Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 15      1   2   3   4   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #1 

Biology is not bigotry


Dr. Thomas D. Williams (Breitbart) is reporting that a leading American philosopher has thrown his support behind President Donald Trump's decision to reinstate the ban on transgender individuals in the military, arguing that such a decision clearly serves the best interest of the U.S. military.

Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, author of the forthcoming book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, has noted that people who identify as transgender "suffer a host of mental health and social problems -- including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse -- at higher rates than the general population."

"Biology isn't bigotry," Ryan states, "and we need a sober and honest assessment of the human costs of getting human nature wrong."

The U.S. military is extremely strict in its requirements for the physical and mental health of enlisting soldiers, and disqualifies individuals for a host of reasons, including ulcers, chronic conjunctivitis, genital herpes, heart arrhythmia, anosmia, Tourett's, dyslexia, anorexia, agoraphobia, hypochondria, self-mutilation and suicidal behavior.

Regarding that final point, Anderson points out that "41 percent of people who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 4.6 percent of the general population. And people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die by suicide."

The abnormally high suicide risk of transgender individuals alone would seem to advise against having them serving in the military.

The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria (feeling like a person of the opposite sex), Anderson states, "focus not on achieving the impossible -- changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings -- but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality."

And since the mission of the armed forces is winning wars and protecting the nation, he adds, "any personnel policy must prioritize military readiness and mission-critical purposes first."

What merits serious questioning, Anderson suggests, is not why President Trump has reinstated the tried-and-true policy of keeping people suffering from gender dysphoria out of the military, which reflects common sense, but rather President Obama's politically driven attempt to change it.

There were well-justified concerns that "Obama was using the military to advance the latest social justice culture warrior agenda item," he states, "seeking to mainstream transgender identities and promote controversial therapies for gender dysphoria."

Obama's policy change, he said, "ignored the reality that placing individuals who might be at increased risk for suicide or other psychological injury in the most stressful situation imaginable -- the battlefield -- is reckless."

Along with these underlying reasons why Trump's decision was the right one, Anderson also lists five further practical considerations that would advise against admitting those who identify as transgender into the military.

First, the privacy of service members must not be infringed, which is impossible when persons are treated as members of the opposite sex.

Second, all service members remain combat-ready at all times, which would rule out the regular hormone treatments and follow-up visits required after sex-reassignment surgery.

Third, all service members must be held to the same physical fitness standards, and these standards must by based on the reality of biological sex, not the subjective "gender identity."

Fourth, scarce taxpayer monies should not be spent on costly and controversial sex-reassignment therapies.

And fifth, the medical judgment, conscience rights, and religious liberty of military doctors, chaplains, commanding officers, and fellow service members must be respected.

Despite the evident logic of these arguments for people with common sense, numerous celebrities have become completely hysterical over Trump's decision.

Which should make the nation grateful that "hysteria" is another condition that disqualifies a potential candidate from enlisting in the U.S. military.

Related:  Liberals forget about this when complaining about Trump's transgender ban

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #2 

Trump's military ban on transgenders secures border wall funding


Joshua Caplan (GatewayPundit) is reporting that it's no surprise the mainstream media has not yet figured out President Trump is a keen strategist with his eye always on the prize. And that prize, is the wall.

A new report shines light on the behind-the-scenes battle over border wall funding and how today's banning of transgenders in the military all ties together.

POLITICO reports:

House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations -- something GOP leaders wouldn't give them.

They turned to Trump, who didn't hesitate. In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

Trump's sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.

The president had always planned to scale back President Barack Obama-era policies welcoming such individuals in combat and greenlighting the military to pay for their medical treatment plans. But a behind-the-scenes GOP brawl threatening to tank a Pentagon funding increase and wall construction hastened Trump's decision.

Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money. But GOP leaders were caught in a pinch between those demands and moderate Republicans who felt the proposal was blatantly discriminatory.

Recently, House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows revealed plans to force a government shutdown if border wall funding is not included in future federal spending budgets.

Breitbart News reports:

In a phone interview on Monday morning, Meadows -- the chairman of the most influential group of House conservatives in Congress, the House Freedom Caucus -- said that there are enough members in Congress to hold the line against any funding bill that does not explicitly provide for the beginning of construction of President Trump's border wall. What's more, Meadows says, his conversations with President Trump indicate that the president is supportive of such efforts and would veto -- or refuse to sign -- any government funding bill that falls short of the commitments necessary to begin construction on the border wall.

"There is nothing more critical that has to be funded than funding the border wall for two reasons," Meadows, a key ally of President Trump, said in his phone interview with Breitbart News. "One is it is a commitment that the president made to the American people and one that he intends on keeping, but the second part of that is for our national security we must secure our borders. And the American people will accept no less."

The current government funding bill runs out at the end of September, and there will be a government shutdown if the Congress does not pass -- and President Trump does not sign into law -- a new funding bill by the end of the fiscal year. Meadows told Breitbart News there are enough Republicans in Congress who will block any bill that does not fund the wall construction.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #3 

24 Republicans vote to preserve transgender ideology in military

Easy for him -- he doesn't have to share a foxhole with a freak

Warner Todd Huston (Breitbart) is reporting that twenty-four Republicans banded together on Thursday to defeat an amendment which would have ended former President Barack Obama’s 2016 policy of funding “gender-reassignment” surgery for soldiers who want to live as members of the opposite sex.

The amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act was offered by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R, Mo.). It would have prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for the non-military medical task of converting healthy soldiers into “transgender” soldiers who face lifelong dependence on hormones and surgery.

The July 13 vote saw Democrats vote in lockstep to defeat the amendment, despite the national unpopularity of the transgender ideology. They were joined by 24 Republicans who broke with their party to assist the Democrats to defeat the amendment, without any visible objections by the GOP’s business-focused leadership.

The offer of free medical care to gender-confused soldiers is part of the broader effort by Obama to have the Pentagon affirm and implement the transgender ideology, which says that people can have a “gender” different from their biological sex. The ideology also says that a person’s legal sex is defined by their self-assessed gender — not by their biology — and that other Americans must agree with people who say they are a member of the opposite sex.

Many Republicans praised the Hartzler amendment and criticized the Obama transgender policy. “It makes no sense to create soldiers who are unable to fight and win our nation’s wars,” Hartzler said during debate on the bill, according to the Associated Press.

“Figure out whether you’re man or a woman before you join,” Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said. “U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill.”

Amendment supporters say the Pentagon’s financial bill for accepting transgender claims could reach $3.7 billion over the next ten years.

So far, the military’s most famous transsexual soldier is Private Bradley Manning, who copied and released 90,000 military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. He was released from jail in early 2017 after Obama reduced his jail sentence. Manning has since changed his name to Chelsea Manning.

Democrats embrace the transgender ideology and called the GOP amendment “bigoted” for not saying men can be women.

Rep. Jared Polis (D, CO) insisted the amendment would hurt the military. “It would have a negative impact on morale, a negative impact on retention and move us away from the merit-based system which we now have, where we have one set of rules applied to everybody,” he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) slammed Republicans for attempting to “rip away” health care for soldiers. “Republicans should be ashamed: instead of protecting the men and women who risk their lives to defend our freedoms, they are fighting to rip away the health care of thousands of brave service members,” Pelosi said in hyperbolically. “This cowardly Republican amendment targeting transgender men and women in uniform effectively bans these patriotic Americans from serving their country.”

But the Center for Military Readiness, a policy group located in Michigan, criticized the current transgender policy, calling it “absurd and sometimes bizarre plans incorporated in Obama Administration transgender mandates.”

In a statement, the group also said that the policies are dangerous. “Social experiments with the lives of people who deserve better will create many problems that detract from impacts on morale and readiness.”

The Republicans who support the transgender ideology are mostly social liberals.

Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, created the problem of having to pay for the medical needs of transsexual soldiers by repealing the ban on transgenders serving openly in the military in 2016.

However, the plan is apparently very unpopular among top leaders and the rank-and-file, partly because it would female soldiers to share rooms and showers with biological men who have been classified by the military as women.

If the military agrees to establish the transgender ideology, the pro-transgender campaign will be boosted in the nation’s courtrooms, capitols, and classrooms, said Austen Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “Every transgender activist can point to the military to say, ‘They’ve done, it, so we should do it… in grade schools, high schools, colleges, everywhere,” he added.

The progressive push to bend Americans’ attitudes and their male-and-female civic society around the idea of “gender” has already attacked and cracked popular social rules for how Americans handle the useful differences between complementary and equal men and women.

These pro-gender claims have an impact on different-sex bathrooms, shelters for battered womensports leagues for girlshiking groups for boysK-12 curriculauniversity speech codesreligious freedomsfree speech, the social status of womenparents’ rights in childrearing, practices to help teenagers, women’s expectations of beautyculture and civic societyscientific researchprison safetycivic ceremoniesschool rules, men’s sense of masculinitylaw enforcement, and children’s sexual privacy.

A study of the 2010 census showed that roughly 1-in-2,400 adults had changed their name from one sex to the other sex.

Polls show that strong majority of ordinary Americans oppose the transgender claims, they want sexual privacy in bathrooms and shower rooms — especially in K-12 schools. Even as Americans want to keep their sexual privacy, most are also willing to be polite and friendly to the very few “transgender” people who wish to live as members of the other sex.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this story included an embedded tweet with an inaccurate list of GOP members who voted against this amendment. We’ve replaced that tweet with the accurate list of members via a Facebook post from Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC). We regret the error.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #4 

President Trump's VA shakedown -- 500 fired, 200 suspended for conduct


Lucian Wintrich (GatewayPundit) is reporting that on Friday, The Department of Veterans Affairs made public a list of employee terminations, demotions, and suspensions. It has expressed that this list week be updated weekly in an effort to add more transparency to the department following Congresses' push to increase the scope of power by the VA secretary.

President Trump expressed his frustration with the VA back on the campaign trail, stating that the VA was "probably the most incompetently run agency in the United States."

The bulk of firings were directed at lower level VA workers, such as house keepers and food service workers, after learning that initial oversight was not implemented. Many of these employees were discovered to be felons, sex offenders, or generally incompetent. This has lead to poor care, and at times death from neglect, for our veterans.

More via Stars and Stripes:

"Veterans and taxpayers have a right to know what we're doing to hold our employees accountable and make our personnel actions transparent," VA Secretary David Shulkin said in written statement. "Posting this information online for all to see, and updating it weekly, will do just that."

The list, posted online Friday, contained the occupation, VA region, the date and type of disciplinary action for approximately 800 VA employees disciplined since Jan. 20. For privacy reasons, the VA is not posting employees' names.

The initiative is part of the new VA Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection that Trump created in April with an executive order. Navy and Air Force veteran Peter O'Rourke is directing the office and advising Shulkin on the discipline of VA managers and employees.

Shulkin gained more firing authority after Trump signed legislation June 23 establishing more repercussions and a faster firing process for VA employees. Trump, Shulkin, and many veterans and supporters of the legislation said the new rules would allow the VA to root out poor-performing employees and a perceived culture of corruption in the department.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #5 

WaPo and CNN have their panties in a twist because Gen. Mattis put the kibosh on Obama's transgenders


Joe Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that President Trump's Secretary of Defense, Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis upset the liberal elites by delaying the Obama Administration's transgender recruitment policy for six months.

The Washington Post (WaPo) reported:

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has delayed a plan approved by the Obama administration a year ago to begin allowing transgender recruits to join the U.S. military, providing the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-month reprieve that they requested, the Pentagon said Friday night.

The decision was made on the eve of a deadline set a year ago by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter. The services can now delay processing transgender recruits until Jan. 1, following another review of accession plans and providing information about how doing so will affect the military and its lethality, Mattis said in a memo. Details about that review must be provided back to Mattis by Dec. 1.

The Wapo went on to decry "Mad Dog" Mattis's decision:

Mattis's decision was immediately decried by advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, who already had waited through a lengthy Pentagon view process that concluded last year. Meanwhile, a high-profile opponent to transgender people serving said the decision is welcome.

The delay "makes no sense," considering that existing transgender service members have served successfully over the last year, said Aaron Belkin, the director of the Palm Center, a think tank that has helped the Pentagon with some research on sexuality. He said it will put transgender people who want to serve in the same position as gay people who wanted to serve during the now-repealed ban on open homosexual service known as "don't ask, don't tell."

‘Fake News' CNN quoted other far left sources to denigrate the Secretary of Defense's decision to hold off on transgender recruitment.  CNN's article provides arguments from a transgender group who state that transgender people serving in the military actually strengthen the military.

The American Military Partner Association, which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in the military, said it was disappointed by Mattis' decision.
"This six-month delay is disappointing because it unnecessarily delays the ability of transgender people to be open about their identity when entering the military," the group's president, Ashley Broadway-Mack, said in a statement. "It has been unequivocally proven that allowing qualified transgender people to serve openly strengthens our military and creates a more inclusive and diverse force. The issue has been thoroughly studied, and moving forward with this new recruitment policy is imperative in order for the military to be able to recruit the best talent our nation has to offer."

The common everyday hardworking American no doubt is in agreement with Mattis's action to delay transgender recruitment into the military.  Based on President Obama's track record for distorting the truth and the mainstream media's track record for the same, it is highly unlikely that any reasonable study would show the transgenders will "strengthen the military."

This all is nonsense and Maddog Mattis made the right call.

And the six-month delay will become a permanent delay. It's how the government works.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #6 

Pentagon puts a halt to Obama's freakorama


Neil Munro (Breitbart) is reporting that the Secretary of Defense has frozen a decision by former President Barack Obama to recruit transgender soldiers this year, and a new poll shows the planned recruitment freeze is very popular.

Two of every three swing voters say the Pentagon should postpone plans to accept "transgender" people who are trying to live as members of the opposite sex, according to the new poll by Rasmussen Reports.

Defense Secretary James Mattis explained his July 30 decision to delay Obama's plan for six months, just before it was to begin operating:

Since becoming the Secretary of Defense, I have emphasized that the Department of Defense must measure each policy decision against one critical standard: will the decision affect the readiness and lethality of the force? Put another way, how will the decision affect the ability of America's military to defend the nation? It is against this standard that I provide the following guidance on the way forward in accessing transgender individuals into the military Services.

The six-month delay will encourage and help opponents lobby against Obama's pro-transgender policy.

Throughout 2016, Obama used his power as president to push schools and other institutions to support the claim by transgender activists that people have a hidden "gender identity" which is independent of their sex and biology. These advocates also say that a person's sex is determined by their "gender identity," not their male-or-female body. In turn, the advocates demand that the federal government force Americans to accept the sex-switching "gender identity" claims made by each person, regardless of scientific data about genetics, biology and the variety of normal behavior and appearances shown by normal women and men.

Transgender activists were furious about Mattis' last-minute decision to block Obama's directive, which would have resulted in a de-facto endorsement of the transgender ideology by the most respected government institution in the nation.

"For the past year, transgender troops have been serving openly … stonewalling on full inclusion will, just like ‘don't ask, don't tell,' compromise military readiness," said a statement from the pro-transgender Palm Center in California.

Obama's proposal is widely opposed, in part, because it would require soldiers to share bathrooms and shower facilities with people of the opposite sex, and would require the U.S. military pay for the expensive procedures -- such as hormones and perhaps surgery -- used by people trying to live as members of the opposite sex.

The military's most famous transgender recruit, now named Chelsea Manning, was recently freed from military jail on Obama's orders. When serving in Iraq, Manning illegally copied a huge haul of military records and videos and released them to the world.

The Rasmussen poll was published just before the Pentagon announcement. The June 26 to June 27 survey of 1,000 likely voters showed 48 percent of voters supporting a delay, only 32 percent oppose a delay and an unusually larger proportion -- 21 percent -- avoided comment, saying they were "not sure." Read the poll here

The cross-tabs, however, showed that GOP supporters split 60 percent for a delay and 23 percent opposition to a delay. Democrats split 33 percent for a delay and 44 percent opposition to a delay.

Importantly, 52 percent of the swing-voting independents back a delay, while only 25 percent oppose a delay -- and 23 percent declined to comment. That is a two-to-one preference among swing-voters for delay, and most of the no-comment voters likely favor a delay also.

Among self-described conservatives, 64 percent want a delay, while only 22 percent oppose a delay. Self-described "moderates" split 42 percent for a delay, 35 percent opposed a delay.

The questions about a "delay" – instead of outright opposition — offered voters some opportunity to show opposition to the media-favored transgender agenda while protecting themselves from claims of bigotry. 

That worry was clearly visible in a prior Rasmussen question, which asked likely voters whether the decision to allow transgender people into the military is good or bad for the military.

Twenty-three percent said transgenders are good for the military -- including just 32 percent of Democrats. Thirty-one percent said transgenders are bad for the military -- but only 16 percent of liberals.

Significantly, the largest group -- 38 percent -- of voters waffled by saying transgenders would have no impact. That 38 percent number likely hides some opposition to recruiting transgender for the military because it is actually larger than the 32 percent who oppose a delay.

The question of whether the military should accept "transgender" people was unimaginable a few years ago. However, it is now an issue because the Democratic Party's progressive leadership -- and much of the elite media -- has embraced the transgender ideology.

The ideology claims that people have a hidden "gender identity" which is independent of their sex and biology, and which justifies their claim to be members of the opposite sex. The ideology also demands that the federal government force Americans to accept the "gender identity" sex-switching claims made by each person, regardless of scientific data about genetics, biology and the variety of normal behavior and appearances shown by normal women and men. 

The progressive push to bend Americans' attitudes and their civic society around the idea of "gender" has already attacked and cracked popular social rules for how Americans handle the many charming differences between complementary men and women -- the rules governing single-sex bathrooms and shelters for battered womensports leagues for girlshiking groups for boysK-12 curricula and university speech codesreligious freedomsfree speech, the social status of womenparents' rights in childrearing, practices to help teenagers, women's expectations of beautyculture and civic societyscientific researchprison safetycivic ceremoniesschool rules, men's sense of masculinitylaw enforcement, and children's sexual privacy.

To read more about the "transgender" ideology, click here.

My grandson enters Army Basic Training next month. I am especially grateful for this decision.

I don't want Spencer sharing a shower with these weirdos.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #7 

Trump urged to revoke Obama's transgender mandates for America's armed forces

Obama's gift to the military -- freaks!

WND is reporting that a leading military readiness expert is urging President Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis to revoke Barack Obama's directives on transgenders serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The Center for Military Readiness, or CMR, has released a new report titled "The President, Defense Department and Military Services Should Revoke Problematic Transgender Policy Directives and Instructions." It analyzes 15 different Obama directives and training documents that promote retention and transgender recruiting.

"The Trump administration has a mandate to restore the strength of our military and to put an end to political correctness in the Pentagon," the 27-page report states. "This will not be possible if problematic policies, issued and implemented during the Obama administration, are retained."

CMR said Obama's policies order the U.S. military to "assume the risks of retaining and recruiting a cohort of persons who are suffering from gender dysphoria -- a difficult condition involving confusion about gender identity. Gender dysphoria and its treatments are among several psychological conditions that negatively affect personal deployability and mission readiness."

In an opinion piece on the issue published in the Military Times, CMR President Elaine Donnelly wrote:

It must be difficult to live life with profound confusion about gender identity. This psychological condition, called gender dysphoria, requires compassion and competent medical treatment.  The military health system, however, is designed to serve purposes of national defense.

Properly understood, military medicine is a force multiplier. It should not be considered a venue for controversial hormone treatments and surgeries. Some studies, including a long-term report from distinguished medical scholars at Johns Hopkins University, have found that such transgender treatments do not reduce rates of psychological problems and suicide.

DoD instructions that politicize military medicine force commanders, doctors and nurses to approve, participate in, or perform body-altering procedures that many consider to be contrary to medical ethics or personal convictions. The only way to avoid disobeying orders is to leave the service.

CMR provided the following list of problematic Obama-era transgender mandates:

  • Open-ended costs for lifetime hormone treatments and sometimes irreversible surgeries. (Transgender advocates demand special status for recruits seeking lifetime medical benefits despite deployability problems. They also demand coverage for veterans in an already overloaded system, and for family dependents, including minor children);
  • Infringements on personal privacy in conditions of forced intimacy;
  • Demoralizing pressures on military commanders, doctors, and nurses to approve, participate in, or perform procedures that violate medical ethics or sincerely-held personal or religious convictions;
  • Negative impacts on morale and cohesion when transgender treatment side effects negatively affect combat deployability and readiness;
  • Establishment of a network of remote "Service Central Coordination Cells" (SCCCs) allowing LGBT consultants to politicize the military health system;
  • Erosion of trust in military leaders who endorse medical delusions; and
  • Diversion of scarce time and resources in pursuit of politically correct social agendas that are not consistent with sound priorities in the military.

The Army and Air Force requested a two-year delay on implementation of the transgender policies, according the the Associated Press. But that request was rejected, and now military chiefs are asking for a six-month delay before allowing transgenders to enlist in the Armed Forces.

Transgenders have been permitted to serve openly in the military for a year. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter ended the ban in June 2016. Carter gave the military branches a deadline of July 1 to develop policies allowing transgender individuals to enlist in the services if they meet physical and medical standards and have remained stable in their genders for 18 months.

Currently, there are 250 members of the military who are transitioning to their preferred genders, the Associated Press reported.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet -- delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND's Email News Alerts!

The CMR says Obama "holdovers" -- such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Kurta -- are actively pushing the former president's policies on transgenders and LGBT activities in the military. CMR says Work is specifically advocating for the shorter six-month delay. Kurta, meanwhile, called for and participated in an "LGBT Pride" event at the Pentagon June 12, even though President Trump chose not to issue a "LGBT Pride Month" proclamation.

The new six-month delay request will go to Mattis for approval. CMR and Donnelly are urging Mattis to revoke Obama's policies.

"We don't need a 'mad dog' or a sleeping dog -- we need a vigilant and fearless watchdog who will strengthen our military by restoring sound priorities that are long overdue," Donnelly wrote in her Military Times opinion piece.

She called on President Trump and Mattis to grant the original two-year delay request and allow the service branches to publicly voice concerns about the policy.

"This is even more important since Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told a Senate committee that there have been some issues identified with recruiting transgender individuals that 'some of the service chiefs believe need to be resolved before we move forward,'" Donnelly said. "Secretary Mattis and members of Congress should invite medical experts (not LGBT activists) to present testimony addressing the transgender issue in terms of military readiness, not political correctness taken to extremes. There is no good time to implement a bad policy."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #8 

Army transsexual brainwashing covers pregnant men


Someone has to make the decision. Will the U.S. Army be devoted to winning wars, or to promoting perversions?

Fox News is reporting that the U. S. Army has begun mandatory transgender sensitivity training for soldiers. The training covers everything from "transfemale" soldiers to transgender shower etiquette to dealing with a male soldier who becomes pregnant.

Our progressive rulers are literally imposing insanity.

The matter of male soldiers with child is tucked away inside the Army's "Policy on the Military Service of Transgender Soldiers Training Module, Tier 2: Commanders and Leaders." …

"The training module specifically outlines key roles and responsibilities of commanders, transgender soldiers, military medical providers and administrative management organizations," Lt. Col. Jennifer Johnson told USA Today. "This training is mandatory for all uniformed members, as well as Department of the Army civilians."

This sick lunacy was initiated under Obama, of course. But no one appears willing to put a stop to it.

I can't stand it!

This crap has to stop.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #9 

Obama gutted our military readiness

Keith Koffler (WhiteHouseDossier) is reporting that Barack Obama, who was responsible for the nation's security, insisted that military spending be included in the "sequester" that automatically cut government spending.

Testifying before Congress Monday evening, Secretary of Defense Mattis said "the damage has been severe" to our military as a result

No enemy in the filed has done more to harm to combat readiness of our military than sequestration. We have only sustained our ability to meet American's commitments abroad because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden.

Another gift by the leftist Obama to our fighting men and women, and our nation.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #10 

Obama ordered the U. S. military to aid and abet Afghan pedophilia

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that of all the Marxist social justice injustices, the Army's aiding and abetting Afghan pedophilia is among the worst. The former president had a more supportive view of foreign pedophiles than our military and our values.

There is an excellent article at the Daily Caller, The 7 Most Egregious Acts Of 'Social Justice' In Obama's Military. It's a short article well-worth reading in case you've forgotten Obama's infiltration of Marxist values into the military culture.

The first one they list concerns the proposed U.S. Army handbook from 2012 that ordered soldiers not to make any nasty comments about the Taliban or criticize the common practice of pedophilia in Afghanistan.

The suggestion was that the West fails to understand their culture and leads to insider attacks.

In other words, the Afghans weren't to blame for killing soldiers trying to train them, we were.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the document urges troops to stop "advocating women's rights," or bring up "any criticism of pedophilia," or "anything related to Islam."

The New York Times reported in 2015 that troops have been told repeatedly to ignore cases of pedophilia and extreme sexual assault -- even on U.S. military bases.

As a result, soldiers could hear Afghan boys crying through the night within U.S. bases as they were being raped and tortured but they were not allowed to do anything about it.

[sgt-martlan-400x254]Sgt. Martland center

The case of team leader Sgt. Martland proves the point. He was order to be discharged for intervening in a case of ongoing rape by an Afghan cop of a young boy on the base after the boy's mother asked for help. She was viciously beaten for reporting it.

One has to wonder if this is contributing to the suicides by our soldiers. Imagine the nightmares you would have after this experience night after night.

The Army not only allows Afghan leaders on US military bases to rape little children, they punish military who come to their aid.

"You can hear the cries of the little boys being raped at night," the former team leader and Green Beret said. The Army told the soldiers to ignore it.

Sgt. Martland is described by his men as the best of the best. He was awarded the Bronze Star. Last April, the Army reversed their order and the sergeant was finally allowed to stay, in part, due to the intervention of Rep. Duncan Hunter and media furor.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #11 

The fate of the US Military is in the hands of one Marine


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) says President-Elect Trump is a super patriot, a nationalist who has big plans to rebuild this nation and the US military after eight years of neglect and Marxist social engineering that have utterly destroyed its capability to wage war on sea, land and in the air.

Certainly, Mr. Trump has great intentions, but he has never served a day on active duty, in the reserves or in the National Guard.

Therefore, he will undoubtedly adhere to the recommendations and analysis provided by the nation's new Secretary of Defense.

Enter retired Marine Corps General James Mattis.

Nicknamed ‘Mad Dog' Mattis, the general, "last served as the 11th Commander of United States Central Command, the Unified Combatant Command responsible for American military operations in the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central Asia, from August 11, 2010, to March 22, 2013.

Before President Obama appointed Mattis to replace General Petraeus on August 11, 2010, he previously commanded United States Joint Forces Command from November 9, 2007, to August 2010 and served concurrently as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation from November 9, 2007, to September 8, 2009. Prior to that, he commanded I Marine Expeditionary ForceUnited States Marine Forces Central Command, and 1st Marine Division during the Iraq War."

Mattis also commanded the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, which was part of Task Force Ripper during the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

The general was beloved by the Marines who served under him, a warrior intellectual in the spirit of Patton, whom the President-Elect frequently compares him to.

One the eve of the inauguration, the US military is in deep trouble. While the military is rearing from budget cuts and readiness and equipment issues, those are problems that the military has endured in the past and conquered. What the military has never experienced before is the catastrophic social engineering that has eviscerated the armed forces' fighting spirit and dragged down the operational tempo of each branch.

