An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Archive for U.S. Military
Blithering Idiots
Scathing report: Tea partiers just like Timothy McVeigh
A new attack by the Southern Poverty Law Center charges the tea-party movement is “shot through” with radical ideas and tied with “hate groups,” “furious anti-immigrant vigilante groups” and “so-called ‘Patriot’ groups.”
The SPLC report, “Rage on the Right, The Year in Hate and Extremism,” assails Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., for “plugging” anti-government ideas and Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt for daring to promote Second Amendment gun rights.
The SPLC’s Mark Potok warns “so-called ‘Patriot’ groups – militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose ‘one-world government’ on liberty-loving Americans – came roaring back after years out of the limelight.”
I gotta tell ya, THIS guy scares me a WHOLE lot more than anyone I’ve ever met at the Tea Party rallies!
I’ve checked out the SPLC more than I’d care to admit. It’s a scary site too. When you have the word LAW in your title, wouldn’t you think that someone over there would have bothered to read the basis for our laws? Just a thought. As much as I hate to do it, in the sense of fair play, this is the link for Mr Potok’s recent rant.
The SPLC said the “radical right” “caught fire last year.”
So, folks who believe that the U.S. Constitution trumps all the horse manure flowing out of D.C. are the ‘radical right’? Got it. I guess the folks who actually sat down and WROTE that document were pretty ‘radical’ too, eh?
The Warrior Song
You might have seen this, but this morning, while trying to open at least one eye with two pots of coffee, going through some past emails, I came across the link sent by Connie. Amazing. God Bless every single one of our heroes!
Hormones in the Military
Making Babies in the US Military
by J. D. Longstreet
Just a snippet:
With all the babies being conceived at the front lines in the two wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Iraq, another of the socialist government’s social experiments has failed.
Let me see how plain I can make this: Even a complete fool, a blathering idiot, an imbecile, a Moran, knows — without a shadow of a doubt — that if you put young men and young women together in an environment where hormones surge continuously they will find each other and they will copulate. It is Mother Nature’s way of insuring the survival of the species.
Everybody KNOWS this instinctively. Except, it would seem, for the feminists among us who deny the existence of natural law. Call it what you will — when you deny that young men and young women will not find a way to engage in sex ANYWHERE, including the battlefield, then you are denying the existence of such a thing as natural law.
OK. Just so the record is clear. I do not believe there is a role for women in combat, anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances. PERIOD! Women are the sacred “givers of life.” Without women the human species would die out — and quickly. Women should be protected, at all costs, even at the cost of the male’s life.
Nature (God, if you please.) created the male and the female differently with different characteristics. The male was made larger, muscular, and more aggressive. The female was made smaller but with the ability to hold within her body a new life which, when fully developed, would emerge as a brand new human being. The female would perpetuate life, she would insure that the human species would survive on this garden planet which was given us as our home.
Read the whole post here.
In case you aren’t aware, I am a female. Yes, the good Lord made me completely different from the male of our species, with a completely different role in life. There are male ‘jobs’, and there are female ‘jobs’. One male job is to take care of the trash. The female’s job is to make sure there is trash in there to take out. Simplistic? Yes, but it makes a point. Vive la différence!
When it comes to women in the military, I have had a major problem with them being on the front lines. Call me old fashioned, but I do not believe that it is in the woman’s best interest, nor the military in general, for them to be shot. As J.D. says, if there were no women, there would be no men. Period. End of discussion.
In my personal opinion, the so called ‘women’s movement’ of the 60s and 70s, the feminists of the 80s and the feminazis of the 90s and 00s have done more damage to the relationship between men and women, than anything in my knowledge of history. I admire the suffragettes of the late 1800s and early 1900s. They had a purpose, stuck to it, and women were granted the right to vote. What we have now is a bunch of females, making demands that are totally unrealistic. We are not men. We should not be treated like men. We should be treated with respect and deference. These females have pussified the males, and I don’t like it!
There is a LONG list of unintended consequences which we see in every day life, from the home to the federal government. Should women be allowed to hold positions of power? Well, sure, IF they are qualified. Today we have women in roles that are there solely because they are female. Why? Because it’s the politically correct thing to do. Doesn’t matter if they cause more harm than good, they’re women, and they MUST be given the opportunity to screw things up. Pfft!
Back to the issue. As J.D. states his case, women should NOT be on the front lines! Nature has a funny way of taking over, and if the military does not want women getting pregnant on the front lines, then women should not be on the front lines. How difficult is that to understand?
So, here’s a big 
for the powers that be.
One Down, Millions To Go
High-Ranking Al Qaeda Leader Reportedly Killed
A high-ranking Al Qaeda figure reportedly was killed Thursday in a U.S. drone aircraft attack in north Pakistan.
The attack, first reported by NBC News, was officially denied by Pakistani officials, though sources told Fox News that neither Usama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri were among those killed.
Well crap! However…..
Spending Our Children’s Future
Speaker Pelosi’s Spendapalooza
The Foundry
Next week Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is expected to attach a provision to the Department of Defense appropriations bill that would increase our national debt limit by $1.925 trillion. This debt limit raise would authorize the U.S. Treasury to borrow as much as $14 trillion, which is 30% higher than the $10.8 trillion limit that was in place when President Barack Obama took office.
7 December 1941
Back when Americans stood strong against her enemies.
Unlike now, with an apologist and groveler, in the White House.
President Oblivion
It’s Called Morale Mr. President – You Are Supposed to Provide It
The Foundry
Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said: “Morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars.” So why did President Obama choose last night’s address to further disintegrate what morale is left in the fight in Iraq? Choosing the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York was on first blush a wise decision. These are the young men and women who will put their lives on the line, or may have already, to defend the President’s decisions. This is not the “enemy camp” as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews described them. And these are not merely props in a photo op as President Obama poorly joked while at Osan Air Base in South Korea earlier in November.
But when President Obama chose to give a full throated, campaign-like outburst against the Iraq war and former President Bush to the future troops who may be deployed there, a gripe that was also heard by the troops already based in Iraq, he crossed a line that no other President would have, or has previously, crossed. This was not a speech designed for an audience of brave souls willing to lay their life on the line for this great nation, but a speech designed to appease a political base in desperate need of conciliation. But let’s be clear, this was a muddled and defensive speech to begin with.
Screw Ups
Iraq Soldier’s Mom Sues Over Letter Stamped ‘Deceased’
A Minnesota woman is suing the federal government after a letter she mailed to her son in Iraq was returned with the word “deceased” stamped on the envelope, even though the soldier is alive.
Joan Najbar of Duluth filed the lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, claiming emotional distress and negligence.
Najbar sent the letter to her son in September 2006. Several weeks later the letter was returned to her by the Postal Service with a red “deceased” stamp. Najbar contacted the Red Cross and learned her son had not been killed.
She filed a claim for injuries against the Postal Service in July 2008. That claim was denied. A letter from the Postal Service says its investigation found no negligence.
A call to Najbar’s attorney was not immediately returned. The government’s answer to her suit has not yet been filed.
Say whut? No negligence? I dunno….sure sounds like someone screwed up somewhere along the line.
I remember my dad’s family talking about the day my grandmother got a telegram during WWII, “We regret to inform you….”. News that the youngest boy had been shot down, and killed, over Germany, was devastating for the entire family. A few weeks later, my uncle walked through the front door, completely unharmed. Now, granted, people didn’t consider suing anyone at the drop of a hat, but you can see where such news could seriously damage a person’s mental health for a while.
The U.S. Military doesn’t notify families that their loved one has been killed with a stamp on letter. This pretty much points to some low level moron, either at the U.S.P.S, or in the military’s mail room. Either way, someone should step forward, and take responsibility. Should there be financial gain in a lawsuit? Oh, hell no. But a personal apology is not out of the question.
Some Questions Concerning Afghanistan
[ I received the following in an email, and all the searching didn't produce a link. 
But take my word for it, it IS from The Heritage Foundation. 
]
Q&A on Afghanistan
Top Ten Questions and Answers on Obama’s Strategy in Afghanistan
President Barack Obama will announce his new Afghanistan policy tonight at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York. Some news organizations have reported that President Obama will send anywhere from 30,000 to 34,000 additional troops to the region. To get you prepared for tonight’s announcement, The Heritage Foundation answers some of the most asked questions about President Obama’s proposal.
1. If the President sends 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan, does that count as a “surge?”
Simply put, no, because the use of that term implies an Iraq-like strategy of ramping up forces to the maximum of what the generals are requesting. It has been widely reported that General McChrystal’s assessment for additional troops to achieve maximum chance of success was between 60,000 and 80,000 troops. While the President’s decision is better than no new troops at all, it falls short of that assessment. Additionally, the White House plans to add troops over time as it sees fit, and not necessarily “surge” forces for maximum affect. We hope that the President’s far riskier strategy succeeds. If it does not, we must remember the options he had available to him before this decision. He had the chance to turn this war around; if he does not, the result will be his responsibility alone.
2. Is tonight’s announcement of a strategy the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process?
The delay in making a decision is inexcusable. Given that President Obama has been in office over 10 months; was privy to extensive briefings on the Afghan situation before that; the many months General McChrystal has been on the job; and the critical situation on the ground, the delay has put the mission and American soldiers in graver jeopardy. If McChrystal originally asked for 40,000 troops, as the White House would like you to believe, it is incomprehensible to believe that it took many months to simply lower that number by 5,000.
To Put It Bluntly….
…..THIS SERIOUSLY PISSES ME OFF!
The Real Gitmo
Dithering Duck
Obama Dithers. US Troops Die.
“Broken Arrow” for US Troops in Afghanistan?
by J.D. Longstreet
Just a snippet:
Looking at Afghanistan today it is fairly easy to see what is about to happen there, barring some unforeseen event. The “Vietnam Syndrome” has already set in among the troops in theatre. Look, Obama may fool some of the people, (actually he is fooling a LOT of the people) but he is NOT, I repeat, NOT fooling the Military!
“American Warriors”, know beyond any doubt, whatsoever, that when they find themselves in a tight spot — a call for reinforcements will be answered, immediately, with those reinforcements, Usually more reinforcements are sent than were requested.
The current Commander-in-Chief received a call for 40,000 troops to reinforce the brave American warriors in Afghanistan as far back as August of 2009. It is mid November. Those reinforcements have NOT BEEN SENT as of this writing! There is no excuse, none, sufficient to excuse this lack of action on the part of the Commander-in-Chief and his Administration. We are seeing frequent reports now of low moral among American troops in Afghanistan —and why not? They are being used as “cannon fodder” while the President appears to be searching for some political goal he can announce as an acceptable “Victory in Afghanistan.” My guess is – it will have nothing to do with actually defeating the Taliban.
In other words, dear reader, Obama is playing politics with the lives of our military men and women in Afghanistan. I know of no other way to state the obvious.
Read the whole post here.
I have never, and will never, understand the mindset of the libtard. Since the foundations of this country, it has been the U.S. military that has kept us free, yet all the lefty socialists want to do is destroy them. The sacrifices of the families, the lives of the men and women who serve, mean nothing to them. I, for one, do not believe they deserve the freedoms afforded us by the blood of our heroes.
The Politically Correct Will Kill Us
Free Speech Rights Prevented Probe Into Hasan E-Mails, Investigators Say
The claim comes as officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military squabble over who knew what when about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s leanings toward faith-inspired violence, and as charges fly that ‘political correctness’ prevented officials from taking action and is still being used as a crutch in explaining the rampage after the fact.
Investigators would have been “crucified” over First Amendment rights if they had launched a full-scale probe into e-mails Fort Hood massacre suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly sent to a radical imam, a government investigator told Fox News.
The claim comes as the squabble grows among officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military over who knew what, and when, about Hasan’s leanings toward faith-inspired violence, and amid charges that “political correctness” prevented officials from taking pre-emptive action.
I’m having some serious problems with the idea that the 1st Amendment protects threats of violence. I’m also more than just a bit confused. It’s a ‘hate crime’ if my pastor, reading from the Bible, says homosexuality is a sin, and that won’t be protected by the 1st Amendment. But this murderous piece of crap can state repeatedly that it is the duty of Muslims to slaughter innocent men, women and children? Excuse me, but did I miss something here?
You can take the PC steaming pile of male bovine excrement, mix it with the Quran, and shove it where the sun don’t shine! I’m getting pretty sick of all the “religion of peace’ crapola, when anyone with half a brain, and the ability to read, knows otherwise! Islam and freedom are not compatible. Isn’t it past time we call a spade a spade???
Putting The U.S. In A Dangerous Place
Keeping Up Our End of the Bargain With Those Who Serve
The Foundry
Today, we at The Heritage Foundation will honor Veterans Day by pausing to remember those who sacrifice in defense of freedom for our country. Heritage honors all who serve past and present in the United States Armed Forces, their families, and all military retirees and veterans. We solemnly remember those fallen men and women who gave the last full measure of devotion and will also not forget those who have yet to come home and remain missing in action.
This national holiday warrants a diversion from discussing domestic priorities to take a closer look at what Congress and the White House are doing about many pressing defense issues.
Some policymakers seem want to keep defense and military issues out of the headlines, choosing instead to continue cutting the defense budget to fund domestic programs. This observation is based on actual outcomes from this year’s defense budget debate.
