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 3 of 15      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #51 

Navy officer fired over Iranian detention of 10 sailors 


The Stars and Stripes is reporting that the Navy has fired the commander of the 10 American sailors who wandered into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf and were captured and held by Iran for about 15 hours.

In a statement Thursday, the Navy said it had lost confidence in Cmdr. Eric Rasch, who was the executive officer of the squadron that included the 10 sailors at the time of the January incident. He was responsible for the training and readiness of the more than 400 sailors in the unit.

A Navy official said Rasch failed to provide effective leadership, leading to a lack of oversight, complacency and failure to maintain standards in the unit. The official was not authorized to discuss the details publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Rasch has been relieved of his command duties and reassigned, the Navy said.

Although this is the first firing by the Navy regarding the incident, several other sailors received administrative reprimands. The investigation is expected to be finished by the end of the month, and others are likely to be disciplined.

Rasch was promoted to commander of the unit in April -- after the Iran incident occurred, but before the preliminary investigation was done.

The sailors, nine men and one woman, were detained after their boat drifted into Iranian waters off Farsi Island, an outpost in the middle of the Persian Gulf that has been used as a base for Revolutionary Guard speedboats since the 1980s.

The sailors were on two small armed vessels, known as riverine command boats, on a 300-mile journey from Kuwait to Bahrain, where the Navy's 5th Fleet is located. The incident, while brief, raised tensions between the U.S. and Iran because of images Iran published of the soldiers kneeling with their hands on their heads. It caused political uproar at home, too, coming on the day of President Barack Obama's final State of the Union address and months after the signing of a deal with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for relief from financial penalties.

Navy Capt. Gary Leigh, commander of Riverine Group 1, decided to fire Rasch after Leigh reviewed the initial investigation. A Navy official said no action has been taken, at least so far, against Cmdr. Greg Meyer, who was serving as commander of the squadron when the incident happened. He is no longer in a command job.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the sailors made a navigational error and went off course.

An initial account said the "planned transit path for the mission was down the middle of the Gulf and not through the territorial waters of any country other than Kuwait and Bahrain."

That account said the crew stopped when a diesel engine in one of the boats appeared to have a mechanical issue. The second boat also stopped.

At this point they were in Iranian territorial waters, "although it's not clear the crew was aware of their exact location," the report said.

While the boats were stopped and the crew was trying to assess the mechanical problem, two small Iranian craft carrying armed personnel approached. Soon after, they were joined by two more Iranian military vessels. A verbal exchange ensued between the Iranians and Americans, but there was no gunfire.

The sailors had been scheduled to meet up with a U.S. Coast Guard ship, the Monomoy, in international waters to refuel. But about 10 minutes before the refueling was supposed to take place, the Navy headquarters in Bahrain got a report that Iranians were questioning the crew members.

Soon afterward, the Navy lost communications with the boats.

The Navy launched a large-scale search-and-rescue mission, but it is not clear whether the Americans had already been taken ashore on Farsi Island. The Iranians eventually told the U.S. that the 10 sailors were safe and healthy.

Secretary of State John Kerry, in a series of phone calls, used the personal relationship he has formed with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to work out the crews' release. Kerry credited the quick resolution to the "critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country secure and strong."

I'd still like to know what really happened out there in the Persian Gulf -- and what happened up the chain of command.

Nothing we've been told makes sense.

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  #52 

"She spoke up about cooked ISIS intel and they booted her -- for cursing

Nancy A. Youssef (DailyBeast) is reporting that he worked on and off for five years identifying targets for the U.S. military's Central Command (CENTCOM).

And then, when, some believe, she spoke up about cherry-picked intelligence in the ISIS war, she was drummed out of her job -- allegedly for cursing twice in the span of the year.

Those were just some of the surreal allegations thrown around last week in a Tampa law office conference room turned into a quasi-courtroom.

Had the case not involved the third-highest ranking person at the Defense Intelligence Agency, a two-star general, a military judge, and hours of testimony -- all at a cost of thousands of dollars -- it would have been hard to take seriously. Even with those high-ranking officials, at times it was hard not to do a double-take about what was happening.

After all, if cursing were really a fireable offense in the military, every soldier, sailor, Marine, and Defense Department civilian would have to be sent home.

The case suggested that, at CENTCOM, there are two wars being waged: one against ISIS and a separate internal fight between whistleblowers and commanders. This all came to the fore during a rare public hearing last Wednesday before the government appeals board, brought by a subordinate of Gregory Ryckman, the top-ranking civilian at CENTCOM's Joint Intelligence office, known as the J2.

The woman at the center of the case makes a now-familiar allegation: that the same military officials who cherry-picked information about the ISIS war and downplayed the terror group's rising threat also selectively picked information about her. The Pentagon inspector general now is investigating whether CENTCOM officials, including Ryckman, watered down assessments on the rising jihadist threat to comport with the White House.

The woman at the center of the controversy in this case, Carolyn Stewart, is a small person with a big voice. The Army veteran seemingly is demure at first glance, with shoulder-length light brown hair. But as soon as she speaks, it is clear she is not afraid to say exactly what she thinks.

She repeatedly prodded her lawyer throughout the day-long hearing about which questions to ask, which evidence to present, and which details to point out in her favor.

The hearing was a window into how allegations of toxic work environments, faulty reports, and bad leadership consumed the office tasked with leading CENTCOM's intelligence gathering. At issue during the hours-long hearing was whether Stewart cursed at CENTCOM, and if she did curse, whether that created a hostile work environment.

"I went to other action officers to avoid Ms. Stewart," one witness explained to the judge, in support of the decision to reassign her.

The hearing, held through a teleconference connecting DIA lawyers in Washington with a judge in Atlanta and the complainant in Tampa, had all the markings of a proper trial. Someone wore a robe and lawyers yelled out objections.

But one couldn't help thinking it was like an episode of The Office. Those charged with helping target ISIS terrorists were instead obsessed with things like who "bitched out" whom. The government claimed she said it to another woman. Another witnesses said someone else said those words to Stewart.

It is worth noting that such debates were occupying a command post tasked with leading the war on ISIS. And yet the key issue of the time was how precisely Stewart handled a colleague telling her he would not adjust a target order.

"Did she toss the papers down or did she place them down?" a government lawyer asked a witness.

In the midst of the war against ISIS, the highest-ranking general in charge of intelligence gathering sat for hours waiting in a Tampa law office to testify for all of 15 minutes. The Defense Intelligence Agency chief of staff, the third-highest ranking member of that office, testified for hours over why she decided that a few curses could not be tolerated in an office that helped determine which suspected ISIS members should be targeted for death from above….

Sounds like a toxic work environment to me?

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  #53 

Lieutenant David Nartker must be court-martialed


In January, two US Navy high speed Riverine boats were apparently underway from Bahrain to Kuwait when they strayed into Iranian waters, while attempting to contact a vessel to refuel.

Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) says the Pentagon first said that they had engine trouble. Yet, if that was the case, why didn't the other boat tow the boat with mechanical problems to international waters and safety?

Then, the Pentagon said that they had navigational issues. How is this possible in 2016, with each boat having an array of GPS and radar equipment? Even if one boat's systems completely shut down, couldn't they rely on the other boat's GPS or radar?

Somewhere during this time, the Americans "strayed" into Iranian waters near Farsi Island.

Lieutenant David Nartker, commanding officer of the two US Navy Riverine boats, surrendered his men and his craft -- equipped with superior firepower -- to a half dozen Iranian thugs in "Bass boats" that looked like they belonged on Babe Winkelman's fishing show. Nartker surrendered without firing so much as a flare. After boarding the Navy boats, Nartker and his men were ordered down on their knees while the Iranians trained machine guns and cameras on them.

Nartker doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on his disgraceful conduct by apologizing to the Iranians for a worldwide TV audience.

"It was a mistake. That was our fault and we apologize for our mistake. It was a misunderstanding. We did not mean to go into Iranian territorial water. The Iranian behavior was fantastic while we were here. We thank you very much for your hospitality and your assistance."


To add insult to injury, one of his men felt it was an opportune time to start bawling his head off like he was a guest on Oprah, letting the Iranians and everyone on the planet know that US Navy sailors are complete wimps. In an earlier Navy, a keen eyed Chief would've have put an end to that disgraceful behavior by muttering under his breath that if the young sailor didn't stop crying, he was going to find himself at the receiving end of the Chief's fist.

Have no doubt, Lieutenant Nartker's first action, to surrender his boats and personnel without offering any resistance is a violation of the US Military's Code of Conduct, Article II, which states,

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Nartker's appearance on the video and his subsequent conduct during the interview were a blatant violation of Article V of the Code of Conduct, which states,

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

As of now, the public has never been told what actually happened in the Persian Gulf.  The Pentagon has done a good job of hushing up and cubby-holing the disgraceful conduct of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf last January. After a couple weeks of news coverage, the story disappeared like a fishing trawler in a Bermuda Triangle gale.

Smoke and Mirrors is job one at the Pentagon.

The conduct of Lieutenant Nartker and his men (and one woman) speaks volumes about the decaying state of the US Navy in 2016. And, I'm not talking about all the budgetary and readiness issues the Navy has. That is another disaster entirely.

Lieutenant David Nartker should be court martialed. Nartker may not be in violation of Article II, as he may have been ordered by some feather merchant echelons above God to surrender.

But, Nartker is certainly in violation of Article V. If found guilty of violating at least Article V of the US Military Code of Conduct, Lieutenant David Nartker should be given a dishonorable discharge and tossed out of the Navy.

In response to the disgraceful conduct of Nartker and his men, the Navy laid out a huge smokescreen. Cmdr. John Schofield, said that specialized fleet training, such as that regarding capture, depends on fleet warfare designations.

"Training for those specific designations does not take place at commissioning accession sources like the Naval Academy," he said. "The Naval Academy trains and educates all of its students morally, mentally and physically to become officers of character and consequence."

I'm sure Mr. Nartker learned about the code of conduct at Annapolis and at Surface Warfare School as an Ensign. Commander Schofield's comments are genuine Grade A horse dung.

Nartker must be brought up on charges to show the world the US Navy will not tolerate cowardice and more importantly, to show the enlisted personnel of the US Navy that their senior leaders will not tolerate junior officers who are cowards. The enlisted personnel in the US Navy must know that their officers have the courage to lead them into battle. Enlisted people will tolerate a lot of behavior from officers, but they will not countenance people leading them who lack intestinal fortitude.

Nartker should be cashiered before he gets someone killed. He obviously doesn't have the chops to be a surface warfare officer or any kind of officer in the US Navy.

Moreover, our enemies must know that the US Navy does not tolerate incompetent officers and cowardly officers.

The US military is in crisis mode. David Nartker's lack of bravado is atypical of the death of the American warrior under Obama. The warrior spirit of the US military is being flushed down the drain and with it 240 years of glorious heroics.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter may be able to stow Nartker away from the public and John McCain's radar sweep, but he can't hide the Navy's incompetence and cowardice from the enemies of this nation.

Lieutenant David Nartker is the poster boy for the new Navy.

We are weak and the bad guys damned well know it.

This article is tough on Lt. Nartker, but makes some valid points.

My own take on this is that Lt. Nartker was ordered to surrender to the Iranians so as not to create an international incident while Obama and Kerry were giving the farm away to the Iranians.

A court martial would expose what really happened in the Persian Gulf.

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  #54 

Obama has crushed the U. S. military


Mark Helprin (WallStreetJournal) says Barack Obama is weakening U.S. defenses and credibility, but there’s little debate about the growing risk of war.

In this powerful nation with founding principles and latent capacities second to none, politics have become fit for the fall of Rome, the culture is sick with self-destruction, and the rule of law is routinely perverted. Though politics, culture and law are the arch of the nation, the keystone without which they cannot hold is defense. For war transforms whole peoples and threatens their sovereignty and national existence more decisively than any other force.

You would hardly know this from the current presidential campaign. Most candidates seem unaware that the prospects of catastrophic war in the not-so-distant future are burgeoning because of a fundamental change in the international system, driven by accelerating adjustments in relative military power.

