Archives for October 2012

Military brass already under fire for embracing for embracing President Obama’s repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and lashing out at an anti-Islamic filmmaker is now facing more heat for targeting a highly decorated officer for teaching an approved class on radical Islam.

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley is a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and has received commendations for exemplary service over nearly 20 years of service.  However, Dooley’s career is now in shambles because he was fired from his teaching position at the Joint Forces Staff College at National Defense University and received a negative Officer Evaluation Report.  His offense was to teach a course on radical Islam that was approved by military brass years earlier, but their attitude changed when Muslim organizations complained about the class.

“It was a course that had been going on at the National Defense University since 2004,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan.  “His superiors knew what the course was all about.  The first time they evaluated him…as an instructor there, they rated him outstanding, indicated that he should be moved as quickly as possible to a command position.”

Thompson says Dooley was the most popular professor at National Defense University and students specifically requested this class.  He says Dooley was never alerted to any problems with the class on radical Islam until Muslim groups complained and his military superiors suddenly punished him with no warning.

“All at once, out of the blue, because of an October 2011 letter that was sent to the Department of Defense by 57 Muslim organizations saying, ‘We want all material purged of anything that is offensive to Muslims or Islam and that any of the instructors that used such training materials should be disciplined.'”

Thompson says instead of defending the course or even launching a fair investigation, the very top of the military’s chain of command simply caved to the outside pressure.

“It’s a result of that letter that Gen. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came down, reached in and looked at that course because he got information from an individual  that wasn’t even enrolled in that class,” said Thompson, who points out that Dempsey then held a televised news conference to slam the course and Lt. Col. Dooley without Dooley ever being notified of anything.

“[Dempsey] publicly excoriated Lt. Col. Dooley, who had no opportunity to defend himself at that point,” said Thompson.  Dempsey also “indicated that what Lt. Col. Dooley did was offensive…unprofessional and stopped the teaching of that course, ordered another review of all courses at the National Defense University” because of those same complaints from Muslims.

Dooley is now engaged in the first stage of a two-pronged effort to exonerate himself and restore his career.  Right now, he is appealing his negative Officer Evaluation Review in the military legal system, but Thompson says that effort is unlikely to succeed since Gen. Dempsey is publicly on the record supporting the negative review.  So Thompson and Dooley are preparing a federal lawsuit to reverse the negative review based on Dooley’s free speech rights and the academic freedom provided through the university.  Thompson says complaints about teachers or courses at National Defense University are normally handled by the provost.  In this case the provost was never involved since General Dempsey acted so quickly.

As deplorable as Thompson considers the Army’s treatment of Lt. Col. Dooley, he believes the actions of Dempsey and others demonstrate a deeper problem that threatens all Americans.

“Political correctness is ruining the effectiveness of our war fighting machine,” he said.  “If we cannot accurately identify who the enemy is to our own troops we will will ultimately lose that war.”

Exhibit 1 in Thompson’s argument are the 2009 Ft. Hood shootings, in which Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 people and wounded dozens of others while shouting praises to Allah.

“We had at the time knowledge of this major, American-born, who had gone off the reservation,” said Thompson.  “None of the officers above him wanted to say anything because they were afraid they may be branded as an islamophobe.  The FBI didn’t want to investigate…because they would not be considered culturally sensitive.  As a result, American soldiers died and several were wounded and that’s the kind of political correctness that’s going to destroy the war-fighting ability of our combat soldiers.  That’s what’s so dangerous about that.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see more evidence detailing what really happened in Benghazi on 9/11 and that the Obama administration cover-up is getting exposed.  They also wince as Indiana senate hopeful Richard Mourdock takes heat for his answer on rape and abortion but they also unload on Democrats for having no moral qualms for supporting abortion at any stage for any reason.  And they have fun with the latest Donald Trump publicity stunt and groan as Gloria Allred tries to stir up her own October Surprise.

Mitt Romney came across as a credible commander-in-chief but missed some chances to effectively criticize President Obama’s foreign policy record, according to South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson.

A member of both the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, Wilson was stunned that Romney didn’t shine the spotlight on the September terrorist attack at our consulate in Benghazi and the evolving response by the Obama administration.

“I believe it was (a missed opportunity),” said Wilson, noting that Romney was trying to come across less antagonistic than President Obama and respect the more civil tone that Americans expect during discussions of foreign affairs.  “But I believe it was very legitimate if he had raised it and pursued it to point out this cover-up, the failure to protect our ambassador and out three other personnel there.”  Wilson contends the mess in Benghazi reflects deeper problems with Obama’s foreign policy.

“The American people should be concerned because this is symbolic of what I’ve been saying all along.  By reducing the size of our military, the president is giving encouragement to people who carry signs.  The signs are in English and they say ‘Death of America,’ ‘Death to Israel.'”

One of President Obama’s goals in the debate was to make the case that our relationship with Israel remains strong and that he is being tough in confronting Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Wilson isn’t buying it, noting that Obama never visited Israel over the past four years and has failed to condemn incendiary comments from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that refer to Israel as a temporary civilization.

