DADT: The media slants the report

I heard this on the radio (and you can find the same report from many news sources): About 70 percent of military personnel think there is little or no risk in unit effectiveness if the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law is repealed, allowing gay and lesbian personnel to serve openly.

What are the real facts? Not what the media is telling you.

This is based on the Pentagon's study and survey of some 115,000 military personnel. You can find a copy here.

For those personnel who believed they had served with "homosexuals" (to use the terminology in the report), when asked what was the effect on unit performance, about 46 percent said it was negative, with 45 percent said equally negative or positive (what this really means to me is undecided.)

When all personnel were asked how the repeal of DADT would affect day-to-day unit performance, only 18 percent said positively while 32 percent said equally positively and negatively. This equally positive and negative is unclear to me, because there is also an answer for "No Effect." In my experience, and I have studied the methodology of surveys and have conducted surveys while in the military, this equally negative and positive should not have been asked. It tends to skew the results, in my opinion.

It really should have been "I'm undecided, because I really don't know what the affect on unit performance will be."

But in any regard, I could not find 70 percent, even with the equally negative and positive. In the example above, only 50 percent were in the "low or no risk" category. I still can't find a 70 percent response rate that equals what the media is reporting.

Whether or not you support DADT, just know that the media is not telling you the actual truth.  As I've scanned the results of the 267-page report, I see about a 50-50 split in opinion. There is no clear majority in favor -- at least in the military -- of repealing DADT.

The media, as usual, is pushing a left-wing agenda. Shame on them for not reporting the facts.

Marco Rubio Speech at CPAC 2010

Kind of old news (Feb. 2010), but if you haven't watched this yet, it is worth the 26 minutes.

National Defense: Down the Drain

History will show that Obama's national defense policy is like Carter's, only on steriods. Oh, it's all designed to make you feel good, thinking that now everyone must love us. But from a study of the historical record, this feel-good policy only comes back to bite you on the ass.

• No missile defense for Eastern Europe, or any part of Europe for that part. I'm sure there won't be one for the U.S. Why we don't build systems to defend us from rogue missiles, I'll never know. Man, if there's one nuclear-tipped missile headed for our eastern seaboard, I want to shoot that fucker down. I don't want to wait and launch a missile of my own. Shoot theirs down, and not only have you defended the nation (President's first responsibility), but you now have the political leverage.
  
• Suddenly, there is no war on terror. It's overseas contingency operations. So we're back to fighting terrorism as a law enforcement problem (which is reactive, not proactive) than a military problem (which tends to be more proactive, or preventative).


• Next, sign a treaty with Russia to reduce our nuclear capability. And Russia gets to pull out if we start building defensive missile systems (I guess that was the reason we gave up Eastern Russia).


• Now, Islamic terrorism is a thing of the past. Or at least we have to call it something else, namely in our defense policy documents. But you know what? Call a rose by any other name, and it's still a rose.
  

Recently, just this week, Obama made another change to our national defense policy. According to the American Thinker:

It says something profoundly disturbing that our president would base a nuclear strategy on the feel good notion that we are "setting an example" for the rest of the world to follow. Did it ever penetrate his skull that the very nations that threaten us - never mind Iran and North Korea which he exempts from the new policy - could care less about the US "good example?" What towering ignorance and breathtaking arrogance would lead a president to abandon the notion that we should forget about "good examples" and just protect the country?

And now, Obama advisers plan to remove terms such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, according to the AP.

The U.S. is now in appeasement mode. This is very dangerous, and is based on a false assumption, rather then real-politik.

Tricare reportedly not protected by Obamacare

(Update: Shortly after posting this, H.R. 4887 was approved by the House, will applies to the health care coverage provided by the Defense Department to military service members, retirees and their families. It clarifies the tax code to stipulate that coverage provided by Defense is treated as minimal essential coverage, ensuring that service members and their families will not need to purchase additional coverage to meet new health insurance requirements. Please note: THIS WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL HEALTH CARE BILL.)

The original House bill had exempted military personnel, retirees and certain civilian employees who use Tricare, a federally-sponsored health care system. But the Senate version doesn't seem to have the same protections.

As a participant of Tricare, I don't want to be screwed royally by our government even further. After tying Tricare reimbursement rates to those of Medicare on March 1, 2010, it's going to be even more difficult to find physicians who will accept Tricare. (Update for 3/22/10: I found information that says this will be delayed for 30 days). Some sources have reported that only 40 percent of doctors accept Medicare because payments are so low. So now what?

The Democrat plan for health care reform doesn't make sense.

Today, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) released the statement below regarding his intent to introduce legislation to explicitly state in law that TRICARE and the DOD nonappropriated fund (NAF) health plans meet all of the health care requirements currently under consideration by Congress for individual health insurance.

As reported by Coast Guard Times today:

Although the health care legislation passed by the House explicitly exempted TRICARE from being affected, the Senate bill did not. Unfortunately, the parliamentary rules of the reconciliation process did not allow for the inclusion of language that specifically protects these programs. To reassure our nation’s service members and their families that their health coverage will remain unaffected by this, I will introduce legislation this week to explicitly state that TRICARE and the NAF health plans meet all requirements for individual health insurance; this language will also be included in this year’s national defense authorization bill.”

While the White House is reporting that Tricare won't be affected, it's hard to believe anything the Obama adminitration reports.

According to Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Ranking Member on the House Committee of Veterans' Affairs:

“The health care reform bill DOES NOT cover most TRICARE beneficiaries under its definition of minimum essential coverage for health insurance--it only includes TRICARE for Life. Further, the bill’s definition of minimum essential coverage DOES NOT cover the children who suffer with spina bifida as a result of a veteran parent exposed to Agent Orange during the Korean or Vietnam Wars, and also does not cover CHAMPVA beneficiaries (certain dependents, widows and orphans).”

Even on the Democrat side of the isle, some Democrats are troubled with the bill as it now stands. Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Virginia Beach) regarding his planned vote on the health care bill:

Our military families need to be able to count on their health care benefits, and I am not willing to risk negative consequences for our military personnel and their families, particularly at a time when our troops are serving overseas in harm’s way...

I know there are some people who will be disappointed with my vote, but I believe that I have a firm duty to vote my conscience and represent the best interests of my district. As much as we need health care reform, we also have an obligation to enact responsible changes for the American people, and to restore their trust in government.

On a broader front, in response to Obama's latest speech about health care, in an editorial titled "The End of Hope and Change," Benjamin Domenech, managing editor of CBS Health Care News, writes:

The fact that Obama continues to spend such energy in support of legislation that all reputable independent data suggest will raise premium costs, increase the entitlement burden, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enforce a dramatic disincentive for success indicates that this is all about politics, not which policies actually work best for the American people.

We need health care reform. We don't need what is being shoved down our throats.

Obama a Liar? It Seems So

I was holding judgement, trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence is now overwhelming.

Obama is a liar and can't be trusted. I have come to that conclusion. First it was on taxes, then on earmarks, now on veterans.

Just yesterday, I heard a part of his speach to a veterans groups, in which he promised that veterans today would get the same treatment from their government as his grandfather did after WWII.

The very next morning, the White House announces that private insurance companies "will pay their fair share" of veterans medical expenses, even service-related, I presume.

If that ain't lying, I don't know what is. He can't be trusted any more.

And the left called Bush a liar. I guess you're only a liar if you're a Republican.

Must Reads for the Day

It should be quite evident by now that the Democrats, and liberals in general, are not about freedom of expression, democracy or letting votes dictate the policy of this government or the will of the people. They are about power. They want to run the country as they see fit, because they are, after all, smarter and better than the rest of us. If you don't believe this, start with the first story below, an editorial in the usually left-leaning Washington Post.

No Drilling, No Vote
Speaker Pelosi won't let the House debate the merits of offshore drilling.WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.

Barack Obama Secretly Runs Senate Banking Committee!
Here’s our pal Barack Obama, saying that the Senate Banking Committee — “which is my committee,” he says — passed some bill about something. Problem is, he’s not actually on the Senate Banking Committee at all. Maybe he meant to say he’s on the SENATE LIARS COMMITTEE where he passed a bill about MAKING SHIT UP. This is significantly more important than John McCain saying the Surge caused things that happened before the Surge.

A Look Back: What Democrats Were Saying About The Surge
The enormous improvement in Iraq's security situation caused by the surge has been so undeniable that even the mainstream press has started alternating between ignoring Iraq completely and acknowledging, albeit reluctantly, that the surge has put victory within reach in Iraq.

Change They Can Believe In
Barack Obama’s recent global tour may have been a media sensation abroad, but back home it was a punch line. “There was a huge reception for Barack Obama in the Middle East this past weekend,” quipped Jay Leno. “People were screaming, chasing him, hanging on his every word — and that was just the U.S. press corps.”

The Surge, the Awakening, the Democrats and Rewriting History
McCain wants to start the surge too early, Wesley Clark gets his facts wrong and also claims the Saudis had a hand in calming the violence - the surge has become a bit of a political football in this not yet official presidential contest.

Summer Madness
So an exasperated Sen. Barbara Boxer screams that the farm-belt senators better support her regional selfishness in opposing California off-shore drilling against the national interest, in the same manner she went along with the ethanol boondoggle. Odd that she was so brazen in her confessional.

Redefining Patriotism

Every Presidential election, the subject of patriotism is bandied about. I think it mostly comes from the Democrats, since they seem to on the defensive more than not on this subject. They always have to make the attempt to make sure everyone knows how patriotic they are.

I'm not going to comment much on Gen (ret) Wesley Clark's insults, which is really what they were. All they are trying to do is a feeble attempt to invalidate John McCain's military service. Good luck on that one. It may backfire.

But a lot of Democrats really don't like the military. Just look at their behavior over the war in Iraq (or any conflict we've been involved in during the last 50 years. For another recent comment by one of our distinguished members of Congress, check out Sen. Harkin here at Cassy Fiano's blog. (And I'm sure if you Google it, you'll find a lot more).

A lot of liberals just can't get patriotism, military service, or national security in the proper perspective.

I wrote this article in late 2006 about this subject. It's quite long, but I believe it provides some background on this subject.

Is patriotism morally dangerous?

(12/5/2006) -- Patriotism these days, as a word and concept, is brandished as both a thing to want and need, but also a thing to avoid. "I'm not questioning your patriotism," is heard a lot when one questions another's position on national security, the war on terror and other issues in the current debate. And of course, many will say, "Don't question my patriotism." These types of comments are heard often, especially during election campaigns.

This all comes to mind after the recent resignation of John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Is he a patriot, or the disaster for American foreign policy the left claims? It all comes down to whether you are a patriot or not, as patriot is defined by most common dictionaries.

In its simplest terms, patriotism is a "love of or devotion to one's country." Other definitions include the "willingness to sacrifice for it," and "national loyalty."

A synonym for patriotism is nationalism, defined as "devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation, the belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals."

Two antonyms for nationalism are multiculturalism -- the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can co-exist peacefully and equitably in a single country -- and internationalism -- the doctrine that nations should cooperate because their common interests are more important than their differences.

Under these definitions, John Bolton is a patriot, because he always puts America's interest first, above those of other countries or the United Nations has a whole. And yet, he earned respect from his fellow diplomats, as Reuter's AlertNet reports:

Bolton came to the job with a reputation for an abrasive style. But he defied many of his critics by being the only U.N. Security Council ambassador available to the press almost every day, answering countless questions and often delivering punchy sound bites that drowned out staid comments from Washington. "It is to me really disappointing to see Ambassador Bolton go," said Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima.

"He has been an exceptionally skillful diplomat at the United Nations at a time when it faced very challenging issues like reform."

"In the Security Council John Bolton was spearheading a number of important issues," Oshima said, singling out a resolution to rein in North Korea's nuclear program, where "he really spearheaded this effort to get a Security Council resolution adopted in a very speedy manner."

Even the French and Chinese don't have a problem like the left do:

"He is serious about the American objectives here in reforming the United Nations, and he pushed hard," China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters. "But of course sometimes in order to achieve the objective you have to work together with others."

"His style is different. He is hard-working," Wang said. "He knows the job."

Bolton also had difficulties with European ambassadors, who should have been his closest allies. But he worked intensively with France on a cease-fire resolution, 1701, to halt the Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon this summer.

"I would say we have always respected each other and we were able to work together, especially on 1701," said France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere.

Many on the left claim that being truly patriotic can also be demonstrated by dissent or disagreement. If you love your country, then you should be willing to disagree and stand up for what you think is right. As John Collins puts it on his patriotism web site: "It is NOT unpatriotic to provide constructive criticism on policies that you disagree with." The key here is constructive criticism, not violence or illegal activities.

But when a majority of Americans vote, either in a popular election or through their elected representatives, for a certain course of action, if you work against attaining the desired goals of the majority then you cannot be called a patriot. You can disagree, but if you use anything other than the rule of law under the Constitution to get your way, you are not a patriot.

And yet when the New York Times publishes national secrets during wartime, it claims to do so out of patriotism. When our elite scholars -- and news media -- preach anti-Americanism and call the commander-in-chief the biggest terrorist in the world, they claim to do so out of a sense of patriotism. This claim of patriotism is incorrect. These types of beliefs and actions come from a belief in the moral superiority of identifying with humanity at large, rather than with their own country.

