Applauding the military for its true humanitarian purpose: killing bad guys

Military casual FridayIt’s no secret that Obama and crew don’t like the military.  Over the years, the political class generally and the Obama class specifically have worked hard to clip the American military’s wings. Some of these efforts have been direct attacks on the military’s function and structure.  The most recently attack, though, is more subtle and, perhaps, more dangerous insofar as it seeks to redefine the military out of existence.

The most obvious of the direct attacks — and one that started during the Bush era — is rules of engagement so stringent that our troops are often prevented from fighting an enemy squaring off right before their eyes. These ROE’s put our troops at terrible risk because they don’t even get to shoot when they see the white’s of the enemy’s eyes but have to wait, instead, until they see the puff of smoke coming from the enemy’s gun muzzle.

In recent years, the Obama administration has piled on the military in additional ways.  It’s been trying hard to stifle religious expression in an institution that sees volunteers confront death as a part of their job. It has insisted on putting women in front line jobs, even though doing so means lowering standards in a way that endangers everyone. Most recently, it’s been pushing to allow transgenders to serve, despite the fact that transgendered individuals are (a) expensive luxuries because of the hormones they must take to maintain their chosen sex and (b) emotionally very vulnerable because hormones and plastic surgery often do not touch the much deeper issues that go with gender confusion (with Exhibit A being Bradley Manning).

Additionally, of offensively, when military personnel have been attacked and murdered by Muslims shouting “Allahu Akbar,” the administration has insisted that these attacks are just another example of unexciting “workplace violence.”  Doing so denies the military the opportunity to use a military response to deal with and prevent such attacks.

In many ways, though, it’s the least obvious line of attack that is the most pernicious of all, because it seeks to completely re-define the military as something other than a . . . well, a military. Instead, there’s an attempted paradigm shift aimed at turning the US military into a taxpayer-funded version of the Red Cross.

This disturbing trend crystalized for me thanks to four things that crossed my radar in the past week. First, at the USS America commissioning, I heard San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee give a speech that ignored entirely the military’s fighting capacity and spoke only about the fact that it will probably be useful when San Francisco has the next big quake.

Second, after the commissioning, I got the opportunity to tour the USS America.  On the flight deck, the USS America had set up a sizable big display touting the Navy’s proud boast about going green — a boast that was not accompanied by any assurance that going green will improve the military’s capacity to wage war and defend our nation:

USS America - Energy Warrior

Third, I read a Facebook post by Mike Rowe, a TV personality, who came to fame hosting a TV show called Dirty Jobs. The show is a celebration of hard-working Americans doing the jobs most people wouldn’t. Rowe is also deservedly well-known because, despite living in San Francisco, he is a common-sense person, with a great sense of humor, and an abiding respect for America’s hard-working blue-collar class.

Given his beliefs and personality, I enjoy Rowe’s Facebook posts, and admire his independent, iconoclastic spirit. It therefore came as no surprise to me that Rowe would support Fleet Week and honor the troops despite complaints from the usual suspects in San Francisco arguing that Fleet Week is noisy, expensive, scary, and just generally a bad thing insofar as it promotes militarism. Where I parted ways with Rowe was that, rather than defending the necessity of militarism, Rowe pulled s Mayor Lee.  His whole take is that the Navy is the world’s greatest humanitarian institution because of its spectacular first-responder capabilities.

Fourth, just last week, with ISIS aggressively lined up against the remnants of civilization in the Middle East, Defense Secretary has announced America’s true enemy: Climate Change. Think about that: On the one hand, we have dead bodies piling up in the Middle East, while men who share that murderous ideology are infiltrating our borders as their leaders boast about destroying America. On the other hand, we have an unbroken list of failed doomsday climate predictions and the complete absence of global warming in almost 18 years. And still, with those indisputable facts before him, Hagel says that our troop’s primary mission is battling the inchoate forces of our earth’s continuously changing ecosystem.

Here’s the reality about the military, and it has nothing to do with green ships and earthquake relief:  The military exists to kill our enemies and for that I say “Thank God!”  Moreover, I’m not saying thank God out of some perverse blood lust.  I’m saying it because killing our enemies is what really makes the US military the greatest humanitarian institution in the world. If you stop and think about it for a moment, you’ll realize that since WWII, America’s enemies have a habit of being enemies to everyone else.  Without exception, they are despots who enslave, torture, and slaughter both their own citizens and those nations unlucky enough to get conquered.

The Nazis churned out ideologues and foot soldiers of unparalleled evil who sought to erase whole classes or races of people from the earth.  The American military didn’t stop Nazis by insisting that Hitler “go green.” Instead, the America military, working with the Soviets and the British, stopped Nazis by killing them in such great numbers that they were forced to accept defeat.

The Bushido warrior culture in Japan also created human killing machines who suffered no pangs of conscience when stacking bodies in China, Korea, Indonesia, Malaya, and all the other countries unlucky enough to be in the path of Imperial Japanese expansion.  The American military wasn’t urging Tojo to use one sheet of toilet paper or to stop heating his house in winter. Instead, it defeated Japan — which had slaughtered and enslaved people all over Asia and the Malayan peninsula — the old-fashioned way: it killed Japanese fighters.

During the Cold War, our troops did their best to halt Chinese communists from taking over Korea and Vietnam.  Those lucky enough to benefit from American military success in South Korea were spared the decades of horror their North Korean cousins have faced.  South Korea is a dynamic, 21st century nation.  North Korea is a stone age prison camp.

Likewise, if the Democrats hadn’t utterly destroyed the military’s efforts in Vietnam, neither the Vietnamese nor the Cambodian people would have suffered terrible depredations at Communist hands.  Among other things, at least a million Cambodians wouldn’t have had their skulls stacked like spent cannon balls in the Killing Fields.

History shows that, when our military wins, democracy follows.  When our military loses (invariably thanks to Democrat foot-dragging), people die and die horribly.  This pattern has continued without exception into the Bush era.  Our military, after the Surge left a relatively safe, stable Iraq.  Obama pulled the military out, creating a vacuum that ISIS is gleefully filling.  We can anticipate that the same will happen in Afghanistan when Obama does the unusual and follows through on one of  his promises by pulling troops out of there too.

So what does the chattering class do?  Obviously, it cannot force itself to acknowledge the good the military does by being what it is — a military force of unusual size, sophistication, quality training, and human decency.  Given the military’s high standing in the public eye, though, and the fact that the public (wisely) doesn’t want it to go away any time soon, and given the fact that government policies still haven’t completely destroyed the military’s efficacy as a fighting machine, there’s just one thing left to do:  Redefine the military as anything but a fighting machine.  “It’s not the Army, it’s the new Peace Corp.”  “Marines don’t kill; they give blankets to babies.”  “Our Navy — the world’s largest floating ambulance and hospital.”

I am most certainly not saying that the US military shouldn’t help out when it can after a natural disaster. Indeed, living near faults that are predicted to quake violently in the near future, I will be most grateful if the military steps by to help pick up the pieces. However, I am saying that, while it’s true that our American military is indeed the greatest humanitarian institution in the world, it fulfills this function, not by handing out blankets after floods or by making futile efforts to fight the earth’s natural climate cycles, but by having an impressive arsenal and having more than a million highly trained individuals who are willing to put themselves at risk in order to rid the world of murderous tyrants.

The Bookworm Beat (9/23/14) — Obama is a scary dude edition, and Open Thread

Woman writingI’ve been in continuous domestic goddess mode since 6:30 a.m. That’s a ten-hour day of domestic goddess-hood. My house sparkles, my refrigerator is full, my closets bulge with clean laundry, my bills are paid, my correspondence (most of it) put in the “done” file and, except for the fact that I haven’t even had a chance to bathe today (yes, please hold your nose), I’d look exactly like June Cleaver if you’d dress me in a cute frock with a lace collar and pearls. Just for today, this should be my “Bookworm Beat” picture:

Another day in paradise housewife homemaker

Now, though, for a few minutes, I can throw off my housewife’s garb and be “Super Blogger.” I’ll be quick about it, so my apologies for the “dictated but not read” level of errors you might find:

Baron Münchhausen lives!

The Diplomad takes a look at Obama’s rich fantasy life, all of which would be funny if he didn’t occupy the once-upon-a-time most powerful office in the world.

A permanent Democrat majority?

A lot of astute thinkers believe that’s precisely what most of Obama’s policies are directed towards achieving: not just a Leftward shift in American governance, but a permanent Democrat majority to keep it that way. You can now add Ed Lasky to the list. He explains why here.

Obama makes ISIS look even scarier

Let’s see, now — we’ve got an avowed enemy that’s soaking the Middle Eastern desert sands in blood from thousands of severed heads and that promises to bring the war home; we’ve got a military that’s being shrunk down to pre-WWI size; and we’ve got a commander-in-chief who knows nothing about warfare but refuses to listen to the generals and admirals who will have to fight this enemy using their shrunken (but appropriately feminized, gay, transsexual, and transgender pre-WWI army. I don’t know about you, but I find this a frightening scenario.

Oh, and the ignorant president also disrespects the military, something proven yet again with the salute now known as the “semper latte salute“:

The Marines will lay down their lives for him, he is their commander in chief and the living emblem of the nation for which they fight, and he can’t be bothered to return the sign of respect they send his way.

Obama makes ISIS look even scarier, Part II

And let’s not forget the fact that Obama’s every speech has shown his affection for Islam and, when he’s not constrained by Congress or overwhelming public opinion, his every act has too.

Obama makes everything look scarier

Bret Stephens wraps it all up by explaining that Obama’s profound, all-encompassing ignorance is the most scary thing of all.

Obama is a scary dude

Thomas Sowell points out that Obama truly believes that, if he just doesn’t call it war or doesn’t go to war, the bad guys will respect his decision:

Barack Obama has done more than anyone else to promote the dangerous illusion that we can choose whether to have a war or not. But our enemies have already made that choice.

Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis said: “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it’s over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

Of course, it’s not just Obama

The ignorance about radical Islam doesn’t stop with Obama. VDH points out that this obdurate blindness emanates from every nook and cranny of our governing class.

And yeah, everybody’s lying to you

You know what I think of when I hear that Ebola’s spread is way worse than any authorities are admitting? I think of this:

There is some good news

The two men who killed Naftali Fraenkel, Gil-ad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach (whose tragic, early deaths may have saved Israel leading to revelations about the terror tunnels) died in a shoot-out. On a comment thread I saw, one person said it was a shame they died and didn’t suffer the rest of their lives in jail.

Others disagreed. They said it was great the murderers were dead, because if they were alive, there was always the risk they’d be set free in some exchange forced upon Israel by the U.S. The U.S. ought to think about a policy that leads ordinary people to believe that something equivlant to vigilante justice is really the only justice.

More to follow? I don’t know. I have a town meeting to go to tonight. If I still have energy upon my return, I’ll try to write a little more.

The Democrats have a long-strategy when it comes to losing against ISIS

We'll never again see the type of victory parade that happened in Paris in 1944

We’ll never again see the type of victory parade that happened in Paris in 1944

A friend emailed me a comment:

Bill Clinton just said in an interview that America has proven we can’t win a land war in Iraq. Too bad he omitted: “Because we won’t let our military win it.”

I agree with my friend, and I want to examine a little further what he said, and I’ll do so via a series of links.

Charles Krauthammer argues convincingly that ISIS is yanking at America’s tail right now, because it knows that Obama will not fight the war to win.  It needs to prove itself regionally, and there is no better way to do so than to watch America retreat.

We can tell that Obama doesn’t want to win the war because he can’t even get himself to call it a war.  We’re assured that it’s a not-war, or maybe a not not-war.  Whatever it is, no matter how many kill shots Obama personally orders, there is no war, except when there’s not a not-not war.

Jon Gabriel says that the reason behind Obama’s reluctance to go to war is grounded in his jaundiced view of America.  If we say ISIS is terrible and that we’re going to protect the world from ISIS, the implication is that we’re the good guys.  Except that Obama cannot have America be good.  Therefore, America cannot fight a war against evil.

I agree with Gabriel, but I want to go back to what my friend said, about our refusal ever to let the military win a war.  That wasn’t always the case, even when Democrats were president.  American won WWI under a Democrat and repeated that feat with WWII.  It was only after WWII that America became embarrassed to win wars.  (For one theory behind that embarrassment, check out this history of the UN.)  It’s only a short step from “has not won a war in 60+ years” to “cannot ever win a war.”

Whenever I go to my mother’s place, I see a car with a Bush-ear bumper sticker, stating that “War is not the answer.” And every time I see it, I say to myself, “That depends what the question is.” For example, if you start talking to people about Nazis and other seriously bad actors, many of them will start agreeing with you that war can indeed be an answer. If you’re the anti-war type, you don’t people’s thoughts to head in that direction. How much better, then, to have a bumper sticker saying “Wars cannot be won,” or “There is no victory with war”?

Average Americans are so ignorant that, if the Democrats lose just a few more wars, voters won’t remember that victory is possible, and that it only matters that the right person or party should be in charge. Instead, they’ll just remember that wars cannot be won . . . ever!

Latest military officer under investigation: Are we looking at necessary housecleaning or a purge?

Conservatives have noticed that the Pentagon is firing officers left and right, with many leaving under an embarrassing cloud.  The question they ask — and I don’t know that anyone has an answer — is whether these firings are the legitimate and appropriate housecleaning that a sclerotic bureaucracy needs or whether they’re a purge, with Obama’s New Age, gender flexible, fighting optional military getting rid of people in command positions who actually think that the military’s job is to wage war in America’s defense.

All I know is that the latest person being investigated as a predicate to an inevitable firing is someone I’ve actually met.  Back in October 2009, I got the opportunity to attend a party that had, as its guests, members of the Blue Angels.  I wrote about it here.  I also included a photograph I took of all the guys (plus two gals) lined up:

photo (5)
Please take special notice of the guy in the center (or more accurately, sixth from the left). We spent a few minutes speaking with him and found him to be — as all these officers were — personable, intelligent, and respectful.

Now, though, a debate rages about just how respectful this specific officer actually was:

Capt Gregory McWherter Blue Angel

A former commanding officer of the U.S. Navy’s flight demonstration squadron, the Blue Angels, has been removed from his current post after accusations that he ‘tolerated an inappropriate work environment.’

Capt. Gregory McWherter allowed, and in some cases encouraged, sexually explicit humor and inappropriate comments among members of the famed precision flying team, the U.S. Navy contended on Wednesday.

McWherter was relieved of duty as executive officer of Naval Base Coronado on Friday after a complaint was filed with the Navy’s inspector general about an ‘inappropriate command climate’ at the Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron based at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida.

During his two stints as Blue Angels leader between 2008 and 2012, McWherter ‘tolerated an inappropriate work environment within the squadron which may have violated the Navy’s sexual harassment, hazing and equal opportunity policies,’ a Navy statement said.

‘The complaint alleges that lewd speech, inappropriate comments, and sexually explicit humor were allowed in the workplace and in some case encouraged by the commanding officer,’ and that ‘pornographic images were displayed in the workplace and shared in electronic communications,’ the statement said.

Significantly, McWherter got a strong vote of support from a woman who served under his command:

‘At one point there was a command survey and one came back that men didn’t treat women fairly,’ Melinda Cary, who served under McWherter during 2006 to 2008, told The News Journal.

‘The first thing he did was bring us to talk about who was telling jokes. And he went out, and, I guess, set them straight. He followed up and made sure we weren’t still having trouble.’

Maybe McWherter is a sexist pig who ought never to have been allowed a command. Or maybe he’s an old-fashioned warrior who is making too much trouble in a modern military determined to serve as a giant Leftist social experiment, rather than hewing to its traditional responsibility as America’s protector.

(To see a better picture of McWherter, click on over to the Daily Mail article.  For some reason, I’m  not able to upload new photos to my site this morning.)

UPDATE: I was finally able to upload a picture of McWherter.

Fort Hood exemplifies the insanity of our modern age

David Burge (aka Iowahawk) reduces the insanity at Fort Hood to a mere 22 perfect and pithy words.  (Hat tip:  Caped Crusader.)

No guns on army bases

Imagine, if you will, that what happens at one of these bases isn’t one crazed gunman or disaffected Islamist but is, instead, a sustained, surprise paramilitary attack. Will our sitting duck troops call 911 then too? They are vulnerable to any surprise attack, whether it comes from one or dozens or hundreds of murderously inclined and heavily armed people.

Clearing the inbox and Open Thread

Victorian posy of pansiesWhew!  I was quite productive today.  I think those iron pills I’ve been taking because of mild anemia have helped.  I felt much less sluggish.  I still have a lot of stuff in my inbox, but these articles are a good start:

The always-astute Lee Smith has a surprising take on Obama’s coziness with Mahmoud Abbas.  I don’t believe that Obama has thought the issue through as carefully as Smith, but I think that the outcome is the same whether Obama acted deliberately or accidentally.

***

Oy voy vey!  It’s not just that Obama is giving away the Free Speech internet, which is disastrous enough.  It’s that, back in 2010, when he wasn’t even in full flexibility mode, Obama handed something very valuable over to Putin.  And Putin, being no fool, will play this card as he reinstates the former Soviet Unions geopolitical reach.

***

The pro-Iranian faction has always argued that sanctions hurt the poor the most. In Iran’s case, they said, sanctions deprived the poor of medicine. But what if it turns out that sanctions are just depriving the rich of luxury articles? Will that information change Obama’s calculus? No. At a fundamental level, he thinks it’s wrong that Israel has the bombs and Iran doesn’t. He’s working to redress that inequity.

***

If you like creative literature with a libertarian/conservative bent, a new site called Liberty Island is the place for you. Here’s a snippet of its mission statement, explaining that conservatives are the new counterculture:

Once upon a time the mainstream culture was conservative and the so-called counterculture was left wing. Today the situation is reversed and a new counterculture has arisen, one that boldly challenges the cynicism, nihilism, and stifling political correctness of popular culture today.

Our mission is to support this raw and untamed counterculture by gathering its creators in one place and providing the tools and resources they need to succeed. Here they can present their latest works, interact with colleagues, and connect with a likeminded audience. At Liberty Island, readers of a conservative or libertarian bent can find fiction, music, video and graphics that reflect their social values and political beliefs — and readers of all persuasions can find new voices and undiscovered talent. Writers and creators you’ve never heard of, and won’t find anywhere else, because their views have been excluded from the mainstream popular culture.

One of my favorite writers, Ray Zacek, already has a story online at Liberty Island.

***

Rogue government? Well, yes.  The ATF ignores a court order and raids a gun store to get its customer lists. Let me quote Elmer: Be afwaid. Be vewy afwaid.

***

Let me reiterate a point I’ve made repeatedly before: Women do not belong in combat units.

The anti-bossy campaign is just the latest example of the Left’s obsession with gender, sex, and sexuality as a way of remaking society

Little girl scolding puppyIn America, it used to be that boys were boys and girls were girls, except for a handful of boys and girls who didn’t conform to the norm.  Boys were at the top of the heap; girls had a carefully carved out, limited sphere of influence and opportunities; and sexually non-conforming people were ignored or abused, depending on both their ability to blend in and their community’s ability to cope with their differences.  Both women and sexually non-conforming people were routinely denied equal treatment under the law.

The women’s lib and gay rights movements were originally sold as a way to ensure that women and gays (and, eventually, the whole LGBTQ spectrum) received equal treatment under the law.  That was originally understood to mean equal access to education, employment opportunities, and house; equal pay for equal work; and freedom from overt, violent discriminatory practices — and that was it.

Since then, equal treatment under the law has become a picayune, limited goal.  Instead, the Left is using gender and sexuality as a way to remake society entirely in opposition to heterosexual males, the ones who created Western society in the first place.

The latest push to remake society is the effort either to ban the word “bossy” or to turn it into an undiluted positive when the word is applied to girls.  This, of course, ignores the reality of bossy little girls.

Girls are bossy, something that comes about because they model themselves on their mothers.  Despite decades of Leftist marriage, gender, and sexuality rejiggering, for most children, Mom is the Big Boss in the house.  (Indeed, considering the soaring number of single moms, she’s the only boss in the house.)  The vast majority of little girls identify with mommy.  That’s a fact that no gender theory will ever change.  So if Mommy is bossy — as she has to be in order to run a household with children — then a little girl’s logical assumption is that, to be a grown woman in training, she too must be bossy.

And what about the claim that we’re all wrong to say it’s obnoxious when girls are bossy?  I couldn’t disagree more.  It’s incredibly obnoxious when girls are bossy.  What’s appropriate coming from a grown woman with responsibilities is profoundly irritating whether a 4-year-old lisps orders to her friends, a 10-year-old hollers imprecations at her brother, her a 15-year-old, in a strident whine, tells her parents what she wants them to do.  It’s obnoxious not because the 4, 10, and 15-year-old are female, but because they haven’t yet earned the right to boss anyone around.  The issue is age, not sex.

Even as the Leftist/Progressive/Democrat establishment seeks to make it so that every girl’s fecal matter is perceived as perfumed, the relentless attacks on boys never end.  Fortunately for me (’cause I’m lazy), I don’t have to go into detail on this topic because Matt Walsh has already done so, saying what I would say, only doing it better.

So let me just skip ahead to a discussion of the Left’s latest attack on America’s last bastion of masculinity:  the military.  The military used to be the place where you sent your boys to become men.  Now?  I don’t know.  The military is still overwhelmingly male, but the Obama administration, even though it cannot change the numbers, is doing its best to change its manly ethos.

Gays can openly serve now, which puts a great deal of pressure on young men.  While the Left will freely acknowledge that women shouldn’t have to shower with men who view them in a sexually predatory fashion, and that women in the military are at risk of becoming victims of violent sexual attacks from predatory men, the Left refuses to acknowledge that gay men can be equally predatory to other men.  (And lesbian women are often predators to other women.)  Under the new paradigm, shying away from showering with an aggressive gay man or lesbian woman isn’t logical self-preservation and respect for ones own sexual integrity; it is, instead, homophobic and the people holding such views must be re-educated and/or destroyed.  It’s an interesting social experiment, but a disastrous burden to place on an institution that has as its primary task combat training and preparation to fight off enemies of unspeakable savagery.

