What’s interesting in the news today?
1. The purge of all things Christian from the military, and public view, continues.
From FoxNews “On March 14 Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told members of the House Armed Services committee that there was no war on religious liberty.”
“If that’s true, perhaps Gen. Welsh could explain why a Bible was removed from a POW/MIA Missing Man Table at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. The removal of the Good Book was first reported by the Gannett-owned newspaper Florida Today.
Base officials confirmed to Fox News Monday that the entire Missing Man Table display had been removed from a dining hall because of the Bible. A press statement said the inclusion of the Bible ignited “controversy and division.”
Missing Man Tables are a long honored military tradition. The tables serve as a reminder of the plight of brave Americans who are missing in action or who are being held prisoner of war. The display includes a white table cloth setting with an inverted glass, a plate with lemon and salt, a single rose, a candle and a Bible.”
___________________________________________
2. This is how a president who never served forces PC stupidity onto the military. Threats.
From BuzzFeed “In a meeting with the heads of the five service branches in 2010, President Obama offered the leaders a choice: Support my efforts to end the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, or resign, the Commandant of the Coast Guard said.
In a video obtained by BuzzFeed via a Freedom of Information Act request, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp revealed that Obama was unwilling to compromise with service leaders over DADT during a meeting in 2010. “We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do.’ I cannot divulge everything he said to us, that’s private communications within the Oval Office, but if we didn’t agree with it — if any of us didn’t agree with it — we all had the opportunity to resign our commissions and go do other things,” he said.”
Who cares about their knowledge and leadership skills, this is all that’s important to this admin? Seriously?
We’re in serious trouble.
___________________________________________
3. Assaults like this should always be prosecuted if true, and based upon evidence. But these prosecutions should never be influenced by politics.
From TheWashingtonTimes “The push from the commander in chief, generals and politicians to punish sexual offenders has become so relentless that it endangers the fairness of the military justice system, defense lawyers say.”
“We seem to be in a climate where folks can pick and choose which part of the criminal justice they like depending on their particular bias and political correctness,” Mr. Dowd said. “It does not seem to matter to the political and chattering classes that female officers are free to perjure themselves in sexual harassment cases without consequence. Perjury is a serious crime which subverts the entire system of justice. Do the ends justify the means? Is it more important to protect the system or just have a hanging party based on false accusations?”
The Obama administration last year selected sexual assault in the military as a prime topic after a Pentagon survey found that 26,000 active-duty troops — 12,000 women and 14,000 men — said they were victims of “unwanted sexual contact” in 2012. Such behavior is defined as abusive sexual contact up to and including rape.”
“The number officially reported to commanders was much smaller: 2,949 military victims in the 1.39 million active force. The report said the justice system disposed of 444 “unfounded allegations.” Defense attorneys point to this number to argue that each case must be judged on its merits. False accusations have risen 35 percent since 2009, the report states.”
___________________________________________
4. Wouldn’t it be great if this whole fiasco wasn’t just some really involved April Fools Day prank?
From Forbes “Today is March 31, 2014: in theory, the last day you can sign up for coverage under the subsidized Obamacare insurance exchanges. If you’ve been a regular reader of this space, you know that the numbers routinely paraded by the Obama administration regarding Obamacare website sign-ups don’t tell us much about the actual number of uninsured individuals who have gained coverage. A new study from the RAND Corporation indicates that only one-third of exchange sign-ups were previously uninsured.
The RAND study hasn’t yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that “the vast majority of these people were previously insured.”
“One important finding of the McKinsey survey was that the proportion of those who had formally enrolled in coverage, by paying their first month’s premium, was considerably lower among the previously uninsured, relative to the previously insured. 86 percent of those who were previously insured who had “selected a marketplace plan” on the exchanges had paid, whereas only 53 percent of the previously uninsured had.”
___________________________________________
5. The website had a couple of not volume related crashes on the final day.
From CNBC “The Obama administration’s health care website stumbled early Monday , falling out of service for nearly four hours on deadline day for sign-ups. After it was fixed, officials plowed ahead with a nationwide promotional drive, almost like getting out the vote on Election Day.
Early visitors to HealthCare.gov on Monday morning saw messages that the site was down for maintenance. At times the visitors were also directed to a virtual waiting room – a feature designed to ease the strain on the site during periods of heavy use.”