Samuel P. Huntington, a professor at Harvard, wrote in 2004 , "this proclivity flourished in the academic world in the 1990s. He cites professor Martha Nussbaum of the University of Chicago as denouncing "patriotic pride" as "morally dangerous," urging the ethical superiority of internationalism over patriotism, and argued that people should direct their "allegiance" to the "worldwide community of human beings." (Boston Review, 1994)

Professor Amy Gutmann, now the president of the University of Pennsylvania, argued that is was "repugnant" for American students to learn that they are, "above all, citizens of the United States." Gutmann recently posed at a Halloween party with a student dressed as a suicide bomber, though she later claimed was offensive to her. However, Gutmann believes that the "primary allegiance" of Americans "should not be to the United States or to some other politically sovereign community," but to "democratic humanism."

Professor Richard Sennet of New York University denounced "the evil of a shared national identity and judged the erosion of national identity as "basically a positive phenomenon."

And then Professor George Lipsitz of the University of California, San Diego, wrote "in recent years refuge in patriotism has been the first resort of scoundrels of all sorts."

I could continue with many more examples of our American "scholars," but be assured that this type of thinking -- and teaching to students -- is prevalent throughout our educational systems. It should be no surprise then that our national media, which are trained in our universities, should be of the same vein.

As the Media Research Center found:

The debate is not about whether reporters can challenge a president and his policies during a time of war. Of course they can. But the networks have chosen to highlight the complaints of those who paint the Bush administration as a danger equal to or greater than the terrorists themselves. Reporters could have spent the past five years challenging the administration with an agenda most Americans share, demanding that the government do everything within its lawful powers to protect the public and prevent another attack. Instead, liberal reporters have opted to join the ACLU in fretting that the War on Terror has already gone too far.

When you view the behavior of the media, such as the New York Times, or CNN, which recently aired a video of Iraqi insurgents (terrorists) killing a U.S. soldier, it is hard to defend their claim of objectivity and patriotism.

Victor Dale Hansen, a professor at Fresno State University, writing about the need for civic education, says:

"How, then, can we recreate civic education to help unite an increasingly fragmented society? We must reject the new cultural relativism, situation ethics and arrogant utopianism that have escaped from the university and circulate like an airborne toxin in the popular culture. Scholars must stop teaching nonsense like the idea that Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth, important though they were, affected American history more profoundly than John Adams or Alexander Hamilton, or that gansta rap is essentially no less musical than Beethoven. Rather than blame the United States for persistent imperfection, our educators should emphasize how far we have come in eradicating sins that seem intractable to much of humankind elsewhere."

Even liberal Richard Dreyfuss has concluded that our education system lacks civics education. When he was a child, Dreyfuss said, civics classes taught not only the checks and balances in government but also the reasons behind the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Huntington has concluded that the "prevalence of anti-patriotic attitudes among liberal intellectuals lead some of them to warn their fellow liberals of the consequences of such attitudes for the future not of America, but of American liberalism."

He quotes professor Richard Rorty, a leading liberal philosopher, as writing that these leftists "have done a great deal of good for...women, African-Americans, gay men and lesbians...But there is a problem with this left: it is unpatriotic."
"
For America's 1990s elite transnationals, however, nationalism was evil, national identity suspect, and patriotism passe," Huntington observed. Yet, journalists such as Strobe Talbott, then a writer for Time in 1992, looked forward to a future when "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority." Talbott then joined the Clinton administration as a top official directing foreign policy of the American nation he hoped would become obsolete.

But nationalism is alive and well. Huge majorities of Americans claim to be patriotic, with some polls putting this as high as 96 percent. (Though I assume that even those cited above would call themselves "patriotic" for political ends.)

Victor Ferkiss, a professor at Georgetown University, wrote in the early 1970s in favor of patriotism, even though he was promoting ecological humanism, part of which has a foundation in global interdependence. "The ancient virtue of patriotism needs to be remembered and fostered...A society based on the principles of ecological humanism will be a society not of egoistic individuals but of patriots -- on in which citizens are brought up to love the native land, to cherish its beauties, its past and its life processes...which gives its members their existence and identity and which sustains and enhances their life within its own."

If you truly believe the American Way of Life is exceptional -- not perfect, but a work in progress -- then you can't support elites in this country who espouse principles that are anti-American. Many do this in their own self-interest. But if America is to survive, we will not only have to live in the world as it really is, but we'll have to remain a sovereign nation, first and foremost.

Just as John Bolton has earned the respect he deserves from most of his colleagues by being true to his roots and standing quietly, yet firmly, can we begin to work together as a nation, and begin to work constructively with other nations to improve the world overall.