Author Archives: mjgranger

Schrodinger’s Muslim

Posted on by mjgranger

In quantum physics there is a paradox scenario that illustrates how one could imagine two different states of reality existing at the same time. The paradox is called Schrodinger’s Cat.

In this scenario, a cat is in a sealed box, along with a radioactive isotope that will degrade within an hour, a Geiger counter and a hammer. If the isotope degrades, the Geiger counter will detect it, setting off the hammer to kill the cat.

One doesn’t know the status of the cat unless one opens the box.

In quantum mechanics, the theory states that both states of the cat, alive and dead, can exist simultaneously, in separate universes.

George Orwell, in his book “1984,” has a name for this in terms of corrupt government control of the language: Doublethink. The state of accepting two conflicting thoughts simultaneously.

Doublespeak is the manifestation of doublethink.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Rather than perceive Schrodinger’s Cat as a contradiction, in quantum mechanics it is a way of perceiving two separate realities at once.

Today, our real-life Schrodinger’s Cat has become Schrodinger’s Muslim.

Should we believe that even Normal American Muslims (NAMs)are both contributing members of civil society and potentially blood thirsty terrorists, a-la 9/11, where NAMs in the US took flying lessons but not landing lessons in plain sight, before they flew planes into perfectly good buildings and a field in Pennsylvania, and killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, children and pregnant women?

Imagine Japanese Americans parading down Broadway in Manhattan, New York City, on December 8, 1941, waving Rising Sun flags and criticizing the US for shooting down Imperial Japanese warplanes over Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Let that sink in. Picture it.

That is Schrodinger’s Imperial Japanese.

What we did with Japanese Americans a few months into 1942 was intern them for the four years it took to defeat Imperial Japan in WWII.

The status of Muslims in America is changing, and rapidly. If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that Islam is incompatible with American culture, values and laws. Islamic supremacists want only theocracy, government and religion in one. That is diametrically opposed to democracy, our Constitution and laws.

Islamic supremacists will never assimilate to US or western culture, nor do they respect US or western laws.

Islamic supremacists immigrate to non-Muslim majority countries and then criticize our culture and laws and insist on living according to Sharia (which is an END STATE without “kafir” (non-believers). We have allowed this because we are all-accepting and diverse, and that’s what strengthens us, right? Diversity?

Is this idea of strength through diversity why 57 Muslim majority countries are importing Asians and Westerners by the hoards into their countries? No? Why not? Isn’t diversity strength?

This migration is called Hijra, required of all Muslims, invented by the founder of Islam, Muhammad, who performed the first Hijra from Mecca, where he was rejected, to Yathrib, an Arab and Jewish enclave, later renamed Medina, but only after Muhammad had slaughtered hundreds of Jews and then assumed control of the city. So began the trail of murder, rape, pedophilia, enslavement, taxing, forced conversion to Islam, from only the Arabian Peninsula during Muhammad’s time, to now dozens of countries world wide.

There are 57 member states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. How many times have you read a statement from them, or the Arab League, condemning Islamic supremacists or terrorism? I have been questioned on social media about all the “peace-loving” Muslims who reject Islamic supremacism and terrorism. I say to them, show me when these “peace-loving” Muslims have rejected Islamic supremacists and terrorism publicly. Where are they? Cowering in the dark, far away from the media camera lights and microphones.

How many domestic terror or sabotage incidents were there in the United States, perpetrated by Imperial Japanese pretending to be American citizens, from March 1941 to March 1946? I couldn’t find any.

Does that justify the internment of over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans during WWII?

Is the cat alive or dead? You only know for sure if you open the box, labeled in this case, “Pandora.”

Pandora’s Box contained human suffering, evil, despair, and hope. When opened, Pandora released these things into the world but closed the box in time to save hope.

Schrodinger’s Muslim is both alive and dead, peace loving and terrorist, trustworthy and a lying, cheating, bloodthirsty supremacist.

If we read the Quran, the Muslim holy book, we will find (Meccan) peace-loving scriptures , but also edicts, rules and laws that are misogynistic, violent, deceptive, murderous and cruel (Medinan). They exist simultaneously, in the same book.

The German Christmas market massacre and the New Orleans massacre, and no the Australian Bondi Beach, Washington, DC, and Brown University have something in common: Schrodinger’s Muslim. Citizens of the countries in which they lived, the Muslim perpetrators of these terrorist acts were somewhat civil in their daily lives and interactions with others, one even espousing anti-Muslim ideation. Yet all became “Mr. Hyde,” as they slammed into and shot innocent human beings who were merely going about their Judeo and/or Christian business, celebrating the birth of Christ, the renewal of the Roman calendar, Chanukah, and studying about Israel respectively. These activities and beliefs considered “haram” (unacceptable) by an Islamic supremacist.

The concept of “taqiyya” is in play as well. This is the Muslim practice of morally absolved deception towards kafir or non-believers (us). This was certainly the case with the German incident, where the Muslim pretended to be anti-Islam, until of course he ran over innocent men, women and children with a two-ton truck.

Schrodinger’s Muslim will kill you while smiling.

However uncomfortable it is to even think it, especially after remunerating Japanese Americans with $20,000 each and an official presidential apology for their internment in 1988, we must now discuss the necessity of doing something about Schrodinger’s Muslim.

Internment camps, deportation, surveillance, questioning, swearing of statements of loyalty for non-citizens, etc.

Islamophobia? Irrational fear of Muslims? Does this prevent us from ever talking about their Anglophobia and intolerance of western culture and laws?

Schrodinger’s Muslim is the definition of irrationality. We are entering into the realm of double-negatives, paradoxes and brain cramps; quantum rationality, where two conflicting ideas exist simultaneously.

Do we do what we decided was discrimination, inhumane and possibly un-Constitutional treatment towards Japanese and fix the problem? Or, do we ignore reality, facts and blood that we observe when we open the box or turn on the TV or social media?

What the Veterans Administration Should Be: An Open Letter to Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Pete Hegseth, and Rep. Nick LaLota (NY-1)

Posted on by mjgranger

Gentlemen,

Our justice system operates on the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. Why, then, does the Veterans Administration (VA) seem to operate under the opposite assumption when it comes to veterans’ care and disability ratings?

Upon verifying service through documents like the DD-214 and issuing an ID card, the VA should immediately assume veterans are entitled to care as promised by the very ethos of our military service: “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” This statement by Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address at the end of the Civil War, carries no qualifiers; it’s a promise to care for all veterans, regardless of where they served or what they endured.

However, the current system is fundamentally flawed. Veterans are forced to spend considerable time and effort proving their ailments are service-related, which contradicts the unconditional service and sacrifices we’ve made. Veterans took an oath without caveats; we committed to follow orders, defend the Constitution, and potentially give our lives. In return, we should receive care without the burden of proof.

The administration of the VA by civilians lacking military or combat experience has been problematic. With Pete Hegseth potentially becoming the new Secretary of Defense, there’s hope for change. This matter should also resonate with President Trump, and I believe the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the influence of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, could address these inefficiencies with common sense and innovation.

A New Philosophy for the VA:

Prioritization: The veteran should be the priority. Upon entering a VA facility, instead of the impersonal request for “Last Name and Last Four,” why not use modern technology like facial recognition and/or other biometrics for both security and personalized greetings? This would not only enhance security but also personalize and streamline the care process.

Efficiency and Technology: Implement integrated, high-tech systems to improve efficiency. Veterans should feel welcomed and valued, much like guests at a Disney resort where the business model is simple: treat every customer as a cherished guest.

Perception and Recruitment: The negative perception of the VA could deter potential recruits. If the VA were seen as a place where veterans are genuinely cared for, it might attract and keep more individuals to military service.

Facility Management and Care:

At Northport VA on Long Island, NY, the ongoing disrepair and delays in basic maintenance projects like HVAC systems or parking areas reflect a deeper issue of neglect. A 3-year, $21 million project, started in 2018, is still unfinished. These conditions not only degrade the quality of care but also demoralize veterans who must navigate an environment that seems to have forgotten them. Part of my 36-year career in education and education leadership involved public school facilities management. Some of the jobs in the capital projects plan for the Northport VA could have been completed in 6-8 weeks, rather than the current 6-8 years!

My personal health experience, after 22 years of military service including combat deployments, involves dealing with issues like hearing loss, tinnitus, sleep apnea, and PTSD, yet the process to receive care or compensation feels like an additional battle.

Rethinking VA Budgeting and Care:

The VA’s budgeting must be adaptive to the fluctuating needs of veterans, not constrained by typical government fiscal policies. The number of new claimants cannot be accurately predicted from year-to-year. It’s been over 16 years since I retired, and I am only now applying for a disability rating for the first time. Imagine the savings and improved care if we assumed veterans’ health issues were service-related unless proven otherwise? This shift could redefine the VA from an adversarial entity to one that truly supports and heals those who served.

I understand the current disability application system results in compensation, but what if I don’t need the money, just the care? Because the process is so arduous, complex and full of bureaucratic red tape, it could take months for approval, disapproval, appeals and other delays. Many veterans needlessly pay others to help them through the application process.

Conclusion:

I urge you to consider these changes, to let loose the capabilities of DOGE and the leadership of Pete Hegseth on this broken system. We should treat the whole person, not just the ailments deemed service-connected. A wholistic approach to healthcare is the most effective. Veterans have given much; it’s time the VA reflects this nation’s gratitude and commitment to our well-being by honoring Lincoln’s compassionate vision for veteran care.

Kamala Harris in the eyes of a military combat veteran

Posted on by mjgranger

The current Vice President, a CIVILIAN, has assumed the role of President of the United States, or, the Commander in Chief. In a way, this is STOLEN VALOR.

She is consciously saluting military personnel, as if she were in their chain of command. She is not. Civilians do not salute unless they are veterans and it is during an appropriate ceremony or event where saluting the flag or National Anthem are pro forma.

The goal is to promote the illusion that Ms. Harris is already Madame President. She is not. In fact, if Ms. Harris were in the military she would have been fired long ago, if not just from her appointed roles, i.e. Border Czar, then from the position of Vice President.

Recently, while describing gifts she plans to give people if she becomes the next President, she said, “I’m gonna give,” (blank amount) to the people. “I’m gonna give?” As if the money were coming from her personal bank account.

In the military, which used to be a meritocracy, if you don’t perform, you’re fired from your position. Or, you get demoted, or you get kicked out, or you go to jail. Ms. Harris would be in the running for all of these if her record were totally scrutinized by authorities over her (where are the CHECKS and BALANCES I learned about in high school government class?).

As one progresses in one’s military career there are opportunities for promotion, which are mostly based on the quality of one’s periodic professional evaluations. Good evaluations and positive results in one’s endeavors and responsibilities could lead to promotion. Performance and achievement are usually rewarded in the military.

In the case of Ms. Harris, who can tell us what her OER support form would look like? This Officer Evaluation Report support form is completed by the officer seeking promotion, for the superior officer who has the authority to grant or recommend promotion. In it, the promotion candidate details accomplishments and achievements.

Isn’t she up for a public referendum (election) on her performance? After all, she is asking to be promoted, and not just from second lieutenant to first lieutenant, but from the second highest office in the land to the very tip top position – where leadership equals influence and setting the example is paramount. She is asking We the People for this promotion. We are the promoting authority. We need to see the OER support form.

On her support form, we need to see examples of her demonstrated leadership skills, evidence of her professional competence, effective communication skills, demonstrated personal integrity and ethics; examples of teamwork and collaboration; proof of her ability to problem solve, of her adaptability, resilience and resolve; we need to see evidence of her commitment to serve as loyal commander in chief. We need to know whether or not she has been a mentor and is able to develop others. We need to understand the facts pertaining to her ability to form and maintain positive relationships and demonstrated networking skills. And, finally, we need evidence of her accomplishments and performance.

Military officers must show and demonstrate and be able to document their claims, or guess what? No promotion.

If you were to write Ms. Harris’s OER support form, what positive things could you put in it?

The bottom line is that if one wishes to be promoted in a professional environment, military or civilian, one must show demonstrated skill, competence and acumen for the job they are seeking. Kamala Harris has not shown any shred of competence in her current job. Any CEO, HR professional or shop keeper would immediately put her resume in the circular file.

She is not exceptional.

Exceptionalism is the driving force behind achievement, behind progress, behind leadership.

If we elect someone who is not exceptional, we are cheating ourselves out of a brighter future, and we are letting down those who depend on us for good decision making for their future – our children and grandchildren, who, if Ms. Harris is elected, would certainly suffer a far worse future than if another candidate were chosen.

Montgomery Granger is a retired educator and veteran, and can be found in social media under the @mjgranger1 tag.

Secret Service Could Learn From TSA

Posted on by mjgranger

After a recent trip where I encountered the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) several times, it struck me how, if the Secret Service had even half the scruples of this maligned three letter government agency, President Trump’s ear would still be intact, and an attempt on his life never made.

Let me explain.

My wife and I haven’t flown much in the last ten years, but do recall some of the rules concerning what to take and not to take in carryon luggage. My mistake on a recent trip was not noticing that a can of shaving cream (full size) was spotted in the x-ray machine and I was asked to step aside and witness my neatly packed bag turned almost literally upside down in order to reveal the offending toiletry.

The TSA agent, shaking her head and holding up the full-sized can, said the shaving cream was too big. As if I knew that, or should have known that. I should have. God knows, there are all kinds of false-bottom shaving cream cans out there that could possibly contain explosive or other harmful devices or chemicals. How could I have been so careless?

The TSA agent found something else on the fly while exploring my toiletries for the shaving cream. I had placed a mostly plastic, 2-inch square, see-through multitool in the clear plastic toiletries bag. The tool had a magnifying glass, measuring edge, compass, file, bottle opener and . . . unfortunately for me, a “sharp edge.” Gone.

It actually didn’t bother me that much, as these items were easily replaced; I had another identical multitool at home, and because I thought, “Wow, all these years after 9/11, the shoe bomber, etc., the TSA are sharp as nails on this stuff. I really feel safe now.”

The return trip was not so smooth.

I got nailed again, but before they opened my bag and began the sloppy search, I really had no idea what they could be looking for.

I had bought a bottle of perfume and like-scented hand lotion for my wife, fairly expensive for my taste, but long sought after by my wife. Sure enough, the TSA agent began to unwrap the neatly packaged hand lotion, almost twice the limit of 3.4 ounces, factory sealed, manufactured in Norway. The perfume was safe at just 3.4 ounces.

I begged, I pleaded, I gave puppy dog eyes. Nothing doing. The young (probably in her 20’s) TSA agent sensed a battle, so summoned her supervisor, a very polite, fit, trim and proper security woman who stood erect and professional, older than her, maybe just in her 40’s.

The supervisor listened, nodded, and seemed to care about the situation, but said the volume was too much. We would need to get out of line, dump a portion of the $50 lotion, and then get back on line.

How, I asked, would a different agent know what we did and then allow us through without measuring the contents of the container? The supervisor assured me they could tell. We balked. In hind sight, that would have been the thing to do. Just do what they say and trust them.

Instead, in the time it took the supervisor to deal with us, the younger TSA agent came across two items from my clear plastic bag containing my toiletries, minus the too-large can of shaving cream (I did not replace it on the trip, I used the “I forgot my shaving cream” traveler’s hack of using a bar of soap after a warm shower to soften my beard). One large Vaseline Intensive Care for Men lotion bottle, way over 3.4 ounces, that the first TSA agent moved to get to my shaving cream on the original trip. Oh, and that bottle of after shave, also passed over the first time, was now too large as well.

The same option was offered. We could get off the security line, go “dump some of the contents” and then return, hopeful that another TSA agent would allow the items to pass screening.

Again, we balked, and in hind sight probably should have done what they said to do, if for no other reason than for a better story than this one.

It occurred to me that these TSA agents have discretion. On the first trip, the TSA agent had a plethora of items she could have thrown out, but chose only the shaving cream and multi-tool. Man hater? Then why not the after shave and men’s lotion? The lotion even said the words, “for men” on it. And the other was brand named “Mennen,” a clearly masculine name. And the multitool would never have been carried by a woman, in my estimation. Way too many unfeminine options on the multitool, things a woman might ask a man if he had, and of course we would, unless we had just been through security at an airport, in which case she would be out of luck. No, not a man-hater.

Negligent? Perhaps, but assuming the first TSA agent had been at the job a while, spotting contraband should be second nature. She actually had to move the two items snagged on the return trip in order to get to the shaving cream. Maybe it was the metal container of the shaving cream that distracted her from the illegal items in the plastic containers? I noticed them running the bag through the machine several times before I was called over for the inspection.

It has occurred to me that if the Secret Service agents who were supposed to be protecting Donald Trump on July 19, at approximately 6:11 p.m., had the same training as the TSA agents who tossed maybe $75 worth of my toiletry items, Mr. Trump might still have a perfect right earlobe.

Paying attention to detail seems to be the main trait TSA looks for in recruits. If that had been the case that fateful day in Butler, PA, we wouldn’t have to put up with all the fuss about trying to kill Joe Biden’s, oops! Excuse me, Kamala (did I pronounce that right?) Harris’s main political opponent. Plan B apparently is sentencing Donald Trump to jail in a made-up financial case in which no one was harmed, upset, put out or at a loss except a certain prosecutor who ran on a platform of “Get Trump.”

Where was I? Oh, yeah, TSA vs. Secret Service. In my book, you could easily substitute TSA for Secret Service and then get a much better outcome, maybe even neutralizing the assassin before he got off EIGHT SHOTS at the target.

Actually, the saving grace may have been an egotistical shooter. If he had been trained by the military, he would have shot center of mass and probably hit something besides an earlobe. Then we would have found out if Donald Trump was wearing a bullet proof vest or not.

By the way, I went back to the second TSA agent in hopes of begging her out of the expensive perfumed lotion. She ignored me, but I saw her throwing away other people’s stuff in a closer waste basket than she used for my stuff. When we left her with our stuff, she walked away with it, past the little waste basket nearby. Hmm?

Could it be possible she kept the stuff for herself? Calling all TSA agents! Can you help me out? What say you?

After all that, I finally got the TSA agent’s attention and begged more, but she said she’s not allowed to take things out of the trash, and that I couldn’t do it either.

Moral of the story: 1) Watch what you pack in your carry-ons, and 2) ask if any of your Secret Service agents first worked for the TSA before snagging a personal protective detail on your presidential campaign.

Montgomery Granger (@mjgranger1 on ‘X’, GETTR, GAB, TruthSocial and BlueSky) is a Christian, husband, father of five, retired educator, veteran and author of “Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior.”

America and Hamilton the Musical

Posted on by mjgranger

In 2015, Lin-Manuel Miranda created a stunning and magical Broadway experience with his telling of the great American immigrant, Alexander Hamilton. Nearly 10 years later the show still reigns supreme on The Great White Way (“white” because of the bright lights and white asphalt at the time).

I’d first seen the original show, with Miranda playing the lead role, on TV via Disney+ several years ago. I laughed, I cried, I was amazed and disgusted at some of the revelations of one of our founding fathers. Friend/Wife and I recently saw it in person, and up-close (we sat second row, left, on the aisle through a lottery program initiated by Miranda in order to make Broadway more accessible to those who can’t afford it. The tickets we won cost $10 each, and would have normally cost nearly $400.), and had plenty of time to take in the atmosphere.

The house was packed, very slightly diverse and older. Very few young people in their teens or twenties. Mostly older rich white folks. More Asians than people of color, who were strictly outnumbered. One of the leads was an Asian female actor, which may have contributed to the increase in Asian audience members, two of whom sat in front of us, beaming whenever the Asian actress sang or spoke.

At intermission the dash was on for the restrooms. The next day friend/wife told me about the conversation in the line for the ladies’ room, which she described as 95 percent white, older, wealthy women. “What do you think?” “Very creative.” “Very different than other shows.”

Friend/Wife said they obviously didn’t know what they were walking into.

After hearing the line that included the words, “Betsy Ross’ flag,” I had an epiphany. There were no American flags, nor red, white and blue anywhere on the stage, costumes or merchandise.

According to publicly available sources, the absence of American flags and the limited use of traditional red, white, and blue in the set and costumes of the show were intentional creative choices made by Miranda and the production team. The musical aims to provide a fresh and contemporary perspective on the founding of the United States, and it does so by employing a diverse cast, modern musical styles, and a minimalist set design.

Miranda has expressed the desire to make the historical narrative more relatable to a diverse and contemporary audience. The decision to have a diverse cast, regardless of historical accuracy, contributes to this goal. The minimalistic set design, without overt patriotic symbols like flags, he says, allows the audience to focus on the characters, their stories, and the themes of the musical rather than relying on traditional visual cues associated with historical period pieces.

While “Hamilton” is set during the American Revolutionary War and the early years of the United States, it “deliberately avoids a traditional, nostalgic approach to historical storytelling.” The use of modern music styles and a diverse cast helps make the story “feel more accessible and relevant” to a broad audience, emphasizing the universal aspects of ambition, struggle, and the complexities of building a nation. Manuel says the creative choices in “Hamilton” reflect an innovative and “inclusive approach to presenting historical narratives on the stage.”

The one obviously white speaking/singing character in the show is that of “King George.” Racially type-cast, this character is a foil to the non-white ensemble. He is the court jester, the clown, the target of ridicule. The audience laughs at his frustration and condescension of Hamilton and his cast of darker characters, all playing white founding fathers of the United States. It is subtle discrimination, but bigotry nonetheless, which is okay, I guess, because it is humor after all, right? And making fun of people, their color, ancestry and social status is allowed in an accepting, free speech, non-woke or cancel culture environment such as Broadaway, right?

Who, me, bitter? No way! Just noticing things and then expressing my freedom of speech.

Li-Manuel Miranda, I think is a bit bitter. And this is his shot.

His bias surfaces in the production choices that eliminate any hint of American patriotism. He appropriates western European culture as a vehicle to change the visual narrative of our country’s founding (remember, the truth is that the country was founded by a bunch of patriotic, relatively wealthy white guys, who ironically helped create a country where the freedom to make a fortune mocking them exists).

If Miranda were sincere about making the story more accessible to diverse populations, he would do more than just a lottery that gives maybe ten or so tickets of $10 each. He would sponsor traveling troupes, clean up the language and play to young, diverse audiences. Or not.

It occurred to me that the Broadway show now serves a different purpose. It milks money from rich white folks, and at the same time guarantees a vehicle for non-white singers, dancers and actors. Fair enough.

We live in an open, free market capitalist society. People are successful because they make a product people want to buy, and survives on repeat customers. I’ve no doubt that the show will be eternally popular. It’s that good.

If you haven’t seen it. Go. Shoot for the lottery and be patient. My friend/wife has won three times.

Just know what you’re getting yourself into. Maybe even read Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton, on which Miranda bases his story. It would help you follow the story and let you focus more on the incredible talent of the performers.

Despite my frustration at the absence of any traditional patriotism expressed in lyrics or set or costumes, there is in fact one mention of such symbolism.

A search of the lyrics of “Guns and Ships,” the line “Leave the battlefield waving Betsy Ross’ flag higher” is a metaphorical expression emphasizing the idea of achieving victory and independence. The mention of Betsy Ross’ flag, with its thirteen stars in a circle representing the original thirteen colonies, is a symbol of the United States.

The context of the line is in the midst of describing the challenges faced by the Continental Army, a “ragtag volunteer army,” in its fight against the powerful British forces. The reference to waving Betsy Ross’ flag higher suggests overcoming adversity and proudly asserting the American cause. It’s a poetic way of expressing the determination and resilience of the American forces in the face of a formidable opponent, and adds depth and imagery to the narrative of the musical.

In the end, my own bias is exposed. But maybe that was one of Mirand’s goals. That, like art in general, it’s not about the creator’s interpretation, it’s about yours.

Lesson learned? Take another look (or three or four) at things before you judge them completely. Challenge yourself to have an open mind. You don’t have to accept the status quo or first impressions. Let the stew simmer, and blend into it’s intended or unintended deliciousness, just like what America has become.

No Sunset to the War on Terror

Posted on by mjgranger

By MAJ (RET) Montgomery J. Granger @mjgranger1

With the 22nd anniversary of the opening of the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, last Thursday, a flurry of articles have been published regurgitating tired talking points and once again calling for the closure of the facility. One such piece, titled “Sunsetting the War on Terror — Or Not: The Stubborn Legacy of America’s Response to 9/11,” came from Karen J. Greenberg (@KarenGreenberg3) at Tom Dispatch. She ends her piece with a call for “wiser heads” to prevail going forward. “Wiser heads” will not, however, prevail going forward because there are too few wiser heads that will be allowed to prevail. Besides which, the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is legal and appropriate.

Among her complaints, Greenberg lists the “indefinite detention,” of prisoners at Guantanamo, but this characterization is, at best, misleading. Even lawful combatant POWs may be held without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities,” in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and Law of War. Besides, more than 745 unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us have already been released from Gitmo. And it might interest Ms. Greenberg to know that many of those, including five Taliban leaders and dozens more al Qaeda operatives and lieutenants, have returned to the fight to continue wreaking havoc on innocent civilians worldwide—a project they’ve been engaged in since 1979 if we’re being honest. 

That’s right, since the Iranian hostage crisis. We are still fighting and witnessing Iranian-sponsored terror. We had their forces in a pincer move by 2003, with a pacification of sorts in Afghanistan (2001-02) and an invasion and suppression of bad state actors in Iraq. But we failed to press the initiative into Iran, just as we failed to press the initiative into the Soviet Union in 1945. We are now living with the results of both of those mistakes. 

Greenberg continues by claiming that Gitmo has “violated U.S. codes of due process.” In reality, Gitmo has not violated them; they simply don’t apply. 

Representatives of the International Red Cross speak with a detainee in Camp X-Ray. Camp X-Ray was the holding facility for detainees held at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during Operation Enduring Freedom, from February-April 2002.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has been unable to sort things out from a civilian legal point of view regarding due process rights for accused war criminals and unlawful combatants. To grant habeas or not to grant habeas? That is the question. 

Never mind, there’s a war going on. 

What kind of war? 

A global war. 

What kind of global war? 

A global war on terror. 

Oh, right, that war.

The problem is that sustaining a wartime posture for over 23 years is untenable. Experts will tell you that complacency takes over when you’re on high alert all of the time. And now, with millions of military-aged males crossing the U.S. southern border every several months (without their families), we have met the enemy, and he is now living among us. 

Although the administration du jour is quick to point out that there “hasn’t been another 9/11,” there doesn’t have to be. We have failed to prevent terror attacks at home—just look at the attacks at a music festival in Las Vegas, a nightclub in Orlando, and a corporate party in San Bernardino.

What do the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, and Congress matter when none of them are working and the American people are less safe and less free?

The Global War on Terror has become obsolete. It is obsolete in part because our political and military goals are not in sync. When we fought World War II, our political and military goals were in sync and remained so as long as it took to win the war. Then came the Marshall Plan, leading to Germany, France, and Italy being, today, among the most peaceful and prosperous nations on earth, not in spite of America, but because of us.

If our political and military goals in the War on Terror were in sync, there would have been many more enemy combatants incarcerated at Gitmo coupled with tribunals galore handing down life sentences and even executions—kind of like Nuremberg on steroids. If that had happened, you could at least say the United States was making progress. The next (and, admittedly, more difficult) step would be to get the 50 Muslim-majority countries to contribute proportionately to a Middle East Marshall Plan. If there were ever to be peace and prosperity in the Muslim world (and, by extension, the whole world), this is what would bring it about.

How do I know this would work? Because of history. The United States won World War II by defeating the enemy, not letting him go, letting him in, and then pretending to care, all the while using war powers against Americans instead of the real bad guys, who now block our streets, tunnels, and bridges, chanting “From the river to the sea!”

If we paid attention to T.E. Lawrence at all, we would realize that our enemies do not want peace. Heck, even our own people in the military-industrial complex (Black Rock, Boeing, General Dynamics, et al) don’t want peace. There’s too much money to be made in war. Enter: The Global War on Terror—a conflict that can be extended indefinitely with no serious plan for victory.

It doesn’t matter who’s in power politically if the military is never allowed to do its job, and the American people are conditioned to accept the woke victim philosophy as applied to Sharia-loving Islamists, who will never assimilate to American culture or respect U.S. laws.

For more than 20 years, America has been in a constant state of war, and it is unsustainable. In fact, it’s so bad that we are now funding someone else’s war and trying to tell another country how to run theirs! Meanwhile, our own people are more and more at risk, more threatened than at any time in our history, and all our government does is point fingers. It reminds me of the former Sunday newspaper comic strip Family Affair, when mom and dad enter the house after a short errand only to find the place a complete disaster area and all the kids can say is, “Not Me,” and “Ida Know.” 

Whatever happened to checks and balances and co-equal branches of government? 

I’ll tell you what. 

Our three legal branches of government have capitulated to the one illegal fourth branch: The INTEL/INFO Branch, which is full of corrupt politicians, technocrats, bureaucrats, and Alphabet Soup Secret Squirrel Shadow Warrior Spooks. These individuals control the people in the other three branches (and there is some overlap) to the point at which everybody has something on everybody else, and they are all paranoid to the point that everybody is gearing up.

So, what’s left for the American people to do? Gear up.  

Biden Won’t Close Gitmo

Posted on by mjgranger

By MAJ (RET) Montgomery J. Granger @mjgranger1

This photo made during an escorted visit and reviewed by the US military, shows the razor wire-topped fence and a watch tower at the abandoned “Camp X-Ray” detention facility at the US Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, April 9, 2014. AFP PHOTO/MLADEN ANTONOV (Photo credit should read MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty Images)

Responsible Statecraft (RS) has memorialized the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in an article by Connor Echols titled, “Why won’t Biden close Gitmo?” Biden won’t close the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because he can’t, Congress won’t let him. Nor would closing Gitmo have a positive effect on the outcome of the Global War on Terror (GWOT).

Author, Connor Echols and RS took the easy way out on Gitmo in their story by regurgitating false narratives conjured over the past 22 years, including erroneous statements from the likes of retired Gen. Michael Lehnert, first commanding general of JTF 160, the governing unit at Gitmo and Camp X-Ray when the mission stood up on January 11, 2002, who said it should be closed.

But when he was there, he coddled unlawful combatant Islamists who wanted to kill us by giving them all candy on a good-bye tour at the end of his tenure. I know because I was there and saw it with my own eyes. Lehnert had no experience with military incarceration, nor was he trained in the discipline that only the Army has experience and expertise in. He was selected for the job because he had run Camp X-Ray in the early 1990’s as commandant of the Haitian boat crisis. Dubious distinction to say the least.

Unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions, Law of War or US military Enemy Prisoner of War doctrine, Lehnert blindly guided operations at Gitmo in early 2002. If the Army had had sole control over the mission there may have been tribunals, convictions and executions on par with the Nuremberg trials after WWII, where Nazi war criminals were tried before an international commission.

RS claims detainees were treated inhumanely at Gitmo. Nothing could be further from the truth. International Committee of the Red Cross physicians I worked with there and later in Iraq, told me, “No one does [detention operations] better than the US.” Gitmo is the finest military detention facility on earth.

020118-N-6967M-505(Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

Representatives of the International Red Cross speak with a detainee in Camp X-Ray. Camp X-Ray is the holding facility for detainees held at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during Operation Enduring Freedom. Official U.S. Navy photo by PH1 (AW) Shane T. McCoy (For Official Use Only)

Tens of thousands of unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us were apprehended in the early days of the GWOT, but only just under 800 ever made it to Gitmo (the “worst of the worst,” according to then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld), and 745+ have been released. None have been beheaded, executed, blown up, hacked to death, dragged naked and lifeless through the streets, drowned or burned alive. All things our enemies have done to us and/or our allies. There is no moral comparison between Gitmo and how our enemies treat their captives.

Gitmo detainees enjoy free Qurans, prayer rugs/beads, directions to Mecca, white robes, halal and Muslim holy holiday meals, services of US military Muslim chaplains, world class health, dental and vision care, recreation, correspondence, legal representation, library, books, DVDs, TV, video games, sports and more! There is no other place on earth these men could receive such quality treatment.

As for waterboarding and other Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT), they were only “performed on a handful of detainees in order to obtain valuable information that saved many lives,” according to then President George W. Bush, in his memoir, “Decision Points.” EIT were approved and legal and did not meet the internationally accepted definition of torture at the time. Only after the fact did President Obama unilaterally declare EIT torture, outside the accepted definition.

RS claimed the CIA were in charge of these interrogations, and they were also the only US personnel trained in EIT, not the US military or any DoD personnel, according to Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld in his memoir, “Known and Unknown.” The only institutional abuse at Gitmo was by the detainees towards the guards, who regularly sucker punched guards and used their bodily fluids, including urine, feces and semen to “splash” unsuspecting guards, who after a time began to wear face shields when handling detainees.

Although some detainees have spent decades at Gitmo without charge or trial, even lawful combatant POWs may be held in this manner, “until the end of hostilities,” according to the Geneva Conventions or Law of War, two essential documents RS and other Gitmo detractors never mention.

The truth is that according to President Obama’s 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), unlawful combatant Islamists accused of war crimes held at Gitmo have virtually the same rights you or I would enjoy in a federal court of law. Unprecedented, this policy undermines the Law of War, which requires those accused of war crimes to be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), under the same standards that US military personnel would be tried.

The MCA is responsible for hamstringing the legal proceedings for the ten detainees accused of war crimes, including those who admit to planning and facilitating the attacks of 9/11 – another subject avoided by RS in their story. Instead of trying to explain these details, RS pretends they don’t exist.

Gitmo is a small piece to the big puzzle of how we win the GWOT. At least 30 percent of all released detainees have returned to the fight, including five Taliban leaders, released by President Obama in a prisoner exchange for one US traitor. Keeping captured suspected war criminals and other dangerous terrorists makes everyone safer and would move us closer to ending global terrorism.

Arbitrary calls to close Gitmo, combined with false narratives, lies and myths about what goes on there do a disservice to American interests in the GWOT. Keeping Gitmo open and “filling it up with bad guys,” as President Trump has promised, give us the best chance for security and victory.

NOTE: MAJ Granger was the ranking US Army Medical Department officer with the Joint Detainee Operations Group, Joint Task Force 160, from FEB-JUN 2002, at Gitmo, and is author of his memoir, “Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay,” and narrator of the short documentary YouTube film, “Heroes of GITMO,” based on his book.

Slavery and the Church

Posted on by mjgranger

Recently, a group of Protestant and Anglican church leaders met to discuss Christianity’s role in slavery. The Washington Times covered the event with this story: ‘Churches urged to acknowledge role in racism: Panel holds up mirror to American Christians.’

Balderdash! What a colossal waste of time and resources! No more self-flagellation over slavery! 

Most Americans never owned slaves (in fact, less than 5% ever did), and many were always abolitionists, especially those who were members of religious groups, such as the Quakers. 

Institutional slavery in the US lasted only 80 years, from 1783 to 1863, the shortest period of time for any country. Crucially, it was not instituted by Americans as a cultural pillar of our country but, rather, was brought to America by the British and Portuguese and sent to the ash heap of our nation’s history only one-third of the way into our 240 years.

Religious leaders should be spending their time preaching the Bible and saving souls, not inventing crises. 

In fact, this is simply a stealth attack on the tenets of Christianity and religion in general. It is an attempt to find faults within religion and exploit them. In making religious people acknowledge wrongs they personally had nothing to do with, those who want to change the message of the Church hope to make believers feel bad about themselves and, therefore, capitulate to those who hold victim status.

Interestingly, no Bible references were cited in the Times article. Why?

The Bible contains various passages that address the issue of slavery. It’s important to note that the Bible was written in different historical and cultural contexts, and attitudes toward slavery evolved over time. Here are some key points:

Old Testament (Hebrew Bible):

  • Slavery was a part of the social structure in ancient times, and the Old Testament acknowledges its existence.
  • There were regulations regarding the treatment of slaves, emphasizing fair treatment and humane conditions (Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:39-46).
  • The Year of Jubilee, occurring every 50 years, was a time when Hebrew slaves were to be set free, and debts were to be forgiven (Leviticus 25:10).
  • Foreign slaves (mostly non-black) could be owned permanently, and their status was inheritable, but they were also protected by certain laws (Leviticus 25:44-46).

New Testament:

  • The New Testament doesn’t explicitly condemn slavery, and there are instructions given to slaves and masters (Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1).
  • In the context of the New Testament, slavery was a common social institution.
  • The teachings of Jesus emphasize love, compassion, and the equality of all people in the eyes of God.

Interpretation and Context:

Interpretation of these passages varies among different Christian denominations and scholars.

It’s important to approach these texts with an understanding of historical context and cultural differences. Most modern Christian denominations condemn any form of slavery and emphasize the principles of justice, compassion, and equality.

In addition to the passages outlined above, it is interesting to look at the Book of Psalms, which primarily consists of poetic and hymnic passages that express a range of emotions, including praise, lament, and supplication. While Psalms doesn’t explicitly address the issue of slavery in the same way that some other sections of the Bible do, there are passages that touch on themes related to oppression, captivity, and deliverance, all in the context of Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite slaves.

One example is Psalm 137, which is often referred to as the “By the rivers of Babylon” psalm. It reflects the feelings of the Israelites during their captivity in Babylon:

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres. For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’ How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” (Psalm 137:1-4, ESV)

This psalm expresses the deep sorrow and longing for freedom experienced by the Israelites in exile. While it doesn’t specifically mention slavery in the sense of servitude, it reflects the anguish of a people taken captive and removed from their homeland.

In researching his DNA and ancestry, an American black person will typically sooner or later come across a dead end called slavery. Some, however, learn of branches of their ancestral past that circumvent slavery and expose a different or blended experience.

The American black Christian experience blends with a gospel spirituality that included singing songs of freedom in the tradition of the Biblical Psalms. Many of these songs are now part of official hymnals of certain Protestant denominations, such as the Baptists and Methodists.

These include songs like “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,” “When the Saints Go Marching In,” “Go Down Moses,” “River Jordan,” “Nobody Knows (the Trouble I’ve Seen),” and “Joshua (Fought the Battle of Jericho),” which lament captivity and tell of freedom and heaven.

