The Fundamental Transformation of the Armed Forces
By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media
When men dress as women and serve openly in the U.S. military, there are bound to be problems identifying these people. But don’t worry. The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) has come to the rescue. This special interest group, backed financially by all the major media organizations, has issued special guidance in the form of an “open letter” to the media on how the “transgendered” are supposed to be covered.
For example, it says that referring to “transgender woman” or “transgender man” is acceptable on first reference, but that subsequent references should refer to a transgender woman as a “woman” or a transgender man as a “man.”
In other words, forget about someone’s DNA, the scientific and objective measure of one’s gender and sexual identity. The “open letter” makes that clear, noting that someone’s sex “assigned at birth” is not relevant to one’s “gender identity.”
We are told that the term “transvestite” is an “antiquated term” and should be avoided.
Transvestite or cross-dresser are terms that used to refer to Corporal Klinger wearing dresses and women’s hats as a character on the comedy show M*A*S*H. It was his attempt to get discharged. Today, in real life, Obama’s Defense Secretary Ash Carter hasannounced the transgendered can serve openly without fear of being discharged.
Under the Constitution, the Congress is supposed to make the rules and regulations for the Armed Forces. Article I, Section 8, clause 14 says, “The Congress shall have Power To …make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces….”
Our media reported the policy change without explaining on what basis, legal or constitutional, the change was made.
CNN simply said Carter had removed “one of the last barriers to military service by any individual,” and that he “had been studying the issue for almost a year.”
The New York Times said, “The decision pushes forward a transformation of the military that Mr. Carter has accelerated in the last year with the opening of all combat roles to women and the appointment of the first openly gay Army secretary.”
On what basis, however, can Carter or his boss Obama “transform” the military? The original ban on homosexuals in the military was changed through congressional action. There has been no congressional lifting of the ban on the transgendered.
Columnist and radio commentator Bryan Fischer noted that “President Obama and the Pentagon have violated the Constitution and committed an impeachable offense by unilaterally admitting transgenders, transvestites, and transexuals into the military.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council noted that the enormously unpopular and disruptive policy is being implemented “without Congress’s approval.” Such a move has constitutional and legal implications.
House Committee on Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) issued a statement questioning the change, but did not assert the constitutional requirement that the new policy be approved by Congress before taking effect. Once again, Congress has abdicated its responsibility.
This is, of course, no concern to the NLGJA, which monitors the media to make sure not that the Constitution is followed but that the demands of the gay lobby be met.
Thornberry says that “when we learned DOD was looking at new policies on the service of transgender individuals, the Committee posed a number of questions to DOD. In particular, there are readiness challenges that first must be addressed, such as the extent to which such individuals would be medically non-deployable. Almost a year has passed with no answer to our questions from Secretary Carter.”
How’s that for an executive branch out of control and showing complete disdain for Congress?
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,called for hearings, saying that the military “is facing historic readiness shortfalls, putting our service members’ lives at greater risk.” Instead of addressing these problems, Inhofe noted that the Obama administration is “forcing their social agenda” through the Department of Defense.
Inhofe did not question the legal or constitutional basis of what Obama and Carter had done.
Perhaps a hearing will attempt to answer the questions posed by Roger Severino of The Heritage Foundation:
- Will biological males who identify as female be subject to physical fitness requirements for men or women?
- Will they be required to do 35 pushups or 13 pushups to pass basic training?
- Will American taxpayers be required to pay for expensive “sex reassignment” surgeries, including breast implants in men and shaving down Adam’s apples when that money can be spent on better weapons or more training?
- Will service members who have addressed an officer as “sir” for years be booted out of the military if they refuse to address him as “ma’am?”
- Wouldn’t the loss and impact on recruiting offset any supposed gains of allowing a relatively few transgender troops the ability to dress according to their chosen identity?
One of these questions has already been answered. Carter said that by October 1, 2016, DOD will “create and distribute a commanders’ training handbook, medical protocol and guidance for changing a service member’s gender in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS),” and that the services “will be required to provide medically necessary care and treatment to transgender service members.”
At a briefing, Carter said, “The transgender individual, like all other service members, will get all medical care their doctors deem necessary.”
None of this is a controversy for the major media, which finance the NLGJA and do not dare question this radical sexual agenda. As reported extensively by Accuracy in Media, the NLGJA holds conferences and fundraisers on a regular basis that are sponsored by all of the major news organizations.
A benefit for the NLGJA in New York featured what the group itself called “some of the biggest names in media.” They included:
- Don Lemon of CNN
- Tamron Hall of NBC
- Simon Hobbs of CNBC
- Alisyn Camerota of CNN
- Christine Romans of CNN
- Poppy Harlow of CNN
- Harris Faulkner of Fox News
A more recent benefit event for the NLGJA in Los Angeles was sponsored by Comcast/NBC Universal and CBS News.
If members of Congress challenge this “transformation” of the military and assert their legislative powers, they would be going up against two of the most powerful interest groups in the country—the gay lobby and the major media.
So they take the easy way out by asking a few questions and meekly requesting hearings.
It’s difficult to know which is declining at a more rapid rate — the morality of the country or the relevance of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps they are both hitting rock bottom at the same time.
CRUZ: Obama May Not Believe We are at War With Islamism, but Islamism is at War With Us
Yesterday, members of our armed services in Chattanooga, Tennessee, went to work in the service of our nation. Some went to a recruiting center to assist the young people who, like so many before them, would walk through the door on any given Thursday morning and volunteer to defend the United States of America. Four brave Marines went to a Naval Reserve Center to perform their duties to the Tennessee National Guard.
But one of the young people who visited two of those facilities was not like the others. He was there not to volunteer to serve America, but to attack America. Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez was there to carry out jihad, an act of radical Islamic terrorism. An act of war, in which those four brave Marines lost their lives, while at least two others were wounded.
In the wake of this vicious attack on our nation we need to rid ourselves of two dangerous delusions, first and foremost that a ‘lone gunman’–as President Obama described the shooter–is somehow isolated from the larger threat of radical Islamic terrorism. In the modern world, no one acts in isolation. Through social media ISIS, al Qaida, and other groups are infiltrating our nation with impunity while our government will not even admit that radical Islamic terrorism is a problem.
The second delusion is that this attack is somehow isolated from previous episodes, notably those in Little Rock, Arkansas and Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009—both of which were attacks on American military facilities. The Obama administration was woefully reluctant to call either an act of radical Islamic terrorism, instead suggesting ‘workplace violence’ as a justification for the killings. Finally, after years of effort, the victims of Fort Hood were properly recognized as victims of attacks by foreign terrorists when they received Purple Hearts on April 15, 2015. Likewise, the victim of the Little Rock attack received a Purple Heart on July 1, 2015.
We cannot afford to wait six years to recognize what happened in Chattanooga for what it was. We need to see with clarity right now what has happened. We can immediately hold hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee on the need for our enlisted men and women to have the right to be armed in military facilities. Congress can pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act that would allow our government to stop Americans who travel overseas to train with terrorist groups from coming back to attack us at home. We can thoroughly overhaul our broken immigration system that is allowing this type of individual to gain citizenship. And we can accept the reality that while we might wish it otherwise, the forces of radical Islam are at war with us.
You can support the campaign of Ted Cruz by clicking here.
The Obama administration is very close to sealing the parameters of a deal with Iran.
Last Friday, US Secretary of State Kerry, meeting with Iranian Secretary of State Zarif on the sidelines of a conference in Munich, encouraged Iran to move forward on finalizing those parameters by March 24 (the deadline a group of Democratic Congresspersons had given Obama before considering sanctions). Following this, details would be ironed out by the June 30th final deadline.
Both Zarif and Kerry have agreed that there will be no more extensions of the final deadline. After Kerry pressed him on the issue, Zarif concurred: “I do not believe another extension is in the interest of anybody. We’re reaching the point where it is quite possible to make an agreement …”
“This is the opportunity to do it, and we need to seize this opportunity,” concluded Zarif. Of course, this was after Zarif had warned that a failure to clinch a deal would undermine President Hassan Rouhani.
The parameters of the deal are horrendous.
The Washington Post – hardly a right wing publication – ran an editorial on this issue last week. It is instructive to consider its major points (emphasis added):
“First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.
“Second, in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies.
“Finally, the Obama administration is signaling that it will seek to implement any deal it strikes with Iran — including the suspension of sanctions that were originally imposed by Congress — without a vote by either chamber. Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term…
“Where it once aimed to eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, the administration now appears ready to accept an infrastructure of thousands of Iranian centrifuges. It says its goal is to limit and monitor that industrial base so that Iran could not produce the material for a warhead in less than a year. As several senators pointed out last month during a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, the prospective deal would leave Iran as a nuclear-threshold state while theoretically giving the world time to respond if Tehran chose to build a weapon. Even these limited restrictions would remain in force for only a specified number of years, after which Iran would be free to expand its production of potential bomb materials…
“Former secretary of state George P. Shultz cited Iran’s regional aggression in pronouncing himself ‘very uneasy’ about the ongoing negotiations. ‘They’ve already outmaneuvered us, in my opinion,’ he told the Armed Services Committee.”
Please, see the entire editorial here:
The current situation has spawned a host of commentaries, many very grim. Observed Michael Ledeen, for example, “Obama entered the White House with the intention of forging an alliance with our most dangerous enemy in the Middle East. That fact has to be the baseline of any serious analysis of our government’s policies.”
The unease voiced by Shultz, above, regarding Iran’s expansionism and promotion of terrorism, is echoed in many quarters. What complicates the situation enormously is the Shia Iran vs. Sunni ISIS situation – with Obama seeking Iran’s “help” in countering Sunni jihadists. His desire to weaken ISIS has moved him even further into forging ties with Iran. Action against Sunni jihadists actually strengthens Iran’s position.
Is this a fait accompli? Close, but no, not yet. Although it may be about five minutes to midnight, there is still time to counter what seems to be coming down the road. Were sanctions to kick in again, it would weaken Iran significantly and might shift the dynamic.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu said (emphasis added):
“The major powers and Iran are galloping toward an agreement that will enable Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons, which will endanger the existence of the State of Israel.
“We will continue to take action and to lead the international effort against Iran’s arming itself with nuclear weapons. We will do everything and will take any action to foil this bad and dangerous agreement that will place a heavy cloud over the future of the State of Israel and its security.”
Pretty clear and direct.
There is no one reading this who doesn’t know that Netanyahu has been invited by Speaker of the House John Boehner to address Congress on the issue of the dangers of Iran; that speech is scheduled for March 3.
And here we come to the heart of the matter.
Netanyahu has devoted himself for years to the issue of the dangers of Iran: There is likely no world leader better able to address the issues; at this juncture, what he has to say has deep import. And there is no more significant venue in which he might speak than the US Congress – for it is the members of Congress who will make hard decisions regarding sanctions.
As Boehner has said: “…there’s nobody in the world who can talk about the threat of radical terrorism, nobody can talk about the threat that the Iranians pose, not just to the Middle East and to Israel, our longest ally, but to the entire world, but Bibi Netanyahu.”
Should have been a simple matter – with Congress prepared to hear what he has to say.
But, of course, it wasn’t a simple matter. For Obama is determined to get his agreement with Iran, and is not content to allow an upstart Israeli (an Israeli!) throw a monkey wrench in the works. He does not take interference with his plans lightly.
Thus did the charge go out that Netanyahu was meddling in US politics: It was now a political issue, rather than a matter of diplomacy and security.
First came the lament that protocol was ignored, as the president should have been told about the invitation and was not. But Boehner countered this, saying that he had informed the White House.
Then came the attempt to stonewall Netanyahu: Obama has said he will not see him when he’s in the US. The reason given – that it’s too close to Israeli elections – feels bogus to me in light of how similar situations have been handled. Not only that, Kerry has said he will not be present, and now Biden has discovered that he will be unable to hear Netanyahu speak, as he will “be out of the country.” Some numbers of Democratic members of Congress will decline to be present for the talk, as well – undoubtedly pressured by their president.
All of this is an outrage. A rudeness to a head of state deeply concerned about the security of his state, and the world. People have forgotten that the issue is security, however, since it has all been so politicized.
And here in Israel, in my opinion, the situation is worse. For I expect nothing – less than nothing – from Obama. But here we are talking about our own people.
We are facing a severe security situation – not only with Iran threatening us directly, but with Iran arming and inciting Hezbollah and Hamas. Our prime minister is seeking to address the matter of Iran with seriousness. But we are in the middle of an election campaign, and the opposition on the left sees this as an opportunity to make points. Thus, rather than supporting Netanyahu, rallying around him at this time, the issue has been improperly politicized.
Fingers are being pointed at Netanyahu: See! Goes the cry. He makes trouble with the president of the US by pushing himself into the Congress. We need the US, and this is a bad thing he is doing.
Anyone interested in a reality check would be reminded very quickly that the prime minister was invited, he did not push his way in.
But we are not done yet. “Bugie” Herzog, co-chair with Tzipi Livni of the so-called Zionist Camp (formerly the Labor Party), was in Munich for a security conference, as was Vice President Biden. In the hallway, they stopped to speak to each other. This interval is being billed as an “informal meeting.”
Whether it was really much of a meeting – a meeting that Biden should not have permitted if there is a policy of not meeting with candidates before an election – or a very brief greeting and no more, I cannot say.
But the Zionist Camp is parlaying it into a real meeting. Wrote Shelly Yachimovich that night:
”His meeting this evening with Vice President Biden in Munich, after Biden announced that he would not attend Bibi’s speech to Congress, is proof that the only bridge to harmonious and proper communication in the international arena is Herzog as prime minister.”
This is a low blow that is nothing short of disgusting. The main issue here is not who can be Obama’s best friend, but who can best guard Israel’s security. It happens at present that the two are mutually exclusive – that is, the leader most eager to keep Obama happy is least likely to protect Israel. Bugie Herzog would give away our security and our land. (Heaven forbid that he should have the opportunity to do so.)
But still this is not the end of the story. At that security conference in Munich, Herzog also said that Netanyahu should cancel the March 3 speech “for the sake of Israel’s security…My talks with leaders from Europe and the U.S. indicated they were furious that Netanyahu had diverted the debate on a nuclear Iran for political purposes and made it into a confrontation with Obama.”
First of all, Bibi didn’t “make” the confrontation, Obama did.
Second, Herzog is conflating security with being on good terms with Obama – when in fact, as I have pointed out above, these are two different issues. He makes it sound as if he, the one who would have the better relations with Obama, would thus automatically guard Israel’s security better. Nonsense, balderdash, and worse.
And last, there is an understanding here in Israel that criticism of the government is kept in house – inside Israel – and not voiced outside On the outside, the government is supported. What Herzog did, was done for political purposes. And it was vile and obscene: to weaken Israel’s position internationally for his own electoral gain.
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said Herzog “crossed all the lines.” MK Miri Regev (Likud) said that “[Herzog] is being exploited by the international community. He’s cooperating with them against Israel and putting the security of the state at risk.”
I fully agree, and I grieve that the situation has been reduced to this.
I want to believe that the Israeli electorate can see through Herzog. But I fear that some percent (what percent?) may be comforted by the notion that it would be easier to have a prime minister who is friends with Obama. I tremble at this thought, and at the sort of self-serving propaganda that promotes it.
There are all sorts of suggestions flying about, regarding ways that Netanyahu might mitigate some of the political tensions when he goes to Washington. My best understanding is that he still intends to speak. I salute him for his courage and pray that he will. He cannot back down now.
Terrorists and Our Idiot President
By: Alan Caruba
You know something is terribly wrong when three former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and Madeleine Albright tell a Senate Armed Services Committee that the President of the United States is an idiot with no idea how to conduct foreign affairs. Well, they didn’t say it in those words, but that was pretty much the message. That was January 29.
Two days earlier retired 4-Star General James Matthis, former head of U.S. Central Command, former Army Vice Chief of Staff and 4-Star General Jack Keane, and Navy Admiral William Fallon, also a former CentCom chief, had also testified before the Committee. They had a similar message as the diplomats. Obama and the other idiots in the White House are completely clueless regarding the threat of radical Islam in general and a potential nuclear Iran in particular.
This is, after all, a White House that is trying to call those intent on taking over the entire Middle East and, after that, the rest of the world anything other than “terrorists.” They have used terms such as “insurgents”, “activists” and “militants.” Here at home, they are still referring to the killings at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Don’t any of these idiots understand that the terrorists, whether they call themselves al Qaeda or the Islamic State, Hezbollah, Hamas or any other name all constitute the same threat?
That’s what the generals addressed. They told the Senate committee that absence of a White House strategy makes the ISIS, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan wars “unwinnable.” I have been around since the end of World War II and that stretch of U.S. history is one in which we fought to a stalemate in Korea and a loss in Vietnam. After we won the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama pulled out and now they are lost too. There was a time when Americans and their leaders knew how to win wars.
Indeed, there was a time when Americans preferred to elect generals to be their President, starting with George Washington. Among those with that rank were Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Ruther P. Hayes, James A. Garfield. Chester A. Arthur. Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. All the others had also served in the military in some capacity…except Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama not only doesn’t have experience in the military, he doesn’t seem to like them much. He has done everything he can to reduce our military capacity to fight a war anywhere or to show any genuine respect for the troops on active duty. The only uniform he ever wore was as an Indonesian Boy Scout.
Retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis told the Congress “America needs a refresh national security strategy. We need to come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm, strategic stance in defense of our values.” Apparently those values don’t matter to the White House or to those left-wingers who wet their pants over the popularity of “Sniper”, a film that pays tribute to our troops who fought the war in Iraq.
Under Obama’s term in office, radical Islam has increased four-fold in the past five years, ISIS ten times since 2012 and Iran has masterminded control of the capitols in Beirut, Lebanon, Damascus, Syria, Baghdad, Iraq, and now in Sanaa, Yemen. It has been the power behind Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Gen. Keane described Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan as an “absolute strategic failure.” He called radical Islam “the major security challenge of our generation.”
Regarding Iran, Gen. Keane said, “In 1980, Iran declared the United States as a strategic enemy and its goal is to drive the United State out of the region, achieve regional hegemony, and destroy the state of Israel.”
“Is there any doubt that Iran is on the march and is systematically moving toward their regional hegemonic objective?” asked Gen. Keane. “Iran has been on a 20-year journey to acquire nuclear weapons, simply because they know it guarantees preservation of the regime and makes them, along with their partners, the dominant power in the region, thereby capable of expanding their control and influence. Add to this their ballistic missile delivery system and Iran is not only a threat to the region, but to Europe, as well.” The U.S. in time will be in missile range.
“We have no comprehensive strategy to stop it or defeat it,” said Gen. Keane.
Thanks to Barack Obama, the United States of America can no longer be seen as the world leader, opposing the forces that seek to impose control. Former allies, particularly in the Middle East, no longer have any confidence that we would come to their defense if they were attacked.
Thanks to Barack Obama, our enemies have been emboldened and our allies confused, but it is not that confusing. He is an idiot who lacks any grasp of history’s lessons and he is a coward who cannot be expected to seriously respond to our own and our allies’ enemies.
© Alan Caruba, 2015