First posted at Examiner.com

It is not a movie. It could be labeled a comedy, a farce, even a Greek tragedy, except that people really are dying. It is in fact, an absolutely abhorrent, disgraceful and unacceptable demonstration of the hidebound, self-serving attitude, omnipresent throughout the Federal bureaucracy, and among many in our political establishment, that my agency, my mission, my job, is more important than anyone or anything else.

It is called protecting turf, and the ugly fact, as any government analyst can tell you, is that the federal government spends more time doing it than practically anything else. (And Obama wants to give our medical care over to them, no less!) It is bad enough that these petty turf battles squander agency time and resources, but when they dictate policies regulating combat operations, they can become deadly.

Last month, we brought you the story about Specialist Chazray Clark, the soldier wounded in Afghanistan by an IED, who died due to delays because an unarmed medevac helicopter but a few miles away could not launch without armed escort. This story first came to light through the intrepid front-lines reporting of Michael Yon. And yes, he did provide a video tape. No sex, only the agonizing moments waiting for the helicopter to arrive, while Chazray’s life slipped away.

Army policy claims, incomprehensibly, that medevac helicopters must be unarmed and must be marked with the Red Cross to satisfy the Geneva Convention. However the Convention specifically allows for an exclusion when the enemy does not abide by it—not even a joke question with al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But even if the enemy abides by the Convention, no signatory is obligated to wear the Red Cross. Doing so only affords protection when the wearer also follows specific guidelines such as not flying over the enemy, or getting their permission to do so beforehand. Imagine what the Taliban would say to that! We fly over the enemy in Red Cross-marked helicopters all the time, in clear violation of these Geneva Convention guidelines, making a mockery of the Army’s claim they are abiding by it.

Those red crosses are irrelevant at best, a nice target at worst. None of the other services use them, and all their rescue choppers are armed. But the Army foolishly persists in a policy that requires the ubiquitous Red Cross markings on medevacs, and demands they go unarmed, in supposed adherence to a Convention that assumes the enemy will play by Queensbury rules. But then they plainly ignore the spirit of the Convention by requiring that unarmed medevacs be escorted by helicopter gunships. At least they have that much sense!

Following a devastating piece in Soldier of Fortune by Dalton Fury, former Delta Force officer and author of Killing Bin Laden, our column in the Washington Times, unrelenting pressure from Yon—even CBS weighed in—and finally, a letter from Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) demanding some answers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff produced a response.

Or not.

That is, they sent a response to Akin disputing our assertions, but said it wasn’t from them, and though they didn’t disagree with the conclusions in the response, they really couldn’t say who wrote it or where it came from, even though Akin’s staff said it originated with the JCS…

What?

Michael Yon produced a devastating point-counterpoint analysis of DoD’s assertions. And as DoD dithers, more and more military helicopter pilots, both active duty and retired, are weighing in. All agree; the policy is wrong.

Yet, as the policy looks more inane by the moment, the Army becomes, if anything, more obstinate. Why? Why so much obfuscation? Why so many lies? Are they so petty that they can’t admit they’re wrong over something so simple? Or is there something we’ve overlooked?

When people persist in irrational behavior to the point of absurdity, when they stubbornly continue to demand their way, however ridiculous, then there is almost certainly something else at work. Their behavior may not be irrational at all.

Bingo.

The Geneva Convention is a straw man argument. It purposely poses as an inanely PC policy that everyone can complain about, but in fact provides cover for the real truth, which is much more embarrassing. The real reason we have unarmed, red cross-marked helicopters plying the dangerous skies of Afghanistan is due to an Army internal bureaucratic turf battle about who controls those helicopters! Those helos require maintenance and manpower, and lots of tax dollars to go with it. There is also lots of prestige in having your own fleet—plenty of exclusive transportation for the top brass too.

