemy when you won't even acknowledge who you're fighting?
5. Obama's government failed miserably in stopping the Christmas Day bomber. Once he was apprehended, thanks to the fact that his bomb did not detonate as intended, he was interviewed by the FBI for 45 minutes and then was read his Miranda rights, despite the fact he was not an American citizen and the fact that he had current information about terrorist activities. He then clammed up and refused to talk to the FBI or CIA for many weeks.
6. The Fort Hood shooter should have been kicked out the military months earlier due to his radical Islamic beliefs, but his superiors would not take action against him because of a rigorous "tolerance" policy enforced by the top military commanders appointed by Obama. After the massacre, top Obama administration members denied the shooter had connections to radical Islam and said it was an isolated incident. You know, like the Times Square bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, and all those other isolated incidents.
7. Obama spoke out forcefully in favor of a grand Islamic center right next to Ground Zero, despite the fact that the imam behind the project has radical pro-terrorist and anti-American views. In fact, that imam works for our government as part of our "outreach" to the Muslim world.
8. Obama has gone around the world apologizing for America's supposed offenses against the Muslim world under his predecessor.
9. Obama has tied the hands of our troops in Afghanistan. Their restrictive rules of engagement make it next to impossible to aggressively go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and a fixed departure date emboldens terrorists even further.
10. Obama has refused to take any action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - even tough sanctions. He has continually tried to appease their radical leaders, with no result. He even refused to speak out against their rigged election last year or to defend and support the Iranian citizens protesting for freedom.
11. Obama has openly sided with Palestinian terrorists over our democratic ally Israel. One of Obama first official overseas speeches was to Hamas. His representatives have refused to defend Israel in the U.N., and he has openly snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

I could go on and on, but I don't have time. The point is, Islamic terrorists don't fear Obama. In fact, they probably think he secretly sympathizes with them. They are emboldened here and abroad, knowing that there will be no consequences for their actions. Terrorist activity has significantly increased on our soil since Obama took office, including one successful and two nearly-successful attacks. Increasingly, our government associates with "moderate" Muslim leaders and organizations that are actually very radical and militant in their views. Congress hasn't held Obama accountable either. It's only going to get worse, unless we as citizens and voters speak out and make it clear to our elected officials that the War on Terror is a priority for us.

Now it's "controversial" to make decisions about a business that you own?

Suppose, for just a moment, that General Motors makes a strange business agreement with Toyota. GM pays Toyota a large sum of money, and in exchange, GM controls the business decisions of Toyota. However, Toyota is still owned by the shareholders of Toyota. GM can now decide who Toyota may hire and what criteria may be used in Toyota's hiring decisions. GM gets to decide how much money its executives may earn. GM also has the right to fix any cases of "discriminatory underrepresentation" of minorities in management positions. GM has the power to set minimum wages at Toyota (even though some candidates for jobs may be willing to work for less) and to mandate that Toyota pay a higher wage to employees who work more than 40 hours in a week.


With all the power that GM has over Toyota, you might argue that GM actually owns Toyota, even though the original agreement says otherwise. Now, substitute "the US government" for "GM" and "privately-owned American businesses" for "Toyota", and you get the situation faced by businesses in the US today.*


US Senate candidate Rand Paul from Kentucky made a similar argument on The Rachel Maddow Show on May 19. (Video and transcript here.) On this show, Maddow asked Paul to clarify some of his previous statements regarding the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul has criticized parts of the 1964 act which place mandates on private businesses, while praising the other sections which place restrictions only on public institutions. Paul framed his argument in terms of personal liberty and property rights. In a nutshell, the owners of private businesses should be free to use their property as they see fit, as this is the essence of ownership.

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.

I love this answer. I also find racism aborrhent, and I choose not to associate myself with racists. However, freedom includes the right to be an offensive jerk. And everyone is an offensive jerk in somebody's eyes. Paul gave kind of a long and roundabout answer, but he's a politician. If he had not gone to great lengths to explain himself, then his ideas would be distorted by the press even more than they have already.

Maddow's reply to Paul is just plain silly.

MADDOW: But isn't being in favor of civil rights but against the Civil Rights Act a little like saying you're against high cholesterol but you're in favor of fried cheese?**

This is a logical fallacy that many people fall for. (Or maybe they know better, but they just try to score political points by using it.) It is only inconsistent to support civil rights while opposing parts of the Civil Rights Act if those parts actually deal with civil rights. For the record, I am strongly in favor of fried cheese.


*All right, the analogy breaks down at a few points. For one, the federal government does not pay privately-owned businesses for their rights. It just takes their rights by force.

**Wait a second. This argument sounds ... somehow ... familiar for some reason -- almost as if I have heard it before. You know...being personally opposed to something but wanting it to remain legal. Where have I heard this? Maybe I'm confused. Yeah, probably.

Lessons from Fort Hood Terrorist Attack

Last week, Maj. Nidal Hasan went on a horrific killing spree at Fort Hood, killing 13 Americans and wounding 29 others. Here are the facts:
1. Maj. Hasan was a radical Muslim who attended a mosque led by a jihadist cleric who is under investigation for terrorist involvement.
2. Maj. Hasan shouted out "Allahu akbar" ("God is great") right before going on his killing spree.
3. Maj. Hasan had been a vocal critic of America and of America's overseas wars for years and had declared that the U.S. was in a war against Islam.
4. Maj. Hasan had published odes to suicide bombers on the Internet, had publicly praised a radical Muslim who killed a soldier at a recruiting station in Arkansas earlier this year, and had attempted to contact Al Qaeda, all in the weeks and months leading up to the shootings.
5. Maj. Hasan was an Army psychiatrist who had never been in combat and had never even been deployed overseas, and who was promoted despite poor job performance.
6. Maj. Hasan sold off most of his belongings and handed out copies of the Koran in the days leading up to the shootings.

Here are the inevitable conclusions that an objective observer would draw from these facts:
1. This was a premeditated and evil act of Islamic terrorism perpetrated on American soil -- the worst one in fact since 9/11 -- and our government needs to publicly label it as such.
2. We need to condemn not only the attacks, but also the radical Muslim ideology that inspired this attack, and redouble our efforts to effectively monitor, and if necessary, arrest, deport, or silence clerics, mosques, and individuals that promote this ideology.
3. We need to ask ourselves what went wrong in our country's War on Terror to allow this Muslim extremist to get away with this crime. The warning signs were obvious, and Maj. Hasan has been on the FBI's radar screen for months prior to the shooting. Why was nothing done?
4. Many military acquaintances of Maj. Hasan's are coming forward now with damning statements about this man's sympathy with Islamic terrorism, his dangerous religious views, and his hatred and contempt for the U.S. and the U.S. military. Why did they not come forward earlier to report these things? Some of them have stated that it was because they were fearful of being branded as intolerant or being punished for opposing Islam or diversity. What does the military (and other branches of government) need to do to encourage members to report potential terrorist suspects or plots?

Here are the conclusions that our government and our media are drawing from this attack:

1. Gen. George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, made the following comments in the days following the attacks: “Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. It’s not just about Muslims, we have a very diverse army, we have very diverse society and that gives us all strength." NOTE: The real tragedy is not the death of the soldiers or the violence of radical Islam, but a potential backlash against Islam and diversity. He added in another interview, "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that." NOTE: The real thing to watch for is not terrorism, but "anti-diversity" behavior. If that's the attitude of the military leadership, I wouldn't hold my breath to see changes for the better in preventing future terrorist attacks.
2. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano made the following comments: “This was a terrible tragedy for all involved. Obviously, we object to — and do not believe — that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this.... This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith." Well, obviously. There have only been a little over 14,000 attacks worldwide by Muslim terrorists in the 8 years since 9/11. So it's good to see the woman responsible for keeping American soil safe zeroing in on the real threat to our security -- anti-Muslim bigotry.
3. ABC's newly-picked World News Tonight anchor commented that she wished that Maj. Hasan were named "Smith." That's what I call real journalism -- wishing out loud that the facts would just go away.
4. Chris Matthews, who has a prime-time MSNBC show (with approxmately 7 viewers per night) made the following comments: "See - we have a problem. How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it?" Hmmm. Once he kills a few dozen soldiers, gets arrested, gets a lawyer, and is duly declared guilty in a court of law, we can conclude he's dangerous. I'm feeling safer already.
5. And here's Evan Thomas, Editor-At-Large of Newsweek: "I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse." Of course, no pattern here. The guy just happens to be Muslim. What a "tragic" coincidence! I just hope we can be vigilant about the real threat -- those right-wingers!
6. Numerous news outlets have claimed that he must have just snapped and are blaming post-traumatic stress syndrome (despite the fact he had never been in combat). This was the original explanation of most of the media, which failed to even initially report the fact that Hasan was a Muslim (which seems like it could be a somewhat relevant fact).

This politically correct attitude by people in top positions in government and media shows why this attack was able to happen in the first place. Nobody dares to report or go after anyone who is Muslim, no matter what they say or do, because they will be branded as bigoted. The pansy White House won't even use the word terrorism. Our government won't even admit we're in a war against radical Islam -- so how can we fight it effectively? How many people have to die before we learn the tragic lesson from Fort Hood?