___________________________________________
6. Ah yes….. sooner or later, they always eat their own. Or shove them under the bus.
From NationalJournal “Bracing for a rough midterm-election outcome, Democrats aren’t waiting until Election Day to start blaming one another for the party’s problems. Anticipating the possibility that Republicans will flip the Senate, the finger-pointing game is already underway between the party’s warring factions.
Earlier this month, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas argued liberals had successfully purged so-called squishy moderates from the Democratic Party’s ranks—even if those same lawmakers had helped the party retain conservative-leaning Senate and House seats. From the middle, the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way has become more outspoken in criticizing progressive leaders, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for advocating an agenda that will compromise the party’s ability to attract moderate voters.
The public spats between outside groups are nothing compared with the private finger-pointing over who could be responsible if Republicans ride a political wave this year. The moderate wing is prepared to blame the party for avoiding centrist initiatives like free-trade deals and entitlement reform, while the Left will argue party leaders didn’t do enough to protect benefits.
“This is a coming divide for the Democratic Party,” said one progressive strategist, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Not only about explaining 2014, but laying the groundwork for 2016.”
Pass the popcorn please. 🙂
___________________________________________
7. Never mind the facts, just keep reminding yourself that Republicans are the party of the rich.
From MSNNews “Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It’s a label that has stuck for decades, and you’re hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.”
___________________________________________
Wandering Views 
#2 Not to mention “transparency.”
LikeLike
We are in serious trouble.
When I joined the Air Force in 1949, Just after getting a haircut, we were issued New Testaments provided by the Gideons.
LikeLike
Well, God’s Word surely does ‘ignite’ controversy and division. That much is true.
LikeLike
Chas, The Gideons do a great job. Our missionaries who recently went to northeastern India said the people there who had Bibles all had received them from the Gideons.
LikeLike
#1. I would not remove the Bible, but I would, occassionally, change it out with a Torah, Quran, or other sacred writing, in recognition of the sacrifices soldiers of faiths other than our own have made.
LikeLike
A. Nonny Mouse
I could accept a Torah, but the Quran? No, not that one. But the point is not which book is there; it is that it was replaced by nothing. Atheism’s answer-nothing.
LikeLike
Anon, I assume you are a Christian from your use of the word “our” in faiths other than our own. Why would you propose changing out the Bible occasionally for something like the Quran, in which pages the Way, the Truth, and the Life, our Savior Jesus, will not be introduced? As followers of Christ, the eternal peace of our fellow humans should be a greater concern to us than the recognition of a faith in which peace through Christ will never be found.
LikeLike
1. I hardly think the admin is responsible for this — overeager bureaucrats likely. In context, one can view the placement of the Bible as symbol of the spiritual strength the missing or imprisoned need. And in that context, it would be appropriate to occasionally place a different holy book depending on the composition of the troops. And if the Bible is placed not as a symbol of spiritual strength but to introduced Christianity to the troops as 6 arrows then those who advocate its remove have a case.
2. Whether he served or didn’t, he’s still the commander in chief. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t serve but they (and their supporters) approved of sending troops on an ill-advised pre-emptive war on false premises. If I was a member of the Chiefs of Staff, the Iraqi war would be far more difficult order to follow than the to end the nonsensical DADT policy.
It appears Hobby Lobby was in favour of Plan B medication before they were against it and are still in favour of investing in those type of pharmaceutical companies.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
LikeLike
The Hobby Lobby issue isn’t about Hobby Lobby; it’s about their argument. There are a lot of things I like about Hobby Lobby, and I’d be prepared to agree they’ve been hypocritical in providing then objecting to coverage–although I’d prefer to wait a few days to get info from more than the caustic mama Mother Jones (to which I used to subscribe, but its vitriol became even a bit too much for my then-lefty mind cared to bear).
Hobby Lobby or not, the government has no business telling any business–even ones that are publicly held–how to compensate their employees.
LikeLike
6Arrows, because I recognize that troops with those beliefs, too, have fought (and died) for our freedoms in our various wars. If I expect my beliefs to be respected, and honored in this way, then others have the right to the same. It’s that whole “do unto others” part.
LikeLike
hwesselli re #2, well stated! If at the lower ranks, an officer could not or would not obey the command of his superior, the consequences would be sever. Whether they approve of him or not, that is how the chain of command is maintained. It ends at the top, with the Commander-in-Chief. If a general cannot follow the order of his commanding officer, out of respect for that chain of command, he ought to resign.
LikeLike