If they arm helos and strip off the red crosses, then presto, they are just regular Army helos—no special gig, though they can easily still be reserved for medevac. American troops are dying just so one Army bureaucracy can have its own designated fleet!  We have suspected as much for a while, but our worst fears were confirmed when we received the following message. For obvious reasons we cannot disclose who it is, but this active-duty Army officer is very close to the action:

I am an active-duty Army officer, and would prefer my name and email address not be used, if that is at all possible… Mr. Yon is only receiving pushback on the issue because the Army Medical Department is scared that removing the Red Cross from their helicopters will result in them being repurposed for general-use…[They] would rather put soldiers’ lives in danger than chance losing control over ‘their’ birds. This doesn’t seem to be a rational argument, especially considering that every other branch of service, as well as our allied partners, manage to have armed yet still-dedicated …aircraft, but that’s the argument the upper echelons [are] expressing…

Shortly after that, we received another message:

…When I went through the MEDEVAC Doctrine course two years ago I asked the question, why not arm DUSTOFF [medical evacuation helos]?  I was told, ‘because then the army would lose its dedicated medical platform…’

So there you have it. The Red Cross has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention but rather provides a convenient way for certain members of the top brass to remain relevant. Taxpayer dollars, scarce Army resources and most importantly, the precious lives of our front line forces are being crucified on a Red Cross—a cross which in this case symbolizes not the Geneva Convention, not stoic dedication to the Hippocratic Oath, but rather a blood sacrifice to the self-serving priorities of the high command. And in house, away from prying eyes, they’re even admitting it.

One can never underestimate the determination of some bureaucrats to get their way, so if even this revelation won’t shame them, perhaps a plea from Chazray Clark’s mother will (edited due to space constraints):

My name is Keyko Clark-Davis and I am a military parent whose first-born son, Army SPC Chazray Clark was killed in Kandahar, Afghanistan on 18 Sept 2011.

I am having a very difficult time dealing with his death and his four siblings are as well… My difficulty coping is compounded by the fact that the US Army has failed to provide me with honest, full disclosure of ALL the facts that caused the death of my son….

An elite crew of trained military medical professionals known as “PEDROS” [Air Force helicopter rescue team] may have been able to save my son within moments of his multiple injuries, but [were] not allowed to respond because of policies and/or politics within the US Army.

…I feel that the US Armed Forces, as a whole, has an obligation to every soldier, every family and every US citizen to re-evaluate current protocol and implement WHATEVER CHANGES are needed to save the lives of wounded soldiers by whatever means necessary.

In these dangerous war zones around the world, our enemies could care less about a Red Cross or the Geneva Convention agreements with the United States of America!

Not one more family should have to suffer the devastating loss of a loved one while high ranking policy makers continue to turn a blind eye to the inherent failures in existing policies.

I’m … appealing and offer my personal plea, in the name of my fallen hero, SPC Chazray Clark, to everyone who enjoys the freedoms for which he unselfishly gave his life, to join me in this crusade to get these current flawed policies changed NOW!

If Chazray’s own mother can’t convince them, I simply don’t know what to say.

Businessman, media consultant and freelance writer James Simpson is a former White House budget office staff analyst. His writings have been published at American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, Big Government, Big Peace, Daily Caller, Washington Times, WorldNetDaily, and others. His regular column is DC Independent Examiner. Follow me on Twitter.

By James Simpson

Delegates Neil Parrott and Pat McDonough declared victory today in their petition drive to put the Maryland DREAM Act to referendum in 2012. The Maryland Board of Elections announced certification of 63,118 petitions – 7,382 or 13 percent more than the 55,736 needed. When counting is done, Delegate Parrot forecasts that validated signatures will exceed 95,000.

This is a huge win for Maryland in its battle with the sanctuary state policies of Governor Martin O’Malley and his Democrat allies in the legislature. Delegate Parrott said:

Today the voters of Maryland have achieved a huge victory. Volunteers across the state have worked diligently over the past two months to bring the bill that would provide in-state college tuition benefits to illegal aliens to referendum.

When we started this petition drive, we knew that Maryland voters wanted more financial responsibility in Annapolis and wanted the enforcement of our immigration laws, not ways to skirt around the law.  Today marks the beginning of the end for an illegal alien benefits bill that simply does not make sense.

Maryland citizens are sick of seeing their jobs undercut by illegals who don’t have to worry about paying taxes. They are also sick of the huge burden ($1.7 bliion per year) illegals in Maryland place on state and local government. Granting in-state tuition for illegals was the tipping point. As Delegate Parrot said:

This bill doesn’t make sense financially or legally, and people are glad to be able to do something about it.

This preliminary victory does not bode well for the Democrat Party, even in this darkest of blue states. Fully 30 percent of petitions came from Democrats. Another 15 percent were unaffiliated. Over half of the petitions recieved from Baltimore City were from Democrats. As Democrat Senator James Brochin stated earlier:

It’s important to note that this is not just a Republican effort.  I’m a Democrat and this is bad public policy.

