"If
women want to serve in combat roles on the front lines, then they
should have to meet the same physical strength requirements that men
must...and I say this as a woman. I don't believe that men are superior
to women, but I do think that, in most cases, men are stronger than
women...
A woman must possess the strength required of a man in
combat because the enemy is, generally, as strong as the man. We’ve come a long way, baby. That’s true.
Whether we are strong enough to physically fight in combat should be
determined by the same standards used to certify men. If we demand less or special treatment, then
we not only have a long way still to go, we should stop it with the taunt that “We
can do anything a man can do!”
“What
difference does it make” that the military requires women to perform at
80%? Everything…on the battlefield."
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles
in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded
– and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”
Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with
Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense
Department policy opening up all combat positions to women…
… Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn’t put it in terms of operations,
Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a
spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need
to have standards that apply across all of those.”
He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a
particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the
burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary,
why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”
The answer is "Yes!" according to Alex Nutter Jones!!!
From The Puff Host:
We've heard a lot of ridiculous things about where LGBT people come
from and what they're capable of (see the slideshow below), but Alex
Jones' claim that the government is creating gays with chemicals takes
conspiracy theories to a new level.
"[The] government is 'encouraging homosexuality
with chemicals so that people don't have children' and that he has the
documentation to prove it. Upon cutting open a juice box to show the
plastic membrane supposedly filled with said chemicals he concludes, 'After [little boys] are done drinking your juices, [they're] ready to
go out and have a baby... [they're] ready to put together a garden of
roses... [they're] ready to go put lipstick on...'"
Jones is also worried about MSG in Kettle Chips and fluoride in spring water.
While we're still waiting for experts to come up with a definitive
answer as to why people are gay or straight (and we may never know),
we've never come across anyone -- other than Jones -- who thinks it is
due to juice boxes. What do you think?
As I recently wrote with regard to the conspiracy theories being generated about the Newtown Truthers, THIS
IS WHY PEOPLE LIKE ALEX JONES SHOULD BE SHUNNED. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
HE IS CORRECT ON MANY ISSUES. WHEN HE AND HIS FRIENDS DO STUFF LIKE
THIS, THEY MAKE US ALL LOOK LIKE NUTTERS. Anyone, who goes on his show, should be aware of the fact that they will be tarred with the same moonbattery/asshattery brush.
If there is a conspiracy theory into which Alex Jones hasn't bought into, I'm unaware of it. I listen to him on occasion so that you, dear reader, don't have to. Yeppers, that's me. Saving part of the world from the asininity of Jones one reader at a time; however, if you are the a DIY-type, be prepared...very prepared.
The rivers are full of crocodile nasties
and He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns ---
yes, the King on His sunset lies waiting for dawn
to light up His Jungle
as play is resumed.
The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune.
Let's bungle in the jungle --- well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.
Pssst, Morsi, if you want to see a bloody, fucking pig, then look in the mirror, nutter!
By Andrew C. McCarthy
When Mohamed Morsi dehumanizes Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” there’s an elephant in the room. We find it here:
Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom
some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil —
these are many times worse in rank, and far more astray from the even
Path!
You see, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood mahoff–turned–president did not conjure up the apes-and-pigs riff on his own. When Morsi fulminates that Muslims “must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren
on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support
them,” he is taking his cues straight from the Koran. Or rather, from
the Holy Koran, as “progressive” American politicians take pains
to call it in the off hours from their campaign to drive every last
vestige of Judeo-Christian culture from the public square.
The excerpt above is not from the Life and Times of Mohamed Morsi.
It originates with that other Mohammed. Specifically, it is Sura 5:60
of the Koran, the tome Muslims take to be the immutable, verbatim
commands of Allah, as revealed to the prophet. And as Andrew Bostom illustrates(with a disquieting amplitude of examples), the verse is not an outlier. It states an Islamic leitmotif.
Contrary to the fairy tale weaved by apologists for Islamists on both
sides of America’s political aisle, Jew hatred is not a pathogen
insidiously injected into Islam by the Nazis (with whom Middle Eastern
Muslims enthusiastically aligned). Nor did the ummah come by it through
exposure to other strains of anti-Semitism that blight the history of
Christendom. Jew hatred is ingrained in Islamic doctrine. Consequently,
despite the efforts of enlightened Muslim reformers, Jew hatred is — and will remain — a pillar of Islamist ideology.
You may recall hearing this little ditty from the Hamas charter —
often echoed by ministers of the Palestinian Authority and in the
preachments of Brotherhood jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, on whose every word
millions hang weekly on al-Jazeera (or is it al-Gore?):
The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war
against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and
tree, and the rock and tree will say: “Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah,
there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!”
Again, these are not sentiments dreamt up by “violent extremists”
waging a modern, purely political “resistance” against oppressive
“Zionists.” The prophet’s admonition that Muslims will be spared the
hellfire by killing Jews is repeated in numerous authoritative hadiths
(see, e.g., Sahih MuslimBook 41, No. 6985; Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, No. 791).
Hadiths, it is worth emphasizing, are the recorded actions and
instructions of Mohammed, who is taken by Muslims to be the “perfect
example” they are to emulate. And in case you suppose, after years of
listening to Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama, that the
prophet must ultimately have come around on the Jews, you might want to
rethink that one. Another hadith, relating Mohammed’s dying words,
recounts his final plea: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians.”
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, No. 427.)
Now of course, none of this is to say that it is impossible for Islam
to evolve beyond anti-Semitism. As individuals, millions of Muslims
want no part of the ancient hatreds. As scholars and activists, a number
of Muslim reformers admirably endeavor to erase this legacy by limiting
it to its historical context, reducing it to allegory, or casting doubt
on its provenance. Let’s hope these efforts eventually bear fruit.
After all, as noted above, anti-Semitism stains the West’s legacy, too;
and as discussed in this space before,
the history of Christianity in America is a history of evolving beyond
punishments and practices akin to those we today presume to look down
our noses at as if we were total strangers to invidious discrimination
and assaults on freedom of speech and conscience.
Nevertheless, the humility with which we must acknowledge this history
is not an excuse for failing to grapple with what it means. Elite
Western opinion came to condemn what it once practiced by correctly
reasoning that those noxious practices cut against the grain of our
guiding doctrine, which is predominantly Christian. Evolution was in no
way easy, but it was logical.
In Islam, to the contrary, the doctrine itself is the most
daunting barrier against evolution. And now, with the self-defeating
encouragement of the West, Islamic-supremacist ideology has, throughout
the Middle East, broken out of the shackles that kept it in check. The
result of this “democratization” (the regnant euphemism for sharia
installed by popular vote) is an increasingly rabid rise of intolerance.
The answer to this challenge is to take the Islamists head-on. It
is to show them for what they truly are: enemies of civil rights,
totalitarian tormentors of women and non-Muslims. The answer is not to
arm them — as the Obama administration, with the maddening support of
some leading Republicans, is arming Morsi’s regime — with a score of
F-16 fighter jets and a couple of hundred Abrams tanks.
When not manufacturing history, tears, and indignation this week
during her long-overdue testimony on the Benghazi massacre, outgoing
secretary of state Hillary Clinton stunned careful listeners by
repeatedly mentioning the “global jihad” against America. These were
stark violations of Obama-administration strictures against any
reference to Islam in discussions of the threat to the West.
They also marked quite a departure for Mrs. Clinton. She has played
no small part in propagating the “Islamophobia” canard. She has
championed the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards on speech that
is protected by the First Amendment. And, with an assist from Senator
John McCain, she has cowed 99 percent of Beltway Republicans into
silence over the longstanding ties of her top adviser, Huma Abedin, to the Muslim Brotherhoodand to an al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef, whose now-defunct “charity”(the Rabita Trust) was designated as a global terrorist organization
under American law. Who knows: Maybe someday, after enough F-16
transfers and sharia constitutions, Charles Krauthammer will be moved to
a fleeting mention of these irrefutable facts, making it socially
acceptable for our heroes to come out from under their desks and talk
about the national-security implications. I can dream, can’t I?
In the Clinton tradition, there was more calculated confusion than
clarity in the secretary’s meandering testimony. Mrs. Clinton frets over
the “jihadists” but insists that we must be able to “partner” with the
region’s Islamists . . . like Morsi and the Brotherhood. Do you suppose
she’s noticed that the Muslim Brotherhood demands the release of the
Blind Sheikh, just like al-Qaeda does? That Morsi and Hamas (the
Brotherhood’s Palestinian terror branch) publicly yearn for the
destruction of Israel, just like al-Qaeda does? That the Brotherhood’s
top priority is the imposition of sharia, the same imperative that
drives al-Qaeda’s rampage?
Alas, this is not a series of strange coincidences. These are the
major points that define a Muslim — violent or nonviolent — as an
Islamist. When you “partner” with Islamists, you are abetting the global
jihad, not opposing it. When you arm Islamists, you become a willing
participant in your own undoing.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which was published by Encounter Books.
Walking through forests of palm tree apartments ---
scoff at the monkeys who live in their dark tents
down by the waterhole --- drunk every Friday ---
eating their nuts --- saving their raisins for Sunday.
Lions and tigers who wait in the shadows --- they're fast but they're lazy, and sleep in green meadows.
Let's bungle in the jungle --- well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.
Just say a word and the boys will be right there:
with claws at your back to send a chill through the night air.
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner.
Let's bungle in the jungle --- well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.
The rivers are full of crocodile nasties
and He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns ---
yes, the King on His sunset lies waiting for dawn
to light up His Jungle
as play is resumed.
The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune.
