Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 15     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
Capt Joe

Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #126 
At least when I served in the USAF during the Vietnam era we didn't have to worry about the squadron commander going ballistic because he couldn't find his bra and jockstrap before suiting up! 

I feel sorry for any of these multi-configured de-genderized troops if they are captured by the bearded ones. It's a long trip down from the top of the building.

God help us!

**** Hillary=Obama 2.0 ****

Posts: 101
Reply with quote  #127 
God and Religion are already under attack for removal from the fabric of our society (except Islam).  The Navy is trying to oust a chaplain for practicing his faith.  Supposedly he is not in tune with today's culture.  Right--and as it was pointed out by his lawyer, faith is part of the a warrior and the success of our fighting forces and is the reason we founded this country.  Why is Congress letting  all of this happen and when will they have the guts to stand up for our country! If they pass this trade treaty we are doomed.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #128 

Heaven help us!

WND is reporting that the American military this month is celebrating homosexuality with a series of events, including a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month at the Pentagon, where Brig. Gen. Randy S. Taylor introduced the crowd to his "husband."

This week's event, the fourth such annual celebration of homosexuality in the military to be held at the Pentagon, featured Defense Secretary Ash Carter as the keynote speaker.

Carter said he was "proud" to announce the military's equal-opportunity policy now includes sexual orientation.

Intoning "discrimination of any kind has no place in America's armed forces," the secretary said, "Embracing diversity and inclusion is critical to recruiting and retaining the force of the future."

The policy change will allow homosexuals and other sexual minorities to use the military's chain of command to launch complaints of alleged "discrimination" due to sexual orientation.

The LGBT Pride Month Event also contained a panel discussion with a "gay" Marine officer, a "gay" Army sergeant, a lesbian chaplain and Amanda Simpson, executive director of the Army's Office of Energy Initiatives and a "transgender." Simpson is a civilian employee, as despite the military's ostensible celebration of transgenders, they are still banned from the armed services.

However, even that may change soon. In August 2014, the Defense Department weakened the prohibition on transgenders serving in the military and gave more discretion to the individual services to handle the issue.

The Air Force already has implemented a new policy that makes it more difficult to discharge transgenders, as airmen with gender dysphoria, or who self-identify as transgender, will now have their medical discharges be given an Air Force headquarters review.

Air Force Secretary Deborah James has also stated transgenders should not be automatically disqualified from serving. The Army has also implemented policies making it more difficult to discharge transgenders.

Additionally, activist groups are stepping up their efforts to end the ban on transgenders. In March, the American Military Partner Association, a pro-homosexual and transgender activist group, issued a report in partnership with the Transgender American Veterans Association condemning "outdated military medical policies and regulations [that] prevent transgender people from serving openly and honestly, harming both transgender service members and their families."

Only a few months later, such rhetoric was being echoed by more mainstream groups. On June 8, the American Medical Association approved a resolution declaring "there is no medically valid reason to exclude transgender individuals from service in the U.S. military."

Furthermore, the resolution slammed current military medical regulations as "out of date with respect to medical consensus about gender identity."

Such a consensus may or may not actually exist. Dr. Paul McHugh, a former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, recently argued a sex change is "biologically impossible" and cited the high suicide rates of post-operative transsexuals as evidence "transgenderism" is a mental disorder.

Such rapid cultural change is driving many Christians out of the American military, who report they feel unwelcome in the new institutional culture. Efforts to expand "tolerance" to homosexuals and transgenders have also led to disciplinary actions taken against military chaplains who hold to traditional views of sexual morality.

Paul Kengor, a university professor, historian and author of "Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage," argues such change results from a combined political and cultural offensive by the "radical left."

He told WND: "What you're seeing here is the Left's and Obama's fundamental transformation of the military. This is the cultural revolution and long march through America's most cherished institutions that the radical left, particularly the cultural Marxists, have long sought. This is a takedown.

"They were very shrewd. They understood that once you captured culture via education, media, and Hollywood, the rest would fall in due course. And as Americans become increasingly secular and individualistic and relativistic, they've been fairly easy prey. The left took the public schools, the universities, media and social media, Hollywood, and now the Boy Scouts and even the military."

As evidence of this deliberate campaign, Kengor cited the media's celebration of Bruce Jenner's transformation to "Caitlyn" and the recent spate of television shows targeted at children and young people celebrating transgenders.

Kengor observes: "I must say that I'm tempted to congratulate them. They've worked long and hard and patiently at this. Unfortunately, it's just such a shame because they're ruining what was once a great country. The left laughed at Ronald Reagan's description of America as a Shining City Upon a Hill. Well, they can take comfort in the fact that it ain't no Shining City no more."

Kengor believes military culture is simply following the same cultural trends as the rest of society. He notes homosexuality and other sexually deviant behavior was once seen as a reason to deny a security clearance. However, as public morality has shifted, Kengor argues it is impossible to expect the military to remain permanently aloof from society.

"As for military men openly acknowledging gay 'husbands' -- hey, why not? Once upon a time in America, such a spousal arrangement would have been a huge security risk inviting instant possibility of blackmail," he said.

"But that's no longer the case in a culture and country where behavior like this is celebrated as a joyous expression of liberation and self-expression. In the new fundamentally transformed America, these two soldiers are no longer security risks; they're cultural icons. They're the new heroes. They are the new G.I. Joes."

Kengor warns Americans the new sexually progressive military is unlikely to produce the kinds of legendary military heroes prior generations of Americans once idolized. Indeed, Kengor says many heroic Americans would find no place in the armed services of today.

"I guess I'll be the one to ask the politically incorrect but obvious question: What would George Patton think of this? Of course, we all know that he was a mere hate-filled homophobe whose abiding anti-marriage-equality bigotry should have forever disqualified him from disserving our military."

More importantly, said Kengor, the transformation of the military into a pro-homosexual and pro-transgender force is only a step toward what he sees as the left's final goal of driving religion entirely out of public life.

"Marriage is within their grasp. What's next? The greatest foe of all: God and religion. A victory there would be the secular left's ideological apotheosis."

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #129 

Obama's Islamic State strategy sparks doubt, resentment among Pentagon officials

Norvell Rose is reporting that Beneath the glowing battle reports about Iraq from U.S. military spokesmen in recent months, there remains a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction among the Pentagon rank and file with Team Obama's Islamic State strategy.

"What strategy?" asked a Pentagon official involved in counterterrorism analysis. "We are now floating along, reacting to ISIS," using a common acronym for the Islamic State.

This source said the military has a plan for introducing ground troops and defeating the Islamist group, but the belief is that Obama will never activate it.

Whether this unhappiness has reached the inner sanctum of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is unclear. In public, the military leadership says it is squarely behind the strategy of limited U.S.-led airstrikes coinciding with the rebuilding of the Iraq army for all the ground fighting.

But a Washington Times spot check of department officials and people who interact with the Pentagon reveals deep-seated doubts.

The Islamic State's rout of Ramadi on May 18 exposed more than the Iraqi army's lack of will to fight, as Defense Secretary Ashton Carter bluntly put it over the weekend.

After months of U.S. and coalition airstrikes on hundreds of Islamic State targets, after U.S. surveillance and intelligence collection, and with senior American officers advising Iraqis at a joint command center, the battlefield outcome still was no better than the rout of Mosul 11 months ago.

A former official who is frequently in the Pentagon said, "The building is very guarded about what they say, but clearly the White House is running the campaign, which has them furious."

This source said combat pilots can loiter over a target for hours before approval comes to strike it. Sometimes approval never comes.

"The targeting requires immaculate rules of engagement, which means they cannot drop if there is a possibility of collateral damage [civilian deaths]," the former official said.

U.S. Central Command's list of airstrikes around Ramadi showed a smattering of tactical strikes, not concentrated air power.

On May 18, the day Ramadi fell, Central Command listed three targets as being struck around Ramadi -- two tactical units and an Islamic State staging area. Destroyed there were an armored vehicle, an excavator and a resupply vehicle.

On the previous day, as Islamic State fighters were taking control of Ramadi, eight airstrikes hit targets near the city. They were three tactical units, eight buildings, two armored vehicles, two mortars, an ammunition storage area and a command center.

"This is worse than pathetic," the former official said.

Another annoying development, the source said, is the lack of American arms making their way from the Shiite-led national government in Baghdad to Iraqi Kurdish forces in the north. They have proven to be one of the few Iraqi units willing to take on the Islamic State.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #130 
NDAA cuts military personnel slots -- could add illegal aliens to service force
Alex Swoyer says that if the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 is approved, it would shrink the United States military under the pretense of frugality, namely by "pink slipping" career service members who've endured combat. Meanwhile, it could possibly use the military to grant amnesty to illegals.

According to a summary of the NDAA, the House Armed Services Committee supports a 20 percent cut in personnel by the Department of Defense to reduce headquarters' budgets and workforce.

Breitbart News previously reported the proposal contains language that would use the military to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens if they enlist in the military -- essentially meaning that in addition to the cuts of Americans from service, Congress and the administration would be allowing illegal aliens to take scarce service jobs from Americans.

Breitbart reported, "The House Armed Services Committee has already passed the NDAA which contained the secretive amnesty for illegal aliens. The nature of the amnesty is that those so-called ‘DREAMer' illegal aliens who have received President Barack Obama's first executive amnesty -- the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which currently just shy of a million illegal aliens have received -- would now be able to get legislative and permanent amnesty if they enlisted in the United States Armed Forces."

Reps. Dave Brat (R-VA) and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) previously responded to the amnesty provision in a joint statement.

"With passage of this amendment, a majority on the Armed Services Committee urged the Secretary of Defense to hire DACA illegal immigrants, rather than American citizens, at the same time the Pentagon is in the process of laying off tens of thousands of American troops," Brat and Brooks said in a joint statement.

"According to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, the active Army will be cut by and/or lay off more than 80,000 uniformed personnel by the end of fiscal year 2017. Further, competition for enlistment is so challenging that American high-school graduates now face, 'more difficulty qualifying for the armed services than ever in the 40-year history of the all-volunteer force,'" they added.

Related:  GOP members take a stand against allowing illegals to enlist in US military

There's a war coming with Islam and Obama is going to make sure that we are ill-prepared.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #131 

Protecting sage grouse could hurt military

Fox News is reporting that Efforts to protect the greater sage grouse under the federal Endangered Species Act could hurt training operations at numerous U.S. military facilities in the West, according to a new report by the Army.


The report looked at the impact of protecting sage grouse on the Yakima Training Center in Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada; the Wyoming National Guard; Tooele Army Depot and Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.

It found that protecting the birds would restrict the availability of training lands; limit the size of training lands and ranges; restrict the use of firing points; and impose restrictions on future development and construction.

The greatest impacts would occur at the Yakima Training Center, a 327,000-acre facility in central Washington that provides desert-like training conditions for the U.S. Army that includes live fire of ammunition and maneuver training.

The Yakima center supports one of four populations of greater sage grouse in the state, within a 77,000-acre preserve, and already operates in a way to minimize impacts on the birds, according to the report released this week by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment.

But a listing under the Endangered Species Act would impact "the ability to meet the training mission," the report said.

If the greater sage grouse is listed, 11 gunnery ranges would be shut down from Feb. 1 to June 15 of each year, among numerous other restrictions, it said

U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., who represents the Yakima area in Congress, said listing the grouse would hurt vital military training.

"This administration's restrictive regulatory interpretation reveals misplaced priorities," Newhouse said. "Unnecessary environmental rules should not take priority over national security and military readiness."

Meanwhile, the U.S. House Armed Services Committee is considering a proposal to delay a listing decision for greater sage grouse for at least 10 years and transfer management of millions of acres of federal lands to western states.

"This provision would fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act and put a halt to bipartisan and collaborative efforts across 10 states intended to avoid listing the greater sage grouse," said U.S. Rep. Nicola Tsongas, D-Mass., who tried unsuccessfully Wednesday to kill the measure.

Tsongas' failed amendment drew support from Defenders of Wildlife, which said military installations across the West have done an admirable job conserving sage grouse without compromising military readiness.

"Sage-grouse are certainly no threat to national security and should not be used as an excuse to give the states control over millions of acres of federal lands," the organization said in a prepared statement.

In an op-ed article in Roll Call this week, three former military officers criticized the possible listing.

The move could make "Yakima all but useless for six months of every year," wrote Joseph E. Schmitz, Marc Rogers and William G. Boykin. "The Army could be required to transfer up to 5,000 soldiers across the country to receive similar training."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a Sept. 30 deadline to decide whether to propose the greater sage grouse for federal protection.

The chicken-sized bird once numbered in the millions, but current estimates put the population between 200,000 and 500,000.

Experts blame loss of habitat to development and, in the past decade, massive wildfires blamed on a warming climate and invasive species.

Western state governors and federal officials are trying to avoid a listing. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell in January issued an order seeking a science-based approach to find a way to stop wildfire and other threats to protect sage grouse habitat.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #132 

Humiliation! Politically correct Army forces ROTC cadets to wear high heels

Streiff says this, to put it charitably, is freakin' insane.


Army ROTC cadets are complaining on message boards that they were pressured to walk in high heels on Monday for an Arizona State University campus event designed to raise awareness of sexual violence against women.

The Army openly encouraged participating in April's "Walk A Mile in Her Shoes" events in 2014, but now it appears as though ROTC candidates at ASU were faced with a volunteer event that became mandatory.

This doesn't appear to be some sort of rogue action. According to cadets commenting on the subject the order comes from the top: Major General Peggy Combs, commanding general of US Army Cadet Command. And it is highly coercive:


A ding on an evaluation that you don't support the command's EO program is a guarantee that you won't get promoted while on active duty. As a cadet it will probably prevent you from being selected to go on active duty rather than receiving a 90-day active duty for training billet and moved into the Guard or Reserve. It has also against Army Regulations to require soldiers to buy items of clothing for wear while on duty.

I contacted the US Army Cadet Command and asked them about this. I received a response from the command public affairs officer, Mister Mike Johnson. According to Mr. Johnson, ROTC detachments were directed to participate in university activities that focus on reducing sexual assault. No instructions were given on how they were to participate. Participation by cadets was not mandatory and no directive was given to penalize absent cadets. According to Mr. Johnson, only 15 or so cadets at Temple participated as the walk was held during class hours. The Army did not require the purchase of high heels and is looking into that question.

Clearly, the message Cadet Command tells me it sent is not the message that was received in the field. And unless there is a widespread conspiracy to lie about what happened, the Cadet Command needs to examine what the hell is going on and take a serious look at who it has running ROTC "battalions". However, even in its best light this is a problematic exercise. Do ROTC cadets, in uniform, wearing red high heels really demonstrate anything about sexual assault? What lesson are these young men and women supposed to take away from this? How about pride in wearing the US Army uniform? How about the number of men that are coming forward with complaints of sexual assault ? Don't men count?

More to the point, this is what we are training future commissioned officers: wearing heels lets you understand women. Can you think of anything more superficial?

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #133 

The feminist fantasy of women in combat

Matthew Vadum says Barack Obama seems hellbent on forcing the women of the U.S. military into direct combat units at great potential risk both to themselves and their fellow soldiers.

Obama supplicants in the military have been cowed by radical feminist ideology. They are promoting change for the sake of ideology, not because it is actually needed.

Two years ago the current Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey called for a "critical mass" or "significant cohort" of women to be placed in combat. Standards in excess of what female soldiers can achieve should be questioned, he said. The so-called "Dempsey Rule" holds that if something is too difficult for women, the standards will eventually have to be ratcheted down to "equal but lower" levels.

Under Obama's leadership the Pentagon is committed to what former Joint Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen dubbed "diversity as a strategic imperative."

"Diversity," of course, is perhaps the preeminent shibboleth of the Left today and it has a growing body count.

Diversity and the corresponding fear of making members of particular social groups feel uncomfortable, probably contributed to the enemy's success in attacking the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. Leading up to 9/11, some government officials noticed Muslim visitors to America behaving suspiciously but they were afraid of connecting the dots. Doing so might have reinforced negative stereotypes about Arabs, which in addition to not being nice, would have constituted a crime against diversity.

Then there was the case of U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American of Palestinian ancestry who openly described himself as a soldier of Allah on business cards. Hasan was convicted of fatally shooting 13 people and attempting to murder another 32 in his attack at Fort Hood in 2009. Officials were aware of his loud opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, his Muslim proselytizing, and his connections to dangerous Islamists. But they decided not to make waves by connecting the dots because doing so might have hurt somebody's feelings. Move along; nothing to see here.

After the Fort Hood massacre, the clueless now-retired U.S. Army Gen. George Casey continued to stand by diversity as some kind of magical tool that makes America a nicer, better place.

"Our diversity, not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength," Casey said. "And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."


The same virulent strain of political correctness infects local fire departments across America, some of which routinely induct women as firefighters. Sure, it may be "equality," but if you need to be carried down the stairs of a burning building, would you prefer to be rescued by a big strong man or a woman who probably doesn't have the same muscle power or as much endurance? Some women may be drawn to the idea of fighting fires for a living but very few of them can meet the demanding physical requirements to become firefighters.

There is no harm in allowing women to try out for a position, but to pursue a policy that forces women onto fire departments through a kind of affirmative action is madness. This focus on equality instead of competence is a recipe for mediocrity and death.

Now the feminist expression of the deadly diversity agenda is ripping through the nation's military structure like a slow-moving tsunami.

Obama announced in 2013 that he intended to rescind rules that exempt female soldiers from serving in direct combat units such as the infantry. The move came two years after the Department of Defense's Military Leadership Diversity Commission released a report endorsing co-ed land combat to advance "gender diversity metrics," which is another way of saying "quotas." The goal is to repeal current standards, which stress merit and competence, and replace them with "gender-neutral" standards by January 2016.

"There is no need to push this agenda; for decades women in the military have been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men," according to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.

"The gender diversity ideology is not about ending discrimination; it is about demographic group rights," Donnelly told FrontPage.

Full implementation would have the effect of enforcing "gender-neutral" standards that are equal but lower than before. This would leave men less prepared for combat realities that have not changed, and women subject to resentment they do not deserve.

Federal lawmakers need to start asking tough questions, Donnelly says.

Parachuting women into combat roles is what happens when fevered left-wing utopianism takes over the Pentagon. Radicals on the Left are animated by a morbid obsession with equality, not by results or even by helping people. To them rigid adherence to politically correct fantasies trumps all other concerns. If soldiers die as a result of nutty policies, left-wingers rationalize that -- damn the torpedoes! -- it's just the price that has to be paid for their perverse vision of social justice.

It is a fact that women service members are disproportionately more likely to suffer serious injuries in combat. Why should the military adopt policies that will increase the number of physically-disabled female veterans, Donnelly wants to know.

She notes that the U.S. Marine Corps began a multi-stage research project to figure out if women could meet male physical standards.

Since 2012, 29 female Marine officers have tried but flunked the Infantry Officer Course. Only four even made it past the first day on the extraordinarily difficult course that prepares soldiers to lead others in battle.

Upwards of 90 female volunteers made it though the easier infantry course for enlisted personnel, but the Corps had to wave a requirement to perform three pull-ups because more than half of the women couldn't do it. And the Army conducted a survey in which more than 90 percent of women indicated they did not want to serve in combat.

Donnelly cites a study unveiled by the UK's Ministry of Defence this past December that laid bare the problems inherent in female participation in combat operations. Though it may not have been the goal of its authors, the 29-page Review Paper makes a convincing case against co-ed combat, and explains what actually happens when a military force "close[s] with and kill[s] the enemy."

Ground close combat (GCC) involves "the requirement to deploy on foot over difficult terrain, carrying substantial weight, to engage in close quarter fighting, recuperate in the field and then do the same again repeatedly over an extended period." The report states that:

The nature of conflict is immutable; GCC will remain an intense, visceral and unavoidably physical activity [involving] violent death, injury, all-pervading concussive noise, horror, fear, blood and high levels of emotion . . . Combat exposes inadequacies and applies manifold stresses [that] . . . are likely to occur repeatedly throughout combat operations and require high levels of both mental and physical endurance.

Experts in Great Britain studied what bearing the mixing of the sexes on the battlefield had on 21 factors that affect combat effectiveness. Eleven of those factors were thought to have "negative" effects on combat effectiveness and of those only three "cannot be mitigated by changes to structure or training." These three unisex categories were "Survivability & Lethality, Deployability, and Morbidity." (Donnelly describes the latter as "vulnerability to injury or illness.")

The report notes that "[W]omen have smaller hearts, about 30% less muscle, and a slighter skeleton with wider pelvic bones resulting in less explosive power and upper body strength." These differences in physiology "disadvantage women by 20 to 40%; so for the same output women have to work harder than men."

"Output," Donnelly explains, refers to "survivability and lethality," or as she puts it, "staying alive and killing the enemy." Shortcomings in strength and endurance are likely to lead to "early onset of fatigue [and] a distinct cohort with lower survivability in combat … Similar research points to a reduced lethality rate; in that combat marksmanship degrades as a result of fatigue when the combat load increases in proportion to body weight and strength."

Women are hit disproportionately with injuries, the report says. "[T]he rate of trauma and overuse lower limb MSK (musculoskeletal injury) remains two-fold higher. . . and the rate of hip and pelvic stress fractures is ten-fold higher in women."

"Some female athletes can outrun men," Donnelly adds, "but not with 83 pound combat march loads on their backs."

The risk of musculoskeletal injury shoots up in the first 12 months after a woman gives birth and in the more intensive combat roles "potential chronic risks may include irreversible bone fragility and infertility," the report states. Although female "physical elites" may be strong, they remain "more susceptible to acute short term injury than men."

Should we be sending all these women to die or get horribly maimed for the sake of equality? And how many other soldiers of either sex will be killed or crippled because a female recruit wasn't up to the task?

Some may say that this is the price of the feminist-driven enforced equality of the sexes. There are no doubt some men (and women) who will say there is no problem. Women campaigned for decades for equality and now they're getting it so they should stop complaining. Besides, women, unlike men still aren't required by law to register with the Selective Service.

But these objections miss what's really important here.

What we should be concerned about is whether forcing women into combat is good for America, not about effectuating someone's political ideology.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #134 

Army morale low despite 6-year, $287M optimism program

Gregg Zoroya is reporting that more than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient, findings obtained by USA TODAY show.

Twelve months of data through early 2015 show that 403,564 soldiers, or 52%, scored badly in the area of optimism, agreeing with statements such as "I rarely count on good things happening to me." Forty-eight percent have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs.

The results stem from resiliency assessments that soldiers are required to take every year. In 2014, for the first time, the Army pulled data from those assessments to help commanders gauge the psychological and physical health of their troops.

The effort produced startlingly negative results. In addition to low optimism and job satisfaction, more than half reported poor nutrition and sleep, and only 14% said they are eating right and getting enough rest.

The Army began a program of positive psychology in 2009 in the midst of two wars and as suicide and mental illness were on the rise. To measure resiliency the Army created a confidential, online questionnaire that all soldiers, including the National Guard and Reserve, must fill out once a year.

Last year, Army scientists applied formulas to gauge service-wide morale based on the assessments. The results demonstrate that positive psychology "has not had much impact in terms of overall health," says David Rudd, president of the University of Memphis who served on a scientific panel critical of the resiliency program.

The Army offered contradictory responses to the findings obtained by USA TODAY. Sharyn Saunders, chief of the Army Resiliency Directorate that produced the data, initially disavowed the results. "I've sat and looked at your numbers for quite some time and our team can't figure out how your numbers came about," she said in an interview in March.

However, when USA TODAY provided her the supporting Army documents this week, her office acknowledged the data but said the formulas used to produce them were obsolete. "We stand by our previous responses," it said in a statement.

Subsequent to USA TODAY's inquiry, the Army calculated new findings but lowered the threshold for a score to be a positive result. As a consequence, for example, only 9% of 704,000 score poorly in optimism.

The Army said the effort to use the questionnaire results to gauge morale Army-wide is experimental. "We continue to refine our methodologies and threshold values to get the most accurate results possible," it said in the statement.

The Army's effort to use positive psychology to make soldiers more resilient has been controversial since its inception in 2009. A blue-ribbon panel of scientists from the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded last year that there is little or no evidence the program prevents mental illness. It argued there was no effort to test its efficacy before the Army embraced it . The panel cited research arguing that, in fact, the program could be harmful if it leaves soldiers with a false sense of resiliency.

The Army disputed the findings, pushing ahead with its positive psychology program that now costs more than $50 million a year. At least 2.45 million soldiers have taken a self-assessment test that is a crucial part of the resiliency program, and 28,000 GIs have been instructed on how to teach other soldiers the curriculum.

"The Army funds this program because the Army values the lives of soldiers and wants to instill skills and competencies that will enhance their connections, relationships and ability to mitigate stressors and exercise help seeking behaviors through their life," says an Army statement released last month.

But the internal data obtained by USA TODAY shows most soldiers today trending in the wrong direction. Two-thirds were borderline or worse for an area called "catastrophic thinking," where poor scores mean the soldier has trouble adapting to change or dwells on the worst possible things happening.

Army soldiers and a civilian have a group discussion

Army soldiers and a civilian have a group discussion during the Army Master Resilience Training course held in Seoul, South Korea, in 2013. (Photo: Mark Abueg, U.S. Army)

Other results:

-- Forty-eight percent or about 370,000 soldiers showed a lack of commitment to their job or would have chosen another if they had it to do over again. Only 28% felt good about what they do.

-- About 300,000 soldiers or nearly 40% didn't trust their immediate supervisor or fellow soldiers in their unit or didn't feel respected or valued. Thirty-two percent felt good about bosses and peers.

-- In one positive trend, more than 400,000 soldiers or 53% said they were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their marriage, personal relationship or family. About 240,000 expressed dissatisfaction.

-- For physical fitness, nearly 40% were in good shape, 28% were borderline, and 33% did poorly.

Retired vice admiral Norb Ryan, head of the Military Officers Association of America, and Joyce Raezer, executive of the National Military Family Association, said the results are not surprising. Fourteen years of war and recent decisions to downsize or cut funding for the military have left morale low, they said.

A recent survey by the Military Times and a Navy Retention Study also show troops increasingly unhappy.

Saunders defended the Army resiliency program, known officially as Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness, as an effort that has resonated with soldiers. "When we talk to soldiers, soldiers tell us about the life changes they've had," she says.

Click pie charts for larger images -- "Esc" to return.


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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #135 

Obama's liberationist military

George Neumayr says it drives out Christian chaplains and hires utopian social engineers.

The military under Barack Obama has increasingly embraced the philosophy of the sexual revolution. At the same time, it reels from the consequences of that revolution. Headlines in recent months suggest that moral discipline within the ranks continues to deteriorate. Lawmakers decry reports showing a "50% increase in reports of military sexual assaults."

One would think a military with such problems might want to retain its Christian chaplains, not drive them away. Yet that is the effect of its decision to prioritize political correctness. Obama's surrogates in the military have made it clear to Christian chaplains that they should stay silent or leave.

In 2010, Admiral Michael Mullen informed a Christian chaplain who opposed the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that "If you cannot get in line, resign your commission." Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, said those who dissent from Obama's gay rights agenda should "get out." The Washington Times reported him saying: "Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them. But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out."

The latest victim of this purge is Navy chaplain Wes Modder, who faces possible expulsion for nothing more than preaching traditional Christian morality. Thirty-five members of Congress are protesting his treatment. Modder stands accused of failing to demonstrate "tolerance and respect" during counseling sessions with soldiers.

The charge is laughably Orwellian. As Modder's lawyer pointed out, the chaplain simply answered questions honestly from soldiers, eager to catch him out in a politically incorrect offense, according to the tenets of his faith: "To be clear, Chaplain Modder does not dispute that during private, one-on-one pastoral care and counseling sessions, he expressed his sincerely held religious belief that: sexual acts outside of marriage are contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual behavior is contrary to Biblical teaching; and homosexual orientation or temptation, as distinct from conduct, is not sin."

Through cases like this one, the military is sending a message to all traditionally Christian chaplains that their religious freedom is now nil. If they wish to serve in the military, they must forfeit their faith and accept a nonreligious role. Perhaps in time they will even be punished for their silence when gay-activist soldiers put them on the spot during counseling sessions.

It is not surprising that in a military in which traditional religion is punished indiscipline and sexual corruption would spread. But Obama's utopian social engineers think they have found a nonreligious cure for this chaos: motivational speakers who will teach wayward solders better manners. According to the Washington Free Beacon, the military is trying to restore restraint to its ranks through "May I kiss you? training":

The Air Force is the latest branch to employ the services of Mike Domitrz, a speaker and author known for his "May I Kiss You?" training session, to teach service members about consent and sexual assault prevention….Each "May I Kiss You?" session covers three major areas: asking before a person engages in intimacy with their partner, how to intervene if they see alcohol used to facilitate sexual assault, and how to support a survivor should they confide in the audience member that they have been affected by a sexual assault…. He gives the "Can I Kiss You?" talk at an average of 50 military bases a year, including recent sessions at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Fort Bragg, Fort Meade, Fort Belvoir, and the Navy Fleet Forces stationed in Bahrain. An upcoming event is scheduled at the Atlantic Fleet Forces in Naples, Italy.

As the restraining influence of religion disappears in the military, the void it leaves is filled by such absurd secularist substitutes. They have no chance of working. The liberationist philosophy the military has been forced by domestic politics to honor makes it impossible for it to maintain order and discipline effectively.

That military officials think an epidemic of sexual assault can be erased by a few Brave New World-style training sessions illustrates the depth of this delusion. Having chosen a de-Christianized military, they are in no position to expect the persistence of Christian virtue.

Predictable:  Victims of sex assaults in military are mostly men

Color me surprised!

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #136 

Pentagon deploys "may I kiss you?" training

An issue that could "dramatically affect" the mission of the United States Armed Forces is telling soldiers when it is okay to kiss a girl.

Elizabeth Harrington is reporting that the Air Force is the latest branch to employ the services of Mike Domitrz, a speaker and author known for his "May I Kiss You?" training session, to teach service members about consent and sexual assault prevention.

On Thursday the Air Force awarded Domitrz's company, the Date Safe Project, $10,000 for three training sessions.

Domitrz's 60 to 90 minute sessions offer a "unique combination of humor and dramatic story telling," the Air Force said in an attachment detailing the contract terms.

"The ‘May I Kiss You' presentation minimizes defensiveness and promotes an open discussion of an often silent topic," the Air Force said.

Each "May I Kiss You?" session covers three major areas: asking before a person engages in intimacy with their partner, how to intervene if they see alcohol used to facilitate sexual assault, and how to support a survivor should they confide in the audience member that they have been affected by a sexual assault.

Click here for more from the Washington Free Beacon.

What's next? Will knitting replace bayonet training?

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #137 

Tranny kept from women's restroom -- Army ordered to pay damages for discrimination

Judicial Watch is reporting that the Obama administration has ordered the U.S. Army to pay damages for discriminating against a transgender worker by denying the one-time man access to the women's bathroom after he "transitioned" to female, thus changing his "gender identity."

Additionally, the administration has determined that the Army also discriminated against the employee by failing to use his new female name (Tamara Lusardi) and instead continuing to use the name the man was originally hired under. The case involves a military veteran who worked as a civilian software specialist at the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) in Redstone, Alabama. Lusardi served in the Army from 1986 to 1993 and claims he suffered in a hostile workplace when management and co-workers kept calling him "sir" after becoming a woman and legally changing his name.

This month the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the bloated federal agency that enforces the nation's workplace discrimination laws, ordered the Army to pay up for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by committing sex discrimination against Lusardi. The EEOC tweaked the 1960s federal law to include transgender to the mix, asserting that it constitutes "gender identity discrimination" and therefore falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Law. The agency defines transgender as persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

In the order issued this month the EEOC writes that Lusardi was harassed because superiors used "male pronouns" after he identified as a woman and "referred to her using these male signifiers on at least seven occasions." The Army also violated Lusardi's rights by refusing to let him use the women's bathroom, the EEOC asserts. The document includes testimony from an Army official explaining that Lusardi was assigned a single-user executive restroom because other female employees would feel "extremely uncomfortable having an individual, despite the fact that she is conducting herself as a female, is still basically a male, physically."

Allowing a man to use the women's bathroom would cause more problems than having the individual use a private restroom, the official, identified as the Deputy Program Manager of the Program Executive Office, goes on to explain. "I also thought that under the circumstances, the male restroom would be inappropriate. So, that was left to use the single use bathrooms." Lusardi used the women's bathroom anyways and management repeatedly asked him to use the gender-neutral executive restroom until he underwent the final surgery for the sex change because it was making other employees uncomfortable.

There is no cause to question that complainant -- who was assigned the sex of male at birth but identifies as female -- is female, the EEOC writes in its order. "And certainly where, as here, a transgender female has notified her employer that she has begun living and working full-time as a woman, the agency must allow her access to the women's bathroom," the EEOC says. "This 'real-life experience' often is crucial to a transgender employee's transition." The agency found that the Army's actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to subject Lusardi to a hostile work environment based on sex and ordered compensatory damages and attorney's fees.

Under Obama the EEOC has spiraled out of control to meet the administration's mission of operating a politically correct government. In fact, nearly half of federal agency rulings dismissing employee discrimination claims have been overturned under Obama, costing American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in settlements. In one year alone this translated into an astounding $51.4 billion that federal agencies paid to settle discrimination claims that often had no merit, according to the government's figures. In nearly 45% of discrimination claims thrown out by agencies across the U.S. government the EEOC stepped in and revived the cases. The number has increased steadily since Obama became president, according to the EEOC's figures.

The agency has also taken legal action against private businesses across the nation accusing them of everything from discriminating against minorities for running criminal background and credit checks to discriminating against Muslims for not allowing hijabs on the job. Last year the EEOC even went after a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer for requiring employees to speak English at work. In that case the EEOC asserted that the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, according to this absurd reasoning, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.

Related:  Fort Hood shooting victim denied benefits, despite Purple Heart decision

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #138 

Still spitting after all these years

The hippies are still spitting on our military, but now they do it from high government offices.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #139 

Army soldiers forced to sit through "white privilege" presentation

Today's previous example (just above) of Obama's destruction of the military describes Team Obama's attempts to weaken special operation and its morale by opening up special operations to females.

In this item, Gina Cassini is reporting that The U.S. Army says it is investigating what it calls an "unauthorized" diversity training presentation on "White privilege" that was shown to hundreds of soldiers, USA Today reported, citing an Army spokeswoman.

But some critics don't buy the explanation, saying this is just the latest in a series of incidents in which radical race, sex or gender identity theories were forced upon our soldiers.

The so-called "Equal Opportunity" training presentation was shown to about 400 soldiers of the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia on Thursday, according to Captain Lindsay Roman.

But there wasn't anything "equal" about its approach — as it singled out White Army soldiers.

The portion of the program involved a slide projected on a screen entitled "The Luxury of Obliviousness," which listed elements of "White privilege."


"Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them. 'To be white in American (sic) means not having to think about it,'" one bullet point read.

After an image of the slide was posted to a Facebook page, the reaction was a lot more than the Obama indoctrinators bargained for:

"That should be instant UCMJ and Dishonorable Discharge for the instructor who deviated in this manner," George Stevens wrote.

"Pretty sick of hearing about white privilege. Nearly my entire chain of command and NCO support channel have been Hispanic or black since I joined," Tim Wilson Jr. added.

"True story: I went to a forced EEO class and the white female SSG said we white folks were a problem. I looked around the room and everyone of every race were rolling their eyes," Scott Hampton Truelove recalled. "We of all races went fishing, eating out, having BBQs, went to the club, together. We all never had a problem with race. We as a group stood up and walked out. She was cutting into our beer drinking time."

Captain Roman said the instructor was "out of line".

"The unit (Equal Opportunity) instructor deviated from the authorized topic and content which was provided," Roman told USA Today. "To prevent further instances, all unit instructors will receive additional training on the importance of following Army EO training requirements."

But as noted, those very "EO requirements" have been the subject of racial controversy in the past:

The Equal Opportunity Advisor Student Guide, which was used to train EO instructors during a 3-month course at Patrick Air Force Base, also explicitly discussed the topic of white privilege.

A controversial 600-plus page manual used by the military to train its Equal Opportunity officers teaches that "healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called "White Male Club."

"Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege," reads a statement in the manual created by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).

So if you believe the Army seminar in Georgia was unauthorized, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

This crap is coming straight from the racist sitting in the Oval Office.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #140 

Survey shows special ops personnel skeptical about idea of female commandos

Fox News is reporting that surveys find that men in U.S. special operations forces do not believe women can meet the physical and mental demands of their commando jobs, and they fear the Pentagon will lower standards to integrate women into their elite units, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Studies that surveyed personnel found "major misconceptions" within special operations about whether women should be brought into the male-only jobs. They also revealed concerns that department leaders would "capitulate to political pressure, allowing erosion of training standards," according to one document.

Some of those concerns were not limited to men, researchers found, but also were found among women in special operations jobs.

Dan Bland, force management director for U.S. Special Operations Command, told the AP that the survey results have "already driven us to do some different things in terms of educating the force."

About 68,800 people serve in the command, including 3,000 civilians. The main survey went to about 18,000 people who are in positions closed to women, and the response was about 50 percent. The high response rate, officials said, reflects the wide interest in the subject.

The studies are part of the Pentagon's effort to open all military combat positions to women or provide reasons why any jobs should remain closed.

One survey, by RAND Corp., reflected doubts that women could meet the overall job demands, found concerns that sexual harassment or assault could increase, and cited worries about "unequal treatment" of special operations candidates and personnel. Some worried that if women were let in to some jobs, they might be treated more harshly.

Survey details have not been released. This was the first time that officials from Special Operations Command publicly discussed the results.

Andy Hamilton, who works with Bland and has expertise on this issue, noted that women in special operations jobs had concerns, too, about the broader integration.

"They're concerned that this might result in the lowering of the standards in what are currently our male-only occupations, and that would then reflect on either them or on the women who come into those occupations," said Hamilton.

Pentagon leaders lifted the ban on women in combat jobs in 2012, but gave the military services time to integrate women gradually and systematically into the male-only front-line positions. By January 2016, the military must open all combat jobs to women or explain why any exceptions must be made.

Positions within the special operations forces, including the clandestine Navy SEAL and Army Delta units, are considered the most grueling and difficult jobs in the military, with training and qualifying courses that push troops to their physical, mental and emotional limits. The commandos often work in small teams in harsh, remote locations.

As a result, those jobs are some of the last to be addressed as commanders review the qualifications needed and assess the impact of bringing in women.

As integration unfolds, the surveys have brought home the reality that there are "some reservations or misperceptions in the force in terms of why we're doing this," Bland said. Defense officials have stressed that they will not reduce standards in order to let in women.

Women have so far had mixed results as they try to move into the more demanding combat positions -- jobs for which men also have difficulty qualifying.

So far, about 7,200 positions within the special operations forces have been opened to women, including combat jobs in the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, a specialized unit used to fly forces fast, low and deep behind enemy lines at night. For the first time, a woman last year made it through training and began serving as a pilot in the unit. Three female pilots, 25 women in other jobs, and 16 other women are now going through initial training for these helicopter crews, known as Night Stalkers.

Most female soldiers do not want combat jobs, an earlier survey found. But among those who do, the Night Stalkers were a popular choice.

Women have moved into Army artillery jobs and serve on Navy submarines and in the naval Riverine units. But none has made it through the Marine Corps' officer infantry course.

Special operations command leaders have made it clear that genuine concerns exist about incorporating women into some jobs.

There might be a few women that are capable of meeting special operations physical and mental standards, but inevitably the standards are lowered -- and special operators will die for "equality."

The Marines lowered its fitness standard for women To 0 pull-ups -- all they have to do is hang on a bar for 15 seconds.

"Sorry guys, we have to re-route the patrol down that IED infested road because somebody can't make it over this mud wall."

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #141 

"Sir, I will not obey that order"

The Pentagon is currently firing thousands of soldiers experienced in the field of battle due to mandatory spending cuts.

For example, around 2,600 captains and other officers have been told to "take a hike" after risking their lives for all of us a soon as they leave their posts in Afghanistan.

Obama is weakening our military in many ways. A couple of examples would be…in the past few years he’s fired 200 of our top commanders for flimsy reasons and has eliminated highly successful programs like the Tomahawk missile. While at the same time he’s hiring illegal aliens into the military that he’s firing experienced soldiers.

Why would you fire experienced soldiers and hire illegal aliens that look like they couldn’t even pass the physical exam?

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #142 

Obama's budget offers Army "bare minimum" while at "historically low levels"

Douglas Ernst  is reporting that the Senate Appropriations Committee was told on Wednesday that the U.S. Army is facing "increased risks" while operating at "historically low levels" of readiness.


Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that Barack Obama's 2016 budget represents "the bare minimum" needed for the branch to fulfill its responsibilities, all while its active component was cut by 80,000 soldiers in the last three years. The Army has also inactivated 13 brigades.

The testimony before lawmakers comes just one month after Defense Manpower Data Center statistics showed that the U.S. Army has fewer than 500,000 active-duty soldiers for the first time in 10 years. As of Feb. 5, there were 498,642 soldiers on active duty.

Army Secretary John McHugh also testified before the committee, saying, "We need predictability, not politics," Army Times reported.

Gen. Odierno told senators that the fiscal uncertainty is putting "a lot of pressure" on soldiers.

"We haven't seen that breaking point yet, but I worry when that will occur in the future," he said.

Obama needs the Army's money for free health insurance for illegal immigrants.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #143 

Budget cuts and non-stop war threaten U.S. air superiority and leave the fleet smaller and weaker than ever before


The Daily Mail (UK) is reporting that the U.S. Air Force has a quarter of the number of fighter squadrons it did 25 years ago and two-thirds of the active duty airmen, a drop that threatens U.S. air superiority, defense officials told lawmakers on Friday.

"Enough is enough," Air Force Secretary Deborah James told lawmakers in the House of Representatives as she defended a Pentagon budget request that exceeds federal spending caps. 'Given the state of the world ... the number one thing we have to stop is this downsizing.'

But members of the defense appropriations subcommittee said Barack Obama's 2016 Pentagon base budget of $534 billion exceeded spending caps by nearly $35 billion and would have to be cut.

Some $10 billion of that would have to come from the Air Force request, they said.

"The budget he (Obama) submitted ... frankly is politically ... a fantasy," said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma. "It's not going to pass, and he knows that."

Cole said he hoped lawmakers ultimately would be able to reach a bipartisan deal to provide some relief from the spending limits.

Until that happens, however, "we're going to have to live within the numbers that we have under the law, and sadly, that means we're going to have to make a lot of tough choices" about cutting billions from the Air Force spending request, he said.

Air Force officials said the force is older and smaller than it has ever been, and after 14 years of continuous warfare is being stretched to the breaking point.

"When we deployed to Operation Desert Storm in 1990, our Air Force had 188 fighter squadrons in the inventory. This budget will take us to 49," said General Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff. "There were 511,000 active duty airmen during Desert Storm. We have 200,000 fewer today."

James said Air Force planes had an average age of 27 years, and Welsh said updating the fleet was imperative.

"The option of not modernizing isn't really an option at all," Welsh said. "Air forces that fall behind the technology curve, and joint forces without the full breadth of air, space and cyber power ... will lose."

James said if the Air Force had to cut another $10 billion, it would reduce purchases of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by 14, cancel work on a fuel-efficient engine and reduce the number of reconnaissance aircraft in service.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #144 

Oliver North says the U.S. military needs a commander-in-chief who knows our enemy

Penny Starr is reporting that retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North said on Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Maryland that the U.S. military and military veterans who serve their country need a leader who knows the enemy they are fighting to defeat.

"They need a commander-in-chief who knows our enemy and knows how to win. You can’t even say the word today," North said.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #145 

U.S. military decimated under Obama, only "marginally able" to defend nation


The Washington Times is reporting that the U.S. military is shedding so many troops and weapons it is only "marginally able" to defend the nation and falls short of the Obama administration's national security strategy, according to a new report by The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday.

"The U.S. military itself is aging. It's shrinking in size," said Dakota Wood, a Heritage analyst. "And it's quickly becoming problematic in terms of being able to address more than one major conflict."

President Obama's latest strategy is to size the armed forces pledged in 2014 so that the four military branches have sufficient troops, ships, tanks and aircraft to win a large war, while simultaneously acting to "deny the objectives of -- or impose unacceptable costs on -- another aggressor in another region."

In other words, the Quadrennial Defense Review says the military can essentially fight two major conflicts at once. It could defeat an invasion of South Korea by the North, for example, and stop Russia from invading Western Europe or Iran from conquering a Persian Gulf state.

But Heritage's "2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength" took a look, in detail, at units and weapons, region by region, and came to a different conclusion.

"The U.S. military is rapidly approaching a one-war-capable force," said Mr. Wood, a former Marine Corps officer and strategic planner. "So [it is] able to handle a major war and then having just a bit of residual capability to handle other minor crises that might pop up. … But it is a far cry from being a two-war force."

"The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure," the report concluded. "The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America's vital national interests."

The index report is part scorecard, part research tool.

It grades the Army, which is shrinking from 570,000 soldiers to 440,000 or lower, and the Navy, which is failing to achieve a 300-ship force, as only "marginal" in military power. The Air Force's fleet of fighters and long-range bombers is judged "strong."

Heritage says the military cannot fight two wars at once.

The report said the Army historically commits 21 brigade dombat teams to one war. Several years ago, that left just 21 more brigades for a second war and none for strategic reserve.

But the problem is more acute. The Army announced in 2013 it may go as low as 33 brigades, far short of the 50 brigades Heritage says are needed.

The Army has been battered by automatic budget cuts known as "sequestration." A bipartisan budget deal provided some relief last year, but the slashing could come back in 2016 without another agreement.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, has said that if the active force is squeezed down to 420,000 soldiers, it could not carry out all global commitments.

The Navy would need 346 ships to carry out two large campaigns, Heritage said, but its fleet is only 284.

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #146 

"Mind boggling" -- Defense Department's essay contest to honor late Saudi king sparks disbelief

Twitchy is reporting that Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah died last week. Barack Obama is in Saudi Arabia today to pay respects personally. John Kerry praised Abdullah as a man of "vision and wisdom."

And now the Pentagon is honoring him this way:


The essay contest was established by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dempsey and will be open to National Defense University students:

The competition, to be hosted at the National Defense University over the next academic year, will focus on issues related to the Arab and Muslim worlds, according to the official DoD News.

"This is an important opportunity to honor the memory of the king, while also fostering scholarly research on the Arab-Muslim world, and I can think of no better home for such an initiative than NDU," Dempsey said in a statement.

Disbelief is in the air:




More tweets here . . .

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

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 1,042
Reply with quote  #147 

I haven't heard or seen this reported yet and our son is no longer in the service, so I can only provide this second hand.  A friend that has served in Afghanistan twice is now actively trying very hard to get out of the Army but since he has combat experience, they're not letting him yet.  But he said that the Military is now offering cash (basically a buy-out) packages to decrease military personnel.

Has anyone else heard of this?  What are your takes on this?

This appears to be the buy-out program announced in 2012:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #148 

A deeply unpopular commander in chief is forcing profound change inside the ranks

Stephen Losey, writing in Military Times, is reporting that in his first term, Barack Obama oversaw repeal of the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Then he broke with one of the military's most deeply rooted traditions and vowed to lift the ban on women serving in combat.

And the commander in chief has aggressively sought to change military culture by cracking down on sexual assault and sexual harassment, problems that for years were underreported or overlooked.

Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As commander in chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon's personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come.

For Obama's supporters, the cultural changes he's overseeing are on a level with President Truman's 1948 order that desegregated the military and put it at the forefront of the national push for racial equality.

But to his critics, his moves amount to heavy-handed social engineering that erode deep-seated traditions and potentially undermine good order and discipline.

And for the troops in today's career force, the wave of changes to deep-seated policies and attitudes can be jarring.

"It's a very different Army than the one I came in to," said Sgt. 1st Class Eric Rexilius, who joined the Army 21 years ago and is now a helicopter repairman at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state.

The long-term effects of Obama's social policies on the military remain unknown. But one thing is clear: He is a deeper unpopular commander in chief among the troops.

According to a Military Times survey of almost 2,300 active-duty service members, Obama's popularity -- never high to begin with -- has crumbled, falling from 35 percent in 2009 to just 15 percent this year, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent from 40 percent over that time.


Continue reading here . . .

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #149 

Obama wants to imprison American hero

Obama is some piece of work!

He's releasing terrorists from Gitmo on a weekly basis, but wants to imprison one of America's greatest generals?

And remember, Holder's Justice Department, the outfit bringing the action, is the same bunch that refused to prosecute the new Black Panthers.

Team Obama has some really screwed-up priorities!

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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #150 

Obama's popularity falls to record low among US troops.

Husna Haq is reporting that only 15 percent of US active-duty service members approve of Barack Obama's job as commander-in-chief, according to an annual Military Times survey. What's behind American troop dissatisfaction?

Support for Obama among members of the military has fallen drastically in recent years, according to the results of a poll published by the Military Times.

If Obama's approval ratings have slipped with the general population, they have plummeted to record lows within one segment of the population: the US military.

Only 15 percent of active-duty service members approve of Obama's job as commander-in-chief, according to an annual Military Times survey, and more than half -- 55 percent -- say they disapprove of his job. Obama has never been a very popular commander-in-chief among troops, but these numbers reflect a record low for Obama. His first year in office he enjoyed a relatively high 35-percent approval rating.

Compare that to his approval rating in the general population, which is far higher, though still slumping: In the most recent CNN/ORC poll, Obama had a 44 percent approval rating among Americans.


Obama's sinking popularity among the troops can be traced to a number of factors: budget cuts, falling troop morale, frustrations over the Obama administration's foreign policy, gay and gender equity initiatives within the military, and US political leaders in general.

According to the Military Times' poll, troops are more unhappy under Obama than they were under previous commanders-in-chief. Some 91 percent of active duty service members were satisfied with their quality of life in 2009. This year, that figure dropped to 56 percent.

One reason: More than half of American troops believe they are underpaid today. In 2009, 87 percent of service members rated their pay and allowance as good or excellent; today, just 44 percent do so.

For good reason, reports the Military Times.

"Congress just approved, at the request of the Pentagon and the White House, a 1 percent basic pay raise the for the troops next year," writes the publication, attributing it in part, to sequestration. "[That's] the second straight year of such a raise, constituting the two smallest annual increases in the 41-year history of the all-volunteer force."

Events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rise of the Islamic State, have also led some in the military to challenge Obama's foreign policy.

His decision to remove all troops from Iraq in 2011 helped lead to the rise of the militant group ISIS, according to some military experts, who see Obama as a weak leader in foreign policy. The rise of ISIS forced Obama to return US troops to the region, another unpopular decision among troops. When asked whether the US should send a large force of combat troops back to Iraq to fight Islamic State militants, 70 percent of survey respondents said, 'No.'

Similarly, the report found troops were unhappy with the outcome of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which they blame their commander-in-chief.

"The percentage of troops who feel the war in Afghanistan ultimately will be viewed as a success has taken a nosedive since 2007," writes the Military Times. "Similarly, only 30 percent of respondents feel the eight-year Iraq War was a success.

"The pessimism about Iraq is especially understandable; troops have spent years listening to Obama tell them Iraq was emerging as a stable democracy, its army a reliable ally in the fight against Islamic extremism. Just a few years later, both notions turned out to be spectacularly wrong."

Obama has also pushed through major social changes in a traditional institution unused to social upheaval, including allowing gays to openly serve in the military, ending the ban on women in combat troops, and cracking down on sexual assault and harassment.

"For Obama's supporters, the cultural changes he's overseeing are on a level with President Truman's 1948 order that desegregated the military and put it at the forefront of the national push for racial equality," writes the Military Times. But for some in the US military, the wave of changes to deep-seated policies and attitudes can be jarring," concludes the report, adding, "[T]o his critics, his moves amount to heavy-handed social engineering that erode deep-seated traditions and potentially undermine good order and discipline."

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

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