Jun 6, 2013 Political
The leaders of the Armed Forces are in hot water because of an increase in sexual assaults. They promise to combat sexual assault and admit they let the ball drop. In a grilling by members of Congress two Democrat female Senators had a field day and went all in over the issue. Senator Gillibrand implied some commanders were stupid by claiming “…not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape…” While I get the dramatics I think just about all can tell the two apart.
Senator McCaskill made the claim that looking at someone the wrong way can be sexual assault. I guess there could be looks that can be considered assault but can’t seem to think of one. What look conveys imminent harmful contact?
I am not making light of the issue of sexual assault whether it is in or out of the military. However, I do have a few problems with all of this.
The incidence of sexual assault has had an uptick over the past year or two. What is the root cause of this? It seems as if the uptick happened after gays were allowed to openly serve so it would be worth looking to see if the increase is same sex assault. Not that it matters BUT in order to solve a problem the root cause needs to be found and if the uptick is because of the repeal of DADT then it needs to be looked into to see why it happened.
I also have a problem with Congress wanting to take the discipline of sexual offenders out of the hands of commanders. If the issue is reporting and punishment then require commanders to report all claims of sexual impropriety to their higher commander and have that higher commander review the results of investigations. Commanders need to retain the ability to investigate and punish those who have done wrong. If any commander is not doing that job then relieve that commander. Do not use some blanket policy because of an increase particularly if that increase is due to the repeal of DADT. Find a solution for it that does not involve hampering all commanders.
My last issue is with these Democrat females and their indignation. Where were they when Bill Clinton was sexually molesting women? I realize that these two were not in office when that occurred (not in federal office anyway) but their body, the Senate, voted to let Bill off the hook.
How come there was not the same uproar from liberal woman about Bill Clinton’s alleged rapes and his confirmed affair back then? Why are these folks acting as if they have some moral authority when they still worship the ground Clinton walks on?
It seems to me that folks who apply their anger selectively over the same subject lose credibility.
Sexual assault is a crime. My solution is to investigate the accusation, prosecute those with merit; if they are guilty put them in jail and if they are not guilty put them back to work.
That seems like a good solution to me.
As far as Gillibrand and McCaskill, how do you ladies feel about Bill Clinton and what he did? What do you say about the accusations of rape?
Are you as mad at the Senate for the way they let him off as you are at the way the military handles sexual assault cases?
Your answers will tell us a lot about you…
Never surrender, never submit.
The sequestration is a bogeyman that the Democrats are trying to use to blame Republicans for everything that happens. The fact that Obama came up with the idea is not part of their thinking process because they are interested in blaming everything on the right. They have hopes that they can pin this on Republicans and that it will help them keep the Senate and take the House back.
The idea that Sequester is debilitating is moronic. The cuts amount to 2 cents of every dollar. That is not much money and any pain felt is because Democrats have specifically made cuts to areas that would cause harm. They can shut down White House tours while still allowing million dollar donors to show up. They can allow TSA to furlough employees to harm the public because it is the only way. Of course another solution was found as soon as some member of Congress was inconvenienced by the travel delays.
These facts have not stopped Democrats from using sequester as their talking point. One Democrat blamed sequester for the events in Benghazi when sequester took place after the murders there. As an aside, the alleged cut in money for security is a smoke screen. We had money to put electric car charging stations but not for security? Get real.
Nancy Pelosi is the latest Democrat to blame the sequester for something. It seems that San Fran Nan is blaming the sequester for the fact that she did not take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan to thank mothers and grandmothers for serving in the military:
“Every year for the past few years on Mother’s Day I’ve taken a delegation to Afghanistan – or Iraq – to say thank you to our moms – and by the way, our grandmothers – who are serving there – to also thank all of our troops for what they do to protect America’s families. I won’t be going this particular weekend because we don’t have – you know, under sequestration – we don’t have (inaudible).” IJ Review
I don’t know how much money it costs to take a delegation to Iraq or Afghanistan but it is not cheap and we don’t have money to begin with. I also do not know why Pelosi thinks it is necessary to fly around the world to say thank you to mothers and grandmothers. It would be much easier and far less expensive for her to put out a thank you on her website and then have Defense notify the troops it is there through their systems. She can’t possibly visit every mother and grandmother in these countries so the message sent electronically would at least make it to as many as she would have visited.
It sounds to me like Nan just wants and excuse for a trip. I know these places are not garden spots but think of how many places she can visit on the way out and the way back, I mean since they are already in the neighborhood.
Pelosi makes this statement as if it is a bad thing that she could not go and seems to think blaming it on sequester will hurt Republicans.
First of all, I venture to bet that most of the military do not want to see her or visit with her. She is a liberal moron who does not support the troops.
Second of all, if she could not waste money on this trip because of the sequester then I say it is doing what it is supposed to.
However, I will buy her a one way ticket if they promise to keep her there.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 1, 2013 Military
Looks like the military will have a new Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy but it will not apply to homosexuals, it will apply to people of faith. A new policy will prohibit members of the military from sharing their faith and since most military members who practice a religion are Christian it will affect them the most. Military members who express or share their faith will be subject to a Court Martial according to a new memo that the Pentagon is set to release.
Interestingly, homosexuals are free to express their sexuality now because the DADT signed under Clinton has been lifted by Obama.
I imagine that this new DADT will not apply to Muslims because they get special treatment wherever they go. They get prayer rooms, foot washing stations and time to pray five times a day in all kinds of places where liberals traditionally shun religious expression particularly from Christians.
The world is turning upside down when a guy like Tim Tebow who expresses his religious beliefs is mocked by the media and told to keep it to himself but a professional basketball player admits he is gay and he is hailed as a hero and gets a call from bathhouse Barry Obama.
I don’t particularly care if anyone is gay, that is their business. Since when does openly expressing that become a heroic act? How many of the people who ran towards the blasts in Boston to help the wounded received a call from Obama? Running in in the direction of the blast to help is an act of heroism.
Coming out of the closet is not. It might have taken courage to do it but it is far from heroic.
This is the backward country we are now living in as the progressive agenda works to strip us from our tradition and our identity. The men and women of the armed forces fight to protect and defend the Constitution and this new memo will prohibit them from exercising one of the protected rights, the free expression of their religion.
The measure being taken is so twisted that it could leave Chaplains in hot water for doing what Chaplains do. They will be expressing and sharing their faith.
Seems to me the Obama regime and the progressives are working to remove Chaplains from the military in an effort to further erode the warfighters.
I proudly served for 24 years and I never pushed my religious beliefs on anyone else but I was never afraid to share them or to openly express my beliefs and I was never offended when others did the same. I doubt I would serve in the military as it stands today because the civilians in charge of it are a bunch of socialist morons who are hell bent on destroying it but if I did I would express myself as I saw fit and so long as it did not interfere with someone else the leadership could suck wind.
I imagine a number of people are just waiting to either get out or praying that the military will not be totally destroyed by the time Obama leaves office.
Jimmy Carter damn near destroyed the military and Obama is trying to one up him.
Congress is charged with developing the rules by for the armed forces (Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution) and it needs to make a rule that prevents the Obama regime from infringing on the rights of the brave men and women who stand at the gates of Hell to protect this nation.
The country is going to Hell and Obama is leading the way. We need to squash him and the rest of the progressive morons like the bugs that they are.
Congress needs to get some testicular fortitude and quickly.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 4, 2012 Political
A woman in Massachusetts decided not to rent an apartment to a person seeking a place to live. The person was not some drug addicted alcoholic or maggot infested hippie. This person was not even an Occupy moron which is just silly because that person would expect the place to be rent free.
It seems that if any of the above mentioned types had applied they would have gotten the place. But SGT Joel Morgan, a National Guardsman, was deemed unacceptable to Janice Roberts, the owner of the apartment.
Roberts is anti war and believes that renting to a person who serves in the military (and who actually served in the war zone) would create a conflict of interest.
SGT Morgan has decided to sue Ms. Roberts and I hope he wins and wins big.
Isn’t it amazing that liberal localities and activist judges make it criminal to ask immigration status of people desiring to rent but the honorable service to our country is a disqualifier?
I wonder what would have happened if Roberts denied an illegal alien the apartment?
I wonder what would have happened if she had denied the apartment to a gay person?
It is highly unlikely that Roberts opposes those two issues but some people do so what would happen if they applied the Roberts’ logic when deciding to rent to people?
While I find it sad that our country has people like Roberts I find it even more so that this takes place in Massachusetts, a state that has a proud history of patriotism and service in peace and war. Many of this Nation’s battles for freedom were fought in that once great state.
Now it is a haven for liberal lunacy.
Maybe SGT Morgan will win and win big and we will have another shot heard round the world from Massachusetts.
I still have hope for the people of Massachusetts because of a wonderful young man named Brendan Haas.
Never surrender, never submit.
While Barack Obama criticized George Bush and the use of military force (remember, Obama opposed everything Bush did) he has done some of the things he accused Bush of doing. It was Obama who used military force without Congressional approval, not Bush.
While Obama is working to draw down troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan the Pentagon is preparing contingencies for Iran. I would normally think that the Pentagon has these contingencies and plans for this stuff all the time. I would have thought that we have plans for Iran and many other countries that could initiate violence against us.
The fact that the news is being reported and that there are claims we could defeat Iran in short order coupled with plans to engage North Korea appears to be election year bluster in order to improve the standing of the lame Commander in Chief.
This is reported as Obama uses the Seals and the troops in Afghanistan as props in his election campaign stops (but his toadies claim it is not political). He is using the troops to push a tough guy image while he guts the military and its capabilities.
The plans call for doing more with less and perhaps this is the reason the plans are being revised or are being announced.
The Pentagon is faced with a lot of cuts in troop strength and budget money is being reduced as weapons systems wear out and age. The Pentagon needs to have plans in order to react to any threat but now it must do more with less.
I imagine this is probably the regime’s attempt to show that we are still able to protect our nation even after the cuts. It is probably designed to make it appear as if Barack Obama is not harming the country and its armed forces.
It might even be an attempt to show the members of the armed forces that the Commander in Chief has their backs and is looking out for them.
Since a large percentage of the armed forces are conservative it is hard to believe that Obama will get much of their votes.
This is, after all, why Democrats work hard to disenfranchise the military by making sure their votes don’t count.
I realize the Pentagon war games all the time. However, when Bush was President the left loved to tell us he would trot out bin Laden or start a skirmish in order to win an election. Those things never happened under Bush but it is only fair to apply the same standard to Obama.
He has trotted out bin Laden. Will a war be next?
Never surrender, never submit.