Delegate McDonough reminded voters that this is only the first round:

Today shows that the Petition Drive was successful.  We are now going to begin our campaign and work to make sure the referendum effort ultimately succeeds at the ballot box in November of 2012.

Until then, the illegal immigrant “DREAM” Act is off the table in Maryland.

 

From Examiner.com

Thursday June 30, 2011 was a great day for Maryland and a victory patriots everywhere can celebrate . A small group of determined activists, led by newly-minted tea party Delegate Neil Parrott, managed to overcome Maryland’s legendary corruption and a thuggish illegal immigrant lobby to win a petition drive that will put Maryland’s in-state tuition for illegals DREAM Act to a vote.

With intense lobbying from open borders advocates, the DREAM Act passed the Maryland legislature in April. A petition drive was launched almost immediately to stall implementation and put the measure to referendum in the 2012 elections.

Petitioners turned in over 134,000 signatures in two months time, way more than the 55,736 necessary. 74,980 of these were turned in yesterday, and over 47,000 had already been certified. For now at least, the law will not take effect as it was scheduled to do when the fiscal year begins on July 1st. This was a bi-partisan effort. about 30 percent of the petitions were signed by democrats. In Baltimore City it was 56 percent! Karl Rove, are you listening? If you ever needed convincing that taking a stand on illegal immigration is a winning issue, there you have it.

While we still have to deal with an Obama-driven recession, at least Maryland taxpayers will, for the time being, be spared the additional cost and moral outrage of seeing illegals attend college in preference to their own children.

The Maryland Board of Elections has until July 20th to certify all the petitions. It is difficult to imagine them disqualifying 60 percent of the petitions, which is what they would have to do.

More Trouble on the Horizon

But we are not completely out of the woods yet. An earlier post discussed how the illegal immigrant protest group CASA de Maryland was to receive copies of all the petitions, and had in fact already received the names and addresses of signers whose petitions had been certified to that point.

It has now been learned that the petitions were actually turned over to former DNC General Counsel Joseph E. Sandler. Sandler is now a hit-lawyer for the left, responsible for a laundry list of legal attacks on conservatives. Sandler threatened to sue Fox News’ Glenn Beck, for calling admitted communist Van Jones a communist, Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer for telling the truth about the Council for American Islamic Relations – front group for the Muslim Brotherhood – Free Republic and others for speaking truths embarrassing to the Left.

He has wimped out on these, by the way. The purpose however, is not necessarily to win suits, but to intimidate, for after all, that, along with vote fraud and lies, has become the Democrats’ entire gameplan, in one form or another. They have nothing else.

It was revealed this morning that not only did Sandler recieve all of the certified petitions, he has also requested copies of all communications between the Board of Elections, Neil Parrot and various other people and organizations engaged in the petition drive.

It is still difficult to see how they could invalidate some 78,000 petitions, or otherwise overturn the results of this petition drive.  Merely to attempt it will create serious ill-will for the Democrats, even in this dark blue state. But as they have repeatedly shown, there is nothing too sleazy, too immoral, or even  illegal, for them to attempt in their never-ending obsession with power – if they can get away with it. Sandler will doubtless leave no stone unturned in his quest to find some pretext to invalidate the entire thing.

It is a disgraceful comment on the depth to which these people have sunk, that we have to get 134,000 votes to assure that 55,000 will pass muster. It is a sorry statement on our state of affairs that winning is not winning even when you have clearly, unmistakably won.  It is a sorry state of affairs that when dealing with the Democrat political machine on virtually any matter these days, one can expect straight forward truth to be tossed to the wind as they seek any pretext to derail their loss.

It bears repeating that it is now common knowledge that to win closely contested elections, Republicans must plan to collect a minimum of 5 to 10 percent more votes than needed, just to overcome anticipated vote fraud. We can expect much more of this in the upcoming 2012 election, which will likely determine the fate of our country.

Our temporary victory here is yet another demonstration of We the People finding our voice, and it is a huge morale boost. And this heroic feat was accomplished without benefit of George Soros billions, or even a modest endowment of any kind.

But the actual referendum has not been voted on. This happens in 2012, and the Left will move mountains to discredit Maryland voters’ choice on this issue. There is yet much work to do. Help Neil Parrott’s fledgling organization recoup their costs, fight the David vs Goliath battle with Democrat lawyers likely on the way, and  to ultimately win the referendum in 2012.

