MAJOR Nidal Malik Hasan
Posted on 03/12/2011 4:19:23 PM PST by neverdem
There are too many white men in the U.S. military.
So says a report released this week by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), commissioned by Congress to examine ways to "increase diversity" in the military. The MLDC report finds that 77% of active-duty senior officers are white, 8% black, 5% Hispanic, and 16% women (of unspecified race).
What's the answer to this "problem"? Is the MLDC recommending that white males stop volunteering for military service? Do they want to start "selecting" who among them volunteers for service? Are they recommending that there be quotas for military service, as with the public university system? Or maybe the MLDC is going to recommend a mandatory draft for minorities and females until "diversity" is achieved?
The military is currently all-volunteer. If there are "too many" white males, the obvious reason is because white males volunteer proportionately more than other races and women.
If we can mandate voter registration at the local Department of Motor Vehicles (making it a whole lot easier for illegals to vote), why not mandate military recruiters at every high school graduation in Compton, Stockton, and Detroit? With recruitment brochures in 26 languages, of course. Why not set up recruitment offices within welfare offices and in unemployment offices?
The MLDC report makes 20 recommendations. Including "outreach" to "minority" communities to increase the eligibility pool, requiring "diversity strategic plans" in every command, making diversity a "priority," and requiring an official explanation when a "minority" or a woman is not nominated to a 3- or 4-star rank.
The report states, "Leveraging diversity as a vital strategic military resource will require the commitment, vision, and know-how of leaders at every level. Without this commitment to instill respect for diversity as a core value, the needed cultural change may not take place."
For starters, the MLDC calls for affirmative action for non-white, non-male people in the military. It's no longer about training the best warriors. It's about giving an advantage in promotion based on skin color. In other words, it is about racism
What an insult to the many black and Hispanic warriors serving in the military today.
Here is what the MLDC needs to understand. These young men and women are American patriots. Differences among them imposed by silly civilian, politically correct nonsense doesn't count when the bullets start flying.
Thank you, MLDC, but the last thing unit cohesion and military preparedness needs is the creation of yet another reminder of differences and divisions among the troops.
Ask a hero like retired Army Col. Allen West (now, praise God, Congressman West), what he thinks of bringing "diversity" training into the military. I'm guessing that this third generation Army veteran of African-American descent will tell you (in colorful language) that the Army needs more warriors of whatever color.
Which brings me to the NBA. By the standards of the MLDC, the NBA violates diversity. There are just too many blacks. Team owners should justify in writing exactly what efforts they have made to ensure diversity by making room for whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc., on each of their teams.
Of course this is nonsense. The NBA signs up talent to win games, which in turn puts paying fans in the seats and makes money. Owners couldn't care less what race the players happen to be, as long as they shoot and score.
And what about National Public Radio? Applying the MLDC standard, are there too many whites at NPR? On my last visit to the NPR station in Washington, D.C., even the receptionist was white.
I'll bet the percentage of white upper management at NPR exceeds the 77% that got MLDC to conclude there were too many whites in the military. Should Congress defund NPR—and then set up a Commission to examine the diversity— there?
The U.S. military is established in the Constitution to protect and defend the country. Obsessing about the skin color or gender of the nation's defenders interferes with the ability to win wars and protect this country.
The MLDC report deserves the round file treatment, to be remembered as the high watermark of political correctness run amok.
It is our acquiescence in the “diversity” lie that is killing us. We don’t want to tell women and others that they are “underrepresented” in some fields because they aren’t good enough and that if they don’t like it work harder.
When an Islamofascist attaks our troops, even the officers, he’s an enemy alien who should be field stripped
That wasn’t fragging. Moslems can’t do fragging. They have no moral high ground of any kind ~ they like to kill babies.
MAJOR Nidal Malik Hasan
No problem! They will just lower the standards like the did for the police exams.
Western Civilization is being conquered. We will be the only civilization in history to die by solely our enemies use of words; i.e. “racism!”
At the same time USPS is the largest single employer of black people in the country.
I'm sure they'll be a more effective force when they force them to take women and gays.
Diversity is just a code word which promotes institutionalized racism against Caucasians, which, of course, is illegal, by law. However, actions are only “really” illegal if they are punished by the government through enforcing the law. IMHO, discrimination against Caucasians in the United States is not enforced. Just look at the Black Panthers case in Philadelphia which was dropped by the current administration.
JoMa
They want a military that they can sic on US civilians.
A predomninately white, patriotic military will balk at shooting American civilians.
The kind of people they want to staff the military with will follow their orders.
Libs think people go into the military because they can’t get a good job or into college.
To follow that train of thought, maybe they are going into the military because their spot in college is being given to someone of the correct color/sex?
Particualarily if they allow them to do a little looting, robbing, and raping on the side.
In Spring 1969 I was passed over for promotion from E1 to E2 at the end of basic training.
I earned it by my scores, but the stripes were awarded to black good-offsa, as a matter of Army policy, or affirmative action.
My company DI was an Native American E7 from New Mexico, but he had to follow policy.
The findings reported in The Bell Curve are like gravity—can’t be avoided.
Mindless!
That is just what it is! People that don’t know anything about anything want to dictate to those that head an organization, or the military, and have did an excellent job, the “mindless” just want to get in on it, because they think it is easy.
Especially the diversity crowd or the left!
LMAO !
That have been doing it already for years. When I was on active duty, it was common knowledge that promotion boards had little "tricks" they used to promote women and minorities over white male officers with better records.
There have been lawsuits and court fights about this for years. Despite all the rulings, the military does what it wants, succumbs to political pressure, and practices affirmative action no matter what. Every officer knows this.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://www.adversity.net/military.htm
Judge's Order Shakes Military -- Ruling's Effects on Future of Affirmative Action Unclear (Washington Post 03-06-02) See also older stories on this case, below. "An equal-opportunity ruling by a federal judge in the District is sending shock waves through the military establishment, triggering concern in some circles and hopes in others that long-standing military affirmative-action promotion policies will have to be scrapped. "The opinion issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said written directions by the Army to promotion boards urging that they consider "past personal or institutional discrimination" are unconstitutional because they give preference to one race or gender over another. "It's a very powerful indictment of the use of race and gender for promotion," said Christopher Sterbenz, the attorney for a retired white Army officer who brought suit alleging that the military has given too much consideration to such factors. "Sterbenz has 15 cases pending involving officers alleging reverse discrimination, and he said Lamberth's ruling would help their cases. "They're all career officers dedicated to the service who can't stomach what's happened," Sterbenz said. "Some white officers have left the service because of perceived reverse discrimination. "I saw there was no future in sticking around because I wasn't a minority," said Dan Endrizal, a lawyer who retired from the Army in 1996 after being passed over for promotion. "Curtis Marsh, of Fairfax City, is among those who has brought suit alleging reverse discrimination. "It's disconcerting for people when they realize they're not getting a fair shake," said Marsh, who retired from the Marine Corps as a lieutenant colonel in 2000." (From the story by Steve Vogel, Washington Post 03-06-02, Page A8) Last known links to complete story (links expire fast!): Wash Post (standard format): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45805-2002Mar6.html Wash Post (printer friendly): http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45805-2002Mar6?language=printer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse-discrimination case gives Army, Justice pause - Judge finds promotion policy unfair to white males (Washington Times 03-06-02) "The Justice Department and Department of Army attorneys are reviewing a federal judge's ruling that struck down the Army's officer promotion policy on grounds that it discriminates against white male officers. "The policy was declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth because it gives preference to women and minorities in promotions while passing over qualified white male officers. "Specifically, the judge ruled that the policy urges the Army's promotion boards to consider the past and personal discrimination faced by women and minorities but it does not order the boards to also consider whether there has been discrimination against white men. "This undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional," Judge Lamberth wrote in his opinion. "The ruling came in a case involving retired Lt. Col. Raymond Saunders, a white officer who claimed he was denied promotion to the rank of colonel in 1996 and 1997. He sued the Army in 1999, claiming that its equal-opportunity policy — which it used twice to determine whether he should be promoted — favored minority and female officers. "Monday's decision could affect thousands of Army officers passed over for promotion in the past six years, and even affect equal-opportunity policies of other branches of the military, according to lawyers who specialize in military law. The ruling would not, however, affect any officers who have already been promoted, they said. (From the story by Ellen Sorokin for the Washington Times 03-06-02 page A8) Last known link to complete story (links expire fast!): Wash Times: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020306-15980560.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Web-Posted March 5, 2002: "A federal judge struck down the Army's equal-opportunity promotion process yesterday, saying the policy gives undue preference to women and minorities at the expense of white, male officers." (Washington Post, Tues., Mar. 5, 2002, Page A01) -- See also newer stories on this case, above. "The Army's written direction to promotion boards that urges them to consider the "past personal or institutional discrimination" faced by women and minorities is unconstitutional because the policy does not order the board also to consider possible discrimination against white men, the judge found. "This undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional," U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in a 68-page opinion. "The decision came in the three-year-old case of retired Lt. Col. Raymond Saunders, a white officer who was twice denied promotion to the rank of full colonel in 1996 and 1997. He retired in 1999 as a judge advocate general -- an Army lawyer -- and then filed suit. "[Saunders'] case is one of several filed by white Army officers, and a fewer number filed by officers in other branches of the armed services, that allege the military has been giving too much consideration to race and gender in promotions. "The court has declared the Army's officer promotion standards to be unconstitutional. A lot of other people are obviously going to be using this as a precedent," said Christopher A. Sterbenz, the attorney representing Saunders and nine other white officers in similar suits. " (From the Washington Post story 03-05-02 page A01 written by Neely Tucker) Last known links to complete story (links expire fast!): Wash Post #1 -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38468-2002Mar4.html Wash Post #2 (printer friendly) -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38468-2002Mar4?language=printer Azcentral.com (copy of Post story) -- http://www.azcentral.com:80/news/articles/0304armypromotions-ON.html For .MIL users only (restricted) -- http://ebird.dtic.mil/Mar2002/e20020305judge.