Tag Archives: morality

Veterans Affairs, Yet Again

Posted on by
Reply

Screen shots from a leak inside VA show Secretary Bob McDonald is diverting emails from whistleblowers into a special account within VA Central Office. The lists of names on the screen shot are titled “Sec Divert Internal.” The IT worker turned whistleblower told Washington Examiner that he/she believes the emails from those workers are being sent right to DC.

After Congress initiated the probe, VA admitted it was monitoring some emails that were flagged and diverted to DC.

Of course, the VA is saying the diversions are entirely innocuous.

Here’s the perspective of one of those whistleblowers, Scott Davis:

Instead of diverting the emails to ensure the matters are resolved, Davis’ emails are being diverted to his superiors.

Plainly, he’s already been to his superiors; that’s why he’s having to blow whistles. There is no legitimate reason to divert his whistleblowing communications back to those superiors who’ve done nothing about the problem already or given no rational answer for why they were unable.

And, it seems to be occurring without the whistleblower’s knowledge, and certainly without his permission. This is what SOFREP has on the matter:

A congressional investigation has been opened over allegations that the Department of Veterans Affairs has been diverting the emails of whistleblowers in an effort to spy on them. It does not appear to be a question of if they were, it is a matter of why they were, since the VA has admitted to the flagging of the emails. In an ethical matter like this, it is very difficult for the VA to justify their actions, particularly when email rules such as “Sec Divert Internal” are used. The VA wasn’t just spying, they were redirecting those emails without the sender being aware.

Veteranos administratio delende est.

“Honest and Dishonest Socialism”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the name of a recent Wall Street Journal piece. The article centers on Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s version of socialism, fueled with her dishonest ad hominem attacks on her primary rival for the Democratic Party nomination, and Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator (D, VT) Bernie Sanders, that rival, and his purer and more honest (and deliberately ad hominem-free) version of socialism. As the piece puts it,

The difference between Mr Sanders and Mrs Clinton is political character. He’s a sincere socialist who follows his principles, however unrealistic or calamitous, to their logical conclusions. Mrs Clinton will conceal her true ambitions if that’s what it takes to win, and she’ll drop on her opponents any political anvils that happen to be handy.

And

As President, Mrs Clinton would head in Bernie’s direction only more slowly.

Socialism is, itself, wholly dishonest, though. It robs and cheats men out of their property, out of their ability to show the best that is in them, out of their right to see to the fulfillment of their opportunities. Socialism robs men of their lives.

A measure of redistribution of the outcomes from fulfilling those opportunities? Our Judeo-Christian obligations to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves and to help those who are less well off than others of us encourage us to see to that. Such obligations can only come from the instructions of God, though. These are constant and easily understood.

No government of men can pretend to impose such obligations, nor can any government of men hope to constancy. Indeed, after a very short period, government imposed obligations become so byzantine that even the men of government cannot understand what they have done, much less those of us who must live under such burdens.

Worse, very quickly government imposed redistribution obligations—government imposed obligations of any sort—will evolve to benefit, in particular, those men of government and their associates, to the detriment of the rest of us. Judeo-Christian, or not.

Even Conservative News Outlets

Posted on by
Reply

Even putatively conservative news outlets are playing a foolish game, or are being carefully, timidly politically correct.

Here’s a Fox News headline over a piece concerning a terrorist assault in Burkina Faso Saturday:

At least 23 dead after Al Qaeda-linked militants attack upscale Burkina Faso hotel

No. These are not militants. Neither are they insurgents, as others are pleased to term such as these.

These are terrorists. These particular terrorists are Islamic terrorists. Full stop.

Republican Presidential candidates decry, rightly, President Barack Obama’s (D) refusal to name our enemy. So it is similarly wrong for our press to fear to name our enemy.

These are Islamic terrorists. And now they’re attacking an honest Muslim nation.

Malfeasance

Posted on by
1

It’s rampant at the Veterans Administration. And “leadership” there and in the White House plainly don’t care, as their decision to be inactive demonstrates. Here are some examples, from The Wall Street Journal.

  • After the biggest scandal in VA history, in which 110 VA medical facilities across the country maintained secret lists to hide long waits for care, only three low-level VA employees have been fired for wait-time manipulation.
  • In September the VA’s Office of Inspector General revealed that two VA senior executives inappropriately used their authority to game the agency’s hiring system, allowing them to benefit from more than $400,000 in taxpayer-funded relocation expenses. [The VA reassigned them at their existing salary rather than terminating them for cause.]
  • In December the public learned of two internal VA investigations that found whistleblowers at the Phoenix VA Hospital were retaliated against by two senior managers…. More than a year after…the VA has refused to hold them accountable.

Robert McDonald, VA Secretary, promised to fix this sort of thing when he was handed the job 16 months ago. These failures are demonstrations of his decision not to rock the boat. That his decisions have been allowed to stand unchallenged are clear demonstrations of President Barrack Obama’s lack of concern for the welfare of our veterans.

veteranos administratio delende est

A Definition of Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

The Global Terrorism Database has one (and scroll to Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism):

the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.

Notice that: no killings necessary to be an act of terrorism. No destruction necessary to be an act of terrorism. No definition of what constitutes violence. In the end, only the threat of…something…is necessary to be an act of terror.

Leave it to the Left (the GTD is an arm of the University of Maryland) to invent a version of terrorism that could include microaggressions, triggers, and on and on—all acts of “fear,” “coercion,” “intimidation” in the hearts of precious snowflakes and others terrified of disagreement or uncomfortable truths.

It’s true that the GTD picked up this definition from a predecessor; however, GTD has made no effort to tighten the definition at all. It’s only made its database searchable with criteria that let the searcher make up whatever definition of terrorism suits his narrative.

Microaggressions as terrorism. Triggers as terrorism. Hurt feelings as terrorism.

Hmm….