Blog Archives

Political correctness turns into Constitution-crushing political Insanity

There’s the lunacy called political correctness. There’s also the military equivalent, military correctness.

And under military correctness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion instead become censorship and oppression… at least according to a “religious tolerance” plan within the Department of Defense.

Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

The “religious tolerance” punch line comes from the guy doing the “vetting.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this [expression of religion],” [Mikey] Weinstein [who fronts Orwellian “Military Religious Freedom Foundation”] told Fox News. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”

First, consider the absurdity in the fact Weinstein thinks that exercising one’s right to religion and free speech is a crime worthy of a court martial. Next, consider the full power and coherence of Weinstein’s intellect.

“If a member of the military is proselytizing in a manner that violates the law [the Weinstein proposed law which prohibits military members’ freedom of speech and religion], well then of course they can be prosecuted,” he said. “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”

He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

Thus, Weinstein-style, the circle is squared and the corruption of language is completed. Or as George Orwell would say, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

Military correctness as a weapon of mass destruction

orthodoxyDo you think all senior military leaders achieve their positions based on competence, insight and wisdom, dedication to duty, or integrity?

If so, perhaps this will dissuade you:

America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.

Be not confused: the military has many aspects from the progressive playbook that are always at work. That is, From each according to his ability to pay; to each according to his adherence to today’s political dogma.

If you still don’t believe military correctness is a weapon of mass destruction, think about George Casey, one of its many poster generals.

What’s the career key? The ability to please one’s superiors is essential to achieving rank. The ability to produce tangible national security benefits may be desired, but is certainly not required.

If we were at war (total war, where national survival or essential national interests were on the line), America would not tolerate such a system. Because we’re not, we do.

In the meantime, salute the orthodoxy—no matter how stupid it may be—and succeed.

Political correctness + the military = military correctness

Military correctness is a military’s form of political correctness, too often with deadly implications.

As we move into President Obama’s second term, expect military correctness to explode, literally, as Joe Biden might say.

Consider the following scenario: a White House insider turns out to be a murderous traitor. He makes his way to the Oval Office and wearing a suicide vest, kills himself and the President. Witnesses hear him yelling, “Allahu Akbar,” as he detonates the device.

While normal human beings would consider such a horrible, yet hypothetical, event to be terrorism, based on the Fort Hood principle of military correctness, it should instead be called an act of workplace violence.

Our politicos have long used the military as their own social science sandbox and many of our general officers are successful in the military because of their political skills. What, if anything, will the Department of Defense and the military services do to combat military correctness in the President’s second term?

Here’s my expectation on the subject: only initiatives that are detrimental to readiness and to good order and discipline will be processed for approval.

Why the IC goes PC

Why has the intelligence community gone politically correct? Because it’s a huge bureaucratic organization that’s fighting for relevance as determined by mission, manpower, and money.

Who provides the missions, manpower, and money?

Politicos, to include progressive politicos. The politicos of the left view the military, the schools, and anything “they” (via the taxpayer and/or borrowing) fund, to include the intelligence community as their own experiment in liberal social engineering:

For the first time in its history, the Central Intelligence Agency is actively seeking recruits from a new demographic – the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender community.

There’s the answer to the Petraeus meltdown: he should have said he was bi-sexual in his mea culpa (or given the beating he suffered anyway, at least make Obama fire him for effectively doing what Bill Clinton was doing. That would have put Barry in a spot…).

But what about the effectiveness of the intelligence community’s mission (and let’s just ignore its efficiency)? Based on the record, it isn’t good. Technical surveillance and contractor created tools to lash things together (and then using them to kill bad guys) may be awe-inducing, but what about the longer term analysis? Who in the IC saw the “Arab Spring” coming? While I’m sure some did, I’d also bet their analysis never reached the “senior leader” level.

There, the issue is one of filtering. My hypothesis is that our nation’s intelligence products are filtered, dumbed-down (or turned into a crisis, if that’s the desired outcome), and/or politicized by our senior leaders and “public servants” until it’s no longer recognizable as the truth. And for what it’s worth, the intelligence community doesn’t really have all that sterling a record when it comes to (for example) the revolution in Iran, the collapse of the Soviet empire, 9/11, found WMD in Iraq, etc.

In the meantime, others—domestic U.S. law enforcement (including the FBI and Homeland Security)—want to read all your texts, e-mails, and anything you’ve perused on the internet.

Where is the outrage? There is none, because it seems by mutual agreement, senior leaders in the intelligence community and their corresponding politicos have decided it would be better to support one another, regardless of the detrimental effect on national security, let alone the truth.

Why? Because otherwise, people’s careers might get off track or the budget might be cut. Has the IC (some, much, almost all?) become the fabled self-licking ice cream cone?

The great green Navy

From Reuters regarding the Pentagon’s “controversial” green fuels initiative:

[What] The Pentagon hopes it [the green fuels initiative] can prove [with the initiative is that] the Navy looks as impressive burning fuel squeezed from seeds, algae and chicken fat as it does using petroleum.

But the demonstration, years in the making, may be a Pyrrhic victory.

Some Republican lawmakers have seized on the fuel’s $26-a-gallon price, compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel.

Seeds, algae, and chicken fat? Might crony capitalism, venture socialism, or regulatory capture be at work? Or in the National Security Strategy itself? The evidence says yes.

The great green Navy is a result of what happens when the environmental shamans amateurs political appointees are running the show and when too few are concerned about costs.

Next thing we’ll hear is we have to downsize the Navy. Why? Those darn operating costs have just risen too high.

The social-engineering sandbox

Quick, what’s the name of the NFL franchise in Washington DC?

The Redskins, you say.

That baseball team in Cleveland?

The Indians, you offer.

The zero percent Cherokee running for office in Massachusetts?

Right, Elizabeth Warren, the comedy gift that keeps on giving.

Finally, what’s the term used to describe the alternating sprint exercises at the Naval Academy and in common use elsewhere?

Indian runs.

But what does one enlisted military-educational-complex bureaucrat at Annapolis (apparently with nothing better to think about or no better work to do) feel about Indian runs?

“The term ‘Indian Run’ is used to describe the alternating sprint exercises at various levels here at the Academy, and it is widely used among the public,” [Master Chief Christopher] Gary wrote in the May 14 email. “I hope all can already see the problem with this, but let me be clear, this is a form of stereotyping.”

Let me be clear. Wow, the dude goes all Barry Oh! on us in his straw man. Methinks Master Chief Gary has been assimilated.

Anyone who has served in the military knows it veritable petri-dish for those who want to tell us what to do and how to think; it’s political correctness via speech codes and social-engineering.

Stupid ideas like Master Chief Gary’s can come from anywhere, but they’re most often generated by the services themselves, the Pentagon (especially OSD), the Congress (and political appointees working in the Pentagon), and general officer/flag officer consultants (the retired types who didn’t fix things when they were on active duty).

Normally it’s difficult to mock NCOs—not only do they generally do a great job, serve honorably, and keep their mouths shut—but in Master Chief Gary’s case, he’s earned it.

Oh, and that chief in Master Chief? You may want to look at that too.

Or instead, Gary could use it on his resume to earn some diversity bonus points when he’s applying for employment at, for example, Harvard Law.

Hey, where the white women at?

Blazing Saddles (1974). Bart (Cleavon Little) to the KKK while pretending to have been captured: “Hey, where the white women at?” 

Years later (2012) we get the answer. They’re on the golf course.

You see, there are these institutions called historically black colleges and universities (often referred to as HBCU) and these schools have their student athletes (golfers) participate in something called the PGA Minority Collegiate Golf Championship.

The founders’ goal was to elevate the game of golf in minority colleges and universities by giving each a chance to compete in a championship after being denied opportunities to compete in NCAA Collegiate golf events… This National Collegiate Championship has developed into one of The PGA’s key diversity initiatives.

After being denied opportunities to compete?! That likely means this: didn’t golf well enough to qualify for.

And if one of the Ten Commandments was “Thou shall have diversity initiatives,” the left would quit screaming about so-called separation of church and state.

But just what happened at the aforementioned celebration of athletic diversity?

The men of [HBCUs] Texas Pan-American and the women of Bethune-Cookman each won for the second time in the past three years. Neither school has an African-American on its roster. Half of Bethune-Cookman’s six golfers, in fact, are European.

Maybe there’s a South African-American golfer out there somewhere that could be added for diversity bonus points? A French-African? Or perhaps some white Hispanics? Maybe an aged zero percent Cherokee (with high cheekbones)?

Did you try the clubhouse?

When is a “Reverend” not a “Reverend”?

What is a “reverend”? A reverend, simply stated, is a traditional Christian prefix for the clergy.

And yet, CBS reports:

The Detroit reverend who shouted that residents would “burn the city down” if the state approves an emergency financial oversight board defended himself and lobbed even more racial bombs during a radio appearance this week.

Who is the aforementioned “reverend”?

Rev. Malik Shabazz [who] called the Charlie Langton Talk Radio 1270 morning show where he spent an entire hour discussing the disastrous state of Detroit.

OK, that’s the Rev.’s name, but who is Malik Shabazz? The Anti-Defamation League tells us

Malik Zulu Shabazz, the anti-Semitic and racist leader of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), has sought to recast himself as a serious civil rights leader in recent years by cloaking his bigotry and intolerance in religious and civil rights principles and inserting himself in high profile, racially charged issues around the country. 

OK, but that still doesn’t answer the whole “reverend” thing. But this comes closer:

As National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), which he has led since the death of its former leader, Khallid Abdul Muhammad, in 2001, Shabazz has maintained his predecessor’s legacy of bigotry as well as the NBPP’s status as the largest anti-Semitic and racist black militant group in the U.S.

…“There is no division in the Black nation. The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense are one,” Shabazz said.

So is Shabazz a “reverend” in the Nation of Islam?

That might better explain why the “Reverend” has said some things which don’t align in any way with Christianity:

During a protest in front of the B’nai B’rith building in Washington, D.C. (April 20, 2002), Shabazz led chants of:

    “death to Israel,” “the white man is the devil,” and “Jihad.” Shabazz also said, “Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!”

While all this is useful in understanding Shabaaz as a part of the race-grievance industry, I’m still at a loss as to which denomination ordained him, thus rendering him, according to CBS, a “Reverend.”

Could this be a CBS effort to lump all “religious” leaders into one bin, regardless of their actual beliefs (and thereby demonstrating all their nuttiness)? Or is it an issue of attempting to denigrate Christianity by association with a racist? Or is it mere laziness/carelessness?

Golf 2.0

Think political correctness hasn’t run amuck? How about in sports?

Next, think about this statement in the Wall Street Journal:

The PGA of America is pushing a new, all-points initiative called Golf 2.0, whose goal is to make the game “more relevant” to lapsed golfers and others, especially women and minorities, it has identified as underserved.

It’s all reminiscent of the traditional media headline, World Ends, Minorities and Women Hardest Hit.

Of course the real answer to golf’s problems is a government golf bailout. Everyone knows that’s what’s really needed to keep golf from losing its estimated one million players per year (similar to the way the very popular Chevy Volt saved GM).

I wonder if Apple obsesses about the color of their customer’s skin, their sex, or former users who may be “underserved”? Ah, I’m probably giving Apple too much credit.