She Says She Supports The Military, But She Does Not Act Like It

In this month’s Legion Magazine there is a pro-con issue regarding military recruiting in public schools. The no child left behind act tried to clean up some of the unfairness associated with recruiters. You see, while many public schools barred recruiters from job fairs and refused to provide information on students, the schools freely gave information to colleges and universities. The big difference in it all is that the government pays a lot of money to the schools so they said no recruiters, no money. This has some people up in arms. They think it is unfair.

The attitude is that these poor minors are not able to think for themselves so the recruiters should not be allowed to speak to them without parental consent. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California (where else) says in the magazine interview that she supports H.R. 551 which was introduced by Mike Honda (another California Democrat) that requires parents to give consent prior to any information being released. As it stands now, schools are required to provide contact information to recruiters unless parents object in writing. Basically, this bill discriminates against the military by saying it has to meet a condition no other entity, including colleges and universities (and probably prospective employers) must meet.

Parents must authorize the school to give their children contact information. Woolsey is worried that the little darlings, most of whom are minors, need to have parental approval before deciding on military service. Can someone explain why it is that 14 year old girls do not need to notify parents or get permission for an abortion but 17 and 18 year olds must have parental permission before speaking to a recruiter? This is exactly the kind of twisted liberal stupidity that the left is always involved in. They truly are hypocrites. A child is old enough to decide to have an abortion but not old enough to decide to join the military.

I would also like to know why Woolsey is opposed to withholding money for schools who do not allow recruiters. This precedent has been established. The government, required an all male military academy to admit a woman or lose federal funding. The moonbats were all in favor of that probably because it pushed their social agenda. In any event, there is no reason that taxpayers should pay money to schools who refuse to allow recruiters and there is no reason that access to information by recruiters should be different than for any other organization.

Woolsey says she respects a strong military but she sure does not walk the walk. This is another thing typical of the left. They keep telling us how much they support the troops, then they leak stories and publish photos that put the troops in danger. They say things equating them to Nazis and say horrible things about them, but they support them. One thing is for sure. We can never trust the Democrats with our national security or the defense of our country.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

One Response to “She Says She Supports The Military, But She Does Not Act Like It”

  1. Rosemary says:

    Excellent post. I have been making this arguement vocally for over 12 years now. It is wrong.

    If they want any money at all which they are not constitutionally allowed to have, they must first and foremost be in favor of defending this country. If not, they should not be permitted to work in our government.

    The pledge of allegience means something. The Left hates it, the Right quietly supports it, and this is how we are losing the battle. We are too quiet. We have caved too much. I want it back in, and get you ass out of that chair, young man! (or young lady!)

    Merry ChristMass, you! ;)