A Deal for obama, and Thoughts on Politicians

You control government (and your personal) spending, and I’ll control mine. It’s none of your business what I spend my money on, so butt out of my personal decisions. It is my business what YOU spend my money on, though, so just know we are paying attention.

Because of obama’s own story of how he was destitute and had to go begging for a sponsor so he could run for office, I now think of politicians as beggars, or con men. They have to get their money from other people in order to live as politicians. They don’t earn anything; they beg for donations. They’re professional beggars. Or slick-talking con men.

Either way, they don’t have the internals required for selflessness in service to the people. –You Know I’m Right



Women in Combat…Bad Idea.

     Leon Panetta’s directive to open front line combat jobs to women has to be one of the most lame-brained decisions ever made by a Secretary of Defense in the history of this nation.  I guess that’s to be expected, however, when you consider Panetta’s distinguished military background.  He enlisted in the Army as a 2nd LT in 1964 and was discharged as a 1st LT in 1966.  As a result of this extensive experience he is now in control of the most advanced and complex military system the world has ever seen and was deemed “Imminently qualified” to lead and direct our armed forces.  BALONEY!  Combined with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell debacle, this has dealt such a severe blow to the combat effectiveness of our military, that we may never recover.  

    I am not a chauvinist and I don’t hate women.  Women have served honorably, gallantly and made huge contributions to our armed services in numerous capacities throughout the many wars this country has fought, but there are some compelling reasons why women shouldn’t be in combat infantry units.  First and foremost is physical size and strength.  The average height of a woman today is 64″.  The average height of a man today is 70″.  Since muscle fiber is naturally smaller in women than in men, the average woman is only about 60% as strong as the average man.  That’s just a fact of life and cannot be changed by legislation.  How many women do you know that could pick up a 200 lb wounded soldier, with all of his battle gear, and carry him from the battlefield out of harms way?  How many women do you know that could carry a 60-80 pound ruck sack 7 or 8 miles on a forced march and then have enough left in the tank to engage the enemy in intense physical combat?  I don’t know any.  In a battlefield situation where a physical confrontation is likely to occur, a man will have a distinct advantage over a woman 100% of the time.   Why we would want to place our soldiers in such a position is beyond me.  The purpose of training and selecting soldiers for combat is to provide the ENEMY with the maximum opportunity to die for his country, not the other way around!  

     There are many other considerations that should also be taken into account.   Interviews with Israeli soldiers after the Arab wars showed that witnessing women soldiers dying and being dismembered in combat had a profoundly negative effect on morale.  Since most men are taught from childhood that it’s a man’s job to nurture and protect women, it created a huge amount of guilt when a female soldier was maimed, killed or captured.  Sometimes tactical decisions were made with an emphasis on protecting women rather than sending them into harms way.  In certain situations this would have disastrous consequences.  Combat considerations aside, there is also a big difference in the individual needs and personal hygiene requirements of men and women.  There are certain items that just will not be available for women on the front line and this could create a whole new set of problems that an all male unit would not have to contend with.  Fraternization between male and female soldiers is inevitable under the intense and stressful conditions of combat and has the potential to create dissent and jealously within the ranks.  The need for separate latrine and sanitation facilities is another issue that will have to be addressed.  I understand and completely agree that women should receive equal pay for equal work, but allowing women into front line combat jobs simply because some of them “Want To” is absolutely the wrong approach.

     Shamefully, this decision was not made with the intent of increasing efficiency or improving the combat readiness of our military, it was made to satisfy the “Politically Correct” agenda of the current clueless administration we have in Washington.  The fallout from this will be felt for years to come.  When not enough women meet the strenuous physical requirements to complete combat infantry training and the unit quotas are not met, the pressure from the top will be enormous to graduate more women.  Standards will be reduced to allow more women to pass, and the overall effectiveness of our combat units will deteriorate.  Our military superiority lies in the fact that we have the most highly trained, well equipped and physically fit soldiers that this nation can muster.  We are head and shoulders above the rest of the world.  How can we possibly lower our standards and “level the playing field” just to satisfy some political agenda?

There is a reason that women don’t play professional football, baseball or hockey.  They simply don’t have the physical size and strength necessary to be competitive against men.  The same approach should be taken by our military.  Political correctness be damned!

%d bloggers like this: