Political Correctness Ignores REAL Enemy of Ft. Hood Shooting

One of the seeds of our destruction will be POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, which is to say CENSORSHIP OF FREE SPEECH.  The flower of that seed, at least in America, will be islam.

It is absolutely insane that we can't or won't name the enemy which seeks our destruction out of fear of OFFENDING that enemy.

---

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100121070356.aspx?print=on

CNN's Cafferty Slams Pentagon's Omission of Islam in Ft. Hood Report

By: Matthew Balan

January 21, 2010 18:23 ET

CNN’s Jack Cafferty blasted the Defense Department’s report on the Fort Hood massacre as a “joke” on Thursday’s Situation Room, singling out how there was “no mention in the report of the suspect’s [Major Nidal Hasan] views of Islam.” Cafferty also highlighted a recent Gallup poll that found that “43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims.”

The CNN commentator wasted no time in criticizing the 86-page report released by the Pentagon on the Fort Hood shootings: “The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 people dead- it’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, and instead, focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the November shootings.”

Cafferty later read a quote from 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, and continued his attack on the report: “Lehman...told Time magazine the Pentagon’s silence on Islamic extremism- quote, ‘shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,’ unquote. What a shame....The Pentagon acknowledges it did not focus so much on Hasan’s motives, as on what it called ‘actions and effects.’ The report says they didn’t want to interfere with the criminal probe into Major Hasan. Garbage.”

Before reading his “Question of the Hour,” the commentator noted the Gallup poll: “Meanwhile, a new Gallup poll shows 43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims. That’s more than twice as many who feel that way about Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, and the same survey finds that Islam is the most negatively viewed religion. One-third of those surveyed say their opinion of Islam is- quote, ‘not favorable at all,’ unquote.”

In recent days, Cafferty has “gone rogue,” (to paraphrase the title of his favorite subject of ire, Sarah Palin), blasting top Democrats over their secret negotiations to pass a final version of ObamaCare, labeling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “horrible woman,” and tossing the idea that the Earth’s climate could actually be cooling. If it wasn’t for his December 2009 endorsement of a global one-child policy, you’d think he’s becoming a conservative.

The full transcript of Jack Cafferty’s commentary, which began 12 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of Thursday’s Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 people dead- it’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, and instead, focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the November shootings. This despite the fact that Hasan made no secret of his radical Islamic faith. He allegedly proselytized to his fellow service members, (Why do we tolerate muslims ACTIVELY proselytizing in America, especially in the military, yet we won't even let Christians MENTION their faith, display a Bible on their desk, or display ANY religious symbol?  Self destruction.)  [and] spoke out often against the wars the U.S. is fighting in Muslim counties.

John Lehman, the member of the 9/11 Commission, told Time magazine the Pentagon’s silence on Islamic extremism- quote, ‘shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,’ unquote. What a shame. The Texas congressman, whose district includes Fort Hood, says the report- quote, ‘ignores the elephant in the room- radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy,’ unquote. The Pentagon acknowledges it did not focus so much on Hasan’s motives, as on what it called ‘actions and effects.’ The report says they didn’t want to interfere with the criminal probe into Major Hasan. Garbage.

Meanwhile, a new Gallup poll shows 43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims. That’s more than twice as many who feel that way about Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, and the same survey finds that Islam is the most negatively viewed religion. One-third of those surveyed say their opinion of Islam is- quote, ‘not favorable at all,’ unquote.  (Because the pieces of swine excrement keep BLOWING US UP and SHOOTING US!)

So here’s the question: why would the Pentagon choose to ignore the Fort Hood shooter’s ties to Islam in its report? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

---

The Liberals Attack Trijicon: Suppression of All Things Christian…

“Military religious extremism?”  Proselytizing? Offending muslims? To quote the Botox Bolshevik Nancy Pelosi, “Are you serious?”

How in the world is a tiny, obscure, hidden stamp that is difficult at best to recognize as a Bible verse “proselytizing?”  Now, if I take my gun equipped with high quality Trijicon optics, walk up to a muslim, point to the extremely small, nearly hidden  stamp that can’t be seen or read from more than a foot away, tell the muslim “This references a verse in the Bible.  This verse says you are going to Hell unless you convert to Christianity,” then that might be considered “proselytizing.”  Simply possessing something with a Biblical reference on it is NOT, I repeat, NOT proselytizing.  Next the whiny liberals will say that the “cross” hairs in a rifle scope are religious symbols and we have to take them away from our soldiers.  What idiots!


We are in these countries to HELP these people.  We as Americans go so far overboard not to OFFEND these people as to be ridiculous.  We won’t allow our service men and women to consume alcohol, even in moderation.  All the other countries with forces there allow their service members access to alcohol.  Some groups are even pushing for rules that would prohibit our service members from even POSSESSING a Bible for private use in their quarters while stationed in these muslim countries.  It’s even getting to the point that an aircrew can’t have a ham sandwich in their box lunch if they fly through muslim airspace for fear of offending them.  Bullcrap.

If these people want our help, and our generosity, then they will “turn the other cheek” to what we do in our own quarters, and on our own installations.  We can be “culturally sensitive” in our interactions with their citizens, but we can still be Americans with some measure of freedom on our own time on our own installations.  If the muslims in these countries aren’t willing to make even this small of a concession to receive our billions of dollars in aid, and our military protection, then we should leave their countries, take our military and our money, and leave them to their own devices with the understanding that a return to supporting and harboring terrorists or others enemies that threaten America will result in their certain destruction.  Sadly, our leaders don’t have the guts or the brains to make a decision like that.

I find it tragically funny how we let millions of muslims into America who turn right around and make demands that we not display our own religious symbols where muslims can see them.  They demand tolerance while they “proselytize” our citizens with their poisonous, cancerous religion, yet get offended if we simply wish to discuss our religion with them.  They demand that we let them build the phallic symbols on their mosques which represent the male domination of their culture and religion.  If we were to go to Saudi Arabia or any other muslim nation and demand the same thing, we would simply be stoned to death or imprisoned.

Muslims are like the democrats and liberals in this country and around the world who are pandering to them out of fear.  They so afraid of being proven wrong that they will not listen to any other view points, and simply shut down the debate.

So, Trijicon.  Bravo to you for incorporating your faith into your product, boo to you for caving to the “politically correct” censorship.  If our government truly wanted the BEST equipment for our servicemen and women, something like this completely inconsequential and overblown reference to something to do with Christianity wouldn’t stand in the way of providing the best to the best.  The fact that this has become such a big deal only illustrates that the left in the media and our spineless government aren’t truly concerned with what is best for our troops, and thus by extension not concerned about what is truly best for America.

---

CNSNews.com

Group That Alerted Media to Biblical Markings on Rifle Sights Wants Congress to Investigate ‘Military Religious Extremism’

Friday, January 22, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

In this handout photo provided by the Defense Department, taken March 25, 2009, a U.S. soldier shows an Iraqi police officer his M-4 carbine assault rifle at a post in Hayy, Iraq. Combat rifle sights used by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan carry references to Bible verses, stoking concerns about whether the inscriptions break a government rule that bars proselytizing by American troops. (AP Photo/Staff Sgt. Rasheen A. Douglas, Defense Department)

(CNSNews.com) – The advocacy group that brought worldwide attention to the fact that an American company has been stamping biblical references on combat rifle sights used by the U.S. military said Thursday it hoped the damage done was not “beyond repair.” (Damage?  What damage?)

Trijicon’s “outrageous practice” of stamping Christian references on rifle scopes used by the U.S. military “was an unconstitutional disgrace of the highest magnitude to our military and an action that clearly gave additional incentive and emboldenment to recruiters for our nation’s enemies,” Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) head Mikey Weinstein said, after Trijicon Inc. announced it would now stop the practice.  (This is liberal and lawyer speak designed to whip up a frenzy where none exists.  Much boohoo about nothing.)

