Monday, January 28, 2013

Some Perspective from a Female Veteran

PFC Jessica Lynch, USA
PFC Jessica Lynch, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This is from a female Marine veteran who served in Iraq. She is writing under the pseudonym of "Sentry." Her views were published over at Hot Air.


I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

- Sentry

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, January 25, 2013

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the ...
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

Read the full story here.
Enhanced by Zemanta

It's the Message, Morons


Barack Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to this nation, and most Americans support neither him nor his policies. But, his legions of lackeys, in true minion fashion, back him with all their heart, and since they have successfully controlled the message, they have intimidated the majority into believing they are the minority.
Barack Obama, redolent with the stench of false supremacy, is now convinced that he is the greatest man to have ever lived -- not too difficult a task, since he had always suspected as much anyway.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Truth About Assault Weapons

A very good presentation on the subject. Click on the image to view the information.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 21, 2013

Fear the Future

Barack Obama's 2009 presidential inauguration ...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For all those celebrating the 2nd inauguration of Obama today, consider this:
"During Barack Obama’s first term as president of the United States, the debt of the federal government increased by $5.8 trillion, which exceeds the combined debt accumulated under all presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton.
The new federal debt accumulated in Obama's first term equaled approximately $50,521 for each of household in the country."

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, January 19, 2013

A Good Read from Sean Linnae

2nd Ammendment Gun Shop
(Photo credit: TedRheingold)
Original post can be found at Stormbringer.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

In his speech Wednesday Obama proposed 23 executive orders concerning gun control measures. Reaction has focused mostly on a proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons" & high-capacity magazines. Other proposals include enhancing the Federal government's access to background checks - personal information on private citizens that is currently not available to the Federal government, short of a search warrant or an indictment. 

These measures are extreme enough as it is, but more sinister are measures written into ObamaCare; i.e. the safety of the public requires that doctors question patients about gun ownership. Information being sought includes what kind of weapons are present in the home, how are the stored and/or secured, and do any members of the household suffer a mental condition?

A mental condition can be anything from schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, to alcohol abuse (ever had a DUI?), anger management (ever had a domestic abuse call from the cops?) to PTSD manifested by as mild a thing as sleep disorder (who DOESN'T have THAT). 

If it is determined that a member of the household suffers a mental condition, the new bureaucracy of shared patient information will inform the Center for Disease Control of this move. A letter will then be sent to your attention from the CDC, the ATF or the DOJ demanding your home immediately be cleared of the weapons known to exist there thanks to an ObamaCare initiated, doctor-patient interview in which you participated!

Rather than decide which guns we’ll not be permitted to own, the government will simply not allow us to own ANY!

Advice:

If your healthcare provider asks anything regarding firearms in your home, simply reply, "I don't wish to discuss this subject." Or you can outright lie, if you like. You're not under oath or indictment; you are not required to say anything. 

Regarding so-called "assault weapons" (I say so-called because none of the arms Liberals refer to qualify according to the pure military definition) and high capacity magazines; Obama's proposals will not affect me - I pack a .45 (7-round magazine) and my weapon of choice for home defense - or the car - is 12-guage pump shotgun; legal in all 50 states incredibly enough and more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle, at close range. 

As usual Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. This thing is going to backfire in his face so bad. The Dems know that gun bans are a non-starter; they're using this thing to paint Republicans as intransigent for the upcoming spending/budget battles.

In other words if banning guns was so important why didn't the Democrats do it when they controlled Congress? The answer is because they know it would have cost them the election, just like the Clinton assault rifle ban cost them the House in '94.

Liberals focus on what they call "assault rifles" - civilianized versions of military weapons which are simply semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines - because they look evil. The challenge is that the 2d Amendment allows us to arm ourselves in self-defense - a fundamental human right - and the type of weapons addressed are specifically weapons suitable for a battlefield.


Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." -George Washington


Consider the 1992 Rodney King race riots in L.A. The only shops that survived the savage onslaught were Korean-owned businesses. The reason why the Koreans survived is because they are very organized; every Korean community has a Korean Association. Almost every Korean businessman has served in the ROK military, and as any American who has pulled duty in the Republic of Korea will tell you, ROK soldiers are the toughest on Earth and THEY DO NOT F*CK AROUND.


The Korean merchants of East L.A. armed themselves with their legally-acquired AR-15s, Mini-14s and Remington 870s, and manned their grocery stores and laundromats. When the looters came to Korea Town, they were met by volleys of rifle and shotgun fire.


I toured the riot-hit neighborhoods of East L.A. and downtown Hollywood not long after the riots and saw for myself the damage the inhabitants had brought upon themselves. What stood out was the Korean businesses. There were some broken windows and some incidental fire damage from adjacent structures, but it was remarkable to see these islands of civilization amongst the rubble and the burnt out storefronts. 

Moral of the story: arm yourself with as many guns as you can get your hands on and keep them as close to yourself as possible. The right to self-defense is derived from Deity, it is natural law, codified in our Constitution, passed by Congress, ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Constitutional Federalism for Dummies

Veto - Illustration
Veto - Illustration (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)
Originally posted at Simply Because It Is


I'm going to write off the cuff here a bit for those who might not know why our constitution and government is as unwieldly and slow as it is.

It

Was

Designed

That

Way.

The founders realized that to slow the march of a tyrant and the destruction of government, there had to be checks, balances, levels, splits and procedures that prevented one person or even one party (they didn't design parties into the system, most of the founders hated the political parties that arose) from just having a green light on anything and going to down and doing whatever it wanted.

This is the reason for the veto - so congress couldn't just pass a law that the president had to sign.
This is the purpose of the super-majority - so the president can't just stop whatever he wants to from congress through a veto - a veto can be overridden - 2/3 of the congress are required to override a veto and it can be done.

A filibuster allows the minority party to stop legislation in the senate from passing out of the chamber by enacting an indefinite and perpetual debate on the floor - it gives the minority party power to represent their constituents and keep from being trampled by the majority.

This is the purpose of the "bi-cameral" legislation - or two houses.   One - the Senate - based on equal representation with each state having two senators and the other - the House of Representatives - based on population with a limit of 435 representatives fixed proportionally.

A judicial system that interprets the constitution and can try anyone in government but cannot direct the military or write law.

An executive branch (President / Vice-President) who do not have the power to write laws (Though Obama wants to through executive order because of that pesky constitution).

A legislative branch that writes laws but does not enforce them or interpret them or direct the military.

A house of representatives which has power to try the president - or impeach him - as well as control the budget and can cut funding to Obamacare if they wish to.

The federal government only has jurisdiction over interstate commerce, national defense, international trade and regulations and over the territories (until Obamacare came into your personal life).

The purpose of Federalism was to separate the powers so the president or any government official wouldn't be a "king." 

Obama can't write parking tickets - cops can't start wars.

Things like that.

Heck, the North Plains Police Department here in Oregon gave Al Gore a speeding ticket on Highway 26 on his way to a global warming conference doing 88 in a 55 while he was nastily burning carbon emissions by speeding.  Al Gore tried to pull the "do you know who I am" aristocratic mentality but the police officer still gave him a ticket.

The purpose of the constitution was to limit the powers of government, not citizens. This is why it is a government "of the people."

You are responsible for your food, your income, your house, your security - you have that freedom.  You don't have to live your life by King George's Leave anymore.

You don't have to kiss his ring anymore.

I have the freedom to say whatever I want about the president (well, up until the 1980's as the totalitarian police state encroaches and we are disarmed).

The point is - the government was purposefully designed to move slow.  These responses by FEMA to disasters. The government wasn't designed for this.  It's purposefully slow to keep it intact and allow challenges to its authority.  Grover Cleveland was notorious for his vetoes once told the Texas farmers whose crops were ruined by drought that they needed to rely on charitable contributions and the government wasn't in the business of charity and vetoed a bill for the feds to bail out the farmers.  The money raised in that little endeavor (year escapes me) was more than what was donated by FEMA to the Katrina victims.

So while Obama is frustrated over government's slowness in responding to things, it was designed to protect us from people *just*like*him* - tyrants dressed up in nice suits who have our "best interests in mind" and know what's better for us than we do and want to eliminate government to take care of it.

So before you get frustrated with congress and government - that constitution is what has kept them from being even more radical than they are.  And the only people it will work for is a moral and religious people.  A greedy - self entitled - class-warfare inspired people who covet other peoples' goods and who are not "fruitful" - can't handle that constitution.  That's not what it was designed for.

You're going to hear a referendum on the constitution in years to come.  Remember this when people say that the constitution is the problem.

It's actually what has saved us thus far. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, January 12, 2013

The Road to Totalitarianism

Henry Hazlitt
Henry Hazlitt (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An essay by Henry Hazlitt from 1956:


In spite of the obvious ultimate objective of the masters of Russia to communize and conquer the world, and in spite of the frightful power which such weapons as guided missiles and atomic and hydrogen bombs may put in their hands, the greatest threat to American liberty today comes from within. It is the threat of a growing and spreading totalitarian ideology.
Totalitarianism in its final form is the doctrine that the government, the state, must exercise total control over the individual. The American College Dictionary, closely following Webster's Collegiate, defines totalitarianism as "pertaining to a centralized form of government in which those in control grant neither recognition nor tolerance to parties of different opinion."
Now I should describe this failure to grant tolerance to other parties not as the essence of totalitarianism, but rather as one of its consequences or corollaries. The essence of totalitarianism is that the group in power must exercise total control. Its original purpose (as in communism) may be merely to exercise total control over "the economy." But "the state" (the imposing name for the clique in power) can exercise total control over the economy only if it exercises complete control over imports and exports, over prices and interest rates and wages, over production and consumption, over buying and selling, over the earning and spending of income, over jobs, over occupations, over workers — over what they do and what they get and where they go — and finally, over what they say and even what they think.
If total control over the economy must in the end mean total control over what people do, say, and think, then it is only spelling out details or pointing out corollaries to say that totalitarianism suppresses freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of immigration and emigration, freedom to form or to keep any political party in opposition, and freedom to vote against the government. These suppressions are merely the end-products of totalitarianism.
All that the totalitarians want is total control. This does not necessarily mean that they want total suppression. They suppress merely the ideas which they don't agree with, or of which they are suspicious, or of which they have never heard before; and they suppress only the actions that they don't like, or of which they cannot see the necessity. They leave the individual perfectly free to agree with them, and perfectly free to act in any way that serves their purposes — or to which they may happen at the moment to be indifferent. Of course, they sometimes also compel actions, such as positive denunciations of people who are against the government (or who the government says are against the government), or groveling adulation of the leader of the moment. That no individual in Russia today gets the constant groveling adulation that Stalin demanded chiefly means that no successor has yet succeeded in securing Stalin's unchallenged power.
Once we understand "total" totalitarianism, we are in a better position to understand degrees of totalitarianism. Or rather — since totalitarianism is by definition total — it would probably be more accurate to say that we are in a better position to understand the steps on the road to totalitarianism.
We can either move, from where we are, toward totalitarianism on the one hand or toward freedom on the other. How do we ascertain just where we now are? How do we tell in what direction we have been moving? In this ideological sphere, what does our map look like? What is our compass? What are the landmarks or constellations to guide us?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Thank Goodness for Obamacare

Senate Passes Insurance Industry Aid Bill
(Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com)
I sure am glad that our leaders in Washington managed to pass Obamacare. After all, it was going to lower rates and bend the cost curve down.


Health Insurers Raise Some Rates by Double Digits

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.
Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.

 In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, January 4, 2013

It Must be Nice....

TIME TO PULL THE PLUG ON KING OBAMA
(Photo credit: SS&SS)

Michelle Obama recently revealed that she and President Obama don’t give Christmas gifts to each other. They merely say, “We’re in Hawaii,” and that’s Christmas gift enough.
But actually the present is from taxpayers, and it’s an expensive one.
The total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more. During a time of budget deficits that threaten the nation’s security and its future, the Obamas have chosen to  maintain a “family tradition” and vacation halfway around the world instead of finding far cheaper alternatives closer to home.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What A Deal!

President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Middle-class workers will take a bigger hit to their income proportionately than those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 under the new fiscal cliff deal, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. 
Earners in the latter group will pay an average 1.3 percent more - or an additional $2,711 - in taxes this year, while workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will see their paychecks shrink by as much as 1.7 percent - or up to $1,784 - the D.C.-based think tank reported. 
Overall, nearly 80 percent of households will pay more money to the federal government as a result of the fiscal cliff deal.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 3, 2013

No Ma'am!

Seal of the United States Marine Corps
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Let Them Eat Cake....

Hawaii polynesian cultural centre
(Photo credit: Danielle Bauer)

In a move that is rich in irony, President Obama agreed Tuesday night to sign an emergency deficit reduction bill that does almost nothing to rein in spending and then jetted out to Hawaii to resume his vacation at an extra cost of more than $3 million to taxpayers.
The price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that is already being spent on the Obamas’ Hawaii idyll, bringing the total cost of the excursion to well over $7 million.
Read the rest here: 

Obama Returns to Hawaii at an Added Cost of Over $3 Million


Enhanced by Zemanta