While the new Secretary of Defense will no doubt be dealing with topics such as navy ships that breakdown, air force planes without spare parts and an army with an all but extinct armor corps, his greatest challenge may very well be ending the social engineering forever.

You cannot have a Reaganesque military buildup that is successful with Berkeley style feminist social engineering. The two cannot co-exist together for the military to complete its mission, which is to defend the country when called upon and to vanquish our enemies quickly and violently.

If the social engineering does not cease, the US military will destroy itself and/or will be destroyed in a future conflict. That is a fact.

On his first day on the job, General Mattis must begin to RIF the duds, the feather merchants, the perfumed princes, the cultural Marxists and the feminists who have not only allowed the military to be put on death's door by President Obama, but actively supported the insanity that seeped through the Pentagon for eight years like a persistent nerve agent.

The military has lost many good people who either were forced out during the Obama Maoist Revolution or simply resigned because what was happening around them made them physically ill.

But, many senior officers were all too eager or simply too gutless to stand up to the cultural Marxists. Moral cowardice became the rallying cry of the Joint Chiefs. Fighting Joe Dunford and Martin Dempsey rubber stamped every directive from the White House.

Mattis must take a meat cleaver to the active duty rosters. The military is in dire need of killers and has succumbed to its ranks being stocked with fillers and too much fodder.

The military needs to once again ban open homosexuality in the ranks. While gays have served in the military since the dawn of time, the concept is anathema to combat readiness and esprit de corps. The military must return to ‘don't ask, don't tell' as its policy.

A bigger problem for the military is the recent authorization by cultural Marxist and outgoing Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter to allow transsexuals to serve in the armed forces. Gender dysphoria is considered a mental illness by many physicians. The idea of allowing mentally ill personnel to not only serve on active duty, but to have their gender reassignment surgery financed by Uncle Sam is the height of lunacy.

The military in the last eight years has watched as its traditional macho, male culture has been eviscerated with a feminist glass knife.

US Army soldiers have been ordered to conduct physical training while wearing pregnancy simulators; ROTC cadets were ordered to wear red high heels to show empathy to rape victims; breastfeeding and lactation memos were distributed to special operations soldiers; the Bible and Declaration of Independence were taught as sexist documents during online DoD classes; three female graduated from Ranger School under dubious circumstances; US Navy ships were named after gay activists and a baby was born on a US Navy ship of war during a foreign deployment.

Most importantly, feminists drove the Pentagon to authorize women to serve in the crown jewels of the military, the combat arms and special operations forces; i.e. infantry, cavalry, artillery, the Rangers, Delta Force and the Navy SEALs.

This height of insanity was pushed by social engineers Ash Carter and Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, who will go down in history as the worst SecNav in the long and glorious annals of that service.

Mattis must fire Ray Mabus who is responsible for ships that don't float, crying sailors in Iranian captivity and a gender neutral lexicon for military titles, such as rifleperson.

Mabus pushed hard for the inclusion of women in the combat arms. He completely ignored the Marines' 36 million dollar study that showed what everyone already knew; all male units perform better in simulated combat tasks than coed or all female units. In fact, Mabus penned a crackpot OPED for the Washington Post in 2015.

Mabus wrote, "As the nature of warfare becomes more dynamic and unpredictable, we need to be the strongest force possible, and diversity is one of our greatest strengths. The Marine Corps Timeshas highlighted an anecdote about the creative, expeditious way a four-woman team in the Marine Corps' study confronted an 8-foot obstacle; an American Forces Network report featured female Marines who demonstrated that gender does not define their service. These are the thinkers we need in every part of our force; they will maximize our combat effectiveness."

According to Mabus' warped logic, diversity is a combat multiplier and since four adult females can negotiate an 8 foot wall, that gives the military a green light to authorize women to serve in the SEALs.

Newflash Mabus: four 10 year old Girl Scouts can figure out how to go over an eight foot wall.

Mabus needs to walk the plank into the Potomac.

The issue of women in the combat arms and special operations is still a hot potato, a third rail that those in uniform have been afraid to touch.

Last week, during his confirmation hearing, Mattis was grilled by New York Democrat Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand about the issue. He seemed to dance around the topic, even indicating that he wouldn't change the policies enacted by Carter and Obama.

Strangely, Mattis' tightrope walk on the Hill was different than his 2014 comments, "The idea of putting a woman in there (combat) is not setting them up for success. It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close-quarters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea. Could we find a woman who could run fast enough? Of course we could. Could you find a few who could do the pullups? Of course we could. That's not the point. That's not the point at all. It is whether or not you want to mix eros. Do you really want to mix love, affection, whatever you want to call it, in a unit…? Some of us aren't so old that we've forgotten at times it was like heaven on earth to hold a certain girl's hand."

So, will Mattis roll over like everyone else and let the insanity unfold, or was his performance on the Hill, a mere charade to allow the left wing fools to rubber stamp his confirmation?

Mattis was also questioned by Senator Claire McCaskill, another advocate for women in combat, who wouldn't know a K Bar from a Snickers Bar if her life depended on it.

To fools like McCaskill and Gillibrand, allowing women to serve in the infantry is nothing different than women working for Apple or Google.

Perhaps they would change their minds if they watched just five minutes of Saving Private Ryan or The Pacific. Or, better yet if they spent five minutes in an actual war zone.

General Mattis knows better than anyone that women serving in the combat arms and special operations would be a disaster and the death knell for the nation. General Mattis also knows that the US military combat arms branches and special operations need the smartest, toughest, roughest SOB's on the planet.

What will General Mattis recommend to the President when asked? Will he allow the social engineering of the military to continue or will he ride to the rescue and save it?

President-Elect Trump calls Mattis the closest thing to Patton.

We're going to find out.

The fate of the US military is in the hands of one Marine.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #12 

Mattis wanted to strike Iran in retaliation for killing U. S. troops -- Obama denied him


Russ Read (DailyCaller) is reporting that Iranian-supplied rockets killed as many as 15 U.S. troops per month in Iraq in the summer of 2011, and Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis had a plan to retaliate. Team Obama denied his request.

Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a single such attack in early June of 2011, with another three killed just weeks later. Mattis, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, had had enough and decided the U.S. must strike back before the Iranian rockets caused further bloodshed. In conjunction with then Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Mattis proposed a strike inside Iranian territory, according to former senior U.S. officials speaking to the Washington Post.

The plan was to make it clear to the the Iranian government that providing rockets to its Shiite proxy insurgents inside Iraq was no longer going to be tolerated. Mattis suggested a nighttime strike against a power plant or oil refinery within Iranian territory.

The White House received the strike proposal and subsequently denied it. Barack Obama was under the impression that such a strike would infuriate the Iranians, possibly escalating the Iraqi occupation he was trying so desperately to end. Many White House staffers feared the plan risked starting a war with Iran, a country Obama wanted to seek a detente with.

"There were clearly White House staff who thought the recommendations he was making were too aggressive," Leon Panetta, who was secretary of defense at the time, told the Post. "But I thought a lot of that was, frankly, not having the maturity to look at all of the options that a president should look at in order to make the right decisions."

Iran was a primary backer of the Shiite insurgency in Iraq during the U.S. occupation. In addition to rockets, Iran supplied its proxies with deadly explosively formed penetrators -- a version of an improvised explosive device designed specifically to tear through U.S. armored vehicles.

Iran's Quds Force, a branch of the notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is believed to have supplied many of the weapons used by Iraqi insurgents. Some reports suggest the group's leader, the infamous Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, was responsible for more than 500 U.S. deaths in Iraq due to his support of the insurgents.

Obama had reason to deny the strike request, though Mattis probably did not know it. At the time, the Obama administration was secretly negotiating with Iran on its rapidly advancing nuclear weapons program. A direct strike on Iranian territory would likely scuttle the secret talks. Approximately 54 U.S. military personnel were killed in Iraq in 2011, while the secret talks Iran would eventually fall apart, regardless of the strike.

Related:  New survey shows majority of US troops has "unfavorable" view of Obama's years

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #13 

U.S.-Led coalition forces double military "advisers" in Mosul fight


Natalie Johnson (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that an American military official said Wednesday the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq has doubled the number of advisers on the ground who are helping Iraqi troops to retake Mosul from the Islamic State.

U.S. Air Force Col. John Dorrian told reporters the coalition's adviser corps has expanded to 450 people in recent weeks, the Associated Press reported. Dorrian said the reinforcements are intended to "accelerate the advance of the Iraqi security forces."

The Obama administration has maintained that ground troops in Iraq are not engaging in direct combat, but are rather serving in advise-and-assist roles to local forces. Dorrian made clear that U.S. forces "remain behind the forward line of troops," but noted that military advisers have entered Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, several times.

Roughly 4,935 U.S. troops are officially deployed in Iraq, according to Pentagon numbers. The Pentagon also maintains up to 1,500 additional troops in the country who are on temporary assignments or not included in formal military tallies.

The Iraqi army launched its operation to retake the ISIS stronghold in October. U.S. military officials have warned the mission could take months to complete.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #14 

Obama calls for seamless transition for US military to Trump

Fox News is reporting that Barack Obama called for a smooth handover of control of the U.S. military to incoming commander in chief Donald Trump, as the outgoing president met Wednesday with military leaders for the last time.

"We've got to make sure that during this transition period that there is a seamless passing of the baton, that there's continuity," Obama said. He said it was critical to ensure that "we are doing everything we can to make sure that the next president will benefit from the same kinds of outstanding advice and service that these people around the table have provided me."

Obama's comments as he sat down with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military's combatant commanders came amid concerns in military and diplomatic circles about how Trump may handle national security challenges. Over the last few days, Trump has disputed the U.S. intelligence community's assessments about Russian hacking, insisted without explanation that North Korea won't develop a nuclear weapon that could hit the U.S. and questioned the worth of the United Nations.

Obama pointed to a handful of conflicts that Trump will inherit when he takes office on Jan. 20, including the fight against the Islamic State group in Syria and in the Iraqi city of Mosul, the biggest IS stronghold in Iraq and last major Iraqi city where the extremist group still has control. He also noted that the conflict in Afghanistan "is still active."

In praising the military, Obama appeared to call attention to traditions that Democrats are most concerned that Trump may not uphold. Trump has nominated retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis for defense secretary despite the prohibition on recently departed military members running the civilian-led Pentagon, and at one point in the campaign, Trump called for reinstating waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques.

Obama said he was optimistic about the country's future because the military upholds "the values of rule of law and professionalism and integrity, and recognizes our constitutional structure and maintains strict adherence and respect for civilian authority and democratic practices in determining how we use the awesome force of the American military."

Obama was also honored at a farewell ceremony at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, a short drive from the White House.

Addressing a room of men and women from the various branches of the military, Obama praised their service and sacrifice. He said there is "no greater privilege and no greater honor" than serving as commander in chief.

"As I reflect on the challenges we have faced together and on those to come, I believe that one of the greatest tasks before our armed forces is to retain the high confidence that the American people rightly place in you," Obama said. "We must never hesitate to act when necessary to defend our nation, but we must also never rush into war because sending you into harm's way should be a last and not first resort."

Prior to his remarks, Defense Secretary Ash Carter presented Obama with the Medal of Distinguished Public Service as a token of appreciation for his service as commander in chief.

The ceremony and speech was probably a little too long:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #15 

Navy to cancel gender-neutral job title system after heated criticism


Jonah Bennett (DailyCaller) is reporting that in a shocking move, the Navy has decided to cancel its new gender-neutral job title system, after sustaining incredible amounts of criticism.

The Navy was supposed to announce the decision Wednesday, but details of the NAVADMIN message leaked out to social media Tuesday evening, according to a Facebook post by Navy Adm. John Richardson, who serves as chief of naval operations.

Richardson called the new change, which reverts to a system with "man" in various job titles like "hospital corpsman," a "course correction."

The memo was officially released at 8 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday.

"We have learned from you, and so effective immediately, all rating names are restored," Richardson wrote in the message, USNI News reports. "The feedback from current and former sailors has been consistent that there is wide support for the flexibility that the plan offers, but the removal of rating titles detracted from accomplishing our major goals."

Sailors were upset at what they felt was an unnecessary and politically correct culture change, especially because the old ratings system makes the Navy distinct from other services and fosters a sense of pride and preserves a 241-year tradition.

The original effort to change the job title system was pioneered by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, in order to make job titles more welcoming to women, who are now able to access all combat roles as of last December. The Navy announced the new job title system in late September, much to the dismay of a sizable number of sailors. That frustration erupted in the form of a White House petition urging the Obama administration to restore the old job title system. Although the petition reached the threshold mark of 100,000 signatures, the White House weighed in and said that it trusted the move by Navy officials to modernize the service.

Dave Weeks, the Navy veteran who created the petition, told The Virginian-Pilot that although he had heard of the Navy's course correction Tuesday and didn't believe it until Richardson himself confirmed the news. However, Weeks is very much glad about the reversal.

"It was a source of sailors’ identity and everyone thought they kind of lost some of that when they talked about taking that away," Weeks said.

"I’m glad that leadership listened to the sailors and, you know, took it to heart and reversed course on it," Weeks added.

Despite a return to the old job title system, it's far from clear that Navy officials will end the effort to make job titles gender neutral.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #16 

This proves General Mattis is exactly what our military and country needs


Pamela Adams ( says Barack Obama has spent the last eight years handcuffing, obstructing and reconstructing our armed forces. He cleansed the Pentagon of anyone with the backbone to protect our country. His replacements fought instead to rid our military of Christianity while pandering to the LGBT agenda.

In 2014, Navy Chaplain Wesley Modder became the target of an "LGBT-inspired witch hunt" according to his Liberty Institute attorneys.  An openly gay Naval officer complained about Modder's Christian views on homosexuality, claiming discrimination. As a result, the Navy ordered the chaplain to abstain from praying in the name of Jesus.

In addition, the Obama Administration spent more time scrubbing such terms as "jihadist" and "islamic extremist" from our military manuals than fighting them.

By removing Christianity, Obama actually began removed America's military morals. When you do that, our forces become no better than ISIS, killing with no regard to humanity or purpose.

But there is hope.

Americans rejoiced when President-elect Donald Trump announced retired USMC General James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense. But if this no-holds barred Marine doesn't make you grin from ear to ear with statements like, "I don't lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word," then maybe the following story will.

The U.S. Naval Institute featured a blog in December 2010 that reprinted a post from the National Museum of the Marine Corps Museum's Facebook Page.  In the spring of 2006, Mattis gave a lecture on Ethical Challenges in Contemporary Conflict. The Director of the Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics at The United States Naval Academy, Dr. Albert C. Pierce, introduced him.  He recounted this wonderful story in his introduction.  It is taken directly from the lecture's transcript,

A couple of months ago, when I told General Krulak, the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, now the chair of the Naval Academy Board of Visitors, that we were having General Mattis speak this evening, he said, "Let me tell you a Jim Mattis story." General Krulak said, when he was Commandant of the Marine Corps, every year, starting about a week before Christmas, he and his wife would bake hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Christmas cookies. They would package them in small bundles.

Then on Christmas day, he would load his vehicle. At about 4 a.m., General Krulak would drive himself to every Marine guard post in the Washington-Annapolis-Baltimore area and deliver a small package of Christmas cookies to whatever Marines were pulling guard duty that day. He said that one year, he had gone down to Quantico as one of his stops to deliver Christmas cookies to the Marines on guard duty. He went to the command center and gave a package to the lance corporal who was on duty.

He asked, "Who's the officer of the day?" The lance corporal said, "Sir, it's Brigadier General Mattis." And General Krulak said, "No, no, no. I know who General Mattis is. I mean, who's the officer of the day today, Christmas day?" The lance corporal, feeling a little anxious, said, "Sir, it is Brigadier General Mattis."

General Krulak said that, about that time, he spotted in the back room a cot, or a daybed. He said, "No, Lance Corporal. Who slept in that bed last night?" The lance corporal said, "Sir, it was Brigadier General Mattis."

About that time, General Krulak said that General Mattis came in, in a duty uniform with a sword, and General Krulak said, "Jim, what are you doing here on Christmas day? Why do you have duty?" General Mattis told him that the young officer who was scheduled to have duty on Christmas day had a family, and General Mattis decided it was better for the young officer to spend Christmas Day with his family, and so he chose to have duty on Christmas Day.

General Krulak said, "That's the kind of officer that Jim Mattis is."

Anyone with military or first responder experience knows the importance of strong leadership. Good leaders lead by example. General Mattis is the epitome of a great leader. He's not afraid to stand for what's right. Furthermore, he never expects more from his men than he is willing to do himself. With appointments such as these, Trump may very well reverse much of the damage done by Obama and get America back on track.

But that's just my 2 cents.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #17 

Naval Academy hosting "Transgender 101" training for midshipmen


Elizabeth Harrington (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that The U.S. Naval Academy is bringing in Google employees to provide voluntary "Transgender 101" training to midshipmen this week as part of an ongoing "safe space" training series.

The academy's Center for Teaching and Learning is holding two events on Friday, one for faculty and staff and another for midshipmen. The hour and a half-long workshops will be hosted by Marnie Florin and Kevin Perry, who are "transgender trainers" for Google.

Midshipmen and staff who take the training course will get the opportunity to display cards outside their door that show they are allies of the LGBT community.

The course was described in an email circulated by the Naval Academy on Tuesday.

"On Friday, December 9, the Center for Teaching & Leaning welcomes Kevin Perry and Marnie Florin who will be presenting Transgender 101: Gender Identity in the Workplace," the email said. "Marnie and Kevin have given this workshop at Google offices around the globe to more than 2,500 employees."

The email explained that Florin is transgender and uses the pronoun "ze."

"Before Google, Kevin worked at Bank of America where he helped launch an LGBTQ ally program," according to the email. "Before Google, Marnie attended Columbia Business School and saw that people had a lot of questions when ze (Marnie uses gender neutral pronouns) came out as transgender. Kevin and Marnie teamed out to create the Trans 101 session with the hope that it would create more supportive and inclusive workplaces by helping people better understand the trans experience and what it means to be an ally to the trans community."

"Attendees will receive door cards, which they may display if they wish, to indicate that they are allies," the email added.

A Naval Academy spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that the training is voluntary and open to all midshipmen, faculty, and staff. Forty-three midshipmen and 80 faculty members have signed up for the two sessions so far.

Karyn Z. Sproles, PhD, the director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, said there is a demand for "Safe Space" training at the Naval Academy.

"Training is offered because we find that, like all Millennials, this generation of midshipmen is eager to become more educated about issues of gender and sexuality," she said. "There is a consistent demand by faculty, staff, and Midshipmen for 'Safe Space' training, which is regularly offered by the Center for Teaching and Learning."

"The opportunity to learn more about transgender allows us all to expand our understanding of this complex topic," Sproles said.

The spokesperson said Google volunteered to present the training. The workshops, which are being paid for by the Center for Teaching and Learning with non-appropriated funds, will have minimal costs for transportation and lodging.

Florin is a "Diversity Consultant" who has given inclusivity trainings for YouTube, at Twitter's headquarters in San Francisco, and Google offices around the world, including Tokyo and Sidney.

"Marnie, who identifies as gender neutral and goes by the prounouns [sic] 'ze' or 'they,' created their first LGBTQ training as a Peace Corps Volunteer in West Africa," according to Florin's website. "Marnie then worked for the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, where ze organzied [sic] and canvassed for gay marriage."

Florin created the "Transgender 101" training after her peers "were a bit confused and had a lot of questions" after Florin came out as gender neutral while attending the Columbia Business School.

Florin was "really disappointed to find that the L.G.B.T. community at Columbia Business School consisted of so many white, cisgender men," with few transgender or lesbian students, according to an article published in the New York Times last year.

"Marnie also worked with the school to get a gender neutral bathroom created and add an option other than male and female into the admissions application," according to Florin's website.

The Navy recently updated its policy regarding transgender individuals serving in active duty. The changes went into effect on Oct. 1.

"To remain the finest seagoing fighting force the world has ever known, the Navy needs men and women who are the right fit for the right job regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, or gender identity," the Chief of Naval Personnel Public Affairs said in a statement released last month. "Our goal is to ensure that the mission is carried out by the most qualified and capable service members. If the individual can meet the Navy's standards, they should be afforded the opportunity to serve."

The new policy allowed sailors to officially change their gender in the Navy's personnel administrative systems, changed bathroom policies, and distributed training DVDs to commands. All active duty sailors must complete transgender training by Jan. 31, 2017.

"There will be new modesty policies to allow for increased privacy in berthing, shower and head facilities, adjustment to language in the urinalysis program and adding gender identity to the military equal opportunity policy," according to the statement. "After careful review of the physical readiness program, it was determined that no change was needed to the current policy and that standards remain the same for all Sailors."

God help us! January 20th, 2017 can't come soon enough.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #18 

Special Forces being micromanaged to death in fight against ISIS


The Washington Times is reporting that the secretive teams of Green Berets guiding rebels in northeast Syria have expressed frustration with the amount of micromanagement they receive from a top-heavy headquarters in Iraq and the United States.

Special Forces sources tell of support staff watching the free-spirited Green Berets on reconnaissance aircraft and then criticizing their performance as they conduct the mission officially described as "train, advise and assist" the multi-ethnic Syrian Democratic Forces. The Americans and SDF are fighting their way toward Raqqa, the Islamic State terrorist army's home base in Syria. Some of the "assisting" has drawn the Americans into firefights.

One officer chalked up the complaints to the sensitive political situation of U.S. troops on the ground in a chaotic country amid competing groups of Arab, Kurdish and Turkish forces, all converging with different objectives. The Green Berets, known officially as Army Special Forces, must act under strict combat rules after Barack Obama approved their insertion one year ago.

"Based on the very high-level approval required to conduct operations, it can be extremely frustrating for the teams," the officer told The Washington Times. "We just don't have the latitude we had during our years in Iraq, and that can be frustrating for the teams. The progress over the last year has been slow. Each team may not see it during their rotation, but cumulatively we've made significant progress against Daesh while maintaining relationships with Turkey and Jordan. In my many years in Special Forces, I've never been involved with a more complex mission."

The Islamic State is also called Daesh, ISIL and ISIS.

The officer said that any foreign assistance operation governed by Section 1209 of the annual National Defense Authorization Act, as is Syria, "comes with lots of rules and scrutiny from Congress and the Defense Department, so we had to be very deliberate on how we execute this program."

A second Special Forces source told of Green Berets in Syria being criticized for not immediately answering a phone call from overseers in Iraq. Others get critiqued back at their forward operating base in Syria after supervisors watched their actions on surveillance drones.

Said the source: "They sometimes take risk and do stuff, and when they get back to camp, they get a phone call. 'What the [expletive] were you doing?'"

Pentagon press officials have provided scant information on operations by Green Berets in Syria.

The second Special Forces source told The Times of a recent incident: A group of Green Berets and their partner rebels were taking sporadic long-range fire. Tired of waiting for permission to return fire, they killed the sniper. That, in turn, brought more fire from Islamic State fighters. The Americans found themselves in a firefight and then evaded the enemy.

"Why even have the guys out there?" the second Special Forces source said. "It's literally that they are watching you and watching you, and they'll call you, and if you don't answer -- it's kind of like having parents. As an organization, we have become incredibly risk-averse."

The second source said the number of watchers versus the number of Green Berets in Syria is 50-50.

"For every guy you've got on the ground there, there's some staff guy that hasn't ever deployed," the source said. "Or some colonel who wants to be involved, and he's the assist to the assistant to the assistant."

The first Green Berets to go into Syria were from the 5th Special Forces Group, based at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The 5th Group is the go-to Green Beret unit for fighting radical Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. They were the first to enter Afghanistan, and rode horseback over rocky terrain with allied Afghans.

This source said that many Special Forces soldiers believe the entire cadre has become more careerist as the war on terror continues in its second decade. "Too many officers worried about promotions," the source said.

Careerism and compromise

The Washington Times asked Col. Kevin C. Leahy, 5th Group commander, about his soldiers' complaints.

"No one knows how to work with rebels better than our Green Berets," Col. Leahy said in an email. "We provide lots of latitude on how guys work with various groups. Of course to accomplish goals we have to tell them what we want done, but we let them figure out how to do it. I can only discuss Syria, but can firmly say I and my subordinate leaders do not micromanage."

He added: "They are right on top-heavy. There is a sizable amount of people required to provide intel, fires, logistics and vetting of rebels/groups, liaison with host nation partners, U.S. country teams, etc. The teams really are the tip of an inverse triangle of support/Hq needed to enable the mission. Unfortunately, whether you have one team or ten in the field, you still need all of the support."

Rep. Ryan K. Zinke, Montana Republican, is Congress' lone former Navy SEAL. The retired commander says part of the problem with the Syrian troop mission is that commandos do not have sufficient firepower support if they get pinned down.

"I can tell you with zero doubt about the level of frustration from our forward deployed troops because they feel like they are micromanaged," he said. "They feel like they don't have the appropriate decision authority to make decisions and, even in contact, if you have a supporting asset, that supporting asset doesn't have the authority to target opposition forces without going through a series of assessments by an armchair quarterback."

A belief by some Green Berets that careerism has overtaken the officer corps was bolstered by a Special Forces soldier fighting in Kunduz, Afghanistan, on the night an AC-130 gunship mistakenly pummeled a Doctors Without Borders trauma center.

This soldier's Operation Detachment Alpha (ODA) was assigned the task of fighting with Afghan security forces to repel a flash Taliban invasion.

In his sworn statement to investigators, the Special Forces veteran said: "There is a fine line between not conducting operations to keep people out of harm's way and not conducting operations in such a fashion that it actually increases overall risk to force and risk to mission."

He said the special operations commanders back in Kabul abandoned the "A-Team."

"When an ODA's mission runs headlong into national strategy, and the detachment asks for guidance on the level of commitment and receives nothing back over a 96-hour period, that's an abject failure of leadership," the Green Beret said.

When the team asked Kabul for guidance, the response was, "How far do you want to go?"

Said the Green Beret in his statement: "It's not a strategy, and in fact it's a recipe for disaster in that kinetic of an environment. How have we, as a force, as a group of officers, become so lost from the good lessons that our mentors taught us? I will tell you how. It is a decrepit state that grows out of the expansion of moral cowardice, careerism and compromise devoid of principle, exchanged for cheap personal gain."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #19 

Obama signs onto women registering for Selective Service


By Eugene Scott (CNNWires) is reporting that Barack Obama now supports women registering for the Selective Service -- a shift in the White House's previous position.

"The President highly values the service of men and women who comprise our All-Volunteer force and have proven their mettle in our missions worldwide, including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq," Ned Price, spokesman for the National Security Council, told CNN Friday in a statement.

"And as old barriers for military service are being removed, the Administration supports -- as a logical next step -- women registering for the Selective Service," he added.

The Selective Service system maintains contact information for Americans who may potentially be subject to military conscription. Currently, all male US citizens and immigrants 18 to 25 years old are required to register with Selective Service. Not doing so is illegal.

The White House had previously been neutral on the issue.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter also believes it makes sense for women to register for Selective Service, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said.

"His decision last year to open all combat positions to qualified women only strengthens our All-Volunteer force by giving us access to 100 percent of America's population so we can recruit and retain the most qualified individuals who can meet our standards and remain the finest fighting force the world has ever known," Cook said Friday in a statement to CNN.

Both Obama and Carter believe there is no need to reinstate the military draft; the debate pertains only to the Selective Service registration system.

For the first time, the Senate in June overwhelmingly passed a $602 billion defense bill that included a provision that would require women to register for the draft. The House of Representatives stripped out that requirement and a compromise version of the legislation is being hammered out that may not contain the registration requirement.

The administration opened all military occupational specialties -- including "combat jobs" -- to women in December 2015. Since then, women have graduated from the Army's elite Ranger school, served on submarines, and completed Marine Corps Artillery officer's training.

In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld a Congressional decision to exempt women from registering for the Selective Service, deciding that because women were restricted from combat, there would be no need for their services in the event of a draft.

The change in Obama's position was first reported by USA Today.

Naturally, this won't apply to Obama's daughters, just ours.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #20 

Obama set to give "final" counterterrorism speech to troops


Dave Boyer (WashingtonTimes) is reporting that Obama will describe success of his "no combat" combat strategy

Just days after awarding the Purple Heart to 12 wounded U.S. soldiers, Barack Obama is preparing to deliver a final speech on the success of his "no combat" counterterrorism strategy in the Middle East.

The White House said Obama will travel on Tuesday to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, the same military base where he declared in 2014 that U.S. troops deploying to Iraq as military advisers would have no combat role against Islamic State extremists.

"We will train and equip our partners. We will advise them and we will assist them," Obama told troops at the time. "As your commander-in-chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq."

Since then, Obama has steadily increased the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq, where about 5,000 soldiers are now serving as Iraqi forces wage a six-week-old offensive to recapture Mosul, the last Islamic State stronghold in the country.

U.S. casualties in Iraq are just a small fraction of the casualty levels during the peak of the war, when 904 American soldiers died in 2007. Seventeen U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq this year, eight by hostile fire.

But the announcement that Mr. Obama will deliver a speech to U.S. Special Forces to confirm the wisdom of his counterterrorism strategy looks like validation of an effort that is far from settled.

The scheduling of Obama's "final" speech on terrorism also comes as the president is set to meet with his top foreign policy advisers on Friday to consider their military and other options in Syria, as Syrian and Russian aircraft continue to pummel Aleppo and other targets. Reuters reported that some top U.S. officials are pushing for the administration to act more forcefully in Syria or risk losing what influence it still has over moderate rebels and its Arab, Kurdish and Turkish allies in the fight against Islamic State.

Mr. Obama has deployed more than 300 U.S. Special Forces in Syria to advise local fighters in the battle against Islamic State extremists. The U.S. suffered its first combat death in Syria last week when a service member was killed in the northern part of the country.

Against that backdrop of low-profile but indisputably growing military involvement, Mr. Obama visited wounded soldiers Tuesday at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. During the trip that he performs four times a year, aides said Obama met with 13 wounded service members and awarded the Purple Heart to 12 of them.

Neither the White House nor the Pentagon provided information Thursday on the soldiers' identities, nor the theaters of operation in which they were wounded.

Asked how U.S. troops could be injured or killed by hostile fire if they are not in combat situations, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said their mission ordered by Mr. Obama "is one that's dangerous and, in some cases, requires them to pay the ultimate sacrifice."

But he again drew a distinction between Obama's strategy and the large-scale ground invasion ordered by President George W. Bush in 2003.

"That strategy didn't work," he said. "And we're still to this day dealing with the consequences of that poor strategy."

MacDill Air Force Base is the home of the U.S. Special Operations Command and the U.S. Central Command. While at the base on Tuesday, the president will meet with uniformed leadership from both commands, and with some of the special forces who have been central to the administration's strategy against the Islamic State.

"The president will offer his personal gratitude and that of the nation for the professionalism, skill, and sacrifice of those American patriots," Earnest said.

He said Obama's speech will focus on "our strategy and the gains we have made, while staying true to the values that have always been at America's core."

"This speech will be a final opportunity for him to discuss at length how he has effectively, durably, and successfully implemented reforms to keep us safe," Mr. Earnest said.

The preview strongly hinted that Mr. Obama will defend his counterterrorism strategy, which has been sharply criticized by President-elect Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, as the correct path forward for the incoming administration.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #21 

Restoring the U. S. military's morale


Retired admiral, James A. Lyons, (WashingtonTimes) says that as has been seen over the last eight years, diplomacy that results in capitulation is not very effective. The key underlying factor for successful diplomacy is not just having a clear understanding of our vital strategic objectives, but also the military credibility to achieve those objectives as necessary.

As a first order of business, we need to review and redefine our strategic objectives and what is vital to our national interest. For example, does our current involvement in Afghanistan make any sense as it relates to our vital strategic interests? Of course not. So why do we continue to expend our national treasure to sustain a corrupt tribal society?

Concurrently, in order to restore our world leadership credentials we must reverse the decline of our military capabilities. There is no question that sequestration has decimated our military forces. It will take several years to rebuild the force structure to levels that are required for what we define as a "ready response" force. However, there are actions and programs that can be enacted now that will immediately raise morale and the readiness of our existing forces.

Since we are still involved in combat operations in the Middle East, any remaining restricted rules of engagement must be removed. That does not mean we will be indiscriminate on how we conduct combat operations. Nonetheless, no longer will our aircraft be returning from a strike mission with only 20 percent, or even none, of their ordnance expended.

The next step that must be taken is to restore the moral underpinnings of our military forces by cancelling, as a matter of priority, the social engineering mandates of the Obama administration. This includes the secretary of defense's latest mandate to force our military to accept transgender personnel. As Paul McHugh, former head psychologist at Johns Hopkins University Hospital has stated, transgenderism is not a physical issue, it is a mental disorder that needs understanding and treatment. It is not a civil rights issue and should never be forced on our military.

In trying to substantiate his decision to incorporate transgender personnel into the military, Secretary Ashton Carter's assertion that the removal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been a resounding success is more than an overstatement. The last known published figures were in 2014. In that year there were more than 10,000 male-on-male unwanted advances. Remember, this is just the reported numbers. If this is success, I would hate to see what the secretary of defense thinks failure would look like. In my view, the LGBT agenda is actually a slow slide into paganism.

The secretary of defense has disregarded a plethora of well-documented studies, including a recently completed, nine-month study by the U.S. Marine Corps -- all of which show combat effectiveness is degraded for a variety of well-founded reasons when women are placed in combat roles. His decision to open up all combat roles to women must be overturned. There are many viable roles for women in the military -- combat is not one of them!

Separately, the secretary of the Navy has recently issued a directive to change all traditional enlisted rating names to make them gender neutral. This makes absolutely no sense unless it is to destroy more than 240 years of Navy customs and traditions. In fact, the entire social engineering program that has been forced on our military does not improve readiness or capability, so why is it being done? Is it being done to destroy military customs and traditions, as well as our warrior mentality?

Another administrative decision that needs to be removed is the stigma of political correctness. The most despicable example of this is the failure to properly identify the enemy and its doctrine. The enemy is not "violent extremism." In fact, it is not "radical Islam." The enemy was best described by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey when he was prime minister. He stated, "Islam is Islam -- there are no modifiers. Democracy is the train we ride to achieve our ultimate objective, which is make Islam the dominant religion throughout the world." Clearly, Islam is a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination, masquerading as a religion. The goal is to replace our Constitution with the seventh-century draconian Shariah law. It should be noted that Muslims do not consider Islam a religion but a "way of life." Until Islam is understood to be the main threat to our Constitution and the freedoms we enjoy, we will not be successful in defeating this enemy.

Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood and its various front organizations, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), et al., with their effective penetration of all our government agencies, including the White House, will make a major effort to prevent the American public from understanding the Islamic threat and the global jihad movement. However, we can counter their anticipated efforts by not only purging them from our government agencies, but by also reopening the 2008 Holy Land Foundation Trial. This would revive the legal prosecution of CAIR, ISNA and their many front organizations.

It would also have a major impact on many of the more than 2,700 mosques and their radical imams in the United States who preach sedition. A plan needs to be developed to close those mosques that preach sedition, and deport or prosecute their imams.

All of these actions could be implemented in the first 100 days of the Trump administration and would be a positive step in restoring our credibility and capabilities.

James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #22 

Pentagon quietly tells servicemen they can arm themselves after Trump win

This must be comforting to candidate enlistees

The Conservative Tribune is reporting that the Department of Defense released an official directive last week to allow U.S. military personnel to request permission to carry concealed handguns for protection at government facilities.

The directive came in response to a series of deadly shootings at military sites in recent years. Domestic military bases need no longer be "gun-free zones," a change the department has been working on for several years.

Service members already had the authority to carry weapons as part of specific job responsibilities, but the new policy would also allow them to carry privately owned firearms "for personal protection not associated with the performance of official duties," the directive said, according to Military Times.

The directive was reportedly approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, according to International Business Times.

The directive also clarified when military recruiters could be armed, said Army Maj. Jamie Davis, a Defense Department spokesman.

Commanders have always had authority to arm recruiters, but the language wasn't straightforward, Davis explained.

"Some of the wording wasn't very clear, so they've gone through and cleaned it up so it is very clear now that the commanders have that authority to use at their discretion," Davis told Military Times on Monday.

The policy was a response to an NRA-backed provision in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act that required the Defense Department to allow more service members to carry firearms on base.

"It is a good first step in that it recognizes personal protection is a valid issue for service members, but there are many roadblocks in the way of making that option available," NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the Washington Free Beacon.