In the United States, we have one culture, the American culture. And anyone who would divide us is un-American. We are acutely aware of our past, but none of us can change it (though the woke, cancel culture crowd loves to try by changing curriculum, tearing down statues and monuments, and appointing racial overlords to corporate organizational charts). In the end, we are all one people, with one Constitution, one Declaration of Independence, written in English, regardless of race, creed, or color, according to our civil rights law. 

None of us need feel guilty about things we had no control over. Those who want you to feel guilty about these things are seeking to control you emotionally and psychologically.

Our energy and focus should be spent on things we can change now, like not supporting proxy wars, closing our border to invaders, cultivating our own energy sources, treating each other with dignity and respect, punishing criminals, rooting out corruption, and creating conditions where all Americans, alive now, can enjoy the foundational principles of this great nation: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Muhammad and the Islamist Scourge of 2023

Posted on by mjgranger

What would the Messenger of God, Muhammad, say about the current global position of Islam?

He would probably be taken aback, first by the vast expansion of the Muslim faith and then by the wealth and sheer numbers involved, over 2 billion worldwide – almost as many as there are Christians (2.2 billion).

In 2023, almost 50 countries are majority Muslim. At the time of the prophet’s death, in 632 CE (equivalent to 10-11 BC), there were just under ten countries or territories under Islamic rule, all in the Arabian Peninsula. An accurate calculation of the Muslim population at that time cannot be made due to the lack of documentation and census data.

It was only after Muhammad’s death that vast conquests and expansion took place. At its height, Islam claimed 29 countries or territories, including major portions of Asia, Africa, and Europe, in the 8th and 9th centuries before the retribution of the Crusades began in the late 9th century (lasting through the earliest part of the 13th century).

The Crusades did not lead to any significant lasting Christian presence in the Middle East but did take back and keep certain areas of southern Europe, including Spain, France, and Italy.

Muhammad today would be pleased and proud to know Islam’s expansion had reached every settled continent and had grown to include every race, creed, color, and socioeconomic background. He would be thrilled to also know that schools, called Madrasas, exist to teach children his Sharia Law, five pillars of faith, taqiyya (the moral absolution of lying to the “kafir” or “nonbelievers,” or “deceivers”), and “dhimmitude.”

“Dhimmitude,” or the “dhimma system” in the context of Islamic history, is a system involving the treatment of non-Muslim communities, particularly “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) living in Muslim-majority lands. Dhimmitude was characterized by a set of rules and restrictions, as well as the payment of a special tax called the jizya, in exchange for protection and the ability to maintain their religious practices.

Historically, under the dhimma system, non-Muslims were given a choice between several options, which generally included:

Conversion to Islam: Non-Muslims could choose to convert to Islam, thereby becoming equal to Muslim citizens in terms of legal and social rights.

Payment of Jizya: Those who preferred to remain non-Muslims were required to pay the jizya tax, which symbolized their submission to and protection by the Muslim state. The jizya would increase over time to the point where cash-poor non-Muslims would have to pay in collateral – land, property, livestock, etc. until they were penniless and destitute. This was possible because the Muslim faith requires theocracy – the joining of government and religion (which is diametrically opposed to the US Constitution).

Adherence to Dhimmi Regulations: Non-Muslims were expected to adhere to a set of regulations governing their behavior, dress, and religious practices. They were also subject to various social and legal restrictions.

Protection: In return for the jizya and adherence to the dhimma regulations, non-Muslims were entitled to the protection of the Muslim state, ensuring their safety from external threats.

Death, Enslavement, Rape, Marriage, Concubine: If, however, a non-Muslim community chose not to convert to Islam or pay jizya, the Islamist hoards would invade, kill or enslave the men, enslave, rape and/or marry the women (turning them into concubines), and kill, enslave, marry or concubine the children—all according to Sharia Law.

It’s important to note that the dhimma system varied over time and across different regions, and not all non-Muslim communities experienced it in the same way. Additionally, the dhimma system has largely been a historical practice, and contemporary civil Islamic societies do not necessarily employ this system – at least overtly. However, caliphate Islamist societies and some Islamist terror states do continue to employ this barbaric and brutal practice.

In real-time, however, we are seeing the hidden modern dhimma hoards raise their savage heads through the uprisings against the Israeli incursion into Gaza (which, we must remember, came after Islamist Hamas terrorists massacred 1,400 innocent Israeli men, women, children, elderly, infirm, pregnant women, and babies).

The Islamist rallying cry, “From the river to the sea,” is being characterized by Islamist apologists such as US House of Representatives Member Rashida Tlaib as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence.” But it is, in fact, a call for genocide, as it refers to the Hamas charter requirement that Israel will only exist “until Islam will obliterate it.” In other words, all Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (that is, in the state of Israel) are to be obliterated.

Make no mistake, the Islamic hoards are coming for you, me, our friends, family, and everyone else “of the book” (Jews and Christians).

Ironically, before reaching the age of 40, Muhammad had encounters with those who were learned in both Judaism and Christianity. Although illiterate, Muhammad observed and appreciated Christianity and Judaism, especially the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael (to whom he is related), Moses, and Jesus.

And yet, he still chose to impose the system of dhimma upon these people. And later, his followers imposed on them further and further, eventually consuming hundreds of millions of Arabs and non-Arabs alike as converts, slaves, and payers of jizya.

Today, the reach and sting of Islam is worldwide, insidious, and relentless.

Are there such things as “peaceful Muslims?” “Good Muslims?” Yes, as there were peaceful and good Germans, Japanese, Italians, and Russians in the WWII era.