 

While the Continuing Resolution recently passed in the House of Representatives was extremely disappointing, it still included budget cuts Democrats oppose and amendments by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and others to defund Obamacare. My guess is that Democrats will opt for a shutdown and hope it hurts Republicans like it did in 1995. What every Republican, every patriot, every person conceivably affected needs to understand is how this will impact average Americans.

It is almost impossible to believe that a mere month into the new Congress, old guard Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner are stampeding to violate key campaign pledges.

If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East. Jordan is facing similar unrest, as is Algeria and Yemen. Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January. It is highly unlikely that these events are unrelated. A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising up to surround Israel.

Once their power is solidified, they will combine forces to attack Israel. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has already said that Egypt should prepare for war with Israel. If Israel falls, the United States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent allies.

So who does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?

Obama wasted no time in telling us. He supports Mubarak’s opponents, and probably has been all along. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that the Obama administration favors a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed. And while they may have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal documents tell a completely different picture.

And if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s latest comment to Egypt’s leader is that “…an orderly transition …must begin now.”

Must begin. Now.

Simply stunning. And he has repeated that demand!

Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran. Tunisia: “Reform or be overthrown.” Egypt: “…an orderly transition …must begin now.” Iran: “It is not productive… to be seen as meddling.” Meanwhile, candidate Obama claimed the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have “legitimate claims,” and we all remember his mindless Counterterrorism Czar, John Brennan, reaching out to “moderate” Hezbollah members last spring.

Hezbollah? Moderates?

The seeming inconsistency is astonishing. Unfortunately, there is a consistency. Obama uniformly sides with our enemies, but rarely, if ever our friends and allies. His administration is packed with far left radicals and vicious anti-Semites. And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in reality is this President’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in full play.

Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin and Jody Evans’ trips to Egypt in 2009. Following those trips, these same people made multiple visits to the White House.

Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer? Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin and Evans. Sure.

And now it is reported that Code Pink is raising money to help overthrow the government.

A few years back I cited a quote by Lynn Stewart, the National Lawyers Guild attorney jailed for helping blind Sheikh, Omar Adel Raman, foment terror from his New York jail cell. One thinks that atheistic radical leftists would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights, murders homosexuals and enforces strict theocratic mandates. No such luck Stewart said:

They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination…My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries…to liberate.

“…movements within their own countries… to liberate.” Given recent developments, her statement was prescient. But I think it had a special meaning. The words “liberate” and “national liberation” hit the sweet spot for leftists everywhere. Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,” they are really talking about communism.

It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and Red China. This is in no way intended to suggest that radical Muslim movements are not a threat. They are. But almost since the beginning, these organizations have been supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or their Middle Eastern surrogates. They remain behind the scenes, plausibly deniable, yet are the puppet masters pulling the strings, a fact of which even many of the terrorists are unaware.

Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example. Created by the KGB, the PLO was always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and said so! Rather, the Palestinian fight for “statehood” was a PLO invention, created to provide an excuse for aggression against Israel. They said so! Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium 210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations, that al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent. And while today Hezbollah is the defacto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is Ba’athist Syria.

David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between Leftists and Muslim terrorists in his seminal book: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He describes in detail how the Left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the destruction of America.

It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern allies, and by extension, our own country.

Unfortunately, his view is shared by many in the media and even some republicans who are so in love with the idea of “democracy” that it doesn’t appear to matter to them that the “democrats” in this case are fanatic mass murderers. At best, it can only be seen as incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak’s enemies.

People make the same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error of assuming that just because a country’s current leadership is flawed and “undemocratic,” that automatically someone else would do better. Newsflash, they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because people who take power by street riot have no interest in “democracy.”

If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies, allied with our communist enemies. Israel will be the first target and with Obama’s radically anti-Israel orientation, they will stand alone. We will be next. One is left to wonder if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American flags.

I think he will be with the burning flags.

First published at American Thinker

What bugs me is the apparent gross negotiating incompetence of Congressional Republicans. Maybe I am all wrong and they engaged the Democrats with some grand Machiavellian plan, but this has all the hallmarks of a classic Democrat bait-and-switch game designed to force Republicans to accept more compromises while making them culpable for the end result.