Archive | News RSS feed for this section

Why are America’s Top Generals Being Fired?

The nation’s top military generals are being fired by the Obama administration one by one, according to Reuters in an article published today.

It’s a disturbing trend for several reasons. The government says that each firing does not indicate any type of breach of U.S. military security or preparedness. But this makes one wonder why the generals are being fired. If the purported offenses are so puny – a commander at the crucial U.S. Strategic Air Command was reportedly fired for gambling – as to pose no threat to national security, why are the generals being fired? Contrast this with the administration’s treatment of those who commit repeated offenses, infractions and violations of law in countless government corruption scandals from Benghazi and Boston to the IRS, TSA and ObamaCare and it becomes clear that the firing of America’s military generals is cause for grave concern.

The government’s secrecy in these supposed wrongdoings by the generals is also suspicious. For example, the latest general to be fired is in charge of America’s nuclear missiles and, while the Obama administration insists that his infractions pose no threat to our missile defense and capability, the government refuses to identify, address and explain what the general is accused of doing that merits being fired. This amounts to Obama saying the fired general deserves no suspension, no punishment, no warning – just ‘you’re fired’ but we’re not telling anyone the facts or circumstances and we’re not disclosing why he’s fired but the people must have faith in the state and it’s not a big deal.

But firing one after another military general without cause, explanation or disclosure is a major issue. Especially coming from a government that shoots to kill, as we recently saw when the Secret Service or Capitol Police (we still don’t know which) gunned down an unarmed single mother driving recklessly in the nation’s capital. This is in the context of an administration which is systematically persecuting individuals and businesses and imposing total government control of the economy.

We have reason to believe that former U.S. military Central Commander Gen. David Petraeus, who became CIA director, may have been pushed out by the Obama administration using personal information obtained by secret U.S. government spying on Petraeus through the NSA, as whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden have warned against. Now we have top military generals in command of the most essential military weapons being fired one by one by a government that negotiates with Islamic dictatorships threatening to annihilate the U.S. with nuclear weapons while refusing to negotiate with Congressional leaders over the health care dictate. There’s a sinister pattern here.

million_vet_march_memorialsThis is why it is encouraging that our nation’s oldest and bravest defenders, our war veterans, have resolved to act in defiance of the Obama administration. This Sunday, the vets will march on Washington to storm the barricades erected around that which memorializes their acts of courage and assert their individual rights.

We already know that Obama wants to destroy what’s left of our nation’s republic. But Americans need to know why generals are being fired at the highest levels of military defense. We must know if the NSA is systematically spying on our generals to intimidate and force them into submission. We ought to know more about the American who was gunned down and killed in the nation’s capital, too, such as who fired upon her and why because the rights of the individual are why this country exists. Our immediate future is at stake. The truth may be worse than what’s known. This Sunday, every American should express support for America’s protesting veterans. Whatever happens, each among us should find inspiration in their acts of bravery versus the state, summon the courage to follow their example and become an activist for life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Obama is dictating everything from health insurance to war memorial visits as he negotiates Islamic jihad nuclearization. Now he’s removing top military generals. The people should stand united in opposition.

On the Government Shutdown

Amid all the fuss and nonsense today, the second day of a partial (really, miniscule) Big Government shutdown, an exchange between a powerful government official and a reporter captured the essence of the central issue at stake: life versus death.

The reporter, a CNN broadcast reporter not some Fox News Channel personality or reporter (and that channel just gets worse every day in terms of objectivity), dared to challenge the U.S. Senate’s top politician, a slimy official from Nevada named Harry Reid, on a new proposal from the opposition party that would restore part of the U.S. government that has been effectively shut down over a dispute about ObamaCare. CNN’s Dana Bash, who is generally not known for being antagonistic toward the Obama administration and certainly not noted for being objective, asked Senate Majority Leader Reid a simple if cliched question: “If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?”

Sen. Reid’s answer ought to go down in history – with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s infamous line that the government had to “pass” fascist ObamaCare to “find out what’s in it” – as capturing the essence of how the state regards the individual when the state has omnipotent power. The question and answer exchange, which happened the day after ObamaCare went into fuller effect, finished with the Mormon senator’s short, angry response: “Why would we want to do that?”

