#rsrh Ivy League still hates military.

I’m sure that you’re very, very surprised.

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.

Via Instapundit. Sgt. Maschek had spent two years recovering from the injuries sustained in defending spoiled children making mock of uniforms that guarded them as they slept; but it’s really their teachers that are to blame for this.  Their teachers who are ever-so-dependent on federal research money to maintain their lifestyles, and whose universities are currently largely in violation of the Solomon Amendment regarding ROTC recruitment, and I know that at least one House staffer reads this blog.




Moe Lane

Washington Post Making Mock of Uniforms…

Mask, slipped.

…that guard us while we sleep*. I’ll summarize the WaPo’s (quite vile) op-editorial for you: the author (Colman McCarthy) still wants to keep ROTC off campus in this new, post-DADT environment because the military is made up of icky people who actually approve of the thought of going out and fighting evil. With guns. And who have a completely different working definition of Christianity than Colman McCarthy and the rest of his professional ‘peace activists.’ But Colman McCarthy still loves the troops! …all the way over there. But Colman McCarthy doesn’t want them stinking up his precious university system with their guns and God and the inconvenient truth that they embody – said truth being that the only use that a professional “peace activist” has in the fight against evil is that he or she might take a bullet that might otherwise hit a worthwhile human being.

And if you think that was offensive, you should have seen what I originally wrote: it was some deliberately inflammatory (note: not ‘inaccurate’) speculation on how low a professional peace activist like Colman McCarthy would have gone to defeat Bush in 2004, or stop the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place. Let’s just say that the terms ‘small child,’ ‘gasoline,’ and ‘matches’ were involved…

(Via RCP – also, note the difference between the old title [‘ROTC Taints University Campuses’] and the new one. RCP generally doesn’t editorialize in its title choices.)

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Whichever editor approved this Washington Post article should be ashamed of him- or herself. I do not expect shame, but it’s long past time that we started telling these people when they’ve done something foul.

Continue reading Washington Post Making Mock of Uniforms…

Harvard’s disingenuous Solomon Amendment statement.

With the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell almost certain now to be passed into law*, there has been some discussion of one thing that conservatives and Republicans will absolutely require to have happen: to wit, the ending of the Ivy League’s continuing campaign against the military by forbidding ROTC programs on their campuses.  Said campaign absolutely flaunts the intent of Congress (as per the ‘Solomon Amendment’), but has been generally tacitly tolerated by the government while the larger issue of gays serving openly in the military was still an open question.  Which, again, it no longer is.

But, – various articles to the contrary – the Ivy League’s response to news that the Senate has voted to repeal is not in fact acceptable.  For example, Harvard President Drew Faust responded with “I look forward to pursuing discussions with military officials and others to achieve Harvard’s full and formal recognition of ROTC.”  To which the only reply can be: no, that’s the wrong answer.  The correct answer would have been “Upon formal signing of this law into place, Harvard University will immediately cease and desist all aspects of its civil disobedience campaign and put itself in full compliance with 10 U.S.C. § 983 (the Solomon Amendment).”  That is not negotiable, and I would remind President Faust – and the rest of the Ivy League – of the following facts: Continue reading Harvard’s disingenuous Solomon Amendment statement.

Ivy League to bring back ROTC any second now, right?

Instapundit passes along an excellent point from one of his readers: the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy has been ordered suspended, via judicial fiatThe military has complied with the court order, although they strongly disagree with it: there is a moratorium on enforcing DADT, and openly gay soldiers may serve.  Whether you are happy with this development or not*, there is one detail about this which is kind of important: the stated reason Ivy League colleges typically give for forbidding ROTC programs on campus has just gone away.  The military just stopped discharging openly gay soldiers.  It’s over.  The Ivy League won.

So let’s get those ROTC programs back on those campuses.


Seriously. Theoretically, this should happen by, say, lunchtime: but the effective deadline for this is by next January.  That’s when at least one House of Congress abruptly shifts to the control of the political party that takes the Solomon Amendment seriously.  Not to mention the political party that’s going to be looking for places to cut the budget everywhere they can.

Hint.  Hint.  [Expletive deleted] hint.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Continue reading Ivy League to bring back ROTC any second now, right?

Does NY-20’s Scott Murphy (D) still think that the military’s a bunch of racists?

Do not blame me for the fact that he is on the record with this.

(H/T: Hot Air) That’s a serious question, because he signed his name to an article saying precisely that back in college. The quote goes:

The military not only discriminates on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of sex and race. Women are not allowed to serve in combat even if they are physically superior to males who do serve in combat. And, while there are not explicit rules discriminating against minorities, the Congressional Black Caucus has found that “racism has become institutionalized at all levels of the military. Black and other minority service men are victims of discrimination from the time that they enter the services until the time that they are discharged.” Will Harvard choose to ignore this discrimination?

Murphy went on to declare that military values – which he proceeded to get wrong, as only a liberal Democratic Ivy League student can – are directly contradictory to those of Harvard University, or at least the Harvard University of twenty years ago. I would like to say that Harvard’s grown up a little since then, but it’d be a lie. Still, I’d like to know: has Murphy?

Moe Lane

PS: Jazz Shaw has more; so does this site, even if they can’t get the name of the NRCC right. But one of their commenters noted that parts of this district were once Gerald Solomon’s (I think), so that works out. And, of course, see also Erick’s post on the subject.

PPS: Jim Tedisco. Republican. Running for the seat. Doesn’t hate the military. Donate here.

Crossposted to RedState.