Another great article from Ray Starmann of the U.S. Defense Watch. Sadly, for those of you “out of the know,” everything he states is true. We have become a nation of followers, no moral leaders to be found. If our arch enemies only knew. God help us if we get into a real “shoot-em-up” before we get someone to right the course of this once great nation. This photo of puppets makes me want to throw up!

 

Will the Joint Chiefs ever make a stand against the Obama Administration?

Will the Joint Chiefs ever stand up against the insane social engineering policies which are eviscerating the military like a late night Ginsu chef?

Last September, General Martin Dempsey retired as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and escaped in a rowboat down the Potomac as the Pentagon began to sink into the cold depths of the wide, grey river.

Dempsey’s reign of cowardice and political correctness was a genuine disaster for the US military. Under Dempsey and his sidekick, Army Chief of Staff, General Ray Odierno, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, transgenders were authorized to serve in the military and we departed Iraq leaving a power vacuum and the keys to a Pandora’s Box.

Under Dempsey, crippling rules of engagement in Afghanistan continued, which make our soldiers and Marines pop up targets of opportunity. Under Dempsey, military personnel were subjected to hours and hours of sensitivity training, doing physical training wearing pregnancy simulators, lactation and breastfeeding memos distributed to combat commands, a war in the ranks against Christianity, a purge of hundreds of general officers and admirals and my personal favorite…the ordering of US Army ROTC male cadets to parade around college campuses in red high heels, in order to feel sympathy for rape victims.

Under Dempsey, the US began Operation Inherent Resolve, the Five O’Clock Charlie air campaign against ISIS that is the laughing stock of the Middle East.

Under Dempsey, the graduation of three women at Ranger School took place, including a 37 year old woman, in what is still a giant cover up. So much obfuscation and Kool Aid drinking is taking place at Benning, it should be renamed Fort Cognitive Dissonance.

Did Dempsey really believe in all of these lunatic radical cultural Marxist policies? Probably not; I’m sure when Dempsey was a Major in the 3^rd Armored Division in Desert Storm he probably never thought, “Well, one day I will command men who will wear red high heels in uniform.” “One day, my boys will run PT in pregnancy simulators in order to feel what it’s like to be pregnant.” One day, when I’m Chairman of the JCS, my soldiers will take classes that will instruct them how the Bible and the Declaration of Independence are sexist documents.”

Most military people are conservative and live to defend the tradition of their service branch, their division, their regiment, their MOS. What did Dempsey believe in? What did Dempsey defend? Dempsey believed in the greater good of Dempsey. Dempsey defended Dempsey’s retirement benefits.

While Dempsey was Chairman of the JCS there was not one iota of criticism from him or Odierno or the other Joint Chiefs against any of the looney directives being issued from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

With Dempsey gone, it was hoped that the new Chairman, General Fighting Joe Dunford, a Marine would take the helm and put a stop to the radical left wing policy initiatives that are killing the US military. If anyone could save the US military it was a Marine. Right?

Wrong…

Sadly, we haven’t seen much fighting from General Joe. He appears to be as lost in the Pentagon as Dempsey, wandering the halls in a surreal fugue state like a late night ghost on the Queen Mary.

I saw him on TV today. He looked like a Marine who had been just been taken off the line after two months of continual combat on Guadalcanal.

Yeah, Ole General Joe had the 1,000 Yard Stare. You know he isn’t a happy camper in Ash Carter’s Pentagon right now.

Under General Joe’s reign as Chairman of the JCS, he’s said nothing as Ash Carter authorized women to serve in the combat arms branches of the military and in special operations units.

In your wildest dreams, do you really believe Joe Dunford thinks women can make it through US Navy SEALs training?

General Joe said nothing as Ray Mabus ordered the military to rewrite its manuals and acronym dictionaries with gender neutral terms.

General Joe has done nothing as Marines have been ordered to undergo unconscious bias training, the Corps wide brainwashing that will attempt to convince Marines that a 5 foot two inch, 95 pound woman can go up against a 6 foot two inch, 200 pound Jihadi in hand to hand combat and live to fight another day.

Uh huh…

General Joe said nothing as the US Navy surrendered two of its heavily armed Riverine craft to Iranian thugs in bass boats.

General Joe said nothing as the commanding officer, Lieutenant David Nartker, violated Articles II and V of the US Military Code of Conduct, while a prisoner of the Iranians.

General Joe has done nothing as the US continues its feckless air campaign against ISIS. While Dunford and the other Joint Chiefs surely know that two bombs a day, doesn’t keep ISIS away, they’ve said nothing.

In lockstep with Ash Carter and Obama, the Joint Chiefs support women signing up and being subjected to a military draft. It’s hard to believe that General Mark Milley, a former Special Forces officer really believes this is a great idea. Milley believes becoming the Chairman of the JCS or the NATO Commander is a great idea though.

Silence is golden in the Pentagon.

Readers might well ask, well, what can these men do? They’re in the military. They take orders.

They can advise the President and Ash Carter and Ray Mabus and Eric Fanny that their policies are lunatic. They can resign en masse.

Imagine a press conference where the Chairman of the JCS and the Joint Chiefs all resign over their problems with current military policies.

That would probably end their careers. So what? What else is there for a four star general to do; Command of the Pentagon Library? These guys are so bogged down in fear of the outside that the thought of not following procedures and orders is anathema to them.

Newsflash boys; this isn’t Nazi Germany. The “I’m only following orders” excuse went out the window at Nuremberg in 1946.

The moral cowards of the JCS are endangering the country they have sworn to defend and the troops they claim to love.

Frankly, my best advice to a future President Trump or Cruz is to fire Dunford and the JCS and to keep firing feather merchants and perfumed princes until this country can once again have some senior leaders with backbone.

Until then, turn up the volume on your TV. The Benny Hill theme is playing at the Pentagon.

Originally posted 2016-04-04 11:58:29.

A very well-written and enlightening piece from the “American Liberty Report.” Never thought about liberals in this matter. Now, I realize why I don’t have any liberal friends and don’t want any. Makes sense to me. Author Unknown.

 

If you’ve ever tried to explain to an extreme leftist why some policy or ideology is good, bad, right, or wrong- you’ve probably run into a wall of shaming language, blame-mongering, and double think.

On one level, what you’re witnessing in such moments is the refusal or the inability of a person to realize that just because some certain aspect of reality is not optimal, or is unpleasant—that doesn’t make it hateful to recognize the unpleasant fact.

For example, the fact that rape is a viable reproduction strategy in nature is an unpleasant factor in the human condition- but if you say that to a liberal, they will assume you are in favor of rape, condone it, and protect people who do it. This, of course, is wrong. Your liberal friend is then likely to do everything he or she can do to destroy you- never seeing the virtue in facing unpleasant facts.

Where the phenomenon of the liberal mind becomes especially pernicious is where leftists begin to seem not so much unable to discern the difference between evidence based fact and hatred, but when they appear to be using the appearance of said disability in order to retain the favor, support—and indeed the jobs—that their fellow liberals afford them for towing the line. This crony leftism is the very coinage of the metaphor of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

On this second level of liberalism, where we see cynicism in its truest and purest form, this is where we find the Hillary Clintons, the Barack Obamas, and their like. These are the kind of leftists who manipulate and use the previous, dimmer kind. They are intelligent, well-educated social Marxists who do not believe the things they say—but only work to support the half of the system upon which they depend for their prosperity.

Let us take a moment for clarity. I’m using the word, ‘liberal’ under duress. Ideally, I would prefer to use the term in its classical sense which is much more akin to what is currently called Libertarianism.

Classical liberalism is the time-honored tradition of leaving others to do what they will as long as no harm comes of it. It is the ideology that humans have a natural desire to seek prosperity and to try to be free and that no government, entity, or body has a right to interfere with the innocent pursuit of prosperity and freedom.

This does not describe the liberals of today. Modern liberals believe that the officials of government are your rightful superiors, and should have the right to decide exactly where your freedoms should begin and end and that they need not even explain their reasoning to you. They believe that people exist as inextricable from the groups they belong to- whether or not they are in those groups by choice or by genetics.

For example- men are morally inferior to women because it is generally accepted that men have had it better for most of history, whites are morally inferior to people of every other skin tone because it is generally accepted that whites have had it the best the longest. And so on…

Modern liberals do not look at you and see an individual with a unique experience of life, a unique set of talents and flaws, and a capacity for reason and wisdom all your own. They see your gender, your skin color, and they perceive a presumed level of “privilege” based on those two things.

They do not appear to see the fact that white men are the majority of the homeless and fill out the greatest portion of any suicide statistic. According to a modern liberal, or progressive, an AIDS infected, disabled, homeless, veteran- who is white and male- has more privilege than Michelle Obama. This, my friends, is insane—but I promise you it is not an exaggeration. I wish it was.

So to answer the question- can liberals be reasoned with, we have only to look at what they do to their own kind when their own kind transgress the modern liberal code.

Matt Taylor, the astrophysicist who landed a remote-controlled spaceship on an asteroid- which for the record is like trying to land a grain of sand on a moving bullet—he wore a shirt that feminists didn’t like on the day his great achievement came to fruition.

His shirt had images of conventionally attractive women drawn in comic book fashion on it. Cultural Marxists shamed him so heavily that instead of celebrating his great success, as he deserved to do, he was bawling like an abashed child on national television during a press conference about the landing. And they have not let up on him ever since. He was easy prey.

There is a multitude of similar examples all as good as the story of Matt Taylor, and they all serve to answer our question, Can liberals be reasoned with? The answer is that they cannot.

They are not interested in cooperation, reaching across the aisle, or sharing power. They are interested only in seizing the reins of state, crushing those they see as their enemies, and shaming everyone who views the world in even slightly different terms to themselves.

You cannot reason with these cultural Marxist totalitarian bullies. The best you can hope to do is to defeat them. So let us focus on defeating them, and returning this once great nation to a state of grace.

Originally posted 2016-04-03 17:21:34.

POSTED ON MARCH 28, 2016 BY RAY STARMANN

UNFORTUNATELY, this too has been severely compromised since the US has removed GOD from the public square and replaced our formerly Judeo-Christian ethic with the STATE.  That is how we now can write legislation – laws – with complete and total disregard for natural law; the most obvious of which is all the gender norming and legalizing deviant sexual acts; and expect no consequence for our stupidity.   

This is no more than granting ourselves license.  We wrote a law that makes man and woman the same but only so long as you make radical adjustments to the objective criteria for job performance and/or engineer fixes to compensate for size and strength disparities.  We wrote a law that makes same-sex activity accepted and the same as marital relations between a man and a woman.  We wrote a law saying it’s okay to rip unborn children from the womb and kill them should they survive that trauma so that we don’t have to be inconvenienced with unwanted children. We wrote laws (multiple) that enables the government to take money from those who work (taxes) and give it to those who don’t work (welfare programs and include social security and medicare/aid) which, by the way, has totally destroyed the work ethic and true charity in much of the US populace.

I’ll stop here but I’m sure you get my drift.

The Moral Leader

By Colonel William T. Hewes, USMC (Ret.)

Like many officers in the retired community, I am puzzled as to why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior service leaders are so supine in the face of those Obama administration’s policies that are clearly inimical to maintaining a strong national defense. The most blatant recent example is the policy to assign women to the combat arms. Whatever the prevailing political view may be, the Chairman, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Commandant of the Marine Corps know the policy is deeply flawed. Beyond compromising unit cohesion, morale, and combat effectiveness, the policy contains a ticking time bomb of unintended consequences that will further weaken the combat arms and our national defense.

If the Chief’s know the policy is dangerously flawed, why are they so supine?

Can the cause be that the doctrine of civilian control of the military has become politicized and thus unbalanced beyond that which the doctrine originally intended? Certainly the nation is endangered if the military is left unchecked. But, so too is it endangered when the controlling civilian authority ignores the best judgment of experienced military leaders; particularly wherein it subverts the core elements that make the military uniquely different from civil life.

What then should the Chairman and Chiefs do?

The answer lies in the moral obligation they have to the soldiers and Marines under their command, an obligation equally as profound as their duty to be loyal to the doctrine of civilian control. That obligation includes the responsibility to insure that every soldier and Marine under his command is organized, trained, and equipped to win on the battlefield. If that obligation cannot be faithfully fulfilled, a senior leader has but one moral choice: to resign.

For the Chairman and Chiefs to do less is to invite comparison to the pre-WWII German General Staff who traded their honor, their troops’ welfare, and their nation for loyalty to the “civilian control” of an autocrat.

Originally posted 2016-04-02 11:25:54.

Well, the opposite worked for President Reagan, will it work for President Trump? I. for one, believe it will. Oh, at first he will respond with something similar to what his predecessor did, but maybe without the four-letter verbiage. However, once he hears the “or else” he may be more inclined to take President Trump seriously. Here’s how it could happen, not that I would be so bold as to tell Mr. Trump how to do his job, but I am sure he has already thought of this plan.

An Open Letter to Mr. Trump

Shortly after inauguration, you meet with El presidente Peña Nieto and ask politely that he build a wall between us. He will, of course, laugh in your face as many of our fellow “residents” of America have done. At that point you walk out—the negotiations are over, which will probably be the shortest you’ve ever had.

Calmly go back to your office and sign the executive order that was previously prepared since you knew how the meeting with Peña Nieto would go. Immediately hold a press conference stating that on, let’s say 31 January 2017, any product manufactured, produced, assembled, or otherwise brought into the United States from Mexico will no longer be allowed entry into this country until an approved, impenetrable wall is built along our entire southern border.

As the one who wrote the book on making a deal, you know it sometimes helps to soften the blow of such a devastating action by offering up some crumbs. Therefore, you could add milestones that might prohibit executives at some American Fortune 500 corporations from jumping out their windows. Does anyone know how many of our American companies moved south for cheap labor, thus robbing jobs from American workers? So, to save lives, you could, for example, state that when 25% of the wall is completed, you will allow 25% of a company’s goods to cross the border, and so on with increments at 50%, 75%, 80%—go smaller here on to ensure work does not slow.

I can only imagine the screams resonating from boardrooms of such American iconic corporations as General Motors. In 2000, my bride and I went of a 43-day recreational vehicle caravan deep into Mexico. We entered through Mission, Texas and came out at Nogales, Arizona. Several miles south of Nogales (still in Mexico) we came upon the largest manufacturing plant I have ever seen. It had to be at least ¼ mile long. There was no signs revealing what kind of plant it was, but when we reached the other end of the plant, there was a huge parking lot filled with new GMC and Chevrolet pickup trucks. I have thought about that for the last sixteen years and wondered if it is still there pumping out trucks with American parts shipped into Mexico, assembled with cheap Mexican labor, and brought back into the U.S.

My guess is Peña Nieto will have lots of financial help from American corporations building that wall. Of course, you would then go about your promised actions of “encouraging” them to bring their factories back into this country so that “Made in America” means something—we all know how easily that could be accomplished—extremely high tariffs.

While you are having so much fun with unpatriotic corporate America why not add to the fray those companies who have transferred their customer service operations abroad?  I call my telephone company, my cable company, my internet company, my credit card company, and even my mortgage company and cannot understand the customer service person with whom I am talking. I tire of having to continually ask them to repeat themselves—I have even experienced their anger because I cannot understand them. Can you believe the gall for them to get mad at me because I cannot understand them? Please include them in your quest to bring America back. Our language is English, and when dealing with an American company as a consumer, I should expect to converse with someone clearly speaking my language. I have no problem having to press 1 for Spanish, but I should never, ever have to press 1 for English!

Thank you for all that you are going to do when you take office. Give em’ hell Sir!

Semper Fi,                                                                                                                          Jim Bathurst                                                                                                              USMC (Ret)

 

 

 

Originally posted 2016-03-29 11:29:45.