Army bows to Hamas-linked CAIR, rescinds evangelist's invitation to prayer service

“Now we have the DOD itself kow-towing to Moslem whining.”

Part of the “New World Order” and “diversity is our strength” initiatives from the Ministry of Truth.

The Army is being made the villain here. The Army cannot make a value judgment on the merits of any particular religion. What I said is the Army made the right call considering the position Graham took. I was not evaluating Graham’s position either way.

My name is d’Lynn. I’m a disabled Vietnam vet. I don’t look too bad for a beat-up old fart, do I? And that’s my ride. She’s looking pretty good looking also, especially when you consider that she’ll turn twenty this summer. That’s right, it’s a 1990 with a 1990 sidecar. I can’t ride a solo bike, ergo the sidecar rig. It’s my sole means of transportation - rain or shine, snow or wind, and this summer also marks a milestone in both of our lives, as I will finally be able to pay her off. Twenty years old? What? Why did it take so long? You weren’t paying attention, were you? It’s right at the beginning of this paragraph. I am a disabled vet, which means I receive a veterans administration disability pension, which also means “I’m broke!” Just one step ahead of being homeless every month, and that’s not an idle statement or an “Oh, whoa is me” dire complaint. There’s a point to this, so hang in there a minute or two and read on.

There’s a 25-year-old illegal immigrant woman living in Florida, with eight kids. Yes, eight “anchor babies” and she receives just shy of $1,500 per month per kid, plus medical, plus food stamps. Oh, wait. I’ve been informed that I shouldn’t call them Food Stamps anymore. That’s not PC. It’s all called “Social Assistance” now. You do the math on that yourself. I’d say that she was schooled early in how to make it in the system. Twenty-five years old, eight kids . . . . . yep, she started early.
You can whip out the calculator if you want, but this women who never has paid a dime in taxes of any kind, (and still doesn’t – she’s ‘illegal,’ remember?) is here in this country illegally. She hasn’t paid one cent in medical for all the “anchor babies,” makes more in one month, legally, than I receive in over a year and a half in disability payments and I can’t even get food stamps! Oops, I mean “Social Assistance.”
Technically I am eligible for “Social Assistance.” I was told it would be a walk through – a gimme – being disabled. No problem, and in the very next breath I was also informed that under the law the amount I received in “Social Assistance” would be deducted from my disability pension.
Let’s say I take a great photograph. It was just luck, a one of a kind accidental, in the right place at the right time shot. My local newspaper offers me fifty bucks to use the photo in a featured story. (I live in a small town and fifty bucks is all they could afford.) I have to report that fifty dollars to the VA as earned income, which will immediately be deducted from my next month’s disability check. If I don’t report it I’m in violation of federal law and technically they can stop my disability pension and prosecute me under a federal felony. Pretty cool, eh? For fifty bucks.
I see no point in dealing with two federal bureaucracies, so I don’t bother. What’s the point?
She’s here illegally and with just one kid would make over twice what I receive per month. She has eight and she’s not a stand-out case. She’s not alone. That’s the way the system works. Millions of illegal immigrants know this, know how the system works and know how to use it. (Haven’t you seen the pamphlet? It’s handed out all along our borders, “The Illegal Immigrants’ Guide to Keeping America Just The Way It Is.”) and that’s just the way it works.
Did you know that the federal government provides a “refugee” in this country with a monthly “stipend” of $1,890, plus $580 a month in “Social Assistance?” That’s $2,470 a month, tax-free. That’s two and a half times what I’m allowed to receive as a disabled vet. And just what did they do to earn this? All you have to do is show up on our collective doorstep, raise your right hand and swear that you’re a refugee and, bingo, receive $30,000 a year, tax-free. That’s more than someone making $15 an hour, and they have to pay taxes to boot!

Now, in defense of the Veterans Administration, they are doing what they can with what they’ve got. This is precious little compared to what they should have to get the job done. At least this country has a VA. It’s the Senate that keeps passing laws, rules and guidelines, cutting their budget, denying requests for more staff and computer systems to handle the massive work flow. Their hands are tied by the very government that’s supposed to give them what they need to get the job done, by the government you voted into office. Don’t scream at the VA. I have. It’s misguided anger.

The point to this “story?” Just why are you paying such high taxes to support this incredibly screwed-up government? Why? And I’m not proposing you stop paying your taxes. That’s wrong. There are good programs and reasons to pay your taxes and support our government. What am I proposing? It’s quite simple. Vote.
The government, our government, is broken and we as the voters serve as the maintenance crew. We fix it . . . . . by voting.
If your state Senator has been in office more than two terms, vote ‘em out at the next election. If your state representative has been in office more than two terms, vote ‘em out of office. We put term limits on just about every publicly-elected official in the country except the House and Senate. Why? Believe me, they know this and love it! Ahhh - the power!
I don’t care how much you believe your Senator or Representative is doing a good job. They’re not! Look at the government you have, that we have. How can you state they are doing what you want as the voter that put them there? How?
Vote them out of office. Do it.
Change the course of this country’s history by what you are granted and guaranteed under the law. Vote! And if you have the guts, the anger, the outrage, start a petition in your state for a state-wide initiative to be placed on your next state ballot. Limiting the terms of office for your state senators and state representatives to your federal government to two terms.
The federal government will never pass such a law, but you can. You can get it done. You can force it. You can make it a law.

This is the first step in “getting it right.” Just vote. It’s simple. It’s easy, dammit!
This first step will send a very clear message. It’ll work. It’ll put “us” back in control of “them.” As it should be. As it was intended in the first place.

Are you an American? Born and raised? Then vote!

Side note: I sent this e-mail to a little over one hundred on my e-mail list. If you believe I’m wrong or misguided or you simply don’t agree, that’s fine. Go right ahead a delete this e-mail. No problem. Sorry to have bothered you. But if you think I just might have a worthwhile idea, something we can easily accomplish, something that could be a small part at getting this country back under “our” control, then please pass this along.

Color me unsurprised by this.

Here’s a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at the airports,
Have a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will

detonate any explosive device you may have on you!

It would be a win-win for everyone - there would be none of this crap about racial profiling and would eliminate a long and expensive trial.
Justice would be quick and swift. Case Closed!

This is so simple that it’s brilliant. I can see it now: you’re in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion.
Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system, “Attention standby
passengers we now have a seat available on flight number...”
Perfect!!!!

Subject: Sec of Defense Gates @ Annapolis April 2010

Forrestal Lecture — United States Naval Academy

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Annapolis, MD, Wednesday, April 07, 2010

It’s a pleasure to be back at the Naval Academy – my third visit since becoming defense secretary. In a normal speech I would thank you all for coming, but I know this evening is not exactly optional for you. I am also keenly aware that this address is strategically placed between a high-calorie dinner and some well-deserved rack time. So I’ll do my best to keep you all awake – and I haven’t forgotten about you guys in the back row.

Of course, falling asleep in a class or here is one thing. Falling asleep in a small meeting with the president of the United States is quite another. But it happens. I was in one Cabinet meeting with President Reagan where the president and six members of his cabinet went down at one point or another.

The first President Bush even created an honor to award the American official who most ostentatiously fell asleep in a meeting with the president of the United States. This was not frivolous. The president evaluated candidates on three criteria: first, duration – how long did they sleep? Second, the depth of the sleep; snoring always got you extra points. And third, the quality of recovery – did one just quietly open one’s eyes and return to the meeting, or did you just jolt awake – and maybe spill something hot in the process? Well, the award was named for Air Force Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, who was President Bush’s national security adviser. He was, as you might suspect, the first awardee, and, I might add, won many stars.

Of course, much has changed since those days, when our consuming national security problem was dealing with either the threat posed by the Soviet Union or the aftermath of its implosion. The world has become more complex, unpredictable, and arguably more dangerous – from global terrorism to ethnic conflicts; from rogue nations to rising powers.

This evening I want to talk about the implications of these changes and challenges for you, the next generation of Navy and Marine Corps officers – above all, the qualities necessary for you to be successful as military leaders in the 21st century.

Above all, I want to talk to you tonight:

·About learning from the experiences and setbacks of the past;

· About being open to ideas and inspiration from wherever they come;

·About overcoming conventional wisdom and the bureaucratic obstacles thrown in one’s path; and

· About candor and speaking truth to power.

Consider first the story of Victor Krulak, Class of 1934.

In the late 1930s, the Marine Corps was still grappling with how to move troops from ship to shore under hostile fire. At the time, and after the disastrous Gallipoli campaign of the First World War, such a maneuver was considered foolhardy at best, and suicidal at worst. In 1937, Marine 1st Lieutenant Krulak was stationed in China and observed the Japanese amphibious assault on Shanghai using a new kind of landing craft with a ramp. Lieutenant Krulak sent some photos and an accompanying report back to Washington. The report gathered dust in a cabinet with a note that read: “the work of some nut in China.” Krulak eventually returned to Washington, and doggedly pursued his idea until a Marine general hooked him up with an eccentric New Orleans boat maker named Higgins. The result was the landing craft used to carry Allied forces to liberate Europe and much of Asia.

Krulak would go on to win the Navy Cross in World War II, became a leading counterinsurgency expert, and later commander of Marine Pacific forces during the Vietnam War. Some choice words to President Lyndon Johnson about his Vietnam strategy arguably cost Krulak his fourth star and the post of Marine commandant.

You’ve probably studied the exploits of Chester Nimitz, Class of 1905, hero of the Pacific. Less is known about his early career – which was hardly by the book. Three years after being commissioned, Nimitz ran his ship aground in Manila Bay. His career survived what would be a death sentence today and he was later tasked with building a submarine base at Pearl Harbor. The problem was that he was given no building material. So then-Lieutenant Commander Nimitz led nighttime raiding parties on other units’ WWI surplus to get what was needed – and successfully finished the base. I wouldn’t advise that today.

During the 1920s, the U.S. Navy was caught between aviation enthusiasts convinced that aircraft carriers would negate the need for all other ships, and traditionalists devoted to the battleship. Eschewing these dogmatic and parochial positions, Nimitz had the vision to recognize and promote the potential of the circular formation – carriers protected by battleships – for integrating the two capabilities. This insight was largely ignored for 20 years, but was later employed to great effect in World War II, and remained the basic template for carrier formations for decades afterward.

Few graduates of this institution were as brilliant, iconoclastic, and yes, difficult as Hyman Rickover. He demanded efficiency and hated waste in all forms, the kind of person who first pilfered and then horded the little bars of soap from the airline and hotel bathrooms. When interviewing young officers, he used to cut the legs of chairs short to see whether or not the interviewee could stay seated – not a technique that will endear you to your future subordinates.

In the 1950s the conventional wisdom was the nuclear reactors were too bulky and dangerous to put on submarines – diesel would have to do. It was through Rickover’s genius and tenacity that those objections were overcome, producing a submarine fleet that included the most stealthy and feared leg of America’s nuclear triad. Rickover was a stickler for safety in all phases of submarine production and operations – he was even accused erroneously of causing the U.S. to fall behind the Soviets. But he had the vision to see that even one nuclear disaster might well kill the program altogether. His legacy is that to this day, there has never been a nuclear failure in a US submarine.

My final example didn’t attend this institution, or attend any college for that matter. Roy Boehm enlisted as a diver at age 17. He was in just about every major battle of the Pacific theater during the Second World War – from retrieving the fallen at Pearl Harbor to surviving 13 hours in shark infested waters to ferrying supplies to guerrillas in the Philippines. Drawing on those experiences, he would later design and lead a commando unit that became the Navy SEALs. In his efforts to get his men the equipment they needed, Boehm was nearly court-martialed at one point for modifying official gear and buying the weapons from commercial sources. White House intervention helped keep him out of court and out of jail. In 1962, Boehm was called to Washington to brief President Kennedy on the progress of the Navy’s new commando unit. When Kennedy walked in, the first thing Boehm said was, “Mr. President, I didn’t vote for you, but I’d die for you.” After a long pause, Kennedy said “We need more guys like that.”

Boehm sent his SEALs into prisons to learn lock-picking, safecracking and hotwiring cars – which could become handy behind enemy lines. In Vietnam, the price on his head rose from $50 when he first arrived to more than $400,000 when he left. He never made it higher than Lieutenant Commander, but his legacy is at work every night, tracking down our country’s most lethal enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.

The qualities these legends embody have been important and decisive throughout the history of warfare. But I would contend that they are more necessary than ever in the first decades of this century, given the pace of technological changes, and the agile and adaptive nature of our most likely and lethal adversaries – from modern militaries using guerrilla tactics to terrorist groups with advanced weapons. As a result, America’s military will need the maximum flexibility to deal with the widest possible range of scenarios and adversaries. And our military leaders – like those great men I just described – will have to be as flexible and agile, as resilient and determined, and have real moral courage.

What strikes me about figures like Krulak and Nimitz, Rickover and Boehm, is not that they were always right, nor that they should be emulated in every way – to put it mildly. What is compelling about these leaders is that they had the vision and insight to see that the world and technology was changing, understood the implications of those shifts, and then pressed ahead in the face of often fierce institutional resistance. Indeed, one of the key reasons they were successful was because they were willing to speak truth to power – willing to tell superiors what they needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear.

At this point I hope you’ll forgive me for citing a towering figure from another service: George Marshall. In late 1917, during World War I, U.S. military staff in France was conducting a combat exercise for the American Expeditionary Force. General “Black Jack” Pershing was in a foul mood. He dismissed critiques from one subordinate after another and stalked off. But then-Captain Marshall took the arm of the four-star general, turned him around and told him how the problems they were having resulted from not receiving a necessary manual from the American headquarters – Pershing’s headquarters. And the commander said, “Well, you know, we have our problems.” And Marshall replied, “Yes, I know you do, General . . . but ours are immediate and everyday and have to be solved before night.” After the meeting, Marshall was approached by other officers offering condolences for the fact he was sure to be fired and sent off to the trenches. Instead Marshall became a valued adviser to Pershing, and Pershing a valued mentor to Marshall.

Twenty years later, then-General Marshall was sitting in the White House with President Roosevelt and all of his top advisors and cabinet secretaries. War in Europe was looming, but still a distant possibility for an isolated America. In that meeting, Roosevelt proposed that the U.S. Army – which at that time ranked in size somewhere between that of Switzerland and Portugal – should be of lowest priority for funding and industry. FDR’s advisors nodded. Building an army could wait.

Then FDR, looking for the military’s imprimatur to his decision, said: “Don’t you think so George?” Marshall, who did not like being called by his first name, said: “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with that at all.” The room went silent. The treasury secretary told Marshall afterwards: “Well, it’s been nice knowing you.” It was not too much later that Marshall became Army chief of staff.

There are other, more recent examples of senior officers speaking frankly to their civilian seniors. Just before the ground war started against Iraq in 1991, General Colin Powell, then-chairman of the joint chiefs, met with the first President Bush. I was there in the Oval Office. Colin looked the president in the eye and said words to this effect: “We are about to go to war. We may suffer thousands of casualties. If we do, are you prepared to drive on to victory?” General Powell wanted the president to face reality. The president gave the right answer.

I can say that a similar spirit of candor suffused discussions about major troop increases with the second President Bush in Iraq, and then with President Obama in Afghanistan – discussions shaped importantly by independent military advice from General Peter Pace and Admiral Mike Mullen – from the Classes of ‘67 and ‘68 respectively. Both presidents, again, gave the right answer.

In addition to speaking hard truths to your superiors, as a leader you must create a climate that encourages candor amongst your subordinates, especially in difficult situations. During World War II, Nimitz was in a plane that had crashed, and found himself caught in the middle of sailors swarming the scene to rescue the wounded. Finally, an exasperated 18-year old crewman yelled, “Commander, if you would only get the hell out of the way, maybe we could get something done.” When the crewman realized he had just chewed out a four star admiral, he tried to apologize. But Nimitz’s response was: “Stick to your guns, sailor, you were quite right.”

Even in less urgent situations, all those in senior positions would be well-advised to listen to enlisted troops, NCOs, and junior officers. They are the ones on the front line, and will often know the real story – whether the issue is equipment needed for the mission, or stress on families back home. A story that is often different from what’s on the power point slide back at flag headquarters or the Pentagon. Being open to advice, and even criticism, will take some confidence and self-assurance.

On trips to the front lines, I have made it a priority to meet with and hear from small groups of troops ranging from junior enlisted to field-grade officers. Their candid observations have been invaluable and helped shape my thinking and decisions. I recall having lunch in a combat post in Afghanistan with a dozen young enlisted guys. They told me that the crotch of the field uniform pants is ill-equipped to deal with climbing over walls and fences…that they tore out easily. As one of the specialists helpfully explained, it’s a welcome feature in the summer – but it gets pretty chilly in the winter. Now that’s a perspective I would never get in a Pentagon office.

I should add that, in most of the cases I’ve cited this evening – from the highest ranking to the lowest – straight talk, integrity and courage were usually rewarded. In a perfect world, that should always happen. Sadly, it does not, and I will not pretend there is not risk. But that does not make taking that stand any less necessary for the sake of our country.

I say this because on the larger, strategic scale, the need for candor is not just an abstract notion. It has very real effects on the perception of the military and of the wars themselves – as well as an operational impact. World War II was America’s last straightforward conventional war that ended in the unconditional surrender of the other side. The military campaigns since – from Korea to Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq and Afghanistan today – have been frustrating, controversial efforts for the American public and our American armed forces. Each conflict has prompted debates over whether senior military officers were being too deferential or not deferential enough to civilians, and whether civilians, in turn, were too receptive or not receptive enough to military advice.

Here, again, I’d reference Marshall, who has been recognized as a textbook model for the way military officers should handle disagreements with superiors and in particular with the civilians vested with control of the armed forces under our Constitution.

Consider the situation in mid-1940. The Germans had just overrun France and the battle of Britain was about to begin. FDR believed that rushing arms and equipment to Britain, including half of America’s bomber production, should be the top priority in order to save our ally. Marshall believed that rearming America should come first. Roosevelt overruled Marshall and others, and made what most historians believe was the correct decision – to do what was necessary to keep England alive.

The significant thing is what did not happen next. There was a powerful domestic constituency for Marshall’s position among a whole host of newspapers and congressmen and lobbies, and yet Marshall did not exploit and use them. There were no overtures to friendly congressional committee chairmen, no leaks to sympathetic reporters, no ghostwritten editorials in newspapers, no coalition-building with advocacy groups. Marshall and his colleagues made the policy work and saved England.

In the ensuing decades, a large permanent military establishment emerged as a result of the Cold War – an establishment that forged deep ties to the Congress and to industry. This is not completely new in the history of our republic. Henry Knox, the first secretary of war after the American Revolution, was charged with building the first American fleet to help combat, overseas pirates. To get the necessary support from the Congress, Knox eventually ended up with six frigates being built in six different shipyards in six different states. So some things never change.

Over the years, senior officers have from time to time been tempted to use these ties to do end runs around the civilian leadership, particularly during disputes over purchase of large major weapons systems. The first secretary of defense, for whom this lecture is named, after World War II had to contend with a navy that didn’t even want to work for him – preferring to stay an independent cabinet department. In the “Revolt of the Admirals” that followed, the Navy and the Air Force went at each other – first in private, then in public – over which service was better suited to deliver the new atom bomb. These parochial tendencies are to be avoided. They are also in this day and age outdated, evidenced by the fact that there are more sailors ashore than on ships in the Central Command, all in support of our ground forces and the overall war effort.

Just over 50 years ago, Admiral Arleigh Burke wrote of his beloved service: “The Navy believes in putting a man [– and, today, we would add “woman” –] in a position with a job to do, and let him do it – and give him hell if he does not perform. We capitalize on the capabilities of our individual people rather than make automatons out of them. This builds the essential pride of service and sense of accomplishment. [And] if it results in a certain amount of cockiness, I am [all] for it.” Looking to the challenges America’s sea services will face in the years ahead, you have reason to be confident – in your own abilities and in the traditions of leadership and excellence of this great institution.

Here at the Naval Academy, as at every university and company in America, there’s a focus on teamwork, consensus-building, and collaboration. Yet make no mistake, the time will come for each of you when you must stand alone in making a difficult, unpopular decision; when you must challenge the opinion of superiors or tell them that you can’t get the job done with the time and resources available; or when you will know that what superiors are telling the press or the Congress or the American people is inaccurate. There will be moments when your entire career is at risk.

To be ready for that moment, you must have the discipline to cultivate integrity and moral courage from here at the Academy, and then from your earliest days as a commissioned officer. Those qualities do not suddenly emerge fully developed overnight or as a revelation after you have assumed important responsibilities. These qualities have their roots in the small decisions you will make here and early in your career and must be strengthened all along the way to allow you to resist the temptation of self before service. And you must always ensure that your moral courage serves the greater good: that it serves what is best for the nation and our highest values – not a particular program nor pride nor parochialism.

For the good of the Navy, for the good of the armed services, and for the good of our country, I urge you to reject convention and careerism. I urge you instead to be principled, creative, and reform-minded – to be leaders of integrity.

A final thought. All of you entered military service in a time of war, knowing you would be at war. Theodore Roosevelt once said, “The trumpet call is the most inspiring of all sounds, because it summons men to spurn all ease and self-indulgence and bids them forth to the field where they must dare and do and die at need.” You have answered the trumpet call, and the whole of America is grateful and filled with admiration. I salute you and I thank you for your service. For my part, I consider myself personally responsible for each and every one of you as though you were my own sons and daughters. When I send you into harm’s way, I will do everything in my power to see that you have what you need to accomplish your mission – and to come home safely.

CAIR is certainly pro-U.S. /s

Seems like that organization could best be run from the belly of the beast, if you catch my drift. Send it packing...

In previous wars, don’t you think Americans were allowed to make derogatory statements about the ethos of the enemy?

General Casey would grovel at the feet of muslims before he would acknowledge what his Soldiers want.

And THAT right there is why the hierarchy in today's Army is as worthless as it is dangerous.

You seriously consider the Army at fault here?

“General Casey WOULD grovel at the feet of muslims before he would acknowledge what his Soldiers want...”

General Casey DID grovel at the feet of the Mohammedans already and before the bodies at Fort Hood had even cooled off. More leaders should have demanded his resignation.

The biggest ally would probably be the small county sheriffs.

Nadil Hasan is being honored I suppose then.

My daughter’s band is entertaining the troops at Ft. Hood tonight. How unfortunate that the Dhimmis care more about Muzzies than their own men and women of the military.

Islam is a religion AND a political ideology.

It seeks to establish a theocratic system of rule that is intolerant of other faiths.

It is incompatible with our nation's foundation with a recognition of undeniable religious freedom.

Your pic reminds me of a cartoon that was in the New Yorker over a half century ago. In it an American drives up to where an Arab is praying and facing the “Holy City” and the American yells, “Hey Jack! Which way to Mecca?”

Pig at a complaint dept. counter: “I want to be taller.” < /Elaine >

“They’ve stolen a ZIGGY!” < /Mr. Peterson >

This sign does not mention it, but there is a death penalty for non-muslims who dare enter the segregated cities of Mecca and Medina.

With ALL of the Left’s outrage for the poor people of Palestine, there is NO discussion of the treatment of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia.

“...With ALL of the Left’s outrage for the poor people of Palestine, there is NO discussion of the treatment of religious minorities in Saudi Arabia.”

And our own Army’s policy violates the religious freedom of its own soldiers who are not allowed to even discuss their faith with Afghans and Iraqis.

Even the Army’s prohibition against Bible distribution does nothing to appease the enemy and instead fortifies the Jihadists, drops their respect for us, adds to American casualties, and dims the long term future prospects for those countries.

Our State Department needs to explain why our Bill of Rights’ declaration of “inalienable God given rights” to EVERY man, woman, and child on this planet (right to worship as you see fit or not if you so choose, right to self defense...) does not “apply” wherever our military is located and wherever we are providing aid and assistance in rebuilding efforts.

Our government does not serve to protect Islamic theocratic rule and a life of apartheid for people.