While most media attention has been paid to the economic debacle this country currently faces, the insidious workings of the Obama administration on the U.S military, supported by its minions in the military, is far less visible. The reliability of those who defend us cannot be overestimated; yet, as if by design, this administration has willfully sought to undermine it in an unprecedented manner.
When the U.S. Army’s Chief of Staff, Gen George Casey, in the wake of the Ft. Hood massacre, informed a television audience that “diversity” was the paramount objective of the military, either the general had been ordered to say such rubbish, or he gladly repeated the words of the commander-in-chief. When, despite the overwhelming opposition by commanders of army combat units, this administration seeks to reverse the Clinton policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” to allow homosexuals in the military, that, too, indicates that social engineering, not the defense of the nation, is a paramount objective. Now it is the U.S. Navy’s turn.
The Washington Post (July 23, 2010) is reporting a “milestone:” 17 years after women “were allowed to go to sea,” the Navy’s Sailor of the Year award went to … four women. That two were black, and one Hispanic, was, of course, totally serendipitous. Included in the same article is another bit of information that should raise serious questions about our ability to defend this nation: for the first time in our the Navy’s history, 19 women will be included in class at the Navy’s school for submariners in Groton, Connecticut. As one of the four women, Ingrid Cortez, is quoted as saying: “We no longer have obstacles for women.”
Well, there might be one: Nature.
Several months ago, The Navy Times reported that at the major naval base in Norfolk, Virginia, the Fleet was having problems in achieving sufficient number of billets (positions) to allow the ships to drop anchor and leave port. The reason? It appeared that numbers of women, when told that they would be deployed for months at a time, became pregnant, although large portions of these women were unmarried. This was in addition to the Navy’s “love boats,” in which pregnancies and lesbian activities are rampant; still, such revelations did not extinguish the flame of “diversity” within the military hierarchy who are supposed to defend the nation.
To quote the late Gen. Omar Bradley: In war there is no second prize for the runner-up.
It should be remembered that President Bush also allowed greater female participation in combat zones, and saw no reason to rein in the increasingly larger role for women demanded by the feminists, including women coming back in body bags. Like affirmative action, the increasing role of women in the military will not change with the administration. True, there will be combat ready units in other branches of the service that can serve the nation’s defense needs, but when the true test comes of this nation’s ability to defend itself, women in the military, including the one who now commands a carrier strike group, and another who commands a carrier air wing, cannot but be an impediment to victory. To paraphrase, war is too important to be left to the politicians, especially one such as Barack Hussein Obama.
Jack from L.I. writes: