The pathology misnamed “Political Correctness” wasn’t only evident in the reluctance of some authorities and even co-workers to confront a radical Muslim extremist (Malik Nidal Hasan), but in the way his being brought down was subsequently reported. And THAT has some very serious repercussions for all of us, going forward.
In the immediate aftermath of Major Hasan’s jihadist killing spree at Fort Hood, two civilian police officers immediately responded to the shooting, Sergeant Mark Todd (pictured above) and Kimberley Munley.
The very SAME pathology (that goes under the umbrella term “political correctness”) responsible for stifling the authorities dealing with Major Hasan ("If we'd acted on those emails (emails to a radical Imam) we'd have been crucified") was reflexively employed in the reporting of how Nidal Hasan was brought down, without, apparently even a second’s thought.
Lawrence Auster (A View From the Right http://www.amnation.com/vfr/) has been all over this.
The second officer’s account, according to the NY Times goes, “Sergeant Todd said he was slightly in front of Sergeant Munley on the hill. "Once we took fire, she broke right and I broke left," he said.
Sergeant Todd said he did not see Sergeant Munley get shot. He said he started to circle around the building, but then backtracked as panicked bystanders told him of the gunman's movements.
"As it unfolded, I went a different direction and he went a different direction, and we met up in the front of the building," he said.
Sergeant Todd said he then saw Sergeant Munley on the ground, wounded. He shouted again at the gunman to drop his weapon.
"Once I came around the front of the building, I caught his attention again, started shouting commands, and then he opened up a second time," Sergeant Todd said. "And that's when I returned fire, neutralized him and secured him."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13hood.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Lawrence Auster’s analysis is unquestionably correct; “In any case, this is the first time that Sergeant Todd has spoken about what happened, and he settles the question of who stopped Hasan and the massacre, which in yesterday's account was still somewhat in doubt. Munley did not fire the shots that stopped Hasan. In fact, the Times now says that instead of firing at least six shots at Hasan, both before and after he wounded her, she fired at most one shot and perhaps none at all.
“It thus becomes clear that even in the midst of a mass murder brought about by the Army's politically correct cover-up of a Muslim jihadist, the Army, with Kimberly Munley's passive or active cooperation, was inventing out of thin air a politically correct feminist hero story. Once people commit themselves to diversity, every word out of their mouth becomes a lie.
“By the same token, as I indicated in yesterday's entry, it is to be doubted that the Times would have been so forthcoming about Todd's central role in the gun battle if he had been white.” Mark Todd is indeed black. And Lawrence Auster is almost certainly right about that.
“Even if the Times had let the truth out, it would not have been stated so clearly and emphatically as it is in this article.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014761.html
So, if you really want to know why we’re still DOOMED...this is it.
The same people charged with protecting Fort Hood , in fact, most of those charged with protecting this country remain infected with a deep-seated pathology, all too often euphemistically referred to as “political correctness.” They are so infected with this pathology that even in light of its massive failure (the jihadist attack on Fort Hood) they cannot help themselves but reflexively embrace a “diversity mythos” that says, in effect, “a 5’2” female police officer was able to neutralize the terrorist,” ("a petite, female is just as effective a law enforcer or 1st Responder as an imposing and physically fit male - such "qualifications" are over-rated") when nothing at all like that appears to have been the case.
It should be impossible that the denizens of this pathology still control the media and hold sway in most governmental institutions, and yet, they do.
It would be as though the same people who meddled in the mortgage markets, scheming to get banks to make loans to “subprime borrowers” (a/k/a “people who couldn’t pay them back”) by, among other things, getting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy/guarantee those loans and in the process sparking the global credit crisis and tanking the global economy would still be running our economy, or worse yet, charged to “fix it.”
Whooops!
Right, funny story about all that...."they" (that's Greenspan's protege's, Summers, Geithner and Rubin) are the ones currently charged with "fixing the economy," as well!
No comments:
Post a Comment