Russia, China and Iran have been racing ahead, stimulated by a disintegrating Europe that neither spends sufficiently on its defense nor defends its borders; and by an America, strategically blind in the Middle East, that failed to replenish and keep current its military under President George W. Bush, and now surrenders, apologizes, bluffs, "leads from behind," and denigrates its military capacities and morale as Obama either embraces enemies or opposes them only with exquisite delicacy.

As the U.S. allows its nuclear forces to stagnate and decay into de facto unilateral disarmament, Russia has been modernizing its own. The Kremlin has added systems, such as road-mobile, intercontinental ballistic missiles with independently targetable re-entry warheads, that we neither have nor envision. In the absence of "soft-power" parity with the U.S., Russia dangerously relies on a permissive nuclear doctrine and promiscuously rattles its atomic sabers. Its nuclear adventurism, naval and land force modernization, unopposed reintroduction into the Middle East, invasion and annexation in Ukraine, and the ability to recapture the Baltic states in an afternoon, are yet another impeachment of "the end of history."

Note: Helprin gives us this very foundational and grim statistic regarding our military.

The U.S. 2015 base budget defense appropriation (excluding overseas contingency spending) was just less than 3%, as opposed to 5.7% in the peacetime years during the period 1940-2000.

Don't despair. Obama and the rest of his pansy-assed cronies will be gone in 271 days and if we defeat Hillary we can restore America's military -- the best there ever was:

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  #55 

Army celebrates Earth Day under commander-in-chief Obama

Dave Blount (Moonbattery) says according to the Obama Administration, the top security threat faced by the USA is the imaginary global warming crisis. This is fortunate; since there is nothing anyone in the military can do about climate fluctuation, it doesn't matter that Obama has been not only destroying morale with his moonbattery but also reducing troop levels and operational readiness. -

Today the Army celebrates Earth Day:

The U.S. Army on Thursday pledged to honor "Earth Day" by "reasserting its pledge to address the implications of climate change and assess associated risks to national security."

In a special message to soldiers, the Army, which faces deep cuts in the ranks of active duty soldiers, said it is focused on "the role the land plays in ensuring the Army remains ready and resilient."

It urges soldiers to celebrate Earth Day on Friday. The Army also made Earth Day its "focus quote of the day."

"As our Army celebrates Earth Day 2016, please join us in protecting the environment, enabling the Soldiers' readiness and securing the environmental future for our citizens and our nation. We encourage everyone to join in these efforts by learning more about the Army's environmental initiatives. Every day around the world, you can make a difference. Army Strong!"

Even if we are helpless to do anything about the ever-changing weather other than make pious but ineffectual gestures, it sure is a relief to know that we have nothing worse to worry about.

However, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) takes a different point of view:

Whether in San Bernardino, Brussels, London, Madrid, Paris, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Chad, Mali, Philippines, Australia, or across the globe, deadly and violent attacks by radical extremists are happening on a regular and increasing basis.

The objective of these acts of terror is to destroy Western way of life, extinguish religious minority groups, drive out vulnerable and poor populations, and suppress women and children's freedom and participation in society. To suggest that rising temperature is the cause for these efforts is not only disingenuous, but also dangerous. …

The $120 billion spent by the Obama administration on climate change in the past seven years would have better served our national defense.

Instead the administration has put into motion $1 trillion in defense budget cuts while also using precious defense funds for wasteful green energy initiatives to include building biofuel refineries for the private sector—a job more suited for the Department of Energy.

Actually, this job is more suited to be left entirely to the private sector. That way, if it doesn't make any economic sense, it will be abandoned.

Instead, it is our military that has been abandoned, as serious threats grow more serious, and the kooks in charge congratulate themselves over sanctimonious gestures intended to show how much they wish the weather never changed.

commander in chief obama
An Earth Day–friendly Commander in Chief.

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  #56 

Barbarians inside the gates


Dr. Craig Luther (FrontPage) says Barack Obama came into office in 2009 promising "transformation" and he has delivered on that promise. Over the past 7 1/2 years we've witnessed billion dollar deficits and the establishment of a highly politicized and inexorably failing health care system (ObamaCare); the "weaponization" of government agencies (think, IRS, EPA, DoJ) to intimidate and attack his political opponents; the calculated and feckless decline of American power and influence throughout the world; relentless redistributionist policies; and the president's support (often with a wink and a nod) of thuggish (and sometimes violent) radical groups like "Occupy Wall Street" and "Black Lives Matter." As a result, America is "on edge" -- socially, racially, economically -- as it hasn't been for decades. Indeed, many have reached the sobering insight that America's best days may now be behind her.

Overlooked by most in Obama's relentless efforts to "remake" America has been his ongoing and dangerous transformation of our military. Here I am not going address the dozens of weapon systems cut, or the tens of thousands of troops given their "pink slips." What I want to speak to is his administration's systematic destruction of the 200+ year-old culture of the U.S. military. This "multicultural makeover," happening right before our eyes, threatens to undermine the very fabric of our armed forces. The forced acceptance of open homosexuality and the burgeoning hostility toward Christianity; the gratuitous degradation of our troops (e.g., forcing ROTC cadets to march in red high heels to experience what it's like to be a woman; making male soldiers wear simulated lactation devices, or lecturing them on "white privilege," dare I go on?); the "full-court press" to make our forces more diverse, most alarmingly by opening up combat positions (even special forces) to female soldiers; and the relentless purging from the ranks of dozens of fine general officers whose only "offense" was their failure to "get with the program" -- all of this, like some nightmarish "progressive" Blitzkrieg, is now wreaking havoc with our reluctant service members, the objective being that of a complete and irreversible cultural transformation. What's next, I wonder -- weaponized hair and nail salons on wheels?  

One of those leading the charge in the radical mutation of our military culture is Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus. The former Democratic governor of Mississippi has enthusiastically spearheaded our president's plan to weaken -- and, ultimately, tear asunder -- the bonds of brotherhood that have served our nation so well from Valley Forge to Iwo Jima and Fallujah. To the Bolsheviks now running the show in Washington, D.C., the U.S. military signified the final frontier -- the last bastion of (white, heterosexual) alpha male institutional domination that they still needed to extirpate "root and branch" to complete their bewilderingly successful 40-50 year march through our cultural institutions. And Ray Mabus is the president's point man. Or so it seems. His most damaging contribution to the deep and disturbing social changes rocking our military has been his full-throated support for the integration of women into all -- and I mean all -- combat positions in the U.S. Marine Corps. Infantry, armor, artillery, recon, special forces -- women are now to serve in all these combat branches and not simply in token numbers. This despite the fact that, according to surveys of military women, over 90% have absolutely no desire to serve in combat positions. Yet this is of no consequence to the small cabal of radical feminists and their enablers -- they are in control and they will do just what they want to do, for whatever nefarious purpose. In all honesty, do you think that Ray Mabus and his ilk believe a 5'4" female, weighing 110 pounds, will be able to meet the highly rigorous requirements of combat that today is the sole domain of much larger, much stronger men? Has anyone even consideredthe hygienic effects of having women serve in the field for weeks on end? And if anyone wants to further explore the history of mixed-gender combat units, simply look at the Israeli example. A catastrophe it was.

When the Marine Corps leadership produced a study making unequivocally clear that all-male units performed significantly better than mixed-gender units, Mabus would have none of it. He "savaged officials who ran the study, accusing them of bias and not wanting women to succeed." (Source: Jonah Bennett, "Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to Step Down," 3 March 2016.)

A paragon of political correctness -- that evil, sinister twin of Marxist multiculturalism -- Mabus is also supported the elimination of that loathsome word "man" from all job titles in the U.S. Navy. There are 21 job titles in the Navy which include the word "man" (e.g., "fireman"), and Navy officials were to report to Mabus by 1 April on what was to be done to efface such "sexist" titles from the vernacular of the Navy. Wonder how that went.

Navy recruiters will now be forced to push diversity at all costs -- women and minorities are in, white males are out, regardless of the impact such a policy may have on morale and mission effectiveness. Yet the impact on morale, on fighting qualities, is of little concern to Mabus and his merry band of Bolsheviks, as they turn our armed forces into a lunatic laboratory for the New Marxism -- an experiment which may well wreck the Marine Corps (and other service branches) as currently configured, as the final white alpha-male bastion in American society is expunged once and for all. And all in the name of "diversity" -- diversity ueber alles.

Not too very long ago, the thought of handing machine guns or grenades to young women and telling them to fight for us would have been met with derision -- horror even; indeed, no sentient human being would have entertained such a barbaric thought. Would America have been a greater, a more just nation had several hundred young women -- some no doubt pregnant -- been among the 1500 American G.I.'s who died on Omaha Beach on 6 June 1944? And, today, any female Marines captured by Islamic State would be systematically tortured, raped and killed; that would be the inevitable result of the gender policies promoted by preternatural fools such as Ray Mabus.

In a larger sense, the cultural evisceration of our military on the altar of multiculturalism, diversity, whatever you want to call it, should surprise no one. At its very core, multiculturalism seeks to destroy -- to crush all that is Good, Decent, Moral and Just in our fading Judeo-Christian society. As I said, this sinister process has been underway for decades, yet only now, under Barack Obama, have the Bolsheviks been let loose on our armed forces. Sadly, our military brass have, for the most part, simply stood by and watched as Mabus and his ilk wielded their wrecking balls. I cannot recall the case of a single general who, in an act of moral courage, resigned from the service in protest. Yet there is a fundamental difference between physical and moral courage, is there not?

In recent days, Russian fighter-bombers have done barrel rolls within ca. 30 feet of our planes and ships inside international waters. Such reckless behavior (no doubt part of Putin's plan to ratchet up the level of intimidation) leaves little to no room for error and focuses one's mind on the possibility of a tragic international incident, even war. But as the Army chief-of-staff testified recently before the Senate Armed Services Committee, if it ever came to war with Putin's Russia, we'd most likely get the short end of the stick.

Such is the state of America's armed forces under Barack Obama and Ray Mabus.

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  #57 

Secretary of the Army orders Army commands to "balance lactation support and readiness"


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) says Adolf Hitler once said, "Give me five years and you won't recognize Germany anymore."

Well, we've given Barack Hussein Obama seven years and you can't recognize the US Army anymore.

The Obama Administration is literally carpet bombing the military on a daily basis with directives, memos, policies and doctrine that if they weren't actually happening would be considered to be something out of a Kafkaesque, Gloria Steinem nightmare.

Today, I examined a Memorandum for Record, dated September 20, 2015 and signed by the former Secretary of the Army, John McHugh.

You remember Secretary McHugh, he's the guy who dodged and delayed Congressman Steve Russell after Russell requested the Ranger School records of the first two female "graduates", Captain Griest and First Lieutenant Haver. I believe McHugh led the cover up of what actually happened down at Fort Benning, a conspiracy that continues to this day.

Stay tuned USDW readers…

McHugh's Memorandum for Record is titled, Army Directive 2015-37(Breastfeeding and Lactation Support Policy)

Here are some highlights from the memo:

"Commanders and soldiers will balance lactation support and readiness."

Readiness implies ready to fight and win wars. How are lactating, breastfeeding women contributing to the readiness of the US Army? Is a lactating women going to deploy to a combat zone? Is she going to deploy with her child?

"Commanders will designate a private space with locking capabilities, an electrical outlet, and access to a safe water source for "soldiers" to express milk."

The choices here are many: the arms room can store weapons for half the day then serve as a lactation station the other half. How about the battalion command sergeant major's office? I can think of a particular command sergeant major who served five tours in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and who would have loved his office to be used a lactating station. Not…

"Soldiers must supply the equipment needed to pump and store their breast milk."

Shouldn't lactating equipment be issued to all soldiers now? After all this is Obama's Army.

Here comes the part where you have to sit down and read this:

"Soldiers who are breastfeeding or expressing milk remain eligible for field training and mobility exercises."

So, a breastfeeding mother will deploy to the field and participate in field exercises while lactating? How is this going to happen? Is the mother going to bring her child to the field? Should the Army now bring tactical day care centers to field exercises with them?

If the mother doesn't bring the child with them, how are they going to express and store milk in the field? I'm not an expert on the subject, but doesn't breast milk spoil in 24 hours if not refrigerated? And, if it is refrigerated, it will last for seven days. So, is the Army going to provide mobile refrigeration facilities for breast milk in the field?

Apparently, the secondary duty of the mess sergeant will now be to secure, mark and refrigerate breast milk.

"Commanders will provide private space for soldiers to express milk during field and mobility exercises."

Where are women going to express milk in the field? Are they going to have armored vehicles or special tents for them to do this while the field exercise is going on?

"The provisions of this directive are effective immediately and apply to the Active Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve."

I'm sure I can speak for millions of vets who never thought they would see the day when the US Army, breast milk expressing and lactation were used in the same sentence.

This memo was distributed to worldwide US Army commands, including my personal favorite, to the US Army Special Operations Command.

You have to believe that the Boys at Bragg and in Tampa loved that memo.

There may certainly be a new memo signed by the current Secretary of the Army, Eric Fanning, but I doubt anything has changed in the last few months, except probably for the worst.

This whole memorandum for record is absurd and shows the current fugue state the Army and the US military is operating in as a whole.

There have always been women in the Army, either working as civilians or as soldiers in some capacity. But, the Army never sent out memorandums for record establishing breastfeeding and lactation policies in garrison and in the field and on mobility exercises.

What does this memo say about the feminist cancer in the Army and the effect this is having on the Army's ability to conduct operations in peacetime and in war?

The US Army is dying by a death from a thousand cuts as each lunatic directive from red high heels to pregnancy simulators, to women in the Green Berets catastrophically kills the Army.

We're rapidly coming to the point when the Army ceases to be the Army and the Marines cease to be the Marines and the US military is nothing more than a hipster company that offers day care and a boatload of benefits, Swedish style.

Is this the Army or some kind of high tech Silicon Valley Millennial workplace with juice breaks and nap time?

The warrior ethos is fading and with it the US Army. The worst part is the Army is letting it all happen.

The military used to be seen as something macho, tough, a rite of passage. Those days are fading fast. Goodbye Vic Morrow, Goodbye Sergeant Saunders…

Why would any red blooded American male want to be in the Army now? Who wants to be a puppet on a string for feminists?

The Army's ancient culture and traditions are being thrown out the window and exchanged with values from Berkeley. If you want day care, health care, lactation stations, maternity leave and a passive aggressive environment, why not head to corporate America instead? Why join the Army when you know the combat arms unit you are going to be serving with, is going to be coed, deliberately weakened, a pop up target and easy prey for enemy forces?

Why indeed.

Goodbye Merrill's Marauders, Hello Uncle Sam's Day Care.

I can hear the naysayers now and the feminists already before they even comment. The small, but loud and powerful feminist lobby in the military thinks they can do it all. They can be combat soldiers, have kids, nurse in a tank and take the fight to the Russians before they head out to a Sanders rally.

People say the world has changed; the Army has to change with it. The Army keeps changing and it won't be around much longer. It will either implode from within or be annihilated in war. I'm betting on annihilation; so are Putin, Jong Un, ISIS and Mr. Xi from the People's Republic of China.

There is an epidemic of moral relativism wafting through the Pentagon like a deadly nerve gas. The Army's leaders keep rationalizing this lunacy and are trying to pretend everything is okay, it's all normal. There is seemingly an explanation for everything now that's off target in the military. Moral relativism is the Army's new battle cry. Cognitive Dissonance is the Army's new tenet of war.

The nation's politicians and military leaders are so politically correct, and so adept at walking on eggshells, they won't touch anything that deals with women in the military with a ten mile pole.

The problem with the Army is that it's allowed a small minority of wackos to dictate policy and unrealistic and dangerous policies have now become the standard way of doing business. A special interest group is being allowed to rebuild the US Army in its own warped image, a re-designation that will ultimately lead to its destruction.

Can the US Army be saved? Only if its leaders have the moral courage to make tough decisions when they know policies and directives are harmful to the institution and the nation that they have sworn to defend.

Until then, we're on the Eve of Destruction…

I can't believe the damage that Team Obama has done to our military. A majority of Marine Corps aircraft can’t fly and Obama's civilian managers are worried about lactation?

There's no lactation on the battle field!

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  #58 

Marines say they're at the breaking point after Obama budget cuts

The Blaze is reporting that a majority of Marine Corps aircraft can’t fly, prompting Marine officials to warn that the aviation corps is reaching a "breaking point," Fox News reported.

Years of airstrikes in Afghanistan, Iraq and battling the Islamic State have taken its toll on the aircraft.

"Quite honestly, it is coming on the backs of our young Marines," Lt. Col. Matthew "Pablo" Brown, commanding officer of VMFA (AW)-533, a Hornet squadron based at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina. "They can do it, and they are doing it, but it is certainly not easy."

Fewer than one-third of the 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters are ready to fly, Fox reported. Meanwhile, just 42 of 147 heavy-lift CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters are ready to fly.

Defense spending in 2010 was $691 billion, but in 2015, that dropped to $560 billion.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest blamed much of this on Republicans in Congress.

"I can’t provide an update for you in terms of the current condition of the air wing of the Marine corps, what I will say generally is we’ve been quite concerned about the approach that Congress has taken to funding our defense priorities," Earnest told TheBlaze. "There has been a willingness on the part of Republicans to champion the sequester that has had a negative impact on the ability to fund our core defense programs."

Still, Earnest added there are "legitimate places where defense spending can be cut" for the sake of "smart budgeting."

"Those are the types of decision middle class families make around the kitchen table every day, or at least every month," Earnest said.

Further, it sometimes takes Marines 18 months to get parts for the early F-18 jets. Production of these jets was stopped in 2001.

From Fox News:

The cuts include those made by the Obama administration as well as the sequestration cutbacks agreed to by Congress.

Lt. Col Thomas, call sign "Crash," deployed to the Pacific with 10 jets last year. Only seven made it. A fuel leak caused his F/A-18 to catch fire in Guam. Instead of ejecting, he landed safely, saving taxpayers $29 million.

Thomas has deployed eight times in all, including six to Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now only two of his 14 Hornets can fly. His Marines deploy in three months.

"We are supposed to be doing the type of maintenance like you would take your car to Jiffy Lube for replacing fluids, doing minor inspections, changing tires, things of that nature, not building airplanes from the ground up," he added.

Related:  The U. S. Navy is sinking


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  #59 

Medal of Honor recipients snubbed as warships named after liberal politicians


Rowan Scarborough (WashingtonTimes) is reporting that as the Obama administration this week named another warship after a politician, a new report is circulating in Congress that shows that nearly 200 Navy and Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients have never been awarded such an honor, contrary to naval guidelines and tradition.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has named several ships after Democrats and liberal activists not connected to the military, was in Detroit on Monday to announce that an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer will be named the USS Carl M. Levin. The Michigan Democrat served 31 years in the Senate and chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee from 2007 to 2015.

The move has rankled some Republicans. They note privately the long list of war heroes yet to be so honored and the Navy's own tradition of naming destroyers after deceased Medal of Honor recipients and other combat heroes, as well as admirals and generals who played significant roles in naval warfare.

Mr. Levin did not serve in the military.

In a new report privately delivered to lawmakers, the Congressional Research Service did an extensive examination this winter and found that, of 318 Medal of Honor recipients in the Navy and Marine Corps, 100 have had a ship named after them; the large majority of them -- 186 -- have not.

One congressional staffer noted that Mr. Levin presided over the committee during the Obama administration's major drawdown of troops and weapons systems. Joint Chiefs of Staff officers testified in recent months that they doubt they can fight one major war on the schedule outlined in the National Military Strategy.

The Levin naming did not conform to Mr. Mabus' own guidelines set out in a report to Congress in 2012 called "Policies and Practices of the U.S. Navy for Naming the Vessels of the Navy."

Congress demanded the accounting after Mr. Mabus had strayed from tradition on several warship namesakes.

The Navy report said its guideline calls for naming destroyers after deceased Navy and Marine Corps veterans and Navy secretaries.

An examination by The Washington Times of the 71 Arleigh Burke monikers shows Mr. Levin is the only one -- except Winston Churchill -- who does not meet the Navy guideline for destroyers. Most Arleigh Burke honorees are naval war heroes; a significant number earned the Medal of Honor. There are several Navy secretaries.

Capt. Patrick McNally, Mr. Mabus' spokesman, told The Times: "He names ships for American heroes and considers Senator Levin's long commitment to the nation worthy of recognition …. The naming conventions are guidelines set by the secretary. He can deviate from them if he desires."

Capt. McNally said Mr. Mabus has named a number of destroyers after Medal of Honor recipients. They include the Ralph Johnson, the Thomas Hudner, the Harvey Barnum and the Daniel Inouye, the late Democratic senator from Hawaii.

Mr. Mabus announced in January that an Expeditionary Sea Base will carry the name of Hershel "Woody" Williams, a World War II Medal of Honor recipient.

Other Senate Armed Services chairmen have been so honored for other ship classes.

The George W. Bush administration named a Virginia-class attack submarine after former Sen. John Warner, who also served as a Marine enlisted man in World War II and as a Navy secretary.

Democrat John C. Stennis of Mississippi, a legendary defense hawk, has an aircraft carrier in his name.

Democrat Richard B. Russell of Georgia championed defense spending as Armed Services chairman. Like Mr. Warner, his name is on an attack submarine.

In the House, the late Democratic congressman Carl Vinson has his name on an aircraft carrier because he championed a large, "blue water" Navy able to operate in all oceans.

"Carl Levin is no Carl Vinson, Richard Russell or John Stennis," said a congressional defense staffer. "He has presided over the dismantlement of the U.S. military, which is an accomplishment for the Obama administration."

Mr. Mabus, a former Democratic governor of Mississippi, has irked some Republicans for veering from tradition by naming warships after social activists and politicians with no link to the military.

Since the start of the Obama administration, Mr. Mabus has named combat logistics supply ships after civil rights leader Medgar Evers and leftist farmworker Cesar Chavez.

All previous Lewis and Clark-class cargo ships had been named for famous explorers or people who made significant contributions to the military, as called for in Navy conventions.

He named a littoral combat ship after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona Democrat, who was seriously wounded in a January 2011 assassination attempt.

He named a San Diego-class docking ship after another Democrat, the late Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania. The previous nine ships had been named after U.S. cities, a park and a county, following Navy conventions.

Mr. Murtha was a Marine in Vietnam and supported the defense budget. He angered the Marine community in 2005 when he charged that Marines had killed civilians "in cold blood" in the Iraqi village of Haditha.

In January Mr. Mabus again broke with past tradition. He named a fleet replenishment oiler, TAO-205, after civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, George Democrat. Mr. Lewis voted for removing all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2007 and from Afghanistan in 2011.

Navy guidelines had said such ships are named for rivers or people instrumental to maritime and aviation design and production.

But Mr. Mabus changed the convention last year, saying the 17 oilers will be named after civil and human rights activists.

The 2012 Navy report to Congress stated: "The foregoing discussion helps preview one of the central themes of this report: US Navy ship naming policies, practices, and 'traditions' are not fixed; they evolve constantly over time."

The Navy report also defended Mr. Mabus' decision-making.

For example, it defended the naming of the Gabrielle Giffords: "Secretary Mabus was well aware that Congresswoman Giffords is much younger than those Members of Congress previously so honored and, as a result, her record does not equal theirs in numbers of years served or in the general level of attention applied to military or naval matters. He also knows from many visits to hospitals that hundreds of young service men and women have received wounds as grievous as Ms. Giffords's, and agrees they all rightfully deserve respect and recognition. However, given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this case, he felt it both fitting and appropriate to exercise his discretion -- established by the very first Secretary of the Navy over 210 years ago -- to make an exception to a ship naming convention to honor Congresswoman Giffords."

In an August 2009 ceremony to name a destroyer after Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham, a posthumous Medal of Honor recipient for valor in Iraq, Mr. Mabus talked of the importance of a warship carrying a hero's identity.

"Today, Jason takes his rightful place in naval history alongside his storied legacy in the annals of the Marine Corps," he said. "Though Jason is no longer with us, his name will live on in this magnificent warship that represents the best our nation has to offer.

"Jason's spirit -- as a warrior, fighter and one who never gave up, even in the face of great challenges -- lives on to lead all of the men and women who will ever serve aboard USS Jason Dunham, in home waters and abroad. In the fighting spirit of its namesake, the men and women of USS Jason Dunham will never back down from any challenge put before them."

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, on Tuesday sent a letter to Mr. Mabus asking him to explain his departure from convention in naming the Carl Levin.

"It is important that the Navy adhere to its own ship naming rules and takes every effort necessary to avoid politicization of this process," Mr. Hunter said.


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  #60 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must resign

God told Abraham that he would spare Sodom if he could find ten righteous men.


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) wants to know if there is one righteous man in the Pentagon who can save the US military from its impending doom?

Last September, General Martin Dempsey retired as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dempsey's reign at the Pentagon was a green light to use the US armed forces as some kind of laboratory for the testing and implementation of every lunatic, left wing fantasy of what the military should be like, but in reality, isn't. Any senior officers not supporting Obama's Maoist Revolution in the US military were purged under Dempsey, with a speed and efficiency Stalin would admire.

Dempsey did more damage to the US military than all the enemies of America in the last 240 years combined.

Since taking the helm as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October, General Joe Dunford, a Marine and a combat veteran has said nothing as Ash Carter authorized women to serve in the combat arms branches of the military and in special operations units.

General Joe said nothing as Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus ordered the military to rewrite its manuals and acronym dictionaries with gender neutral terms.

General Joe has done nothing as Marines have been ordered to undergo unconscious bias training, the Corps wide brainwashing that will attempt to convince Marines that a 5 foot, 95 pound woman can go up against a 6 foot, two inch, 200 pound Jihadi in hand to hand combat and live to fight another day.

General Joe said nothing as the US Navy surrendered two of its heavily armed Riverine craft to Iranian thugs in bass boats. General Joe has said and done nothing as the commanding officer, Lieutenant David Nartker, violated Articles II and V of the US Military Code of Conduct, while a prisoner of the Iranians.

General Joe has done nothing as the US continues its feckless air campaign against ISIS.

General Joe has done nothing as the Secretary of Defense pushed for the authorization to force American women, ages 18 to 26, to register for a military draft, should one be needed in time of war.

General Joe, the scuttlebutt says that you don't approve of what is happening and have voiced your opinion to Ash Carter, which is like voicing your opinion to a wall. To your country, you remain silent. Why? How is hunkering down in your E-Ring office and allowing the complete destruction of the US military by social engineers helpful? As a former US Army officer, I understand how the military works. I know that you must play ball and not rock the boat to be promoted, but, the boat, sir, is sinking. I know that you have spent many years of your life doing your best for the Corps and doing your best to please the boss.

I get it. But…

The boss, aka Barack Obama is overseeing the obliteration of not only the Marine Corps, but the entire US military.

The boss, aka Barack Obama is putting the nation in mortal danger by allowing cultural Marxist lunatics to implement policies which are not going just weaken the US military, but annihilate it.

Perhaps you're worried about your career or your retirement benefits. Flash message traffic sir, you've reached the glass ceiling. What's left; command of the Pentagon Library or perhaps a tour of duty in the Pentagon Laundry with Ensign Pulver?

You know damned well that what is happening is an abomination and a dishonor to every American soldier, sailor, Marine and airman who has ever worn the uniform.

The time for senior officers allowing the military to go down the drain is done. The time for senior officers rationalizing that what is happening is somehow okay, is done. The time for senior officers looking the other way, while an organization they love is being destroyed is done.

Do it sir. Resign for the good of the Corps and the US military. Do it for every Grunt, Jarhead, Swabbie, Zoomie, Johnny Reb, Billy Yank, Buffalo Soldier, Rough Rider, Doughboy and GI who gave their lives for this country. Do it for them because they expected better from a nation they died for.

Do it for vets, because all of us are you.

Once you resign, call a press conference and tell the world why you resigned; because Barack Obama and his lackeys; Ash Carter, Ray Mabus, Eric Fanning and Deborah Lee James are systematically destroying the US Armed Forces piece by piece and replacing it with a politically correct, gender neutral, breastfeeding force so weak that the smallest nations on earth will be able to vanquish us on the field of battle.

Resign General Joe and show the nation that there is still one senior officer in the ranks of the US military with enough moral rectitude to tell the truth.

Resign General Joe and tell the truth to an American people who do not understand the military and its missions because a majority of the American people has never served a day in uniform.

You, General Joe, are the last righteous man standing at the helm. Will you have the moral courage to do what is right and save the US military?

Time will tell.

Until then, the enemies of this republic have their eyes upon the Pentagon, and they like what they see…moral cowardice.

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  #61 

The American warrior culture is doomed


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) says: the US military is in mortal danger as I write this article.

Americans have no idea that vast social changes forced upon the military are on the verge of destroying it. Americans will no longer sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

We are in serious jeopardy of losing the one institution that has enabled us to maintain our freedom for 240 years.

We are in serious danger of losing the one institution that successfully defeated and destroyed the world's thugs, maniacs and sociopaths that teed off against us.

The American Warrior and his culture are being crucified by the current Commander in Chief and leftist lunatics who are hell bent on breaking the military into a million pieces in a perpetual Night of the Long Knives.

This weekend on Fox News, Bret Baier hosted a one hour special on the demise of the US military under Barack Obama. Baier's report was about as out on the limb the mainstream media will go to touch on the delicate subject of women in combat.

Baier interviewed Michael Waltz, a former Special Forces officer, who served in Afghanistan. Waltz talked about the Warrior Culture, how fragile it is and how it shouldn't be touched.

What exactly is the Warrior Culture and why is it in so much danger? In a nutshell, the Warrior Culture encompasses the 240 year old traditions of the US Army and Marines, while promoting a macho, all male camaraderie steeped in every unit's history and heroics.

An Army or Marine Corps combat arms or special operations unit that is all male experiences a level of esprit de corps and bonding that is simply unexplainable to people outside of the military and impossible to replicate in the civilian world. It is a camaraderie fostered out of the unique experience of facing incredible physical and mental challenges and, above all, danger.

Soldiers and Marines don't fight wars for Mom or America or Apple Pie. They fight wars for their buddies -- the man next to them, the guy in their squad, the soldier or Marine in their platoon. The bond that soldiers and Marines in combat have transcends decades and lasts for life.

Feminists love to call this the Band of Brothers mythology. Oddly enough, the modern day feminists who write position papers and PhD theses have never shivered in a foxhole in Bastogne, battled VC guerillas in the alleys of Saigon, tangled with the Republican Guard at Medina Ridge and fought the Taliban in the steep mountains of Afghanistan.

The American Warrior Culture with its intense focus on esprit de corps, male bonding, aggressiveness in training, and combat has resulted in the greatest military force in the long history of the world. No one could have described the American Warrior Culture and the sacrifices and bravery of the American Warrior better than General Douglas MacArthur. In his farewell speech to the cadets at West Point in 1962, MacArthur remarked:

And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are they capable of victory?

Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.

But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.

In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.

Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory -- always victory, always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of Duty, Honor, Country.

From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage.

Now, in 2016, the American Warrior and the American Warrior Culture is on the precipice of doom.

During both terms of the Obama Administration, the US Army and Marines have witnessed the abolition of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which created an environment for open homosexuality in the military. The military has been ordered to allow transgenders in its ranks, has conducted White Privilege training and endless sensitivity training classes. Soldiers have been ordered to take classes which portray the Bible and the Declaration of Independence as sexist documents. Combat commands have been ordered to set up lactation stations for breastfeeding soldiers and memorandums for record describe in detail the proper storage of breast milk in the field. US Army soldiers are ordered to do PT while wearing pregnancy simulators and male ROTC cadets were instructed to parade around college campuses in their uniforms with red high heels.

Red high heels do not maketh a soldier.

None of the things mentioned promote the warrior culture. They degrade it. They destroy it for the greater good of cultural Marxist ideals that are anathema to the US military and its ancient codes and traditions.

Most importantly, and the greatest danger to the republic is Secretary of Defense Ash Carter authorization to allow women to serve in the combat arms and the special operations units. Various Congressional leaders, like John McCain have vowed to stop it, but as of now, I have seen no movement from Senator McCain on this issue.

The Army and the Marines have been ordered to open the infantry, armor, cavalry, artillery, the combat engineers, the Green Berets, the Marine Raiders, Delta Force and the Navy SEALs to women.

The social engineers tell us that not only will women meet all the standards to serve in these units, but the traditional male bonding, which forms the nucleus of any combat arms or special ops unit will not be affected.

This is wrong on both counts. In fair assessments, 99.99 percent of the women in the world cannot meet the standards of the combat arms, physical standards designed for men. If the three women who supposedly graduated from Ranger School did it honestly, why is the Army disobeying Congress by refusing to submit the Ranger School records of the three female grads? I have never heard of or seen a coed military unit that does not rapidly evolve into a high school class instead of a military unit. Having women in the combat arms will completely and unequivocally destroy the camaraderie of these units in one fell swoop.

The social engineers will also say that women have been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Conducting security operations or returning fire when a truck convoy is shot at is not the same as finding, fixing and killing the enemy, the job of the combat arms and special operations.

In the past, feminist nuts like Pat Schroeder and retired Major General Claudia Kennedy were laughed at when they spoke of putting women into the combat arms and special operations. Kennedy once remarked, "This is not your father's Army" before accusing another officer of sexual harassment then exiting out of the Army with her retirement checks and a book deal.

Laugh no more.

Start crying.

The Spirit of the Bayonet is about to be replaced by the Spirit of Estrogen.

In the real world, the whole Girl Power Movement doesn't last too long once the shots ring out and the shells impact. War is a violent, horrific, unnatural experience that requires the most physically fit, aggressive men the nation can muster.

Roughly 80% of the jobs in the Army and the Marines belong to the clerks and jerks who fill the ranks of what the military calls the ash and trash units; the units who maintain the logistical train and support the units that fight our nation's wars.

The combat arms and special operations units only make up about 20% of the Army and the Marines. A woman who wants to join the Army or Marines has a myriad of MOS choices at the recruiting center. In fact, most women surveyed by both branches have no desire to be a grunt, a tanker, a gun bunny or a Special Forces snake eater. Most women just want to serve their country behind a computer or by driving a truck or working in a hospital.

The women in the US military are being used by feminists as virtual guinea pig chess pawns.

In the future, wars may be fought and won by drones and lasers and robots. Until then, the US Army and the Marines need the toughest, roughest men to fill the ranks of the combat arms and special operations units.

If we lose the Warrior Culture, we lose the military. If we lose the military, we lose the nation.

Yeah, it's that serious.

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  #62 

Intelligence officers claim they were forced out for telling the truth about Obama and ISIS


Aleister (ProgressivesToday) says if you listen to Obama talk about his efforts to stop ISIS, he's very optimistic and while diminishing the actions of the terror group.

Two intelligence officers have now come forward to say that's a bunch of garbage and that they were forced out for not parroting the administration's message.

The Daily Beast reported:

Intel analysts: We were forced out for telling the truth about Obama's ISIS war

Two senior intelligence analysts at U.S. Central Command say the military has forced them out of their jobs because of their skeptical reporting on U.S.-backed rebel groups in Syria, three sources with knowledge of their claim told The Daily Beast. It's the first known instance of possible reprisals against CENTCOM personnel after analysts accused their bosses of manipulating intelligence reports about the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS in order to paint a rosier picture of progress in the war.

One of the analysts alleging reprisals is the top analyst in charge of Syria issues at CENTCOM. He and a colleague doubted rebels' capabilities and their commitment to U.S. objectives in the region. The analysts have been effectively sidelined from their positions and will no longer be working at CENTCOM, according to two individuals familiar with the dispute, and who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The analysts' skeptical views put them at odds with military brass, who last year had predicted that a so-called moderate opposition would make up a 15,000-man ground force to take on ISIS in its self-declared caliphate. An initial $500 million program to train and arm those fighters failed spectacularly. And until the very end, Pentagon leaders claimed the operation was more or less on track. Lawmakers called the plan a "joke" when Gen. Lloyd Austin, the CENTCOM commander, finally testified last September that there were just "four or five" American-trained fighters in Syria.

Read the rest here.

Try to imagine how the media would treat this story if it was about Bush or any other Republican.

It'd be the top story for weeks with special reports and investigations.

But Obama will get a pass. As usual.

If you read Obama's schedule today, he is having an extremely rare meeting and then a dinner with the Joint Chiefs and major commanders at the White House.

Obama is bringing the Chiefs to him -- to his seat of power. He will be giving them orders today.

Whatever those orders are -- they won't be good for the military -- or the country.

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  #63 

Defense Department orders Marines to change their culture

Steve Byas (TheNewAmerican) says that among the memorable television commercials of the 1990s was the one where a couple of mechanics are attempting to force a too-large battery into a man's car. The owner protests that the battery is too big, but the mechanics bring out a hammer and promise to "make it fit."

The commercial does a flashback to when the two mechanics were children, and one was attempting to force a square peg into a round hole. One boy insists, "It's not going in!"; but the other responds that the solution is to "Just keep hitting it."

That sums up how the U.S. Marine Corps leadership and enlisted men must feel about Barack Obama's push to force the Corps to include women into combat units -- regardless of all reasons it will not work. "Just do it" is the order the military is expected to follow when it comes to this question -- to cite the slogan of another famous commercial.

"There's no doubt we're leading cultural change," Brigadier General James Glynn said about the ongoing efforts to carry out Obama's orders. "But we like a challenge."

Over the course of its history, the Marines have faced many challenges, including their battles with the Barbary pirates, the amphibious landings at Vera Cruz in the Mexican War, and the battles at Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima during World War II. But those challenges were met with combat units trained to win battles, not selected to meet the demands of social engineering.

General Robert Neller, commandant of the Marine Corps, intends to implement "cultural change" so Marines will accept the inclusion of women into combat units. Obama has given the Corps until April 1 to impose his orders to include women in infantry, armor, and artillery combat units. As part of that process, the Marines will undergo a new curriculum of sensitivity training.

The Marine Corps Force Integration Campaign Plan approved by General Neller has as its purpose "gender integration education." This is designed to "ensure the integration of female Marines into ground combat arms MOSs [military occupational specialties] and units [is] successful."

Marines will be lectured in courses to change the Marine Corps culture, such as "Unconscious Bias," and "Interpersonal Communication."

The "Unconscious Bias" class is designed to provide "an understanding of the concept of cognitive bias, awareness of one's own cognitive bias via a performance-based exam, and cognitive bias mitigation techniques." In other words, the training will instruct the men that they are biased toward women and will lead them to overcome such bias.

The Marine Corps originally asked to keep units involved in close-in ground attacks on the enemy closed to females, but Obama Defense Secretary Ashton Carter refused.

After this request was denied, the Marines announced their intention to require equal standards of physical performance for both men and women. "[A]dherence to a merit-based system must continue to be paramount," the Marine Corps has insisted. "Leaders must not use special preferences or undue pressure to increase numbers at the expense of merit. Integration provides equal opportunity for men and women who can perform the tasks required; it does not guarantee women will fill these roles in any specific number or at any set rate."

So, while the Corps may be forced into integrating women into all combat units, their goal is that women will have to pass the same type of running, lifting, climbing, and marching tests as men.

But Elaine Donnelly, with the Center for Military Readiness, fears that the Corps will eventually be forced to lower its standards so women can be accommodated. "If the Marines try to maintain a merit-based system, it will not withstand political pressures to meet equal opportunity goals and gender-diversity metrics and quotas," she declared.

Indeed, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 2013, now-retired Army General Martin Dempsey warned that if women proved unable to meet a particular standard, the services had better have a good reason why it should not be lowered.

After the Corps performed some field experimentation and discovered that mixed-sex combat units were less effective than all-male ones, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus simply dismissed the validity of the studies.

Army Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, a retired officer who is a military analyst for Fox News, said, "All the time squandered on this stuff [sensitivity training] is time you are not spending training for war."

It is not just the Marines. In fact, the Army surrendered to this politicization sooner than the Marines. The latest evidence: 400 soldiers in the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia, were told in a training session, "Our society attaches privileges to being white and male and heterosexual." Soldiers were informed in a slideshow, "Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans."

Among the assertions foisted upon the soldiers forced to sit through the "training" session was this: "Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they've done or failed to do."

This is not the first time the Defense Department has used taxpayer funds and its control over soldiers to attempt indoctrination in left-wing political views. Previously, so-called equal opportunity training materials have identified conservative organizations as "hate groups." In these sessions, the soldiers are cautioned that "many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place." Interestingly, this is similar to the slogan of the constitutionalist conservative John Birch Society: "Less government, more responsibility, and with God's help, a better world."

How far will this leftist indoctrination go? It must be remembered that the military is expected to salute smartly and follow orders. Failure to do so leads to the termination of a career. Hundreds of high-ranking officers -- from not only the Army, but all the services -- have chosen to retire or have been forced into retirement during the Obama years.

Senator John McCain called General Dempsey's testimony to Congress, when promoting such "politically correct" programs, "An echo chamber of the Obama adminstration."

When Congressman Steve Russell (R-Okla.), a former Army Ranger, asked for the scores of women who had supposedly performed "just as well, and even, better, in some cases, than men," he was told that the records supporting those assertions no longer existed.

General Douglas MacArthur, in his farewell address at West Point in 1964, told the graduating cadets that they held "the nation's destiny in their hands, the moment the war tocsin sounds." Sadly, it appears that today's army is being trained for something other than defending the nation. This is an issue that the media should ask the presidential candidates about, since the winner of this year's contest will become the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Barack Obama's social engineering has done more damage to America's military than any enemy it has ever faced on the battle field.

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  #64 

The castration of the Joint Chiefs of Staff


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) wants to know when the Joint Chiefs will make a stand against the Obama Administration?

Will the Joint Chiefs ever stand up against the insane social engineering policies which are eviscerating the military like a late night Ginsu chef?

Last September, General Martin Dempsey retired as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and escaped in a rowboat down the Potomac as the Pentagon began to sink into the cold depths of the wide, grey river.

Dempsey's reign of cowardice and political correctness was a genuine disaster for the US military. Under Dempsey and his sidekick, Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed, transgenders were authorized to serve in the military and we departed Iraq leaving a power vacuum and the keys to a Pandora's Box.

Under Dempsey, crippling rules of engagement in Afghanistan continued, which make our soldiers and Marines pop up targets of opportunity. Under Dempsey, military personnel were subjected to hours and hours of sensitivity training, doing physical training wearing pregnancy simulators, lactation and breastfeeding memos distributed to combat commands, a war in the ranks against Christianity, a purge of hundreds of general officers and admirals and my personal favorite…the ordering of US Army ROTC male cadets to parade around college campuses in red high heels, in order to feel sympathy for rape victims.

Under Dempsey, the US began Operation Inherent Resolve, the Five O'Clock Charlie air campaign against ISIS that is the laughing stock of the Middle East.

Under Dempsey, the graduation of three women at Ranger School took place, including a 37 year old woman, in what is still a giant cover up. So much obfuscation and Kool Aid drinking is taking place at Benning, it should be renamed Fort Cognitive Dissonance.

Did Dempsey really believe in all of these lunatic radical cultural Marxist policies? Probably not; I'm sure when Dempsey was a Major in the 3rd Armored Division in Desert Storm he probably never thought, "Well, one day I will command men who will wear red high heels in uniform." "One day, my boys will run PT in pregnancy simulators in order to feel what it's like to be pregnant." One day, when I'm Chairman of the JCS, my soldiers will take classes that will instruct them how the Bible and the Declaration of Independence are sexist documents."

Most military people are conservative and live to defend the tradition of their service branch, their division, their regiment, their MOS. What did Dempsey believe in? What did Dempsey defend? Dempsey believed in the greater good of Dempsey. Dempsey defended Dempsey's retirement benefits.

While Dempsey was Chairman of the JCS there was not one iota of criticism from him or Odierno or the other Joint Chiefs against any of the looney directives being issued from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

With Dempsey gone, it was hoped that the new Chairman, General Fighting Joe Dunford, a Marine would take the helm and put a stop to the radical left wing policy initiatives that are killing the US military. If anyone could save the US military it was a Marine. Right?


Sadly, we haven't seen much fighting from General Joe. He appears to be as lost in the Pentagon as Dempsey, wandering the halls in a surreal fugue state like a late night ghost on the Queen Mary.

I saw him on TV today. He looked like a Marine who had been just been taken off the line after two months of continual combat on Guadalcanal.

Yeah, Ole General Joe had the 1,000 Yard Stare. You know he isn't a happy camper in Ash Carter's Pentagon right now.

Under General Joe's reign as Chairman of the JCS, he's said nothing as Ash Carter authorized women to serve in the combat arms branches of the military and in special operations units.

In your wildest dreams, do you really believe Joe Dunford thinks women can make it through US Navy SEALs training?

General Joe said nothing as Ray Mabus ordered the military to rewrite its manuals and acronym dictionaries with gender neutral terms.

General Joe has done nothing as Marines have been ordered to undergo unconscious bias training, the Corps wide brainwashing that will attempt to convince Marines that a 5 foot two inch, 95 pound woman can go up against a 6 foot two inch, 200 pound Jihadi in hand to hand combat and live to fight another day.

Uh huh…

General Joe said nothing as the US Navy surrendered two of its heavily armed Riverine craft to Iranian thugs in bass boats.

General Joe said nothing as the commanding officer, Lieutenant David Nartker, violated Articles II and V of the US Military Code of Conduct, while a prisoner of the Iranians.

General Joe has done nothing as the US continues its feckless air campaign against ISIS. While Dunford and the other Joint Chiefs surely know that two bombs a day, doesn't keep ISIS away, they've said nothing.

In lockstep with Ash Carter and Obama, the Joint Chiefs support women signing up and being subjected to a military draft. It's hard to believe that General Mark Milley, a former Special Forces officer really believes this is a great idea. Milley believes becoming the Chairman of the JCS or the NATO Commander is a great idea though.

Silence is golden in the Pentagon.

Readers might well ask, well, what can these men do? They're in the military. They take orders.

They can advise the Barack Obama and Ash Carter and Ray Mabus and Eric Fanny that their policies are lunatic. They can resign en masse.

Imagine a press conference where the Chairman of the JCS and the Joint Chiefs all resign over their problems with current military policies.

That would probably end their careers. So what? What else is there for a four star general to do; Command of the Pentagon Library? These guys are so bogged down in fear of the outside that the thought of not following procedures and orders is anathema to them.

Newsflash boys; this isn't Nazi Germany. The "I'm only following orders" excuse went out the window at Nuremberg in 1946.

The moral cowards of the JCS are endangering the country they have sworn to defend and the troops they claim to love.

Frankly, my best advice to a future President Trump or Cruz is to fire Dunford and the JCS and to keep firing feather merchants and perfumed princes until this country can once again have some senior leaders with backbone.

Until then, turn up the volume on your TV. The Benny Hill theme is playing at the Pentagon.

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  #65 

The death of the U. S. Marine Corps

Progressives want this for your daughter or granddaughter -- and for what -- an agenda?

Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) is reporting that the U.S. Marine Corps is the latest casualty in the Maoist Cultural Revolution being shoved down the throat of the military and incinerating the fighting spirit and readiness of the armed forces like a five alarm fire.

As reported this week by Military.Com,

Marines across the Corps will be challenged on their unconscious prejudices and presuppositions as women get the opportunity to become grunts for the first time.

Unconscious prejudices and presuppositions defined as simple facts such as women lack the upper body strength, the aerobic lung capacity, testosterone for aggressiveness, are more prone to injuries, while possessing a myriad of hygiene issues in the field that men do not encounter.

The Marine Corps is rolling out mandatory training for all Marines before the first future female rifleman hits boot camp, aiming to set conditions for a smooth transition and head off cultural resistance.

Mobile training teams will be dispatched to installations across the Corps throughout May and June to offer a two-day seminar to majors and lieutenant colonels, Col. Anne Weinberg, deputy director of the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office, told reporters Thursday. Those officers will then train the Marines under them.

Mobile training teams defined as modern day Soviet Zampolits, or political officers, who will travel the world in order to brainwash Marines that this catastrophe is doable and un-negotiable.

Topics include unconscious bias, which focuses on how people prejudge others based on factors such as race and gender, and principles of institutional change. The seminar will also walk officers through the elements of the Corps' plan for opening ground combat jobs to women and include vignettes featuring challenges units might encounter.

Challenges may vary and include losing wars, getting a lot of young Marines killed and being the laughing stock of our enemies worldwide.

"You're in the field, you only have this certain amount of space for billeting and you've got three women and six guys. How are you going to billet?" Weinberg said, describing a potential vignette. "Just some of these common sense things that these units probably haven't had to deal with so that ground combat units haven't had to deal with, but we've been dealing with in the rest of the Marine Corps for generations."

Newsflash to Colonel Weinberg from the USMC Innovation Office, aka Berkeley Pentagon Detachment: there are no billets in the field REMF! Your billet is a piece of ground.

The Marine Corps rolled out a "commander's tool kit" of optional online classes on similar topics in late 2014 as the service prepared for the possibility of an integration mandate.

USMC Commander's Tool Kit in 2016 includes: pregnancy simulators, breast pumps, tactical lactation station overlays, red high heels and the proper procedure to set up a unisex latrine.

A Center for Naval Analyses survey of 54,000 Marines recently obtained by The Washington Post gives context to the need for training on cultural and institutional resistance as female Marines go infantry. The report found that a significant majority of male Marines at every rank opposed the decision to have women serve in ground combat jobs. The resistance was strongest among male junior officers in the ranks of captain and below, who opposed women in ground combat jobs at a rate of more than 72 percent. At least a third of female Marines at every rank were also opposed to the idea.

The troops have spoken. They know an impending cluster when they see one.

"There's no doubt we're leading cultural change. It's not the first time for the Marine Corps, but we like a challenge," said Brig. Gen. James Glynn, director of the Marine Corps' office of communication. "The purpose of the mobile training team is to begin to facilitate the cultural change … you've got to have the conversation."

This isn't going to be a challenge, General Glynn, it's going to be a genuine, Grade A debacle that will lead to disaster, destruction and defeat on the field of battle.

What's in it for you General Glynn? What's it worth now to sell out the greatest fighting force on the earth to a bunch of Marxist social engineers?

It's more than obvious that the Marine Corps brass and the Pentagon could care less what ordinary Marines think. The average Marine, like the average soldier, airman and sailor is being abandoned by their senior officers who have the backbone of jellyfish.

Women are being shoved into the combat branches of the Marines, even though most of them want nothing to do with the infantry, armor, artillery, the Marine Raiders and Marine Recon.

Women are being shoved into the combat branches of the Marines, even though women went 0 for 26 last year at the Marine Infantry Officers' Basic Course.

Women are being shoved into the combat branches of the Marines, even though all female units and coed units performed far worse during various combat simulations conducted by the Corps during a several month long, 36 million dollar study that was completely ignored and tossed out the window by Secretary of the Navy and all-around lackey, Ray Mabus.

Nothing matters to the social engineers: readiness doesn't matter, combat power doesn't matter, unit fighting spirit doesn't matter; plummeting morale doesn't matter.

Nothing matters except the implementation of this insanity, the Marine Corps be damned.

The Pentagon perfumed princes and princesses are very clever. They have put the burden of brainwashing a whole generation of Marines on the shoulders of Majors and Lieutenant-Colonels, the middle managers of the Marines, who usually have families and responsibilities and the fear of being tossed out of the Corps and out into the big, bad world of unemployed ObamaLand.

The middle management of the Marine Corps is malleable, unlike junior officers, many of whom have no desire to make the Marines a career and who would gladly tell Ray Mabus where he can stick his gender neutral nightmare Marine Corps.

A majority of the civilian social engineers and the military minions have never served a day near any shot and shell. They have no clue what it takes to storm the ash laden hills of Iwo Jima, to hit the beach at Tarawa, to cringe under machine gun fire at Hue, to race to the gates of Kuwait City, to fight shoulder to shoulder in Fallujah. They have no clue what it's like to be dirty and tired and terrified and to know that the only thing keeping you going is the knowledge that the Marines around you are the toughest, roughest sons of bitches on the planet.

Well, no more…

Requiescat in Pace United States Marine Corps…

As for Weinberg, Glynn, Mabus and the rest of the moral cowards and Quislings, you are going down in history as modern day Benedict Arnolds who will be responsible not only for the death of the US Marine Corps, but for the deaths of future Marines in battle.

As for the Chairman of the JCS, General Joe Dunford, we're about to send out a search party for you sir.

General Joe, this is US Defense Watch. Radio Check, over…

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  #66 

US general says we could be screwed in a war against China or Russia


The New York Post is reporting that the Army's top general says military forces on the ground face a high level of risk if the United States gets into a large-scale conflict against a power such as Russia or China.

Testifying Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley says years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, constrained budgets and troop cuts have had a cumulative effect on the service.

Milley says the Army is ready to fight the Islamic State group and other terrorist organizations.

But what Milley describes as a "great power war" against one or two of four countries -- China, Russia, Iran and North Korea -- would pose greater challenges.

Milley says the Army's readiness is not at a level that is appropriate for what the American people expect to defend them.


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  #67 

Documents reveal US Army indoctrinated soldiers on the dangers of "white privilege"


Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained documents from the United States Department of the Army revealing that in April 2015, 400 soldiers in the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia, were subjected to a "white privilege" briefing, including a PowerPoint presentation instructing the attendees: "Our society attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual …"

The slideshow also informed the soldiers: "Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans." It alleged that there are unspecified "powerful forces everywhere" keeping different kinds of people from being valued, accepted, and appreciated, but "we act as if it doesn't exist." This alleged privilege creates a "yawning divide" in income, wealth, and dignity.  The material described a mythical African woman who isn't aware that she's black until she comes to America, encounters "white racism" and discovers the U.S. is "organized according to race."

The Department of the Army documents were obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking:

Any and all materials used in an Equal Opportunity briefing provided on April 2, 2015, to the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia, which included a discussion of "white privilege," including but not limited to, handouts, PowerPoint presentations, audio/video tapes, course syllabi, and any recordings of the presentation itself.

The response to the Judicial Watch FOIA request included the entire Equal Opportunity Training PowerPoint presentation entitled "Power and Privilege," which states:

Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they've done or failed to do.

Privilege has become one of those loaded words we need to reclaim so that we can use it to name and illuminate the truth


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" [Quotation not attributed]


Our society attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual regardless of your social class.


Imagine a school or a workplace where all kinds of people feel comfortable showing up. [sic] valued, accepted, supported, appreciated, respected, belonging. [sic] Something very powerful keeps this from us.

The truth of this powerful forces [sic] is everywhere, but we don't know how to talk about it and so we act as though it doesn't exist

The trouble we're in privileges [sic] some groups at the expense of others.

It creates a yawning divide in levels of income, wealth, dignity, safety, health and quality of life.

It promotes fear, suspicion, discrimination, harassment, and violence.


Consider the "black woman" in Africa who has not experienced white racism and does not identify herself as a "black woman".  African, a woman, but not black.

She only became "black" when she came to the U.S. where privilege is organized according to race, where she is assigned to a social category that bears that name and she is treated differently as a result. [Emphasis added]


The trouble we're in can't be solved unless the "privileged" make the problem of privilege their problem and do something about it.

The fact that it's so easy for me and other people in dominant groups not to do this is the single most powerful barrier to change.

Though news of the indoctrination incident was briefly reported in Stars and Stripes shortly after it occurred, only one of the above slides previously has been made public.  Confronted with the information at the time, an Army spokesperson claimed the presentation was not officially sanctioned.

Judicial Watch previously obtained Defense Department equal opportunity training materials that depict conservative organizations as "hate groups" and advise students to be aware that "many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place."  And last month, Judicial Watch uncovered Air Force Academy documents that show how the Academy used its "Chapel Tithes and Offering Fund" to pay for cadets to participate in worship services featuring witchcraft, "Faery Magick," and voodoo.

"Outrageous -- that is the only word to describe this type of raw racist indoctrination," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  "The Obama administration undermines the morale of our military with morally repugnant ‘equal opportunity training' that makes many soldiers feel unwelcome because they are the wrong sex, race, religion or aren't part of a politically correct group."

This helps unit cohesion how?

This is sowing the seeds of division. Just what any 3rd-world Marxist would do to our armed forces.

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  #68 

U.S. Army continues its assault on sanity 


Chad Groening (OneNewsNow) is reporting that a national defense analyst says it's pretty obvious that Barack Obama wants to open the U.S. armed forces to anyone -- man or woman, or a little of both.

Obama has attached language in the 2017 Defense Department budget that states the U.S. Army will provide every soldier and civilian equal opportunities to rise to the level of their merit "regardless of their gender, their race, or their self-identity."

The Washington Times reports that the term "self-identity" was not contained in the sections on the other three military branches and was not found in military budgets for past years.

Some observers suggest the term refers to transgender people, and Bob Maginnis of the Family Research Council agrees with that assessment.

"I think it's pretty straight forward they're going to eliminate any prohibition on who's going to serve in the military," he says. "Now that we have an open homosexual acting secretary of the Army, nobody's going to say anything about gays and lesbians, much less transgenders."

That's a reference to Eric Fanning, an open homosexual who is awaiting Senate confirmation as Army secretary.

The Times story also quotes military watchdog Elaine Donnelly, who is frequently quoted by OneNewsNow. She reminded the newspaper that the transgendered are considered mentally ill and are often undergoing medical treatment, and yet the Army considers them a special minority.

OneNewsNow has repeatedly noted that the American Psychological Association changed its medical definiton from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria" in 2012 under pressure from homosexual activists.

But even the softer term was disqualifying transgenders from military service, USA Today reported last year, when it said the Pentagon was likely lifting its ban on transgendered troops. 

The most infamous transgender in a U.S. Army uniform is Bradley Manning (pictured above), who was convicted in 2014 of leaking more than 700,000 classified documents. He is serving a 35-year sentence in prison.

Manning now "identifies" as a woman, "Chelsea," and won the right in 2015 to undergo hormone treatment at taxpayers' expense while in prison. The Army had refused to allow the treatments just two years earlier.

Asked about the term "self-identity," a spokesperson for the Army told the Times that treating soldiers with "dignity and respect" is a "core value" of the Army.

What's disappointing, Maginnis says, is that there are generals who know better.

"I have no evidence that any of them are standing up and saying this is bad," says Maginnis, a retired U.S. Army officer. "It is going to hurt our armed forces. We've gone too far. But given what I've seen here for three years, I'm not surprised."

Even the election of a conservative Republican president in November may not turn around the armed forces, he adds.

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  #69 

Women in combat --  a terrible idea whose time has come?


Matthew Vadum (FrontPage) says forcing military women into dangerous combat roles traditionally assigned to men is so potentially disastrous that the next president should waste no time reversing this wrong-headed Obama administration edict, a military advocate recently told Congress.

Of course, 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.

Our bilious, perpetually angry Marxist president despises the U.S. military and everything it represents. Like any good radical leftist, Obama believes the only good American soldier is one who plays the role of social worker, not war-fighter. Putting women into combat situations is another way of weakening America.

Obama hates the military's personnel, its traditions, its historical accomplishments, and its core mission. He has been gutting and gelding the military since taking office, allowing fleets, warplanes, and weapons to rust their way into irrelevance. He has been going on a human resources rampage by purging the military of ideologically hostile officers, and fundamentally transforming it into something other than a war-fighting force. Obama has been moving to reduce soldier pay and benefits and hollow out the military, reducing it to mid-century staff levels. He's barely concerned with the continuing neglect of veterans and their health care. The more who perish on waiting lists, the more money that Obama can waste on an ever-expanding array of worse-than-useless social programs designed to buy votes.

The testimony by Elaine Donnelly came after Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter unilaterally decided last Dec. 3 to rescind women's exemptions from direct ground combat. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and other left-wingers are demanding gender diversity quotas of at least 25 percent and that training standards be lowered for females.

"Current military leaders must follow orders, but the next president will have the power to change existing directives in the same way that the current president imposed them," Donnelly said in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, earlier this month held its first hearing on women in combat in 25 years. "Leaders of the next administration should be prepared to restore sound priorities, putting the needs of the military first."

"Men and women in uniform, whose voices have been raised but not heard, are facing situations in which men in the combat arms will be less prepared for the violence of combat, and women will be targets of resentment they do not deserve," she said.

"The administration is planning to assign significant numbers of minimally-qualified young women to small fighting units, on an involuntary basis, and to send them to fight ISIS and other vicious enemies under conditions that involve higher risks for women than for men," she warned senators.

"This is being done even though officials are well aware that women's physical capabilities are far less than men's and their risks of injury are far greater," said Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.

"This is not a ‘pro-woman' policy; it is a cruel deception, betraying the interests of uniformed women who deserve better," she said.

And women don't want combat duty, according to an official survey of Army women two years ago. It found that 92.5 percent of the respondents had no desire to serve in direct ground combat units.

"Women should not have to accept double-and-higher injury rates and other career disadvantages competing with stronger men, paying a higher price than men do for volunteering to serve their country," Donnelly said. "It is also unfair to men -- tantamount to telling Navy SEALs that they should execute HALO (high altitude, low-opening) jumps with parachutes known to fail 30% of the time."

Women are physically ill-suited for combat. That's just the way it is.

Former Sen. Jim Webb's (D-Va.) classic essay, "Women Can't Fight," laid waste to the idea that putting women in combat was a good idea. The international community agrees. Hardly any nations put females in combat roles.

By the way, not letting women fight isn't an example of workplace discrimination. After all, in what place of employment do people shoot at you? Compare the plight of office workers with submarine personnel. What employees stay in the same office building with the same people for six months at a time with no one leaving the building, while they sleep alongside co-workers stacked three persons high in casket-like bunks?

And if women are up to the task of war-fighting, why don't they participate in America's leading contact sport (which is mild compared to combat)? "Since there's no rule preventing 'people of either gender' from playing football in the NFL, why has no woman ever appeared in the Super Bowl?" Phyllis Schlafly wrote recently in a column opposing conscription for women.

But political correctness is more important to Barack Obama than military effectiveness. He is hellbent on forcing the women of the U.S. military into direct combat units at great risk both to themselves and their fellow soldiers. Military leaders have been cowed by radical feminism. They are promoting change for the sake of ideology, not because it is actually needed.

The same virulent strain of PC 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.

But when you're a left-winger, Mother Nature is your enemy. Science must be brought to heel and subordinated to politics.

Seven years into this catastrophic administration, no patriot needs to be reminded that under Obama's kooky social engineering schemes, the military is becoming a social justice-dispensing expeditionary force, a vanguard leading the way towards the lunatic-left vision of what America and the rest of the world should look like.

Whether the collapse of the military is to be allowed to continue is up to American voters to decide in November.

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  #70 

CENTCOM deletes files amid charges that intel altered to exaggerate progress against ISIS


Robert Spencer (JihadWatch) says that apparently the appearance of victory so as to gain political advantage is now more important than actual victory. Who ordered this? Is CENTCOM now so politicized that it actively does the Obama Administration's bidding without being asked? Or is Obama behind it?

"House Intelligence Committee chairman says personnel at U.S. Central Command deleted files and emails amid allegations that intelligence assessments were altered to exaggerate progress against Islamic State militants," by Deb Riechmann, Associated Press, February 25, 2016:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Personnel at U.S. Central Command have deleted files and emails amid allegations that intelligence assessments were altered to exaggerate progress against Islamic State militants, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday.

"We have been made aware that both files and emails have been deleted by personnel at CENTCOM and we expect that the Department of Defense will provide these and all other relevant documents to the committee," Rep. Devin Nunes said at a hearing on worldwide threats facing the United States. Central Command oversees U.S. military activities in the Middle East.

A whistleblower whose position was not disclosed told the committee that material was deleted, according to a committee staff member who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly disclose the information.

Navy Cmdr. Kyle Raines, a spokesman for CENTCOM, said the combatant command was fully cooperating with the Defense Department inspector general's probe into the allegations.

"While it would be inappropriate to discuss the details of that investigation, I can tell you that as a matter of CENTCOM policy, all senior leader emails are kept in storage for record-keeping purposes, so such records cannot be deleted," Raines said. It's unclear if emails written by lower-level staff were also maintained.

Nunes, R-Calif., also said the Office of the Director of National Intelligence briefed the committee on a survey indicating that more than 40 percent of Central Command analysts believe there are problems with the integrity of the intelligence analyses and process.

"To me, it seems like 40 percent of analysts who are concerned at CENTCOM -- that's just something that can't be ignored," Nunes said.

A senior intelligence official said that each year the DNI conducts a survey at all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies to gain feedback on the integrity, standards and objectivity of the process used to analyze intelligence. In the most recent survey, conducted between August and October of last year, approximately 120 employees from CENTCOM responded to the survey. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose details of the internal survey.

A report on the survey issued in December 2015 indicated that 40 percent of those who responded at CENTCOM answered "yes" to the question: "During the past year, do you believe that anyone attempted to distort or suppress analysis on which you were working in the face of persuasive evidence?"

Asked whether he considered 40 percent an unusually high number, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the committee that he did

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  #71 

Trump is right -- America doesn't win wars anymore


JOE SCARBOROUGH: "Have we wasted too much money over the past decade fighting wars? Has that been one of the biggest..."

TRUMP: "...Well, I'll tell you what, I don't mind fighting, but you have got to win and number one, we don't win wars, we just fight, we just fight. It's like a big -- like you're vomiting, just fight, fight, fight. We don't win anything. I mean, if you're going to fight, you win and you get back to rebuilding the country. We don't win. It's really a terrible thing. I mean, our country used to win all the time. We don't win at all anymore."

Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) reminds us of the immortal words of General George S. Patton, Jr.:

"Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war, for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

Patton died months after the conclusion of hostilities in Europe, a death that was in itself the subject of much controversy. What would old Blood and Guts think of the conduct of US wars since World War II? In fact, what would old Blood and Guts think of the US military today?

When one thinks of the blood, sweat, courage and ultimate sacrifices that Americans have made in conflicts from Korea to Afghanistan, it is almost unfathomable. As Douglas MacArthur stated about the travails of the American soldier (and US servicemen in all branches), they have "drained deep the chalice of courage."

That being said, since the Korean War, which was labeled a Police Action, the United States of America, the greatest country on earth is 1 for 5, with our only victory being in the Gulf War in 1991.

Korea -- The US and UN forces fought the North Koreans and the Chinese to a standstill for three years on the Korean Peninsula from 1950 to 1953. In command of all UN forces, General MacArthur sought to wage full scale war against the Chinese and North Koreans, including possible use of atomic weapons. MacArthur was eventually relieved by President Truman who consistently tied MacArthur's hands out of fear that any rash actions might somehow trigger World War III. The result: 36,000 Americans killed in action and a cease fire still in place today. The war was a proverbial draw.

Vietnam -- With President Kennedy's death, LBJ and the Pentagon had a green light to move into Vietnam. US involvement in Vietnam lasted from 1959 to 1975. We had first entered Southeast Asia under the guise of halting the spread of communism and in fear of the Domino Theory. The war soon became a mismanaged fiasco of incrementalization, presidential micro-managing of bombing targets and ridiculous rules of engagement. While the US lost the will to fight and sued for peace, the US military never lost one major skirmish, firefight or battle in the war. If the nation would have had the resolve, we could have won that war in a matter of months. Instead, the war dragged on with vacillating strategies, a decline in American prestige worldwide and 58,000 deaths.

Gulf War I -- Why was the 1991 Gulf War a success when the other wars since WWII haven't been? Gulf War I was a bright shining moment in US history where everything came together towards victory. The US military was well trained and superbly motivated and well-equipped. The commander in chief, Bush 41, had served in WWII and knew how to manage without tying the hands of the military. More importantly, the military's senior leaders had all served in Vietnam and all vowed to never fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs. They had guts and cared about the troops. The US military threw everything they had into the fight and won quickly in 44 days of bombing and 100 Hours of a blazing desert blitzkrieg that resulted in an overwhelming victory that Americans would soon harken back to after the second Iraq War began.

Iraq -- Was the Iraq War a tie or a loss; what was it? It certainly wasn't a true victory. While we did vanquish Saddam's Army during the initial invasion, the US became engulfed in a gradual insurgency with various factions that all had one underlying goal -- kill Americans and make us leave the country. Yes, we toppled Saddam, but that unleashed a power vacuum in the country that led to the rise of ISIS and the strengthening of Iran. Whether there were WMD's still left in Iraq by 2003 will be the subject of debate for centuries. At the end of the day, the invasion of Iraq wasn't a strategic necessity. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Furthermore, the invasion force was too small and while it was sufficient to destroy the Iraqi Armed Forces, it wasn't big enough to secure the country. The butcher's bill for conquering Iraq and its vast oil fields: 4,800 U.S. soldiers killed and over 33,000 seriously wounded, many with brain injuries. Estimates of Iraqi dead run from 112,000 to over one million. The Pentagon knows, but won't release the figures.

Afghanistan -- "The War in Afghanistan is the period in which the United States invaded Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Supported initially by close allies, they were later joined by NATO beginning in 2003. It followed the Afghan Civil War's 1996–2001 phase. Its public aims were to dismantle al-Qaeda and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power. Key allies, including the United Kingdom, supported the U.S. from the start to the end of the phase. This phase of the War is the longest war in United States history."

The War in Afghanistan was initially successful in combined US and Northern Alliance conventional operations against the Taliban. But, the Taliban quickly reorganized and began an insurgency against the occupying US forces. The war has now dragged on for nearly 15 years, with 2200 US military personnel killed in action. The Taliban is still fighting and a clear US victory is hard to imagine in any context.

War on ISIS -- The US war on ISIS is anything but a war. The US led air campaign is anything but an air campaign. Barack Obama refuses to take the fight to ISIS in any way, shape or form. Therefore, until a new administration takes power in January of 2017, ISIS will grow in strength across the world. There has rarely been a US led military effort that was so feckless.

It's high time the United States redefine victory in war. By not redefining victory, by not putting all our strength and might behind these wars, they can linger on forever and they are.

Victory is destroying the enemy and winning the war. To secure victory, the US must fight wars with massive military might. We must adhere to the Powell Doctrine and the lessons of Gulf War I. The nation should avoid conflict if it can, but, if we must fight, the US must have a strategic interest that forces our involvement, and, by God, if we're going to be in a war, we must throw in everything we have and fight to win!

The only victors in these half-hearted, perpetual wars are the military industrial complex. Everyone else is a loser -- the innocent civilians who die, the soldiers who are killed and wounded and who must bear the burden of fighting endless conflicts for the most obtuse of reasons.

The nation has been able to wage endless war in the 21st Century because there is no military draft. No draft equals war ad infinitum. Average Americans don't care. Why should they? They have no vested interest in the military. If some poor bastard wants to volunteer to hump a rucksack and be a pop up target for Uncle Sam, that's all well and dandy. The average American could care less.

Trump is right. America used to win wars. It's high time we start winning again.

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  #72 

Why leftists want to draft women

Daniel Greenfield (FrontPage) says Hillary Clinton had endorsed forcing women to register for a draft. Now the issue is taking on new urgency. Despite the left's anti-draft posturing, it has fond memories of its protests during the Vietnam War and it is the biggest supporter of bringing back the draft. Proposals to move to a draft army invariably come from Democrats in Congress and left-wing pundits who believe that a draft will create a higher barrier to any future conflict. Forcing women to register raises the barrier even higher.

And anything that makes it harder for the military to function properly is also part of that agenda.

But the debate over the role of women in the military is also a subset of the bigger debate about the role of our military. The military no longer exists to win wars or even to fight them.

Nobody thinks that Obama will fight China if it tries to take Taiwan or even Japan. If North Korea attacks, our people will have no air support while Kerry pleads with Kim Jong Un to allow them to be evacuated. Obama refused to provide military equipment to Ukraine. If Russian troops march into Poland, Putin knows quite well that NATO or no NATO, we won't be there.

A global warming treaty, no matter how invalid and unenforceable, will be zealously followed by the White House to the letter.  But security agreements and defense pacts are utterly worthless.

Obama is not going to stand up to any major power. That's a given. He'll deliver another speech explaining that they've isolated themselves and are on the wrong side of history. But that fighting them would only make matters worse. Unless Europe starts deporting Muslims, we are not going to be fighting any world powers or even any countries with any military capabilities worth mentioning. 

That leaves the smaller non-war wars that his administration has become bogged down in.

Obama's bloodiest war in Afghanistan took place not only under sharply constrained rules of engagement, but a stated policy that the goal was not to kill the enemy.

As General McChrystal said, before falling to one of Obama's political purges, "We will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill... we must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories-- but suffering strategic defeats-- by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people."

Obama avoided winning those "tactical victories" and so we're stuck indefinitely in Afghanistan while the Taliban are advancing. We're also stuck indefinitely in Iraq and probably Libya, Obama's own war.

But we're not in any of these places to fight. American soldiers and contractors are there to "advise and assist". And occasionally carry out raids trying to fill in for our incompetent and unreliable local allies. 

The American military has been mostly limited to the types of tasks that European allies would undertake while eschewing the dirty, nasty work of actually fighting the enemy. Like them, we're not even trying to win anymore. Instead our government goes through the obligatory motions. 

American soldiers died in large numbers in Afghanistan because Obama needed political cover for his appeasement in Iraq. In the same way, American sailors were attacked by Iran because he needed to go through the motions of enforcement for his nuke deal to appear credible. But the White House did not have their back. It had sold them out and denied them support. And our enemies knew it.

Obama avoided engaging ISIS for as long as he could. Once he had to, his plan was to stage flights without dropping bombs, and bombing ISIS as little as he could get away with. This isn't war either.

But these non-war wars are what the military does now. Soldiers are deployed to make it look like Obama cares. They're deployed as a distraction for a disastrous policy. They're deployed to provide plausible deniability for when yet another government falls or ISIS takes yet another city.

So what if anything is the role of the military under Obama? That's easy to answer. The military is a problematic institution being stripped for its assets after a hostile takeover. As an institution with a deep level of national backing, the military is there to provide support for Obama's social policies, it's there to help fund his environmental policies and it's there to endorse any other agenda that he can think of.

Draft women? Why not. One of the left's fondest obsessions is imposing some sort of mandatory volunteerism. Bring back the draft and then declare that Global Warming or income inequality are dire threats to our national security. Then dispatch them to teach inner city schools or clean up parks. 

If you think that the left can't or won't do that sort of thing, you haven't been paying attention.

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates agreed that global warming was our biggest national security threat. Passing off income inequality as a national security threat is a favorite talking point at the Council on Foreign Relations or the Wilson Center. That's what the claim that Muslim terrorists kill because they're poor and jobless is really about. Turning lefty agenda items into national security priorities not only gets them funding, it can allow for the transformation of the military and the nation. 

The Democratic Party does not see the military in terms of front line combat. It sees a warren of bureaucratic positions and leadership roles that it can fill with its own political allies. It glares at a massive amount of personnel who can be redirected to carry out the left's political programs. And it smells a giant pile of cash that it is already busy redirecting to its donors and consultants. 

Drafting women makes sense to a leftist elite that is not interested in combat anyway.  And if the military is not primarily a combat force, but a social justice experiment, it makes no sense not to do it. 

The left has no interest or investment in a functional military. Why would it? It has always believed that the real threat comes from internal reactionaries, not external enemies. External threats are caused by inequality, not motivated foes. Our enemy isn't al-Qaeda or ISIS; it's the root causes of colonialism, poverty, joblessness and climate change. You don't attack root causes with artillery or air power.

The classic military setup made sense if you believed that the threat came from an enemy force that had to be neutralized. The people running things now no longer think that way. And so they don't particularly need a large fleet or tanks. As Obama jeered at the debate, you might as well go back to horses and bayonets. And when you view military force as being thoroughly outdated, then the military has to be retooled to fight income inequality, global warming and all the other root causes.

And this is what the real debate must be about. Are we going to have a military that is capable of defending this country from real threats or are we going to have social justice brigades that are as useless as some of the military forces in the NATO "social democracies" that are there for show?

Is out greatest national security threat the weather or the lack of jobs in Pakistan, or is it an enemy force capable of killing thousands of Americans in a single attack? That is the debate we need to have. 

And if we settle that debate, then the left's military social experiments will be exposed for what they are.

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  #73 

Crying sailors, climate change and draft our daughters -- another stellar week for Obama's Pentagon


Ray Starman (USDefenseWatch) says it's been another spectacular week for Obama's Pentagon. From US Navy sailors crying in front of their Iranian captors to Pentagon climate change mandates and the Draft our Daughters bill proposed by Congressman Duncan Hunter, the US military is being tossed to and fro inside a White House snow globe.

Obama's new best friend forever, Iran, released several pictures yesterday of an unidentified US Navy sailor bawling his head off like a overweight woman confessing her cookie eating disorder to Marie Osmond and Oprah. Seated next to the crying sailor was his commander, the Once and Future Chief of Naval Operations, Lieutenant Nartker who told his Iranian captors that their treatment was fantastic. This was after Nartker admitted guilt in wandering into Iranian waters. This was after Nartker surrendered his boats and men without so much as firing a cap gun in the air. This was after the sailors of the US Navy were ordered to kneel with their hands over their heads for our new friends, the Iranians.

The fact that two US Navy craft with superior weapons and equipment surrendered without a fight to smaller, lightly armed Iranian speed boats is a nothing less than a total disgrace.

Lieutenant Nartker's conduct after his capture was an insult to every brave US Navy sailor who fought for this country.

Subsequently, the fact that a US Navy sailor was weeping openly while the Iranian TMZ guys had their cameras rolling is the final nail in the coffin for the current operational state of the US Navy today.

The fact that Lieutenant Nartker or his NCOs didn't tell this sailor to man up speaks volumes about the current training underway in the US military today. In the US military I served in, the crying sailor would have undergone wall to wall counseling from his NCO the moment they boarded a US Navy ship. The bawling seaman would have wished he was back in Iranian hands by the time his chief got finished with him.

There is no doubt that thousands, hundreds of thousands of men have cried in combat conditions in war. I have seen it myself. We are all mortal. But, to crack up only hours after capture, to weep like some milk sop in front of the Iranians and their media is frankly pathetic. I'm sure John McCain and his fellow POW's in the Hanoi Hilton cried every night. But, they sure as heck didn't cry in front of the enemy. John McCain would have rather died than disgrace the US Navy.

Where is such bravado today among the military?

The Iranians think the US military is weak. You know something, we are weak under Obama. We are a feckless, politically correct military that has been butchered by social engineers. I don't care how much technology we have. Technology only goes so far. At the end of the day, you still need people of steel to serve.

Where are such people today? I pray there are still some in the ranks, for their officers are made of tin.

If the sight of some US Navy buttercup bawling for the mad Persians wasn't enough, the Pentagon, following the orders of the Mad Kenyan, issued several mandates concerning the new policies concerning climate change, which the White House considers the number one national security threat.

Remember, folks, ISIS is not a threat, melting glaciers in the Upper Andes are.

The Washington Times reports the U.S. Armed Forces is being ordered to create "climate change boards, councils and working groups" to bring the issue of climate change into its "programs, plans and policies."

The newspaper sites a new directive instructing all military brass to: "Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations."

So, what does this mean exactly? Are we going to war with LED flashlights, organic MRE's (meals ready to eat), and hyper-allergenic gun powder?

Will cage free goats now trim the grass on artillery ranges vs. the lawnmowers and tractors of yesteryear?

Are the troops going to be wearing those funky, Ho Chi Minh sandals they sell at Whole Foods next to the Smoothie Bar?

Will the troops only be issued one square of toilet paper a day?

Keep shaking your heads. I am.

And, lastly, Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine and combat vet, has issued a direct challenge to Ash Carter and the women of America.

Congressman Hunter has introduced the Draft America's Daughters Act, a bill that would require young women to register for the Draft with the Selective Service.

Hunter, a Republican representing East County, introduced the measure along with Congressman Ryan Zinke of Montana as a protest measure against the Obama administration's decision to open combat roles to women in the military.

The U.S. military is currently comprised of all volunteer forces, though young men are required to register with the Selective Service when they turn 18 in case a draft is revived. Hunter's bill would require young women ages 18 to 26 to also register.

According to the Washington Post, Hunter said, "If this Administration wants to send 18-20 year old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives."

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 49% of all Likely U.S. Voters agree that women should be required to register for the draft. Nearly as many (44%) disagree.

But while 61% of male voters believe women should be required to register for the draft, only 38% of female voters agree. Most women (52%) oppose such a requirement, and 10% more are undecided.

Most women are still in the dark over the Joint Chiefs' plan to force women to register for the draft. When the majority of American women discover this nasty little secret, the protests will begin.

The Joint Chiefs support this because the Joint Chiefs have surrendered their souls to the White House. The Joint Chiefs will simply do anything that is ordered, no matter how insane the mandate is.

There is the other theory that the Joint Chiefs openly support the idea of women registering for the draft in order to drum up societal resistance to the concept of women in combat.

But, I'm betting on moral cowardice winning the day at Obama's Pentagon instead of some kind of heroic dissent.

Obama has decimated the command level of the military.

Since Obama took office an unprecedented number of top military leaders have been removed from their posts -- nearly 200 generals, flag officers and other high-ranking officials. They are being "removed" at a rate of about one per week.

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  #74 

In the age of Obama

The politicians running the VA seem to have some pretty screwed up priorities.


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

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #75 

Obama's Pentagon orders commanders to prioritize climate change in all military actions

The Washington Times is reporting that the Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.

A new directive's theme: The U.S. Armed Forces must show "resilience" and beat back the threat based on "actionable science."

It says the military will not be able to maintain effectiveness unless the directive is followed. It orders the establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy -- a wide array of "climate change boards, councils and working groups" to infuse climate change into "programs, plans and policies."

The Pentagon defines resilience to climate change as: "Ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions."

To four-star generals and admirals, among them the regional combatant commanders who plan and fight the nation's wars, the directive tells them: "Incorporate climate change impacts into plans and operations and integrate DoD guidance and analysis in Combatant Command planning to address climate change-related risks and opportunities across the full range of military operations, including steady-state campaign planning and operations and contingency planning."

The directive, "Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience," is in line with President Obama's view that global warming is the country's foremost national security threat, or close to it. Mr. Obama says there is no debate on the existence of man-made global warming and its ensuing climate change. Supporters of this viewpoint label as "deniers" any scientists who disagree.

But there are stubborn doubters. A climate center in Colorado has said its researchers looked at decades of weather reports and concluded there has been no uptick in storms. The United Nations came to a similar finding, saying there is not enough evidence to confirm an increase in droughts and floods.

A previous Pentagon report on climate change attributed Super Storm Sandy to climate change.

Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer and U.S. Central Command planner, said the Pentagon is introducing climate change, right down to military tactics level.

"By equating tactical actions of immediate or short-term utility with large-scale, strategic-level issues of profound importance, the issue of climate change and its potential impact on national security interests is undermined," he said. "People tend to dismiss the whole, what might be truly important, because of all the little silly distractions that are included along the way."

He said climate change is typically measured in long stretches of time.

"The climate does change over great periods of time, typically measured in millennia, though sometimes in centuries," he said. "But the document mentions accounting for such down to the level of changes in ‘tactics, techniques and procedures' as if reviewing how a squad conducts a patrol should be accorded the same level of importance and attention as determining whether the naval base at Norfolk, Virginia, might have to be relocated as sea levels rise over the next 100 years."

Multipoint strategy

The directive originated in the office of Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. Final approval came from Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work.

The directive is loaded with orders to civilian leaders and officers on specifically how counter-climate change strategy is to permeate planning.

First the lawyers were inserted into war-fighting and now the tree-huggers. God help our troops.

Not a good time to be a warrior. This crap is going to get a lot of good men and women killed and maimed.

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