Placing women in combat is also a de-masculinizing effort (yes, it’s a neologism) on the Obama administration’s part.  Training standards will have to be lowered because it’s the extraordinarily rare woman who can compete head-on physically with men.  Men are bigger and stronger.  They have stronger bones and joints.  Their skin is tougher and has fewer nerves, meaning it’s less sensitive to pain.  They get less breathless.  They can pee standing up or into old water bottles, and they don’t have periods or get pregnant.  They are vulnerable to rape (see the above paragraph), but less vulnerable, especially because cultures other than America subscribe to the Red Army’s approach to despoiling conquered women.

The only way women can compete equally with men is to lower the standards for men.  This means that young men will not be challenging themselves as much.  To the extent many join the military because men need challenges, the military becomes less attractive.  Additionally, young men aren’t fools.  They know that women will create physical and emotional drags on a combat unit.  Only in the Ivory Tower, surrounded by theory, would people think that women with their different biology are identical to men for all purposes, including combat.

Having turned the military into a Progressive experiment for gays and women, now what do we do?  We bring transsexuals into the military.  Although the number of transsexuals in the military will of necessity be small (there aren’t that many around), I suspect the transsexual-infused military will be a different animal from what it currently is.  Libby, one of my wonderful commenters, found this interesting tidbit about transsexuals:

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention report on suicide attempts among transgender and non-gender conforming adults (Jan.2014)  found that the while rate for suicide attempts in the general US adult population is about 4.6%, in transgender people, the rate is 41% (46% for trans men).

transsexuals are deeply, deeply unhappy people, who wear their own bodies like a painfully ill-fitting outfit.  I feel nothing but compassion for their anguish (an anguish that gender reassignment may do nothing to help).  Having said that, I am appalled that our president somehow thinks that the military will be the group therapy environment these troubled souls need.  He is using America’s front line defense against a dangerous world to normalize that which, statistically and biologically speaking, isn’t normal.*

There is nothing closer to who and what we are than are gender and sexual orientation.  A wise friend of mine thinks that Islam’s entire beef with the Western world is the fact that, as Westernism creeps into Muslim communities, women fight to leave the harem, the burqa, and the hijab.  All other insults to the religion are tolerable, except for the one that shakes up the relative values between men and women under Islam.

The Left understands this, but it heads in an opposite direction from Islam.  Rather than attacking women and gays to gain control over culture, it attacks heterosexual males.  This is why, beginning when they’re just little children, America’s males are systematically demeaned and insulted.  They are also deprived of opportunities to express their masculinity in positive ways and, instead, are reduced to expressing it through computer games, random violence, and perpetual dorm-style sloth and slobbery.  If you want to see the end of a sustained Leftist attack on men, you need only look to the American black community, where men have been rendered useless.  The government fulfills all the functions women need (shelter, food, health care, and child care), leaving the men responsible only for spread sperm.  No wonder, then, that black men have developed a culture focused on the size of their weapons (both of which, ironically, are tucked in the pants):  guns and penises.

_____________________________
*No, I’m not saying people on the LGBTQ spectrum are “perverts” or “sickos,” or that they should be ridiculed, humiliated, discriminated against, hanged, beaten, imprisoned, or anything else.  I don’t believe that.

What I do believe is that love and physical desire are a combination of mind, biology, and culture, and that, when it comes to consensual adult relationships, it’s my business to stay out of it.  When I look at people, I judge them on values other than their sex partners, values such as individual freedom versus government control, stable relationships versus promiscuity, hard work versus parasitism, kindness versus cruelty, etc..  I do, however, reserve the right to look down upon people if their choice of sex partner is their only value.

So, rather than sit in judgment on LGBTQs, what I’m trying to say is that non-heterosexual orientations are statistical anomalies and that it is impossible to build a culture around a biological statistical anomaly.  It won’t stick.

Per an email I received, veterans are organizing to clip the wings of an anti-military Commander In Chief

Marines dismounting from an amphibious assault vehicleI cannot vouch for the following email’s veracity. That is, I do not know whether it’s true that there’s rising distress in the military about the Obama administration or whether it’s true that troops and veterans are beginning to share political information amongst themselves directed at clipping Obama’s wings in 2014. A lot of the information about ROEs sounds old, but the reference to the 2014 election indicates that this is a current email. All I can say is that I got this and found it interesting enough to pass along:

You may not be a veteran but you might know someone who is to pass this on to.

VET’S BACKLASH AGAINST OBAMA, A movement has been started by our armed forces, to get out the vote in 2014. They are organizing themselves, but this can be done by all of us. The President, the Commander in Chief, has made the Rules of Engagement (ROE) so difficult, that our troops are often killed before they can even get permission to fight. Nothing has been done to stop our troops from being murdered by Afghanis they are training, either. Now, the President wants the US to sign on to the UNs International Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the UNs ICC to arrest and try US troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under US Law, and from which there is no appeal. The President, with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power. If the Non-Establishment can take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected from unnecessary danger. Please consider this, and send it on to your mailing lists. Thank You and Semper Fi,

Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. With Obama in the White House, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet. More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months. This is more than the combined total of the nine years before. Thirty have died in August. During the last month, over 50 additional NATO and US servicemen have been murdered, inside jobs by those who are hired to be a force for good in Afghanistan .

The commander in chief is AWOL. Not a peep, although he ordered the White House flag flown at half-staff for the Sikhs that were killed. There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president.

It has taken on a dangerous tone. No one knows what to do about him, but the anger runs deep as the deaths continue with no strategic end in sight to the idiocy of this war. Obama has had 4 years to end this futile insanity, during which time he has vacationed, golfed, campaigned, and generally ignored the plight of our men and women in uniform. But, there is now a movement afoot in the armed services to launch a massive get out the vote drive against this president. Not just current active duty types, but the National Guard, Reserves, the retired, and all other prior service members. This is no small special interest group, but many millions of veterans who can have an enormous impact on the outcome of the November election if they all respond.

The million military retirees in Florida alone could mean an overwhelming victory in that state if they all show up at the polls. It might not keep another one hundred U.S. troops from dying between now and November, but a turn out to vote by the military against this heart breaking lack of leadership can make a powerful statement that hastens a change to the indifference of this shallow little man who just lets our soldiers die.

(Thanks to Caped Crusader)

A Facebook post that explains why Ryan’s pension cuts to the military were so craven

American military cemetery LuxembourgA friend tipped me off to a Facebook post that’s gone viral.  Practically within minutes of learning that, while Congress was doing nothing to stem the millions of dollars heading to illegal aliens, it would cut veterans’ benefits, Chuck Wooten, Chief Master Sargeant, USAF (ret.), got a fundraising letter from Paul Ryan.  Wooten took to Facebook to explain precisely why he wouldn’t be contributing any money to Ryan any time soon:

FB Friends,
I’m still mulling this Paul Ryan budget deal that stole money from every military retiree (past, present and future). This morning, upon opening my email, I noticed I had a letter from Congressman Paul Ryan…and it was begging me for an “emergency end of the year donation.” It only proves what we already know. The folks in Washington are indeed clueless. Instead of hitting the delete button, I decided to call Congressman Ryan out on his audacity and lack of self-awareness. I sent the following to him. I’m also posting it on the FB USAF Chiefs page as an open letter to the Congressman. If you’re a retiree, I will tell you we may have lost the battle, but not the war. If you’re inclined and find it worthy, let’s flood social media with this letter and see if we can get some traction. Thanks.

To Congressman Paul Ryan
Today at 8:19 AM
Congressman Ryan,

Please note that this request by you for a cash donation from me is extremely unfortunate and very ill-timed. You see sir, I am one of the military retirees your “bipartisan” budget just impacted. You and every Republican (both in the House and Senate that voted to pass this travesty betrayed and broke trust with me and everyone like me. You may not know us by name, but we’re the people, Congressman, who answered our Nation’s call, some of us at a very early age to willingly serve YOU and others LIKE YOU so you could safely attend college and pursue your personal ambitions without fear of harm.

You might also want to note that for at least 20 years, my brothers-in-arms answered that call of duty EVERY SINGLE DAY, without fail, without complaint, without enough money to sustain our loved ones we had to leave behind while we DID OUR JOB in every corner of the Earth. And for that service, we were given absolute assurance our so-called retirement benefits would be protected by law. The very law you shattered in your zeal to impress your Democratic cohorts in your back room deal–with the enemy. Yes, I said it. The liberal Democrats are an enemy to the American people and our Nation. Your lack of judgement and eagerness to compromise on the backs of us who protected you is sickening. Congressman, you and every Republican that voted for injuring military retirees have engaged in a complicit, sordid affair with the Democrats who’s objective has always been to dismantle the military. By climbing into their bed on this issue, you have confirmed you are absolutely no better than they and have proven it with your vote.

Congressman Ryan, the audacity which you display is noteworthy, but to unceremoniously snatch earned money from a small group that has added so much more value than the paltry $6B you looked to “save” (which is all smoke and mirrors and you know it), is reprehensible and insulting.

We have, despite the hardships, meager salaries and harsh conditions, have performed with honor and excellence…in silence, which is something most members of Congress have no idea about doing. Our job approval was, is and always be better than yours. We knew our mission and we got it done, then handed it off to a new generation in better shape than we found it.

Your ability to look us in the eye, take money from us (apparently there was ZERO, other source of waste within the federal government that you could have recovered this money from…right, got it), while simultaneously holding your hand out to beg (with passion) for our cash is stunning. Your actions have proven you do not have the tremendous intellect you’ve sold the American people on. I say, with all seriousness, Congressman, what you lack in intellect and spinal rigidity, you make up for in cajones.

I hope you and your cowardly, Republican “colleagues” hear a message from me loud and clear. You will NEVER receive another cent of financial support from me. Further, if you happen to be at a Capitol Hill dinner or at a K Street cocktail party with RNC Chair Reince Priebus, Rep. Ron Barber, Sen. Jeff Flake or Sen. John McCain, I would be honored if you communicate with them that I am launching an effort to ensure NONE of you traitorous “representatives of the people” ever receive another vote from a military retiree. Remove me from your contact lists.

Chuck Wooten,
Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (Ret)

That pretty much says it all. While I’m no fan of the overly generous pensions too many public employees get for doing jobs that the rest of us perform in the private sector without all the whoops, hollers, and excessive rewards, the military is sui generis. Our troops hold a unique position in which they promise to fight, bleed, and die on our behalf. Thankfully, most of them aren’t called upon to make these ultimate (or potentially ultimate) sacrifices, but the fact that their job description requires them to make such a promise means that they deserve something more upon retirement than the average white collar desk jockey gets.

Pajama Boy . . . and the rest of us

Princess Pajama Boy croppedAs far as the Left is concerned, Pajama Boy — the ultimate androgynous metrosexual — represents a significant majority of young people.  Certainly that’s where the White House is betting its money.  As Rush Limbaugh said, they wouldn’t have put together an ad campaign aimed at 1,00o or 2,000 people.  The White House genuinely believes that, across America, there are tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Pajama Boys who want to get cozy in their onesies and talk about how to promote government growth.

I wonder if the White House’s money men are right, or if the White House is deluded by the bubble in which it lives (a bubble with lots of Pajama Boys) or by the ideology that both strengthens and blinkers it.  The White House is essentially saying that, for too long, we’ve been assuming that men are . . . well, manly, when all that they really wanted was society’s permission to be girlie.  As far as the professional Left is concerned, traditional masculinity is one long, biased, societally-imposed construct that has nothing to do with biology.

I think (or maybe I just hope) that the White House is wrong.

Here in Marin, conscientious Marin parents do their best to raise their children free of gender stereotypes, yet the kids embrace those stereotypes with gusto.  Boys play war games; girls sit around and share their feelings.  That’s not all that the boys and girls do — they’ll come together for lots of shared activities — but even in shared activities, boys are rambunctious and girls are bossy.  The kids who gather in my house each represent perfectly the highest points on the bell curve defining typical male or female behavior.

Slumber partyThese behavioral differences are mirrored in their physical differences.  The boys shoot up, their voices deepen, their legs get hairy, their faces more square (and hairy), and their shoulders broaden.  The girls grow too, but not as tall, their faces soften, and they get curves in all the right places, something that they’re happy to show off in feminine clothing.  These formerly somewhat androgynous little children, once they hit adolescence are manifestly different from each other.  Moreover, as they flirt gently with each other, I do believe that each would agree with that old French expression, Viva la difference!

But back to the boys especially.  I just learned the other day that another young man of my acquaintance enlisted in the military.  On Facebook, his father showed a photograph of the young man in his fatigues after ending basic training.  I wrote a comment congratulating the young men and saying that I’m seeing more and more young men look to the military as a way to learn self-discipline, have a purpose in life, and be part of a team, all as a way to hasten the maturation process.  The boy’s father wrote a response saying that I had hit the nail on the head.  He noted that, while his son’s choice was a surprise considering his Marin upbringing, it was precisely those goals that drew him to the military.  In other words, this 19-year-old boy, despite Marin’s assiduously asexual upbringing, still wanted to be a man.

One of the things the insulated White House ignores is that, just as was the case for this Marin youth, boys want to be men.  I don’t know if the White House ignores this reality because its ideology cannot accept it, or if it ignores this reality because, as Rush Limbaugh posits, it’s filled with Pajama Boys, whether youthful interns, or wrinkled and grizzled senior advisers.  Either way, whether because they’re true believers or actual Pajama Boys, the White House has given us an insight into what it thinks the American young man is, or should be, like — and that’s like a girl.