Defense spending was also front and center in the debate as Romney vowed not to cut defense spending and blasted Obama for planning a trillion dollars worth of cuts to the military over the next decade as a result of mandatory cuts triggered when the super committee failed to cut spending.  Obama said this sequestration was not something he endorsed and promised it would not happen.  He also mocked Romney for wanting to beef up the number of ships in our Navy, saying that times are changing and our forces have cut back on bayonets and horses as well.

Wilson was not amused, slamming Obama for his conduct and warning that sequestration would devastate the military.

“It was really sad that the president was taking a cheap shot.  It was beneath what a president should do,” said Wilson.  “The president is wrong.  It is very important we have the number of ships,” he added, noting the threats posed by piracy the danger facing international commerce if we fail to maintain a strong Navy around the world.  “I’m very proud of the presidential standing of Gov. Romney.  He came across for a strong national defense.  We know this works.  It’s called peace through strength.”

Most of all, Wilson says Romney’s demeanor during the debate demonstrates that he has the temperament and judgment to be commander-in-chief.

“Governor Romney comes across as a person that you can place your faith and trust in.  I know that he would want the best for our military personnel, military families, veterans.  This is so crucial to the freedoms we have.”

Wilson also lauded Romney for discussing the economy during the foreign policy debate and explaining why he believes a strong economy is the first toward a strong American presence in the world.

The congressman predicts a Romney win in two weeks based on economic, energy and national security issues.  There won’t be any drama in Wilson’s re-election effort.  He’s running unopposed in South Carolina’s second district.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review credit Mitt Romney for showing competence on foreign policy but wonder why he passed up so many opportunities to point out flaws in the Obama record.  They also believe Obama lost points for his sarcastic attacks and dismissal of Romney’s concerns over defense cutbacks.  And they are surprisingly impressed by how well Bob Schieffer moderated the debate and avoided becoming involved in it.

Chaplains are being forced to put aside their religious beliefs to perform same-sex ceremonies on military bases and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe says that needs to stop.

Inhofe is the second highest ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and admits some chaplains have opted out but only with the understanding that their refusal to follow orders will mean the end of their careers.  The senator considers the Navy the most hostile to the religious freedom of the chaplains.

Inhofe says further frustration flows from the inability of active duty military to publicly disagree with their orders.

“You won’t find many active chaplains who will tell you the truth about this because you know what will happen to them if we do,” said Inhofe.  “But you get the retired chaplains, I don’t know of one exception that isn’t outraged by this and saying that government can’t come along and dictate the moral principles that they have always had – both before their current career and up to the present time.”

So who is demanding that chaplains check their scriptural bearings at the chapel door?  Inhofe says military brass and civilian leaders at the Pentagon may be enforcing these policies, but he says responsibility lies in just one place.

“It’s the president,” said Inhofe.  “I keep hearing Democrats say, ‘ Well, this isn’t what the Pentagon wants.’  The Pentagon answers to the Commander-in-Chief.  The Commander-in-Chief if the President of the United States.  So he’s the one responsible.”

In response to this pressure on the chaplains, Inhofe and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker are introducing the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act.

“It stipulates and states specifically that chaplains shall not be ordered or required to perform any ceremony that is contrary to the moral principles or religious beliefs of the chaplain’s faith group,” said Inhofe.  “It further says that property under the jurisdiction of (the defense department) shall not be used to perform a marriage or involving anything other than the union of one man and one woman.”

Inhofe says he knows for a fact that military brass don’t like the way the military culture is trending, but they don’t speak out publicly because of the chain of command.  Inhofe concedes that following orders is a vital part of what makes our armed forces work effectively but he also advocates an expansion of their speech rights.

“What I’d prefer is for these generals and high ranking officials to say publicly what they really fee land have the courage to do that,” said Inhofe. “Then go ahead and do what they’re commanded to do.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged by a new Rasmussen poll showing Mitt Romney leading President Obama by four points in Colorado.  They also groan as polls show Todd Akin lagging behind vulnerable Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.  And they chronicle how Sandra Fluke went from prime time convention speaker to holding a rally small enough to fit in one parking spot.

Texas is not considered a battleground state, but the Lone Star State is at the epicenter of two critical issues – energy and immigration – that were highlighted in this week’s presidential debate.

The fireworks started early over the issue of high gas prices, which neither candidate actually addressed.  Instead, President Obama contended that he had drastically increased domestic production of energy and Mitt Romney claimed exploration had actually been reduced over the past four years.

Texas Rep. Michael Burgess is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and explained where things really stand.

“They’re both right,” said Burgess, “but President Obama is ignoring the fact that actual drilling activity on public lands, federal lands that he controls is way down.  It’s the drilling on private lands, which the president cannot control directly that has gone way up.”

Burgess says the decline in energy production on public land is not an accident.

“There’s no mistake in my mind about what another Obama administration would mean for energy production in this country.  They are looking for ways to inhibit the production of energy, whether it be his folks at the Environmental Protection Agency who have been coming forth with their rules on hydraulic fracturing or whether it’s people on Fish and Wildlife and the Endangered Species Act folks who are going to attempt to put lands off limits.”

Obama has stressed his embrace of natural gas production at the debates and at the most recent State of the Union address.  Burgess says it’s just talk.

“The State of the Union moment was like something out of a Franz Kafka novel,” said Burgess.  “The president spends more time talking about natural gas production by fracking than he does his own health care law.  I thought I had gone into a parallel universe where the president was channeling his inner George Bush.”

Burgess says the EPA has picked up the pace on crippling economic restrictions after the failure of the Obama Cap & Trade legislation in the previous Congress.  He says the administration has even more repressive ideas that are on hold until after the election.

“They have held off with some of their ideas because they could be a potent political weapon to use against them.  Starting another four-year term where he doesn’t have to worry about re-election, I think it’s Katie-bar-the-door and the Environmental Protection Agency is going to be the central focus of the president’s restriction on developing American energy.”

Immigration was also a point of contention at the town hall debate, with both candidates taking a compassionate tone but Burgess says the president’s handling of the issue earlier this year was unconstitutional when he changed immigration law without the consent of Congress to extend work permits to young illegals.

“This is hard and this is hard for a reason,” said Burgess.  “The country is divided on this.  It’s going to take something called leadership, which the president has refused to provide.”

Burgess says Obama’s actions are not only outside the bounds of his office but have made the immigration problem worse.

“Whoever is president over the next four years is left with a very muddled policy with no clear parameters and no clear direction, and I don’t think he’s done anyone any favors,” said Burgess.  “So regardless of how you feel about the predicament of someone who was brought here very young before they knew they were breaking the law or not, regardless of how you feel about that as a class of people, the president has made the situation and the conditions on the ground actually that much worse.”

President Obama made it clear once again in Tuesday’s debate that his top economic goal if re-elected would be to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.  The Capitol Steps combine the president and musical theater to explain where that extra money would go.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleasantly stunned by the momentum Mitt Romney is building nationwide, in swing states and even in favorability.    They also cringe as Obama refers to the four American deaths in Benghazi as “not optimal”.  And they dissect Joe Biden’s latest gaffes suggesting we have troops in Iran and Republicans are aiming bullets at Democrats.

Republicans across the board shunned Rep. Todd Akin for his rape comments back in August, but South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint is now working feverishly to help his friend win the U.S. Senate seat in Missouri against embattled Democrat Claire McCaskill.

“He took a big hit when he got his foot in his mouth,” said DeMint.  “He has asked forgiveness.  He’s got a good voting record and we are doing everything we can to still win that seat.  For me, it’s a choice between Todd Akin and Harry Reid.”

When DeMint uses the word “we”, he is referring to his Senate Conservatives Fund PAC and not the GOP establishment.  DeMint says the PAC has already raised $100,000 for Akin and could kick in $500,000 by November 6.  However, both the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee still refuse to assist Akin despite polls showing the race essentially tied.

“They thought it was not winnable after he said that,” said DeMint.  “They’re finding out that Sen. Claire McCaskill is pretty unpopular in Missouri and people understand the implications of a majority when it comes to Supreme Court justices.”

DeMint says the national party now likely feels as though it cannot change positions after taking such a public stance back in August.  Nonetheless, he believes the RNC or NRSC might jump in in the final days if leaders believe it will make a difference.

DeMint understands the uproar over Akin suggesting that women’s bodies can often naturally prevent pregnancies in cases of “legitimate rape” but he says the right thing is to look at the totality of Akin’s record.

“It’s important what we say, but he’s got a voting record and he’s done the right thing over more than a decade,” said DeMint, who noted contributors to his PAC voted overwhelmingly to provide financial backing for Akin.  “When the Senate Conservatives Fund…queried its members about what we should do, about 95 percent of them responded they we should get in there and help him.  Folks understand the implications of that race and it could be the one that determines whether or not we’ve got a majority and can pass a budget and can actually get some things done with a President Romney.”

For DeMint, it’s a case of putting his money where his mouth is.  Last month, DeMint told us that it might be best for the party’s electoral hopes if Akin withdrew from the race but insisted if Akin chose to stay that the party should fully support him.  DeMint is bullish in general on the GOP’s chances to claim the majority in the Senate.  He believes the party will pick up seats in Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana and Missouri and have good chances in Virginia, Ohio and maybe even Pennsylvania.

He acknowledges some Republicans have tough races to keep their seats, but expects the party to hang in in places like Arizona and Indiana.  He’s also hopeful Scott Brown can hang on in Massachusetts and that the GOP might even be able to score an upset win in Pennsylvania.  Overall, DeMint predicts a 4-5 seat gain for the GOP, which would be enough to claim the majority regardless of who wins the White House.