Who shot Hasan?

"First reports from the field are almost always incorrect."
We’ve heard that from the military brass on CNN any time there was a TV war going on. It applied to Desert Shield, Desert Storm, the Iraqi War, WMD, Afghanistan…

And so it was when Hasan opened fire on the unarmed at Fort Hood.

A sample of factual errors: There weren’t two gunmen, Hasan wasn’t dead, and Sgt. Kim “Mighty Mouse” Munley didn’t bring down the shooter.

But it made such great copy. What a story. This petite policewoman brought down the crazed killer. But it's not true.

For what it’s worth, the officer who actually DID bring down Hasan was black. Feel better?

Even the hero stories surrounding the attack are oozing with identity politics and political correctness.

It’s ironic that the cause and the resolution intertwine.

Just plain DUMB

Perhaps you do it, too. You look for the twin towers in pre-9/11 movies showing the New York skyline.

And it's a weird feeling to see them, isn't it?

A TV series (Fringe, I think) used them as a device to demonstrate a parallel universe scene. And I must admit it was effective.

Now, someone who lives or works in NYC must be hyper-sensitive to reminders of terrorism. How can we forget the Air Force One joyride over Manhattan earlier in the year?

So, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Obama announces he's going to try a 9/11 suspect in New York City federal civilian court. No wonder he left the country just before they made the announcement.

Is Obama simply crazy? Hasn't this mess caused enough controversy? Why in the world would he rub their noses in it?

E Pluribus Unum

I opened an e-mail this morning with the subject line, “Green jobs for women and people of color? Make it happen.”

Since I am neither, I was intrigued to read further that, “The green economy is here. There are green jobs to be done and stimulus money to pay for them. Let's make sure women and people of color have access to high quality jobs and careers.”

See for yourself:
http://www.arc.org/content/view/1139/136/

But wait, there’s more…
http://www.racewire.org/

http://www.colorlines.com/

E pluribus unum indeed.

Lou Dobbs' Swan Song at CNN

Here's what Lou Dobbs said about immigration as he ended his 27-year run at CNN:
"Unfortunately, these issues are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion."

And he is absolutely right. But one might misinterpret his use of the word "partisanship." One might think he means Republicans and Democrats. Such is not the case.

No one knows better than Dobbs that Bush, Rove and many others in the GOP are pro-amnesty.

I believe Dobbs is using the word "partisanship" to mean those who use identity politics to their advantage, regardless of their political affiliation.

Hopefully, he will find a more visible place to continue exposing these foolish games that threaten our sovereignty.

Newspeak Topic: Immigration

This is the objective of immigration enforcement efforts in the interior of the United States, according to Homeland Security spokesman, Brandon Alvarez-Montgomery:
"The goal is to prevent crime rather than simply to respond to it.”

Operationally, here’s what that means:
“ICE will assume custody of an alien 1) who has been convicted of a State, local or Federal offense only after being informed by the alien’s custodian that such alien has concluded service of any sentence of incarceration; 2) who has prior criminal convictions and when immigration detention is required by statute; and 3) when the ICE Detention and Removal Field Office Director or his designee decides on a case-by-case basis to assume custody of an alien who does not meet the above criteria.” (quoted from the new “standardized” 287g agreement with local police)

And, it means this as well:
“Through the Secure Communities Program, ICE works to identify criminal aliens in federal, state, and local custody—prioritizing the removal of convicted dangerous criminal aliens.” (quoted from John Morton, head of ICE, before congress on June 11, 2009)

And:
“ICE’s National Fugitive Operations Program (NFOP) also works to reduce the nation’s fugitive alien population with an emphasis on criminal aliens and aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety.” (Morton, ibid.)

Consistent with the Obama administration, what they say is exactly the opposite of what they mean. If they really wanted to “prevent crime” they would deport the individuals who have been arrested in local jails for bar fights and DUIs, rather than wait until they have committed violent felonies.

Speaking of DUIs, it has been proven time and again that about half the fatalities inflicted by illegal aliens are the result of DUI motor vehicle accidents. And yet, a DUI scarcely gets the attention of ICE agents. Several DUIs (eight or more) must be recorded on the rap sheet before an illegal alien is deemed deportable by ICE. So much for “preventing crime.”

Diagnosis: Dyslexia

I believe I have broken the code. Obama is dyslexic.

You’ve heard the saying, “Think globally. Act locally.” The president thinks it’s supposed to be, “Think locally. Act globally.” And that is creating all sorts of problems, especially in the international policy department.

Obama’s background and forte is community organizing. It got him into Harvard and, after getting his law degree, he went back into the hood to “make a difference.” Michelle was in the same line of work.

And the objective of a community organizer is getting the right people talking to each other. For example, if the elevators are always broken at the projects, a community organizer steps in and gets some negotiations going among the “stakeholders.” He’s succeeded when he sees some residents, the building owner, an alderman, and CHA police sitting around a table.

His work is done, regardless of the outcome.

Ponder this Imprimis comment from John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN: “The president has said repeatedly--starting with his Inaugural Address--that the United States must hold out its hand to countries like North Korea and Iran in the hopes that they will unclench their fist and enter into negotiation. This reflects a curious view of history, since in fact the Bush administration negotiated directly or indirectly with Iran and North Korea for six-and-a-half years. But more importantly, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of negotiation. Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. It is a way of achieving our objectives. It doesn't tell us what the objectives are. The emphasis on negotiation as an end in itself reflects a shallowness in this administration's approach to international affairs, and gives us little confidence that our interests will be well served.”

So you see, Obama is simply a community organizer on a global scale. Although “W” will never win the best president ever award, nor will he be known for his eloquence, I would much prefer a “decider” in the White House over a “community organizer.” At least Bush was able to openly identify radical Islam as a source of evil in the world.

Bolton's entire essay can be read here:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

Obama at III Corps

The President did a good job at Ft Hood today, which is remarkable given the obstacles.

Above is a photo from a couple of weeks ago when he met some of the dead returning home from war. For some reason, it creeped me out. I think I know why.

It is because Obama's life represents the anti-military sentiment of the Left. His mother and both fathers resented the military. His schooling taught him to protest the military. He surrounded himself with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

In short, Obama was more likely to call in a bomb threat to an ROTC building on campus than to attend a class there.

The Left may believe they have pulled one over on us by supporting the troops while simultaneously opposing the war. That mentality simply does not fly and comes off as a political sleight-of-hand.

With all that baggage, Obama entered Ft Hood at a definite disadvantage. But his speech was well-written and well-delivered.

My only criticism is this comment: "But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next."

Was he attempting to soft-pedal militant Islamic doctrine? Or is he naive enough that he doesn't understand the fundamental beliefs of our foes in the war on terror?

This is no criticism of Islam alone. One need only read the Old Testament to discover that God has indeed called for the destruction of every man, woman, child, and animal of certain cities.

Surely Obama is not foolish enough to deny that suicide bombers are indeed following the voice of Allah as he tells them to kill the infidels. But that doesn't make very good copy, especially as he campaigns in behalf of mainstream Muslimdom. I think he could, and should have, left that part out. Obviously, theology was never his long suit.

Like I say, otherwise it was a surprisingly fine speech.