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Court Dates Set On Constitutionality Of Army Affirmative-action Policies (09/11/00 - no link) From the Army Times article by Jim Tice: "Judge Royce C. Lambeth of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., will hear arguments Nov. 8 in several reverse discrimination suits that challenge the constitutionality of Army affirmative-action policies. "The policies have been used by officer promotion boards since the 1970s. "In the nearby Court of Federal Appeals, Chief Judge Loren Smith will conduct a hearing Sept. 11 to determine remedies in a class-action suit (Christian vs. the United States) involving 1,000 former Army lieutenant colonels -- all white males -- who were involuntarily retired eight years ago. "Earlier this year, Smith ruled that the equal opportunity/affirmative action instructions provided to the 1992 lieutenant colonel Selective Early Retirement Board violated the Fifth Amendment "due process" rights of white males. The Army Times reports that since Judge Loren Smith's decision was handed down in a Court of Federal Claims, the ruling can potentially be used as a legal precedent in other legal challenges to the military's use of race and gender in promotion and retirement decicisions. Theoretically, Smith's ruling could be cited as a precedent in the U.S. District Court hearing on Nov. 8 in which Judge Royce C. Lambeth will be presiding over the six promotion cases, according to the attorney representing the 6 officers in the Nov. 8 proceeding (attorney Christopher Sterbenz of Vienna, Virginia). According to Army Times, Judge Royce C. Lambeth said the six reverse discrimination suits upon which he will rule on Nov. 8, 2000 pose "grave constitutional issues". Lambeth did not provide any further elaboration regarding how he might rule in those cases. (Based on the Army Times article, 09/11/00, by Jim Tice) [no link available] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Court Rules Army Affirmative Action Program Unconstitutional (06/13/00) E-Mail to Adversity.Net from Robert F. Christian II, plaintiff in Christian v. U.S.: "On June 5, 2000, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Army's affirmative action program, as applied in a 1992 mandatory retirement board, was unconstitutional." The full text of the judge's historic Opinion and Order in this case can be found at the following link: [link: http://www.adversity.net/military_court_97-165C.htm] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- New Guidance For Officer Boards Stops Race, Gender Preferences (03/06/00 - pay/subscription site) According to the Army Times: "Responding to a flurry of reverse discrimination lawsuits, the Army has changed the affirmative-action and equal-opportunity instructions given to officer promotion, school and command selection boards. "The changes involve board procedures that have evolved over the past three decades to encourage the selection of women and minorities at rates comparable to the dominant race/gender group under consideration, which for most boards is white males. "The old instructions required boards to compile an order-of-merit list and set a tentative cut line for selection. If a board did not meet its equal opportunity goal, it was required to conduct a file review of officers in the affected race or gender group to look for past discrimination. "The new instructions do not set [racial] goals, and they do not provide for race/gender file reviews or the revoting of files. "Board members are told the equal opportunity guidance "shall not be interpreted as requiring or authorizing you to extend any preference of any sort to any officer or group of officers solely on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender." "In recent years, the type of practices required by the old rules have come under attack in lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of affirmative-action policies. The federal courts generally have ruled affirmative-action measures must be designed to remedy specific instances of discrimination. "A 1995 Supreme Court case (Adarand vs. Pena) is important for the Army because it ruled against affirmative-action contracting by the Department of Transportation, a federal agency. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion that "federal racial classifications ... must serve a compelling interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest." "Citing Adarand and similar cases, several white male officers have filed suits over the past three years that challenge the legality of promotion panels and Selective Early Retirement Boards." (From Army Times, by Jim Tice, 03/06/00) [link to Pay/Subscription Site: http://www.mco.com/mem/archives/army/2000/at0306af.htm ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Army Fights Reverse Discrimination Lawsuits In Congress / Officals To Limit Legal Actions Against Officer Promotion Boards (05/01/00 Pay/Subscription Site) According to the Army Times: "The Army has switched tactics in its long-running battle to fend off reverse discrimination lawsuits against the officer promotion system. In two separate but related actions, the Army has: "* Asked Congress to make it impossible for soldiers to challenge virtually all types of adverse board actions in court without first being considered by a special board convened at the discretion of the secretary of the Army. "* Asked the U.S. District Court in Washington to dismiss a suit brought by Lt. retired Col. Raymond M. Saunders, a JAG Corps officer who was passed over for colonel in 1996 and 1997. "The proposed congressional statute, which would apply to all the armed forces, is included in the fiscal 2001 budget request. It would be "retroactive in effect and apply to any judicial proceeding pending on the date of enactment," a Pentagon analysis of the legislation obtained by Army Times says. "If approved by Congress, such a law would rid the Army of several pending suits brought by officers who claim the affirmative-action policies used by selection boards until just six months ago violated their constitutional rights. "Saunders, one of several white male officers with promotion suits before the court, recently asked Judge Royce C. Lambeth to issue a summary judgment in the case. Saunders claims the colonel boards were illegal because they were assigned race and gender goals and were required to review and possibly revote files when they didn't achieve those goals." (Based on Army Times article, 05/01/00, by Jim Tice) [link to pay/subscription site: http://www.mco.com/mem/archives/army/2000/at0501j.htm ]
bttt
The Europa idiots have already discarded it. Vanderbilt will be last. IDIOTS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.