“The Day of Delusion”

Once again, Mr Starmann sees what every “been there, done that” experienced combat veteran knows to be true. My only question is where’s General Mattis in all this utter nonsense?

By Ray Starmann

As the feminist Kamikaze bears down on the U.S.S. Pentagon, spineless brass sip Mint Juleps on the bridge, adding up their pensions and hoping to abandon ship before the US military is catastrophically killed in the next war.

Which it will be, if nothing changes, mark my words.

Across the military, standards are dropping faster than a Greg Maddux sinker; as lackeys, perfumed princes, feather merchants and cultural Marxist, Obama holdouts do their best to make the US Military the Laughing Stock of the World.

Standards are hitting new lows across the board in the military, in order to fuel feminists’ fantasies. There are currently no physical standards at the Special Forces Qualification Course. What does this mean? It means that your 90-year-old grandma can become a Green Beret now. The Marines recently chucked a grueling physical endurance test they had been using at the Marine Corps’ Officer Basic Course for 50 years. (not completely true Ray, it’s in the Infantry Officer’s Course, not the Basic Course. And it wasn’t chucked, it’s still there but no longer an immediate dis-qualifier.) There is no longer a requirement to throw a live grenade successfully at Army Basic Training.  And, Fort Benning, is pumping out female Rangers faster than you can say ‘shotgun wedding.’

If women are passing Ranger School honestly, let’s see the records for all the women who graduated, starting in 2015, and including 37-year-old Mommy Ranger.

I love the idea of a Mommy Ranger. She can seize an airfield one day, and pick up her son at soccer practice the next. Isn’t diversity cool? Oh rejoice, equal opportunity!

And, then there’s General Maude…!

 ‘These are the Mommies of Pointe du Hoc. These are the mothers who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.’

God Help us all. ‘Colonel Darby, who was a mighty brave, is rolling around in his shallow grave.’

It is all a gigantic lie, a Potemkin Village waiting to be burnt down, a US Government, machine fabricated Quonset hut of cards that will collapse the moment the first green tracer rounds go down range in anger at our vanguard of crack, female troops. It is all a mammoth Pinocchio. Feminists know it. The generals know it. The Secretary of Defense knows it. Yet, it continues to metastasize like an unstoppable cancer.

Liberals applaud all of it as some kind of 21st Century civil rights crusade tantamount to a Dr. King march. What it is really tantamount to is national suicide.

Want to know the current state of PC, liberal delusion wafting through the US military now? Just listen to the comments recently made by several female general officers during the Women Leadership Roundtable Discussion at the Pentagon on February 7, 2018, aka ‘The Day of Delusion.’

Major General Marion Garcia, commanding general for the 200th Military Police Command, shared her experiences with congressional staff delegates and fellow general officers at the Roundtable.

“I just know that the future leader of the Army is going to be a woman because that person is going to be infantry and come up through the ranks and do it. I know they can,” said Garcia.

Of course they can! Within a year there will be no physical standards remaining in the US Army, much less the entire military to accommodate women into the combat arms. Ten old ladies steering walkers into a Marie Callender’s is the new infantry squad of 2018.

The Day of Delusion continued with comments by Major General Tammy Smith:

“Women don’t go to Pathfinder School,’” she recalled as she conveyed the response she received when she asked to attend the course in her earlier years, even though the rules had changed, allowing her to do so. Today, that culture has changed drastically, and that situation would play out much differently, she said. There is recourse for a supervisor who prevents female Soldiers and officers to attend courses that they are eligible for, she said.

I wonder how Smith would have done on D-Day, jumping into Normandy in the middle of the night to light the drop zones for the main airborne effort? Why do I get the feeling she would have gotten pregnant to avoid being deployed to the ETO in the first place? But, back then, the military didn’t have to deal with this nonsense. In 1944, the military was focused on winning a world war, not on placating the feminist and LGBT lobby. To Smith, like most feminists, the combat arms and its schools are just useful tools for them to use on the road up the career ladder, national security be damned.

The general officers conveyed how the military has changed since they first joined, discussed the stigma of pregnancy in some command environments and talked about balancing civilian life and their military careers while serving in the Army Reserve.

The military has not changed. It has self-destructed like one of Mr. Phelps’ reel to reel decks.

“It’s not easy raising kids while you’re doing this,” said Maj. Gen. Mary Link, commanding general, Army Reserve Medical Command.

Well, General Link. If the Army wanted you to have a kid, they would have issued you one.

“The Army Reserve has been very good as far as being able to balance those other priorities in my life,” said Brig. Gen. Lisa Doumont, commanding general, Medical Readiness and Training Command.

“I had twins, and then I was pregnant with my third son, so I said, ‘You know, I want to be around,’ so I left active duty and came into the Army Reserve. It’s been wonderful,” she said.

Absolutely! The Army exists to serve the needs of pregnant soldiers. And, with the Army’s new breastfeeding and lactation policies, pumping and storing breast milk in the field was never easier! Remember, to balance lactation support with readiness!

Lt. Col. Angela Wallace, public affairs officer, Army Reserve Medical Command and moderator for the event, opened the roundtable discussion and set the scene for the panel, stressing how America’s security thrives when relying on every service member’s talents, regardless of gender.

Obviously, Wallace has never been in a war, much less a fire fight, much less within 5000 miles of any shot and shell. She should ask any surviving veterans of Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Pelelieu, Omaha Beach and the Bulge, how having women in the combat arms would have added anything except total disaster to those military operations and battles.

When Garcia was asked about her experience as a military police officer, she said, “This was one of those branches that had been open to women for quite some time.”

“(Military police) run gun trucks ahead of the infantry to clear the roadways and make sure they can get to where they need to go. We’ve been doing that for years,” she said. Really? Maybe for street parades, welcoming home ceremonies, and convoys to move farm animals out of the way. But, I dare say in combat, it would be Combat Engineers clearing the roads of IED’s, not people. That was a cheap shot that I would have hoped someone asked the general to elaborate on that one. But I’m sure no one did.

I’m not sure what Garcia is talking about, but it’s actually the infantry that seize and hold ground, not the military police. But, keep on dreaming, general.

Lieutenant General Gwen Bingham, Army assistant chief of staff for Installation Management, recalls an earlier time when her male leaders reacted to her pregnant appearance.

“Whoa, what happened here? What’d you go and do that for?” and “Soldier! What kind of uniform are you wearing? Is that the right uniform?” Bingham repeated. “Today, the military services are more pregnancy friendly. Maternity uniforms are available for pregnant service members and pregnancies are no longer seen as a hindrance or inconvenience.”

No, pregnancies are no hindrance at all. In fact, throughout history there are thousands of examples of pregnant soldiers fighting in battles, in fact whole units that were in fact, pregnant. Who can forget the 10th Welch ‘Bun in the Oven’ Regiment at the Somme? Where has the military been all this time?  Of course, the pregnant soldier is completely non-deployable, but don’t worry about that. The important thing is that the military is a big social welfare program and is there to provide its soldiers with cradle to grave benefits.

Maternity Army Combat Uniform… Let that bit of total lunacy roll around in your cabeza for a moment.

Goodbye Patton, MacArthur, Collins, Ridgway and Schwarzkopf. Hello, Garcia, Bingham, Wallace and Link.

God help us all.

Of course when questioned about the feminist destruction derby taking place in the military, the first thing out of the liberal mouth is that real bastions of militarism and prowess like Sweden have women in the infantry.

Bravo for the Swedes – they faded out as a group of bad ass killers in about 1100 A.D. with the advent of Christianity in Scandinavia. The only Vikings left are the guys from Minnesota who now play in a domed stadium because the snow is tough on their fragile Millennial bodies.

And, Bud Grant ain’t smiling…

Message to the Obama loyalists and feminists in the US Military. We ain’t Sweden. We ain’t Belgium. We ain’t Canada, nor are we Germany, a country that gave the world Rommel and the Afrika Korps, but now couldn’t find ten men with testosterone running through their veins.

On the contrary, the USA has some very tough and very determined enemies, enemies who will bringing planes, tanks, ships and MEN to the next war with us. And, we are in the process of committing national suicide.

I have a few questions for Generals Garcia, Bingham, Wallace and Link:

How does the integration of women into the combat arms increase or maintain a unit’s operational tempo?

How does the integration of women into the combat arms increase a unit’s strength?

How does the integration of women into the combat arms increase or maintain esprit de corps and the camaraderie of men in battle?

How does the integration of women into the combat arms not create a high school atmosphere in what was once a hard-nosed, all male, efficient group of steely eyed killers?

How does the integration of women into the combat arms increase or maintain our national security?

Do you understand that our enemies, who will be bringing only men to war, view us as politically correct imbeciles?

Besides given feminists a big warm and fuzzy, how does the integration of women into the combat arms do anything, but turn the US military into a feminized weakling?

Will you take responsibility for the thousands of dead women who will be arriving home in flag draped coffins in our next conflict, casualties of your stupidity, selfishness and dishonesty?

Of course you won’t. People like you never do.

The Day of Delusion speaks volumes about the current politically correct atmosphere that is burning down the military.

Infantry Women, National Security Equals Gender Neutrality, the Army is a Welfare Program and Pregnancies are No Hindrance to Combat Readiness.

The Hour of the Clusterfu*k is rapidly approaching and there is no one who has the guts to stop it. Hopefully, there is someone, and I believe he is waiting for the right time to stop some of this lunacy.

 

Originally posted 2018-04-08 08:12:40.

Shame on US!

I cannot believe this is happening within America and no one is doing a damn thing about it. How can these criminals simply walk around free with impunity. If you and I did 1/10 of misdeeds these two have done, we’d be sharing a cell for many years. Unbelievable. Once again the “silent Majority” remains silent and does nothing but whine. Do you even know who is your congressman? Shame on you!

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_VpFNgfbebY

Originally posted 2018-03-24 09:00:38.

Charity? Really?

Someone please define the word “charity” for me as I don’t have my Websters with me at the moment, and then apply it to the below email I received from a friend today. Am I  an idiot,  an imbecile or just a silly conservative who shouldn’t be asking such stupid questions? As my fiend says he cannot state with certainty if these figures are genuine, but it seems the document is valid. Like CNN would say, it came from an undisclosed source.

We’re Here to Help!

Clinton Foundation IRS information

I have attempted to fact check this before sending, as from various web sites, including the left leaning SNOPES, and the referenced National Center for Charitable Statistics. I cannot disprove it.  It appears to be genuine.  Though you might be interested in the numbers.

Have you wondered why the Clinton Foundation folded so suddenly after Hillary was no longer in a position of influence? Perhaps this summary will provide some insight?

This is real. You can check the return yourself (see below). The real heart of the Clinton’s can be seen here. Staggering but not surprising. The below figures are from an official copy of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation tax return for 2014, found on the National Center for Charitable Statistics web site. You can obtain the latest tax return on any charitable organization there.

The Clinton Foundation:
Number of Employees (line 5) 486

Total revenue (line 12) $177,804,612.00

Total grants to charity (line 13) $5,160,385.00 (this is less than 3%)

Total expenses: $91,281,145.00

Expenses include:
Salaries (line 15) $34,838,106.00
Fund raising fees (line 16a) $850,803.00

Other expenses (line 17) $50,431,851.00
Travel $8,000,000.00
Meetings $12,000,000.00

Net assets/fund balances (line 22) $332,471,349.00

So it required 486 people, who were paid $34.8 million, plus $91.3 million in fees and expenses, to give away $5.1 MILLION! And they called this a CHARITY?

This is one of the greatest white-collar crimes ever committed. And just think, one of the participants was a former president and one wanted to be elected President of the United States. If justice was truly served, they would both be in prison.

Feel free to pass this on to your friends so they can also be informed.

And, as an added bonus, if you want to see the actual IRS tax return, http://seriousgivers.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/ 311580204_201412_990.pdf

 

990 Return ofOrganization ExemptFromIncomeTax 2014

seriousgivers.org

l

 

Originally posted 2018-03-19 15:37:20.

The Ultimate Pragmatist

I tried to research to verify this was written by Charles, but finally gave up; however, I decided to publish it anyway. because it really doesn’t matter whether he wrote it or not. IMHO, it is right on the money. I truly believe Trump is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, oh, he may lean-to the right, but he is a businessman pure and simple, and successful business men and women do not compromise. They know a compromise is most ofteny a combination of wants and desires of two sides, usually selfish, and never ever solves the problem. In my view, whomever authored this article nailed it, he is a Pragmatist!

 

 

A TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP

By  Charles Krauthammer

A different take on Donald Trump:  (a non-political agenda)
Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He’s a “Pragmatist.”(Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on
reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward,
matter-of-fact approach and doesn’t let emotion distract him or her.)

“We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.
At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.

I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a
conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist.
He sees a problem and  understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see
the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem.
That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the
creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative
perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the
detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the
real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that
amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn’t a Republican problem , it isn’t a Liberal problem ,
it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of
America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is
intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy wasn’t a Liberal or Conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of  their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things
work, they do not promise to accommodate. Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that
threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper
balance needed to fix it.

Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political
aisle, know that if something doesn’t work, you don’t continue trying
to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl’s Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a
problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and
compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some
people do not like him is because:

(1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering
backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;

(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is
unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;

(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;

(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken
thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;

(5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow
promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing
America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one
another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don’t give tens of millions
without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it
brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened
overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist is just what America needs right now.
People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it’s better to still have an “issue(s) to be solved,” so re-elect me  to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).

Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for
president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job;
that says it all.

 

 

 

Originally posted 2018-03-14 10:11:45.