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.
Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.
Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.
It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.
As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)
This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:
May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.
“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”
This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.
The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/
from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.
Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?
So why is this important?
Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.
Memorial Day – Remembering those who gave their lives for freedom
As Americans, it’s important to acknowledge the sacrifices of the men and women in uniform that died to defend her. Civil society only survives in a world of violence and tyranny if there are those willing to do violence on our behalf.
In his 1982 Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery, President Ronald Reagan reminds us of the ultimate cost of freedom:
“Yet, we must try to honor them—not for their sakes alone, but for our own. And if words cannot repay the debt we owe these men, surely with our actions we must strive to keep faith with them and with the vision that led them to battle and to final sacrifice.
Our first obligation to them and ourselves is plain enough: The United States and the freedom for which it stands, the freedom for which they died, must endure and prosper. Their lives remind us that freedom is not bought cheaply. It has a cost; it imposes a burden. And just as they whom we commemorate were willing to sacrifice, so too must we—in a less final, less heroic way—be willing to give of ourselves.”
Scripture tells us in John 15:13 (New Living Translation), “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” While Memorial Day is considered the official kick-off of summer, I hope you’ll take a moment to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives to protect and defend our liberty. Freedom only exists in America because of them.
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.
Video: Celebrate the “Assault Weapon*” Tricentennial!
How time flies, it’s been 3 Centuries [1718 – 2018] since the invention of the Puckle gun – one of the many early “Assault Weapons*”
Image Credit: littlegun.be
When they aren’t spouting nonsensical lines such as “30 magazine clip in ½ a second”, Liberty grabber Leftists love to parrot the lie that back before the ratification of the Constitution, (1788) they only had one shot muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. The reality is that repeating and other early versions of ‘automatic weapons‘ were in existence long before this time period. Imagine that, the national Socialist Left lying about an important historical fact that furthers their agenda?
This is a full video exposition of this historic gun from Forgotten Weapons
The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.
This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.
It utilised a revolving cylinder to bring a projectile and powder charge to the breach of the gun. In essence, it was a manual revolver, but it was in existence 70 years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. So much for the ‘One shot musket Lie’. One could have several of these revolving cylinders loaded and ready to be placed on the gun – making them something akin to the first “High capacity magazines*”.
*Yes, we’re playing it a bit fast and loose with these terms, but since they have no set definition, that doesn’t matter. In point of fact, that term (and others) were made up by the Liberty grabbers as a way of destroying the basic human Right of self-defense while maintaining the fiction supporting it. The tactic is to use a term such as this so it’s an easy progression to destroy any civil or natural right. In the case of the Liberty of self-defense, the definition is simply expanded to include just about every gun in existence.