“It is nothing short of a vile national security threat that, despite our nation’s efforts to convince the Muslim world we are not pursuing a holy war against them, our military and its contractors time again resort to unlawful fundamentalist evangelical Christian practices, even on the battlefield,” Weinstein said in a message posted on the MRFF Web site.  (The voice and view point of an ANTI-CHRISTIAN.  “Vile national security threat?”  Really?  You’re an idiot.  The REAL threat is from the muslims eating away our country and military from the inside like a cancer.  Ft. Hood and Nadal Hassan?  Little Rock recruiting center shooting?  Ft. Dix plot?  Muslims running down innocent people in cars and SUV’s screaming ‘allah akbar’?  Ring a bell, you retard?  If we are indeed at war with terrorists, you probably think we shouldn’t offend them before we kill them.)

MRFF, a watchdog group that describes itself as an advocate of “the free exercise of religious freedom in the military,” (except Christianity) says on its Web site that it “brought to light” the existence of “the secret ‘Jesus’ Bible codes.”

It is taking credit for breaking the story, which ABC News first reported on Monday, and it is calling for a congressional investigation: “We can now only hope that the United States Congress and The Pentagon will comprehensively investigate how this catastrophe and countless other examples of military religious extremism infiltrates every branch of our honorable armed services.”  (They only consider it “religious extremism” if it involves Christianity and the Bible.)

Before the MRFF-initiated “ABC News investigation,” Trijicon had included the biblical references alongside other markings on its products for more than two decades, a practice it ascribed in a statement this week to “our faith and our belief in service to our country.”

Thanks to the MRFF, the obscure sets of numbers and letters like 2COR4:6 and JN8:12 are now widely known to refer to New Testament verses.

The news reports prompted governments as far away as Australia and New Zealand – whose forces in Afghanistan also use the scopes – to consider their options.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, (unindicted co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, shunned by the FBI for their support of terrorist organizations…) meanwhile, called the presence of the markings “a potential recruiting tool for anti-American forces” and a Muslim Public Affairs Council official said they provided “propaganda ammo to extremists who claim there is a ‘Crusader war against Islam’ by the United States.”  (They would say this regardless.  Their goal is to intimidate us into inaction.)

According to the U.S. Central Command, the Trijicon rifle scopes were bought in 2005 for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. It said in a statement it “only became aware of these codes in the past several days.”

“The codes on the scopes are contrary to U.S. Central Command guidance,” CentCom commander Gen. David Petraeus said Thursday.  (Cowardly…)

“Our mission is to protect the population we’re serving and establish conditions for security, stability, and development, and we strive to do that while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious norms of the populace we are supporting.  (Sensitivity is one thing, but TOTALLY erasing your own religion and culture are something else.  Refer to my comments above…)

“We deeply respect the cultures of the host nations and our coalition partners in the Central Command Area of Responsibility,” he said.  (Politically correct, canned statements of cowards.)

Trijicon on Thursday issued a statement saying it had agreed to stop putting references to scripture on products manufactured for the U.S. military, and would also provide modification kits to enable the military to remove the markings on products already deployed.  (Spineless move.  If you produce the best product, they will buy it.  Oh, sorry.  I forgot.  This is the U.S. government we’re talking about.  Disregard.)

In response to concerns raised by the Department of Defense, Trijicon, Inc. initiated this action to ensure the war-time production needs of the troops are met as quickly as possible.

“Trijicon has proudly served the U.S. military for more than two decades, and our decision to offer to voluntarily remove these references is both prudent and appropriate,” said company president Stephen Bindon.

“Trijicon’s more than 250 American workers are proud and humbled to provide critical hardware for our nation’s brave service men and women and we look forward to working with the Department of Defense to ensure our immediate solutions are in compliance with the military’s standards requirements.”

---

---

Political Correctness: Cancer Eating the U.S. Military

I can speak from personal experience to back up and expand on this story.  The political correctness forced upon the military by the politicians over the last two or three decades has all but paralyzed the military when it comes to policing its own ranks.  An atmosphere of fear has been created where service members are afraid to bring up concerns about fellow service members because of the well founded fear that it will be seen as as discrimination in one of the areas of “race, creed, sex, (sexual preference), religion, or national origin.”  If you voice a concern, you become the criminal and the person whom you complain about becomes the victim.  I have seen this many times, and seen the careers of officers and NCO’s ruined over nothing more than an unfounded accusation.  Granted, there are some sleaze bags out there who need to be dealt with, but in the Military Equal Opportunity arena you are guilty until proven innocent, and then you are not innocent, they just couldn’t prove you did whatever you were accused of.


So, rather than policing our own ranks and doing our job as military men and women, what do we do?  We waste countless hours in “sensitivity training,” various forms of anti-discrimination briefings, and an ever increasing barrage of material and briefings that teach that white males of Angl0-Saxon descent are oppressors.  We can’t have an open, honest discussion about our differences that might actually help us learn about one another.  We are forced to remain silent and simply accept what we see lest we potentially OFFEND someone.

I’ve read the entire constitution, and I can’t find anywhere in the document that says you have the “right not to be offended.”  By the nature of the institution, freedom of speech is somewhat curtailed in the military, but I’m pretty sure there is still no “right” in the military “not to be offended.”

I will remind everyone what the mission of the military is SUPPOSED to be.  The United States military’s job should be to be ready, willing, and able to kick anybody’s butt, anytime, anywhere in the defense of America and her interests.  There is no room for political correctness or the other extraneous crap that is forced upon the military when politicians decide to use us as their “social laboratory” when they can’t get the public to buy into their idiotic social programs.  As good a military as we STILL are in spite of the interference, we would be so much more effective for a given size if we didn’t have all of the extraneous crap to deal with.

Now let’s talk about the “accountability” that is suddenly being thrust upon the military for the failure to identify and stop Nidal Hasan.  As I’ve highlighted in orange in the article below, the head cutting in this case will likely stop at the rank of colonel.  Why is this important?  Unless it is politically expedient for the president, any president, you will seldom if ever see anyone above the rank of 1-star (brigadier general) be punished for anything.  These officers are confirmed and appointed by the president, so embarrassing them embarrasses him.  The ranks of general officers are kind of like the mafia.  a 1-star is a “wise guy,” trying to make a name for himself.  He’s still expendable.  2-stars and above are “made men.”  They haven’t necessarily been picked for their leadership ability, although once in a while a general has managed to hide the fact that he can lead until AFTER he gets promoted.  Generals are usually picked for their compliance and lack of political backbone.

Here are a few examples of the “wise guy” analogy.

• The Beirut barracks bombing. The 1-star in charge warned of the dangers and begged for the resources and permission to protect his men.  He was told to “shut up and color,” and then punished and made a scape-goat when the barracks were actually attacked killing dozens of marines.  No one above 1-star was punished.
• The shoot down of two Blackhawk helicopters by F-15’s in northern Iraq. The Blackhawks weren’t squawking as per the theater SPINS (transmitting the proper Identification Friend or Foe codes prescribed by special instructions). The flight of F-15’s intercepted them and IMPROPERLY identified them as Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters.  There were several breakdowns in operations as crews tried to adhere to an extremely complicated, politically driven and designed set of ROE (Rules of Engagement).  Several of the front line folks were strung up, but no one above 1-star was touched, including Lt. Gen. Charles Heflebower who was in charge at the time, or any of those responsible for putting the rules in place and signing off on them.
• The CT-43 crash in Dubrovnik, Croatia in which then commerce secretary Ron Brown was killed. Brig. Gen. William E. Stevens, the 1-star wing commander, was fired because he pushed the VIP airlift planes and pilots to break rules in order to please the VIP’s whom the wing served.  He had higher headquarters guidance that would have severely hampered operations, but he sat on it so as not to take heat from VIP’s who would be unable to get to their destinations.  His deputy, Col John Mazurowski, was also fired because he knew of this guidance but said nothing.  Maz was a good guy who regrettably failed to do the right thing.  Stevens, the 1-star, was the tallest tree to get clipped.  Remember Heflebower?  He was in charge during this debacle as well.  Untouched.  An excerpt from this article (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/08/us/air-force-cites-command-failures-in-brown-crash.html?pagewanted=all) summarizes Heflebower’s leadership (or lack their of) role in the incident, and in general.

Perhaps the most explosive deposition taken by the investigators came from Lieut. Col. James A. Albright, former commander of the squadron to which the doomed plane belonged.

In his testimony, Colonel Albright described an atmosphere in which safety concerns may sometimes have been secondary to on-time performance, and in which pilots were required to fly jets with outdated equipment into airports that offered only the most primitive navigational aids.

Powerful Government officials  and their staffs, Colonel Albright said, often demanded that Air Force planes on which they traveled fly through dangerous weather or to airports with poor navigational equipment. (i.e. Ron Brown and various senators, congressmen, and other staff flunkies.  I experience this pressure SEVERAL TIMES 1ST HAND.)

“I think there is an atmosphere of fear,” said Colonel Albright, who was removed from his command five days before the crash because of differences with General Stevens, his superior. “In the matrix of safety versus mission, Stevens is mission first.” (Absolutely true, from 1st hand experience.)  (Albright was a gifted leader, but lacked enough tact to survive in the extremely political environment.  He and Stevens had a history, and Stevens was looking for an excuse to fire him.  Albright called Stevens out on an issue in front of various other commanders in a staff meeting, giving Stevens the excuse he was looking for.)

Colonel Albright also said that Maj. Gen. Charles R. Heflebower, the commander of the 17th Air Force, the parent command of General Stevens’s 86th Airlift Wing, had a “reputation for intimidation and pushing pilots to do things that are blatantly illegal” from a safety standpoint and that General Heflebower himself had made illegal and potentially dangerous maneuvers while flying Air Force planes. (Again, absolutely true, witnessed 1st hand by me, and reported to my chain of command prior to the accident, and during the investigation.)

In their own depositions, both General Heflebower and General Stevens denied Colonel Albright’s accusations.

And now you have the Fort Hood debacle.  No one will speak the truth because of the oppressive atmosphere of fear of reprisal for speaking out.  We are not allowed to call the enemy the “enemy.”  We are not allowed to say anything potentially offensive about the people who want to kill us.  In the 80-90 page report that Secretary Gates released on the incident, the word “islam” was not mentioned ONCE.

In general, not discriminating because of race, creed, religion, sex, or national origin is a noble practice.  However, when one or more of those categories are attempting to KILL YOU, it may be time to make an exception.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,583083,00.html

Officers May Be Punished for Fort Hood Rampage

Friday , January 15, 2010

As many as eight Army officers may be punished for failing to heed warning signs and take action against suspected Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S. official said Thursday.

First reported in the Los Angeles Times, an official familiar with a Pentagon review of the case, which will be discussed at a briefing Friday, said the officers who face discipline hold ranks of colonel and below.

The review reportedly found that superiors allowed Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to advance within the ranks despite his failings to meet physical and professional standards. Hasan avoided physical training, was overweight and frequently late, but was seen by superiors as a rare medical officer and thus avoided corrective action.

“Had those failings been properly adjudicated, he wouldn’t have progressed,” the official told the Times.

Additionally, the Pentagon review into the deadly rampage that killed 13 found that the Defense Department does not do an adequate job of sharing information about internal personnel, and it focuses more on hunting spies than ferreting out extremists.

The Defense Department made public its own review of the rampage earlier this week and found that doctors overseeing Hasan’s medical training repeatedly voiced concerns over his strident views on Islam and his inappropriate behavior, yet continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks.

Both reviews seem to point to the fact that supervisors failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist.

Recent statistics show the Army rarely blocks junior officers from promotion, especially in the medical corps.

Hasan showed no signs of being violent or a threat. But parallels have been drawn between the missed signals in his case and those preceding the thwarted Christmas attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner. President Barack Obama and his top national security aides have acknowledged they had intelligence about the alleged bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, but failed to connect the dots.

Hasan remains under guard at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where he is paralyzed from the upper chest down, his lawyer John Galligan told Fox News. Hasan also has “several other medical issues” related to his gunshot wounds, Galligan said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

---