Those wishing to apply for permission to carry a firearm must be at least 21 years old and meet all federal, state and local laws, the directive said.

It would appear that the Pentagon saw no problems with implementing a policy for which President-elect Donald Trump has expressed support.

The immediate institution of this directive probably left Barack Obama incensed, but he undoubtedly realized that there was nothing he could do to prevent its implementation in a couple of months anyway. And that's good news because it works to ensure the safety of our troops, which should always be a priority.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #23 

The Trump counterrevolution in military affairs


Aaron MacLean (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that after eight years of an Obama Pentagon, certain defense issues were meant to be settled, finished, over, dead -- shot by a firing squad composed of History and Progress and rolled without ceremony into shallow graves. The list included the integration of women into combat jobs, the normalization of transgender troops, and the importance of green energy to the military. The imposition of draft registration on women, though not yet accomplished, was thought to be all but inevitable.

Especially on the social issues, conservative national security experts had long felt they were defending less and less favorable terrain, forced to make arguments the country (not to mention the president and his appointees) didn't want to hear. Eventually, there seemed to emerge a kind of unspoken consensus that it wasn't worth contesting these issues, because the limited political capital of national security conservatives was needed for more important debates, like the size of the Pentagon's budget.

Well, that was then. "Social conservative" isn't exactly the description that springs to mind when one thinks of Donald Trump, but the fact is that social conservatives are in his coalition, and a fair few of them are going to get government appointments, including in the Defense Department -- where their decisions will be subject to oversight from a Republican Congress. Additionally, there are those who, regardless of political labels, were always skeptical of imposing policies on the military that appeared to have political purposes beyond combat effectiveness.

Consider the case of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R., Calif.) a Marine reserve officer, outspoken critic of the Obama administration, and an early Trump backer. Speaking to the Washington Times' Rowan Scarborough, Hunter called this morning for an "armed forces counterrevolution" that reverses policies that have "cut down on the warrior mentality." Scarborough reports that Hunter is under consideration for "Navy secretary or even secretary of defense."

Replacing the historically terrible Ray Mabus with Hunter would be a reversal on the order of Obama finding himself succeeded by Trump. Hunter's definition of a counterrevolution includes reopening the issues of women in combat and transgender service members, restoring the word "man" to titles in the Navy and Marine Corps (nixed by this year by Mabus, but for a handful of exceptions), and restoring the Navy's traditional rating system -- an esoteric subject for outsiders, but another Mabus-driven reform that has caused an uproar amongst sailors.

Such a tack to the right would be popular among the troops, a narrow plurality of whom supported Trump for president in a September Military Times poll -- close second was Gary Johnson, by the way, with Clinton a distant, distant third. Moreover, Obama earned a shockingly low 15 percent approval rating in another Military Times survey taken at the end of 2014 -- a number the paper attributed, in part, to the social liberalism of his administration.

But that's the troops. Senior officers have spent eight years adapting to the reality of the Obama administration, which has, in turn, appointed officers assumed to be copacetic with its own worldview. On the social issues, public stands on principle have been rare -- General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was a rare exception when, along with the General Robert Neller, the Marine Corps Commandant, he recommended certain exemptions for opening combat jobs for females late last year, only to be overruled by Ash Carter.

Moreover, it is less politically costly to prevent "reform" than it is to reverse it, and Trump administration counterrevolutionaries could find themselves dealing with a insurgency able to draw on plenty of support from the media, the out-of-power defense establishment, and from liberal pressure groups -- who are already preparing to fight, and who are happy to take their issues to the courts. There is also the question of how much cover such efforts would really get from the White House, and from a president who has sent mixed signals on these issues. In some areas, compromise may end up being more realistic than a complete rollback: for example, granting the Marine Corps the well-documented exemption it originally requested on women in combat, without imposing a stop order on an Army that seems to have happily adopted the policies of the Obama administration.

But the mere fact that we are even having this conversation again shows just how much, and how quickly, things have changed.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #24 

Military experts urge Donald Trump to reverse Obama's social engineering policies


Jonah Bennett (DailyCaller) is reporting that military experts are hoping that President-elect Donald Trump will move to reverse a spate of social engineering policies in the Department of Defense pushed by the Obama administration.

Radical social engineering policies in the military have dangerously "cut down on the warrior mentality," according to GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, The Washington Times reports. Hunter -- an early Trump supporter -- is a key member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

For Hunter, Trump's secretary of defense needs to eliminate women in combat roles, reverse the decision to allow transgenders to serve openly and bring back the word "man" in Navy and Marine Corps job titles.

Hunter himself is being potentially considered for secretary of the Navy, or even defense secretary, given his early support of Trump.

On the point of women in combat, Hunter noted that, "It doesn't do anything to further our capacity as war fighters. It doesn't do anything to make us more effective or efficient at getting the job done and killing our enemies and protecting our allies. It's just a distraction. It's not like there are thousands of women getting into the infantry now. It will never be that way."

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, agreed wholeheartedly with the plan to reverse women serving in combat roles.

"Those policies have to be rolled back," Donnelly told Military Times. "Right now the policy is that women can and will be assigned to ground combat units. That pronouncement can indeed be changed by a future secretary of defense."

At this point, not a single woman has applied to the Navy SEALs. Only one woman has attempted to become a Green Beret and failed. No women have passed the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course. One woman tried for Air Force special operations and left after she sustained an injury.

Hunter also thinks the June 30 decision allowing transgenders to serve openly in the military needs to be done away with.

"Ridiculous," Hunter told The Washington Times. "Overturn it immediately because it doesn't make any sense. How does that help you fight and win wars? That's what I think Trump is going to bring to this -- some common sense. Period."

"Having transgender operations paid for by the U.S. taxpayer is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of because it doesn't do anything to help America project power or to fight and win its wars," Hunter added. "Nothing. There's no upside to it whatsoever."

Although Trump rails against political correctness, whether he will attempt to touch LGBT gains in the military remains to be seen. In his recent "60 Minutes" interview, Trump said he was fine with gay marriage and would not push for its invalidation, breaking from the views of Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

But if Trump decides to reverse women in combat roles, for example, the process is relatively easy. In other words, the policy could simply be reversed unilaterally, as Congress has not gotten involved by adding any extra laws.

"It's a very tricky subject," Trump told CBS News in December. "You're in there and you're fighting and you're sitting next to a woman, and now they want to be politically correct. They want to do it, but there are major problems. And, as you know, there are many people that think this shouldn't be done, at a high level, at a level of general."

Related:  VA drops rule to allow transgender surgeries

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #25 

Air Force announces it will mandate diversity quotas for key positions

Jonah Bennett (DailyCaller) is reporting that the Air Force announced a new set of 13 inclusion initiatives Friday with the goal of ensuring the force isn't as white, male and heterosexual as it is now.

Air Force officials are intent on building upon a foundation of nine initiatives from 2015, in order to boost diversity.

Those nine initiatives weren't enough to make the Air Force as diverse as desired, which is why it is taking more intensive steps in 2016.

The first new initiative mandates that at least one diverse candidate will have to be in the running for important developmental positions like aide-de camp, senior enlisted advisor and executive officer, among other roles.

"This initiative will require that the pool of Airmen considered for key military developmental positions… include at least one qualified, diverse candidate," the Air Force's new fact sheet reads, before going on to say that mandating diverse candidates in the selection pool does not mandate actually hiring that diverse candidate for the position.

A second proposal, however, declares that Development Teams (DTs) and Command Selection Boards (CSBs), both intimately involved in the selection process, must have a certain number of diverse candidates sitting on them.

More dramatically, the CSB or DT president must "assess the diversity of both the selectees and those not selected for command following the board's decision." In other words, the heads of these boards will have to provide clear justification if they decide to make decisions that run-up against diversity goals.

To head-off immediate criticisms of the far-reaching proposals, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein recently insisted to Air Force Times in an interview: "This is not about social engineering. This is about maintaining a competitive advantage."

Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James put down her foot and said she wants to make the demographics of the service match more closely with the changing demographics of America.

"This is the way America is," James said. "America is a diverse population, and we don't want to shut down pieces of the population from which we can recruit. We want the best we can possibly get from all sectors."

And to get the best from all sectors, as the Air Force puts it, commanders will be pressured to choose diverse airmen as recruiters to boost diversity in the service.

But even as diversity increases, there are still numerous key positions that don't seem to attract diverse candidates, namely pilots, cyber operations, intelligence operations and space and missile operations, which is very upsetting to Air Force officials.

So in careers where there isn't a lot of diversity, commanders will have to come up with plans explaining why airmen in those positions are mostly white, male heterosexuals and how commanders can work towards changing that representation.

Although the Air Force already has unconscious bias training, the service wants to change the dates of the training to take place just before officials make key career decisions.

"To the fullest extent possible, unconscious bias training will be given immediately prior to promotion boards, prior to DT meetings on school assignments, prior to civilian hiring panels, and prior to annual performance evaluations," the fact sheet notes.

Air Force officials have argued in the past that diversity is a national security imperative.

"Diversity and inclusion are national security imperatives," Air Force Director of Diversity and Inclusion Chevalier Cleaves said in 2015. "So we must succeed. There is no second place for us. In order to do that, we need to make sure that we leverage the talent of all Americans, not just some."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved