Another “I told you so” is in order.
I wrote an article in which I stated that if women had a right to serve in combat, then they therefore had the same duty to serve in front-line combat as every man who has been forced to register for selective service (a.k.a. the draft) has borne.
Well, line up, bitches. Sacrifice the hiney and shut up the whiny. Because real men don’t whine. Strap on that hundred pound combat load and stumble as fast as your little hiney will carry you into that machine gun fire way over there in the yonder distance. And keed doing it day after day and every damn bit as well as all the men around you, because if you fall short your fellow troops are going to die because you were too damn weak to be there. And you clearly think you’re just as man as the rest of we the testicled ones or you wouldn’t be there.
All young men have an obligation to sign up for front-line combat if they’re called to serve. Now all women do, too.
You want equal opportunity, do you? Well, here it is. Not that liberal women have the integrity to actually ASK for actual equality. Because liberal women DON’T want “equality”; they want “entitlement” masquerading as “equality.”
And that is because the core defining essence of every liberal is abject moral hypocrisy. Liberalism means picking out only the most self-serving elements of “equality” and leaving the rest for those who don’t vote for Obama. Women get to choose to kill their children; men are compelled by force of law to stand by helplessly while his kid is tortured and murdered. And if a woman chooses to keep a baby which was by definition not a “baby” the last time the sperm donor that used to be called a “father” had anything to do with the pregnancy process, men are forced to support a child they had no choice to have until that kid is over 18. Women get to “choose” to enter whatever part of the military they want and have a RIGHT to it; men get to be forcibly compelled to serve in the most brutal combat duty whether they want to or not in time of the draft that every man in America must forcibly register to participate in.
Why such a massive and self-referentially dishonest and hypocritical double-standard? Because women overwhelmingly vote Democrat and men overwhelmingly vote Republican. And Democrats are just that cynical and evil. Period.
You voted for it, girls. You voted for Obama and Obama issued his imperial order as pharaoh over all the land via his proxy. Now man up and put your lives on the line, honeys. The least you can do is for once in your whiny life quit thinking “entitlement” and start thinking “duty.” Because if you should have a right to fight on the front lines, then you damn well have the same duty as the men you so stupidly and wickedly think you are.
It’s really quite funny. Now the same liberals who most supported allowing women with “the right to choose to serve in combat” are saying the selective service registration requirement is outdated and ought to be thrown out. Lest women realize that Obama’s “right” just viciously screwed them right up the whazoo and start voting for the party that actually represents women and families.
But they sure as hell weren’t saying that when they were introducing bills just a few years ago when Bush was president to not just bolster selective service, but to literally reinstitute the damn DRAFT:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.
The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and “to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices.”
“I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,” Rangel said.
“Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country,” Rangel said. “For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.”
Now, liberal, you can agree with me that liberals are so cynical and so depraved that they would literally exploit one of the most sacred obligations ever imposed on Americans to rise up for the good of their nation and fight for it in time of war and if necessary DIE for it as a device to hurt or embarrass George W. Bush. Hundreds of thousands of the most honored Americans literally left their dead and broken bodies on battlefields across the globe so that Democrats could one day use their sacrifice as a cynical partisan political attempt to demagogically attack Republicans. Or you can agree with me that women be immediately required to register for front-line combat duty to befit the new status of “right” that Obama just bequeathed you. Until that “right” is taken away and replaced by common sense.
Do you know which president was the last one to try to call for a forced draft?
Americans have not always been against reinstituting the draft, which was stopped in 1973. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter discussed the possibility of resurrecting the draft and reinstituted the Selective Service registration requirement for young men following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, a majority of Americans favored reinstituting the draft. Support had dropped below the majority level by the summer of 1981, after Ronald Reagan had defeated Carter in his re-election bid.
You not only get to see that Jimmy Carter openly called for resurrecting the draft and forcing young men to serve, but he was the very man who reinstituted the Selective Service requirement that Democrats are now poo-pooing.
Because to be a Democrat is to be the lowest form of hypocrite. And “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat.”
Now, I’m not actually dumb enough to believe that Democrats will show integrity for the first time in their parasitic leech lives and actually be consistent. They won’t require women to register for Selective Service because, again, women would turn on them in droves the next election and vote for a party and a president who decries this moral idiocy as the evil that it is.
Instead, let me tell you what WILL happen. Right now, today, in granting this “right,” Democrats are assuring us that of course, we won’t reduce our physical standards to accommodate female infantry recruits.
That’s what Canada said, too.
Back when I was serving, I read an article in the Army Times about Canada opening up infantry service to women. All they had to do was go through the same boot camp that men had to go through.
Do you know what happened? No woman could make it through the training. Female Olympic athletes tried to make it through the training. And not one could pass muster.
Because they aren’t the one thing they needed to be: MEN.
But it turns out that Canadian liberals are every bit as dishonest as American liberals. Because you want to see what became of that promise from Canadian liberals?
Military drops fitness test for new recruits Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2006 | 9:03 AM ET CBC News
Canada’s military has dropped its physical fitness requirement for new recruits, saying it will take responsibility for whipping prospective soldiers into shape.
A notice posted on the Canadian Forces recruitment website says that effective Oct. 1, 2006, the physical fitness test is eliminated from the selection process.
“The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrollees to reach an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training,” says the notice.
To meet basic minimum requirements, people wanting to join the forces must have Canadian citizenship, be at least 17 years old and have completed Grade 10.
The change comes amid confusion surrounding suggestions that members of the Air Force or Navy could be called on to serve in combat roles on the ground in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops will be until 2009. Rotating deployments of roughly 2,000 have been in the country for the past four years.
Democrats have loathed the military ever since they voted for the president who stated that he personally was “loathing the military” when he was writing a letter to weasel out of HIS Selective Service requirement. To whatever extent that we can’t say that they want to actively want to destroy the American military, they don’t give one damn about its quality or its capability. It is nothing more than a social engineering ground for them. And shame on them for it.
That’s how you know that in the not very distant future, we will be waiving our physical fitness requirement. Because our military ultimately shouldn’t be one iota stronger than the very weakest woman who wants to exercise her “right to choose.”
It is a costly, time-intensive job to train infantry recruits. We can’t afford to let thousands of women fail and flail away to the tune of millions of dollars. Especially after Obama has gutted military funding past the breaking point as it is.
We’re going to dumb-down our requirements so that morally stupid women can ruin the American military.
That’s what’s actually going to happen.
If a man doesn’t register for Selective Service at age 18, he spends the rest of his life suffering for his “choice.” He will not be able to participate in any federal benefit, including student loans or home mortgages, as a result. And men can never go back and retroactively register. They continue to bear that burden for the rest of their lives and there is nothing they can do to undo their failure to register.
I hereby demand, in this age of Obama, that all women be forcibly required to register for Selective Service with the same possibility of front-line combat that men have had to endure.
After all, you have a “right.” And you should have a right to die horribly as a result.
And by the way, welcome to God damn America, ladies. Except you hypocrite Democrat women who won’t join with me in calling that girls should have the same duty to die on a battlefield that the men all around you have had since this nation was formed.
You need to understand this, women: liberal feminists have opened the floodgates of front-line combat service to you. And in doing so, they have exposed you to the same DUTY that men have held throughout history.
And it is hypocritical in the extreme for women to say that they should get all the “rights” of this front-line combat as individual women but none of the duties incumbent upon women as a class.
Yesterday I wrote an article that basically asks the question, “How did it come to this?” How did America so wildly fail and what caused it to collapse?
This is part of that answer. We collapsed because there was a group of despicable liberals who literally hamstrung our military so that we could not fight. First they gutted the military such that it lost the capability of fighting two wars simultaneously that it had held since World War II. And then it first imposed homosexuality and then imposed physically comparatively weak women into direct combat roles that only a true fool would send them into.
Another factoid is that under Obama, the debt that he demonized Bush for accumulating is so-out-of-control that it is simply beyond unreal.
But day-by-day in this age of God damn America, we are seeing our national demise and the demise of Western civilization clearly spelled out for us.
Katie Petronio, a female Marine captain, nailed it in her article, “Get Over It!” She points out that it is NOT female Marines – either officer or enlisted – who demanded this “right” to serve in front-line infantry combat. This agenda is being foisted upon them largely by radical feminists who aren’t serving and frankly have no intention of EVER serving. Captain Petronio points out that she scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine Physical Fitness Test for females. If there is a woman who can “do anything a man can do,” Captain Petronio is that woman. But in fact what happened was that she testifies that she was unable to perform like a man: her body broke down and she suffered severe muscular deterioration because her body didn’t produce the male hormones that enabled men to keep coming back at the job day after day after day; she would stumble and fall frequently; her lack of comparative agility and mobility put her and her unit in jeopardy. She pointed out that her inability to perform as a man would have been able to perform affected her unit’s response time and overall capability. She points out that as a result of her marked physical deterioration which was far more than the men experienced, she suffered polycistic ovarian syndrome which rendered her permanently infertile. And she said that – quote – “there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement.”
Again, we the testicled ones don’t have this happen to us. It’s part of having testicles. It’s not that women aren’t as brave, etc. It is that they simply don’t have the physical package that God equipped men with.
And liberal feminists HATE God for that.
You need to understand this: liberals do not give one flying damn about women and they don’t give one flying damn about the military. Their ideology, their worldview, leaves liberals hostile to reality or to the Truth and incapable of understanding how insane or dangerous their “solutions” in fact are.
Just as I was saying from my own perspective.
For convenience sake, here’s the article I wrote back in December before Obama fundamentally transformed America again with his latest outrage of giving women the right to fight if they wanted to in addition to their being given the right to murder their own child if they wanted to:
If I lived my life with the philosophy, “Whatever the Los Angeles Times says, I’ll believe the exact opposite,” I would live a good and wise life.
From the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times:
Women in combat — it’s time U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up. December 3, 2012
When politicians pay tribute to members of the U.S. armed forces, they almost always refer to our “brave men and women,” a recognition of the fact that women now constitute 14.5% of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel. But even though women are permitted to serve, the nature of their service is limited because Defense Department regulations exclude them from most combat positions, a policy that primarily affects the Army and Marine Corps.
That would change if four servicewomen who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful in challenging the Pentagon policy. Their lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, persuasively argues that regulations barring women from combat violate their constitutional rights. The current version of the policy, with minor changes, dates to a memorandum in 1994 from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin that barred women from units whose primary mission was to engage in “direct combat on the ground.” The directive also allowed for the exclusion of women from assignments “where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members.”
Women seeking to rise in the ranks of the military find themselves in a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are excluded from an array of combat positions that can be crucial to advancement. On the other, they find themselves in danger anyway because the military engages in legal fictions such as saying that a female soldier is “attached” but not “assigned” to a ground combat unit.
For example, one of the plaintiffs, Capt. Zoe Bedell, graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In Afghanistan, she oversaw “female engagement teams” that accompanied male infantry units into the field. “My Marines supported infantry units,” said Bedell, who is now a reservist. “They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back.”
In asking the courts to strike down the Pentagon regulations, the plaintiffs aren’t proposing that the military compromise its physical requirements for service in combat or sacrifice readiness on the altar of sexual equality. They are not arguing that women shouldn’t meet the same standards as men. But today’s blanket exclusion makes it impossible for a woman to demonstrate that she possesses the necessary skills.
One argument that has been made against allowing women in combat is that they supposedly don’t have the necessary strength and mental toughness to serve. Another is that the presence of women in a combat operation might undermine “unit cohesion.” (The same argument was made about gays in the military.) During this year’s Republican presidential primary campaign, former Sen. Rick Santorum said that if women were to take part in combat, their male comrades might neglect the mission because of “the natural instinct to protect someone that’s a female.” It also has been argued that integrating combat units poses logistical difficulties such as the need for separate bathrooms; yet such concerns haven’t prevented women from being placed in the thick of combat operations as part of female engagement teams.
Given the flimsiness of these arguments, the plaintiffs are on solid ground in contending that the exclusion policy fails the Supreme Court’s requirement that laws treating the sexes differently must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” substantially related to “important governmental objectives.” That test was laid out by the court in a 1996 ruling in which it ordered the Virginia Military Institute to admit women. Less encouraging for the plaintiffs is a 1981 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a law authorizing a male-only standby military draft. But in that case the provision to which the court extended deference was an act of Congress, not a policy of the executive branch.
Even if it is ultimately successful, the servicewomen’s lawsuit could take years to change the status of women in the military. A swifter and surer way to end the injustice they complain of is for the Pentagon or Congress to repeal the current policy. Women are serving — and dying — in war zones. It’s time the rules caught up to that reality.
“U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up,” we’re told. Of course, women are already being raped, too. So let’s apply the identical logic and make rape the law of the land. That is about all I have to say in direct comment on this idiotic article. Because that is basically their argument: since there have been women who have ended up in combat, we should open the floodgates to women in combat. Again, don’t do with rape what liberals want to do with women getting blown apart on a battlefield.
This is what is being decided in some court with some idiot judge dictating I mean presiding: are women the numeric identical of men such that whatever a man is able to do a woman ought to be able to do? And liberals say of course. Which means all women should pee into a urinal (they DO use less water, after all!) standing up.
If women should have the right to serve in front-line combat, women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in front line combat. Because we are a nation that has never legally banned the draft and that method of filling the ranks in time of war is still available. It’s called “selective service” and somehow only young men are able to sign up so they can be called up to run into some future meatgrinder. And as we look back into our draft history and realize that men were forcibly compelled to join the military, get their heads shaved, and then wear a hundred pound ruck into battle while going over the top to charge machine guns, we come to a grisly question: why not women, too?
Because women can do anything a man can do. Including get blown to bits.
It doesn’t matter if women can’t physically carry that damn ruck, I suppose. Details like that simply don’t matter to liberals.
Liberal women can bench press more than the 1,070 lbs of a man just because they believe in the rightness of their ideology.
When I was serving in the army, I heard that Canada did it right. They had liberals demanding women in the infantry in those days; so what they did was issue a regulation that ANY woman who could pass men’s boot camp could serve in the infantry. And not one woman ever passed that bar in spite of the fact that female Olympic athletes tried repeatedly to do it.
Liberals are a truly and astonishingly stupid breed: they say that women can do anything a man can do as long as women are never actually EVER required to so much as TRY to do what men have to do.
There was an infamous episode in which male firefighters secretly recorded female firefighter candidates comically trying to raise a ladder. The outrage wasn’t that female firefighters can’t raise a damn ladder and they most definitely can’t carry somebody out of a high-rise apartment to save a life; no, the outrage was how dare these awful men show up women? And the male firefighters were reprimanded for revealing the TRUTH and the truth was deemed irrelevant.
Now they have requirements that are 30% of what they used to be for firefighter applicants. So women can be firefighters, too. And who cares if the best people don’t get to do the job, or that people die because females simply aren’t physically strong enough to carry an unconscious victim to safety? Who cares if they can’t break the door down and that therefore you and your family will burn to death or die by smoke inhalation?
It doesn’t matter if it’s a giant government boondoggle that sucks up massive taxpayer dollars. Liberals eat government waste up like the pigs they are.
My primary care doctor is a woman and she is one of the best doctors I’ve ever had. But that lady has no damn business rushing machine gun nests.
Men and women are different. Anybody but a fool knows that. Which is why liberals don’t know it.
Again, liberal feminists are right now fighting for the right for future mothers and daughters to be forcibly compelled to hurl their bodies into the path of machine guns. Because if they CAN fight, why is it that only men should be drafted and forced to fight? If this ruling goes the way the left wants it to, why shouldn’t women be forcibly drafted just like men have been the next time we need a draft???
If this lawsuit carries and women are allowed to serve in combat, then women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in combat. ALL women should register for selective service (“the draft”) just like all healthy men are required to register. That’s what is at stake here.
There are things that women do every bit as well as men. Fighting isn’t one of them. Which is why when you see the mixed martial arts on TV, you don’t see women on top pounding the crap out of some helpless man. I’ve been in courtrooms as a juror where some lowlife a-hole pile of slime scumbag beat up a woman with the “it was a fair fight” argument. No it wasn’t, you roach; you were a poor miserable excuse of a man beating the crap out of a woman who didn’t have the strength to fight you. But again, reality doesn’t matter to the left; political correctness trumps reality a thousand times out of a thousand.
What is going on is another giant step down “God damn America.” Because it is a fundamental perversion of the God-created and God-ordained difference between males and females.
Men and women are NOT exchangeable or interchangeable. And the liberal perversion of the roles of men and women is at the heart of what St. Paul was talking about when he described a society going down the moral dregs.
Canada and other secular humanist nations have embraced women in combat with severely dumbed-down standards to accommodate this “fundamental transformation” of the entire history of warfare.
Here’s the thing: the freedom-loving world doesn’t depend on Canada to secure the peace of the world the way it depends on America.
But now that America is merely one nation among many others, I suppose it doesn’t matter if we hamstring ourselves to our very lowest common denominator for the sake of political correctness.
Many historians credit King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans as having saved Western Civilization at the Battle of Thermopylae so that some day we could emerge as democratic republics. They fought to the death to give the Greeks a few vital days to prepare for an army of some one million Persians who were bent on annihilating Western Civilization for good. You’ve kind of got to wonder what would have happened had his “300” been a bunch of women.
As Obama allows the descendants of those same Persians nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile to deliver them, I guess we’ll ultimately get to find out.
Update, April 2, 2013: I had an excellent idea in honor of the fact that men and women are completely equal and interchangeable (apparently especially as spouses, given the adoration of homosexual marriage): let’s just say that women ARE equal to men and actually put it into practice.
For the record, marriage USED to be the ultimate symbol of equality: one man and one woman united in the bond of marriage and becoming one flesh. That is, until liberals shot marriage in the head by “fundamentally transforming it” into an institution of sanctified sodomy.
Title IX? We don’t need that any more. In fact, we don’t need “men’s” or “women’s” sports at ALL! Let’s just – from high school on up (and you can start earlier if you’d like) – integrate boys and girls and men and women in the SAME sports. If women can’t hack playing with men, they don’t deserve to play at all, given that women are men’s equal in every way and all. And the same is true, of course, for professional sports. We don’t need a “WNBA” for basketball or a “LPGA” for golf or a “WTA” for tennis. Women shouldn’t have their own league to play soccer or softball or anything else. They should compete fairly and squarely with the big boys.
It’s actually funny, when you stop and think about it: the only reason women are able to play sports is because it has been officially acknowledged that not only are women not the same as men, but that they are nowhere NEAR the same. And it would be insane to suggest otherwise. I think I saw that only seven women in college basketball have EVER slam dunked a basketball during a game; and only one woman has dunked a ball twice in a single game. That’s probably just as true for men, right?
If we’re going to dictate that women are as good as men in something as life-or-death important as war and combat, we ought to let women put their money where their mouths are in sports, shouldn’t we?
The reason you can have “women in combat” and “women’s sports” is because liberals are hypocrites to the cores of their shriveled little holes where their souls should have been.