Connect with us

Military

The military is not the place for social engineering

Published

on

Transgender Military

Recently, President Trump told the military to discontinue Barack Obama’s proposal allowing transgendered individuals to be recruited into the military. And, right on queue, came screams of bigotry and discrimination. Shocking.

My only view regarding the transgender ban is that any obligations already made be honored. This is non-negotiable to me. If we make a promise to a servicemember, we must uphold it. period.

The politicians and media can fight over the specific rule and whether it is discrimination or not.

We the people will once again be the adults and have the necessary discussion – whether the military is strengthened or weakened by the integration or ban of transgender service members.

The only thing that matters in the military is that our squads are the best they can possibly be.

A couple years ago, there was controversy over another military integration proposal. It was the question of whether women could be in combat roles.

As a man, putting women into combat roles makes me uneasy. It feels morally wrong to knowingly put a woman in harm’s way. Whether it is my toxic masculinity, my white privilege, my male privilege, or my cis privilege, something just feels wrong.

But feelings alone aren’t enough to pass a judgment. Facts don’t care about my feelings, either. So let’s look at some facts.

There was a yearlong comparison between an all-male and mixed male and female units. It looked at varying situations that could occur in combat and assessed the effectiveness of both groups.

From NPR’s article summarizing the study, “all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated.” It also showed that men had more speed, more lethality, and were less prone to injuries.

The full study also stated that “all-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties.”

They continue, “during casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups” with the exception of “casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty).”

Feel free to look through the study yourself and see what you find.

While this is just one study, it doesn’t ease my concern. This study gives reason to doubt the effectiveness of gender-integrated combat units. I can only imagine the effectiveness of a gender-integrated combat unit where some of the men identify as women and women identify as men. How do you even study that?

How do you even study that? Are male-to-female transgenders counted as females and vice versa? If every female in the previous study was a male-to-female transgender, they would still have had the benefits of increased testosterone levels. It would be an absolute nightmare to figure out.

To pretend none of this matters, that the ends of equality justify the means, is immoral. One small mistake and someone can die. If our combat units are slightly less efficient than they could be, more lives will be lost. One is too many.

Until a change in the makeup of our military services is shown to be as effective or more effective than an all-male squad, then I support prohibiting it. (Note: Defense Secretary Mattis has postponed the “transgender ban” pending studies for implementation.)

Call it discrimination, I don’t care. Call me a bigot, I don’t care. I’ll gladly trade being called names if it will save just one life.

This isn’t a matter of personal opinion on transgenderism or feminism. It is literal life and death.

The battlefield is not the place for social experimentation. The risks are too high and the reward of good feelings can never outweigh the risk of losing another American in war.

If we knowingly send out a sub par combat unit, then we are leaving Americans behind before they even see an enemy.

And we don’t leave anyone behind.

To all those who serve in our military, thank you.
Leave no man behind

Jake Gambino has endless passion for liberty, marketing, and good lulz. After just seven years, he received his business degree from a local Community College. He would call this a sign of being a prodigy. No one else would agree, but Jake doesn't care. He is guided by reason and driven by principles.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

College professor wants Trump to use troops as police to end gun violence in Chicago

Published

on

Earlier this week, I wrote an article about how school shootings could lead us to the creation of a nationalized police force. In that piece, I documented how groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and race-baiting activists like Al Sharpton teamed up with Barack Obama to lay the foundation for the federal government to assume power over local police using the DOJ and a Police Czar.

Always willing to use the color of a person’s skin as a basis for creating policy, Obama had some limited success in moving the country toward a police state, but he stopped short of using America’s armed forces to accomplish his goals. However, if a professor of philosophy at De Paul University in Chicago has his way, Donald Trump may end up going where Barack Obama has never gone before.

In a public plea to Trump, published at TheHill.com, Jason D. Hill—whose specialties as a professor include ethics, social and political philosophy, and the philosophy of education and race theory—wants to bring an end to “genocide among black Americans” in Chicago.

To do this, Hill wants Trump to send in the military to “quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.” Hill is suggesting that Trump “use his powers to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act” to free up the military resources “necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.”

“I implore you to use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises, and send in the resources necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.

“Posse Comitatus makes no mention of the use of the militia, the National Guard, the Navy or the Marines. You can suspend this law and send in the forces necessary to quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.”

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law signed in 1878 by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes, designed to limit the power of the federal government to use the military to enforce domestic policies within the US. Though updated since its inception, and even though there’ve been a few tweaks since 911, the original intent of the act remains in effect.

Can Trump override PCA? Yes and no. It can be suspended for things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but it can’t be overridden for the purpose of enforcing state laws. This question is secondary, however, to the disturbing suggestion that we create a militarized home front.

By the way, Trump has already shown a willingness to use federal power to deal with gun violence in Chicago.

Besides being inconsistent with the values of liberty and freedom we enjoy as a Constitutional Republic, Hill’s request perpetuates a growing acceptance in America that we should voluntarily surrender our Constitutional rights to the federal government in exchange for safety.

Additionally, Hill holds a position of power as a teacher where he is free to spread Democratic-Socialist ideals such as this to the next generation—a situation made more dangerous by Washington politicians who have made destroying the Constitution standard operating procedure in order to increase their power over us.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Federalists

Hazel picks up key endorsement

Published

on

With just a couple of weeks to go before the Georgia primaries, insurgent candidate Shane Hazel has picked up a  key endorsement in his bid to unseat liberal Republican Rob Woodall in the Georgia 7th Congressional District.

Hazel, the former Marine Force Reconnaissance member and proven businessman, has picked up the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus. The RLC, also known as “the conscience of the party” endorsed Hazel should come as little surprise. The RLC has a long history of focusing on endorsing liberty-minded candidates, rather than establishment members who have proven themselves to be unreliable when it comes to conservative issues.

The RLC earlier this year likewise endorsed MO Senate Candidate Austin Petersen.

The outpouring of support for insurgent candidates is clear as supporters take to social media to voice their displeasure at the lack of follow through from lawmakers like Woodall during their time in control of both houses of Congress and with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. The failure to repeal Obamacare as well as passage of a massive $1.3 Trillion omnibus bill have angered most voters on the right, resulting in the realization that giving the GOP control of Washington is not enough, they must, in fact, cull the GOP Congressional roster of those who make conservative promises, but vote like leftists.

As my readers have noted I’ve followed several insurgent races across the country. Hazel’s may be the best example of a truly grassroots movement of ordinary citizens fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, and instead want to see real change with a return to Constitutional principles.

In a past article I noted that Hazel and others were not garnering any support from many of the major lobbying groups. In the latest of their disappointing moves, the National Rifle Association chose to endorse Woodall, telling Hazel they preferred to stick with “the devil we know.” Well, the problem with dealing with a devil is sooner or later he’ll betray you. Woodall had bragged previously that he has the lowest score from the NRA of all Republicans in Georgia, and that he was proud of it.

Always a class act, instead of complaining about the NRA’s rather typical move in endorsing establishment candidates, he told me “I will never vote for any legislation that puts people, especially veterans, on a no-buy list without due process. Woodall has voted repeatedly for Feinstein gun control, Fix NICS, against national reciprocity, and for Obama’a 4660 that has put 200,000 veteran on a list denying them their right to bear arms, without due process. Shall not be infringed means exactly that.”

The NRA’s hierarchy can say what they like, but we rank-and-file gun 2nd Amendment advocates don’t vote the NRA line, and I think we’re smart enough to vote for a man who truly cares about liberty, not a man who has proven he doesn’t.

You can learn more about Shane at www.shanehazel.com

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Trump ignores Constitution and his own words by bombing Syria

Published

on

After Trump launched a series of airstrikes against Syria without the Constitutionally required authorization from Congress—just as he did a year ago after his “advisor” Ivanka told him to do so—he sent a self-congratulatory tweet to his adoring followers and declared, “Mission Accomplished.”

Despite the unwise reference to the phrase used by George W. Bush when he announced the end of combat operations in Iraq—we’re still there—Trump’s strike on Syria had little in common with Bush’s war because Congress authorized military action against Iraq. In reality, Trump’s actions have more in common with Obama’s war in Libya in that Obama didn’t have Congressional authority either.

Regardless of any perceived moral benefit from last week’s actions, Trump has once again ignored the Constitution in the name of political opportunism—a fact pointed out by a few voices in Congress (Notice the one-two punch by Amash when he nails Paul Ryan along with Trump).

Though motivated more by Trump’s nationalist/populist ideals than they are his unconstitutional actions, his worshipers in the media are also speaking out about the airstrikes against Syria. FOX News Trump Pravda hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham slammed the Syrian attacks as inconsistent with promises made during Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Michael Savage tweeted that warmongers had hijacked the country.

And Trump sycophant Ann Coulter continued to regret her support of Trump by expressing her disagreement with his war against Syria in a series of retweets from conservatives and other voices like those below:

Proof of Trump’s double-mindedness regarding Syria was also documented by DailyCaller.com in an article listing numerous past tweets by Trump opposing military action in Syria when Obama was president. Here are just a few:

Trump’s narcissism and Constitutional ignorance are not only a threat to liberty here at home, but they’re now a threat to Americans and others around a destabilized world—a world that grows more destabilized and dangerous with every tweet he sends.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.