To have a United States senator openly question why someone would demand to know why the government ought to intervene on behalf of a defenseless, sick child – supposedly the primary recipient of ObamaCare’s purported benefits – is itself revealing. ObamaCare is not about helping others. Altruism is all about enslaving, not helping, others, and Sen. Reid’s vicious, savage-like answer demonstrates the pure, raw primitivism Americans can expect from ObamaCare and its fascist bureaucrats. Over time, and sooner than later, they will ultimately seek to maim, harm, cripple, torture, enslave and murder patients because ObamaCare is based on death not life as the standard of value, though most people don’t yet know it. Redistribution of wealth, and that’s what ObamaCare means, is an act of the initiation of force. It is a form of violence that acts to subjugate the individual and all of his choices and break the individual’s spirit so that he serves others.

Others, however, will not be served. That’s only the bait. The switch is that the others whom robbing the healthy, wealthy, productive and otherwise are presumably intended to serve will be among the first victims – the old, the sick, the young, the weak, those too timid to speak out and fight back; they are doomed to die. They will cost too much, they will require too much medicine, too much care, and they are more easily extinguished and exterminated.

Sen. Reid’s horrifying comment, which is being treated as yet another conservative talking point – or, these days, with cynical comedians passing for intellectuals, laughing point – offers ObamaCare’s meaning in starkly clear and immediate language. It not only lies in what he said – which amounts to why do you dare to presume we care about the life of an individual?!? – it lies in how he said it: with outrage, contempt and venom.

But there’s more from the religious senator from Nevada. On top of showing his hatred of the innocent, the vacant weasel named Harry Reid showed a glimpse of what’s to come under the emerging American dictatorship with regard to freedom of speech, which covers freedom of the press. Singling out the mousy reporter – who is hardly known as a brave lion in the arena of journalism – for attack, as the Obama administration did when singling out CNN for assault after the news network questioned the government’s role in defending Americans at Benghazi, Harry Reid spit at the wispy young woman, with no particular attention to her: “To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless.”

This is an unmistakable warning to the press: submit to fascism … or else. That’s what Reid’s comment means. So, while ObamaCare’s defenders – and the government shutdown is chiefly about taking down or letting stand the monstrosity known as ObamaCare – spew their plain hatred for children, especially children with disease, they lace it with their contempt for the one who dares to speak his, or in this case her, mind. But this is precisely what every civilized human should do: question what ObamaCare is, what it means, how it applies to you and whether it’s moral or monstrous. Study the facts if they’re available for your consumption and make your own judgment. Then get in some government official’s face and speak up and make some noise about it. Think, question, and speak, just like CNN’s Dana Bash. Do it again. And, whatever else, don’t let the bastards bark you down.


The ObamaCare October

Years ago, I warned in multiple posts (and in this op-ed in the Washington Times) that ObamaCare is America’s health care dictatorship. Tomorrow it becomes a harsher reality, as the dictate (which is over three years old) takes fuller effect.

Obama-Obamacare-SignatureWhat every decent American needs to know about the law of the land is that whatever this or that provision of this arbitrary dictate, whatever the press corps says or propagandizes about ObamaCare, you have no control or choice in health insurance or medicine anymore, not if you’re a doctor, patient or policyholder.

The price, terms and treatment are under total government control. Medicine as a profession – medicine and insurance are no longer in any meaningful sense a profession, a term which implies a degree of autonomy on the part of professionals – is dead.

This is despite opposition, to the extent it is opposition, from religious conservatives including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who tried to stop ObamaCare to his credit. Cruz now rails against “extremism” and “absolutism” in his attacks on ObamaCare, even after he read from an absolutist book such as Atlas Shrugged, which I don’t think he understands, during what amounts to his ineffective 21-hour standoff. There is no real, principled opposition to totalitarianism among politicians in America. Nor is there principled opposition in the right-wing press. For example, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, who also supports government-sponsored spying on Americans, compared Obama to Leonardo Da Vinci and ObamaCare to the Mona Lisa in his latest asinine comedy comments on The Five. No one other than a few voices for reason opposes the moral premise of the dictate – altruism – on principle and too many of those who do are too busy looking for leaders among politicians such as Ted Cruz who send mixed messages and accomplish nothing.

Tomorrow, ObamaCare begins amid what may turn out to be a partial Big Government shutdown. ObamaCare is not the end of the world and it’s a mistake to treat it like it is. But it is the end of free choice in medicine. This historic dictate, as I’ve warned many times, is a death blow to individual liberty in health care and ObamaCare is a gigantic step toward dictatorship of every American’s life.

It’s happened and it’s here, in a fuller sense, come tomorrow. All the posturing, grandstanding and maneuvering on policy points is not going to stop fascism. If you hate the dictate and decide that ObamaCare is bad, wrong and has got to go, your only choice is to oppose it on moral grounds, admit that health care is not a right – and insist that free choice in medicine is – and speak up, write and elect those who accept that idea and nothing less … or be prepared to scream for your life – and your child’s or grandfather’s life – in a new, American dictatorship. When the reality hits you – and it will – brace yourself and remember that tomorrow’s bureaucrats were made not born and that the best in what was once medicine will shrug, quit and leave.

You will hear that the dictate is helping others and that this is the law of the land and you will hear it many times. When you do, ask yourself if it’s helping you and if so at whose expense and by what right. Remember, too, that slavery was once the law of the land. The Orwellian named ObamaCare robs everyone of money, choice and life. Tomorrow, the law morphs medicine into slavery.

The Ethics of War with Syria

America is not the world’s police and it ought to be unnecessary to have to declare let alone debate that an attack by the U.S. on Syria would be an outrage.

But the Obama administration, backed by every major Democrat and Republican and largely by the press, too, is on the verge of taking the U.S. to war with Syria. It’s bad enough that Obama is proposing to align with rebels that by credible accounts are allied with the Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, and it is monstrous to subject this nation – having already been subjected to the longest war in our history – to another war with no purpose other than helping others. But the U.S. government has, to my knowledge for the first time, explicitly rejected U.S. self-interest as the cause for initiating the use of force against another country. Obama’s stated purpose for going to war is pure altruism – the morality of helping others for the sake of helping others – to the exclusion of self-interest and the fact that both sides of Syria’s civil war are jihadists for Islam. The altruism is the point, its proponents agree.

This war, currently being debated by Congress, is a crucially climactic, possibly ultimate, test in our lifetimes between the ethics of egoism and the ethics of altruism or between good and evil. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is right that the United States is “not Al Qaeda’s air force” when he argues that we should not go to war with Syria. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is right to declare as he did in Time that he refuses to “vote to send our nation’s best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory.” But these are deeply flawed Christian politicians who can go bad – and, on crucial issues, they have – because they have no moral defense for acting in our own self-interest. A nation hurling itself into war in solidarity with victims of chemical weapons won’t be stopped on practical, even Constitutional, grounds.

The ethics of self-sacrifice must be challenged, rejected and replaced with the ethics of self-interest, which ought to be our sole criteria for foreign intervention, as the Founding Fathers, who warned against foreign entanglements, understood.

The opponents and proponents of war with Syria are proving philosopher Onkar Ghate right that the fundamental political conflict of our time is not between left and right. The conflict is between the rational and the irrational, between reason vs. faith, with leftists and conservatives converging into a single, dangerous pre-dictatorship based on faith in the state – the NSA, TSA, ObamaCare, anything dictated by government – with Obama, McCain and Fox News leading us into submission. President Obama, a pure nihilist whom I’ve called the Nothing Man, openly expresses disdain and outright contempt for having to communicate anything about the issue of going to war with anyone for any reason. He embodies the nil, the nothing, in this sense; a kind of walking (or in his case loping) Grim Reaper. I am 100 percent confident that his war with Syria will bring mass death.

Two years ago, I had a long discussion about war with John Lewis months before he died. I had studied under his instruction in war history and read his book, Nothing Less Than Victory, and Dr. Lewis was the best war historian I knew. We talked about 9/11, the jihad, Syria as a flashpoint, the prospect of Obama as a warmonger and the people treating someone like Obama as a deity in total faith. He warned against all-out world war born of our refusal to identify, name, confront, kill and wipe out Islamic jihad.

Attacking Syria brings America closer to total, nonstop world war and destruction of western civilization. Some Americans, including war veterans and other individualists, are awakened and emboldened by Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s efforts and Edward Snowden’s heroic whistleblowing and they reject the emerging government-controlled society by speaking up against war with Syria. In ethical terms, the debate over Syria separates the selfish from the selfless. The question demanding to be answered right now is: which one are you?

Bezos Buys the Washington Post

The news that Jeff Bezos, who created, bought the Washington Post from its owner for $250 million is not surprising; the businessman has always been interested in and favored by media, with which he has long, deep connections, and the newspaper industry has been self-destructing for decades. Whatever their respective merits, and I think both Bezos and the Post are generally competent, I think their shared commodity is in some sense narcissism. The self-centeredness, as against an ability to think in principles, characterizes an enterprise that should be based on a core principle, such as dedication to reporting and disseminating objective truth, and it may prevent the new company from achieving much beyond more of the same in a different incarnation.

I took an instant dislike to Bezos when he was overexposed upon his company Amazon’s heavily promoted launch, because I don’t usually trust people who smile all the time and he did back then. It struck me as simpering. I came to appreciate the value proposition of his retailing business, which owns the company that purchased a journalistic enterprise in which I was part owner. I chose not to continue as an editor and journalist there, partly because I was not convinced of the Amazon-owned company’s understanding of, or commitment to, what it takes to create outstanding stories let alone to protect individual rights, which is essential to editorial production. But Amazon was a good match for the operation and things turned out pretty much as I figured. In my experience, is run like a lot of tech firms by amazing men and women of ability who think they know more than they in fact do; tech people can be pretentious, self-important and utterly disconnected from reality.

Which brings me to journalists, who are much worse in this regard, especially at vaunted newspapers such as the Washington Post, which, in my experience, is also run like a lot of newspapers by amazing men and women of ability who think they know more than they in fact do.

The Post was catapulted in stature by Woodward and Bernstein, two reporters who famously spent years and barrels of ink tracking down relatively trivial information about a scandal that ultimately brought down an American president, Nixon, and left in their wake an entire generation of New Left type journalists who cumulatively proceeded to waste everyone’s time over relatively trivial issues, reporting stories that didn’t matter, distorting the truth, lying, plagiarizing and stealing and becoming part of, rather than being a bold challenge to, the establishment they insisted they were fighting – and they have been entrenched preaching subjective dogma and ruining journalism ever since.

That’s neither Woodward’s and Bernstein’s nor the Post‘s fault, really, but their complicity in aiding the impression that what they did about Watergate was essentially good journalism, even honorable, crusading journalism, is undeniable; The Washington Post‘s reports on Watergate mark the beginning of the end of any last shred of objective mainstream journalism and all we have left is the sickening residue of Fox News and MSNBC and a bunch of snooty newspapers that run wire copy, snooty editorials and celebrity trash that barely move the reader past the first paragraph much less move the reader to think, challenge, question, debate and change the world.

So, Jeff Bezos has an opportunity to doubt the modern faith in subjectivism, change that mentality, fire those deadbeat journalists and empty suits who are often as overpaid, overstaffed and corrupt as the priests and politicians with whom they cavort. The Seattle businessman can transform journalism starting with the Washington Post, unless he chooses, as I suspect he will given his past, to become a passive, compliant spectator in the pews of the church of modern subjectivism, smiling endlessly and accomplishing nothing. Jeff Bezos has created something of real value in his Amazon, with its innovative Prime, Instant Video, Gold Box, Wish List and reasonably priced choices available in convenient distribution. He is a producer, an intelligent capitalist whose patience paid off with one of the most exciting retailers on earth. Ultimately, and I say this as a writer who’s been inside both Amazon and the Washington Post, whether he can save the newspaper, revive the free press and enlighten those who choose to think depends on whether Jeff Bezos is ready to do what newspapers stopped doing decades ago: seek to make money with reasonably priced products, delivered in a convenient distribution, that report the facts of reality and challenge the status quo—from A to Z.