Back in my January post Three Cheers for Infanticide! I applauded an abortionista for her candor in admitting that “the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.” Well, it seems honesty is catching on in the pro-death camp. Fast-forward to the 5:15 mark in the video below of pro-life testimony by Ashley Granger. Listen for the chorus in the background.
- a 14-year-old can be arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school and
- a seven-year-old suspended from school for nibbling a pastry into the shape of a gun and
- a 14-year-old suspended for hugging a classmate and
- a six-year-old boy hauled into the principal’s office, written up for sexual harassment and reported to the police for smacking a girl’s hiney and
- 166 elementary school children in Maryland suspended in one year for sexual harassment, including three preschoolers, 16 kindergartners and 22 first-graders…
then how is this not child abuse…
I was in the car earlier today shouting back at a local newsreader delivering yet more bad news from my radio, when a military recruiting spot interrupted my deranged soliloquy. The ad was rather uninspiring—learn life skills, be a part of a team, blah, blah, blah—so naturally I assumed it was just another ho-hum plea for warm bodies by Army, Inc. But I about blew a jarhead gasket when I heard the pitchman wrap with “We’re the Marines and we’re looking for a few more to join us.”
A few more to join us? Sounds like an invitation to a party. Which is actually timely given today’s breaking news that the Corps will allow “Marines” to sashay in their Dress Blues in San Diego’s deviant gay pride parade this weekend.
Today there are many—too many—brave Marine warriors in harm’s way. I have no doubt that the young men we’ve sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are as brave and tough as their forefathers at Khe Sanh, the Frozen Chosin, Inchon, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Belleau Wood, the halls of Montezuma and the shores of Tripoli. But they are so because they answered the recruiting call of an uncompromising Corps committed to making better men of them—a Corps that epitomizes manliness and the warrior ethos. There is a very distinct reason why the Corps has always attracted the best raw recruits and turned them into the best warriors. And it isn’t because of a commitment to fad, social experimentation or political correctness. The Corps has historically promised nothing more than grueling training and the opportunity to be the “first to fight” in the bloodiest wars—which, in turn, produce an esprit de corps without equal among fighting men.
It has long been claimed—mostly by Marines—that Army Gen. John J. “Black Jack” Pershing, who led the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I—famously inquired, “Why in hell can’t the Army do it if the Marines can? They are the same kind of men. Why can’t they be like Marines?” The answer is that the Marines have never looked “for a few more to join us.” They’ve always just needed “a few good men.”
While the rest of homosexuality has been formally commemorating the Department of Defense Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, those pesky party boys over at Metroweekly just had to slip a turd in the Pentagon’s rainbow punch. The DC area website for finding the nearest bash where “men in underwear drink free,” quite accurately reports that DoD’s annual LGBT celebration doesn’t actually include the Ts.
The DoD memorandum announcing this year’s celebration of sodomy and sapphism states, “We recognize gay, lesbian and bisexual service members…for their dedicated service to our country.” The trannies were intentionally left out because as national security reporter Paul Shinkman points out in his June 21 headline in U.S. News & World Report, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Still Applies to Transgender Service Members.”
Talk about an inconvenient truth. Where’s Al Gore when you need him?
And Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel conspicuously ignored the Ts in his formal LGBT Pride Month remarks. “Gay and lesbian soldiers…can serve openly,” stated the SecDef. “This makes our military and our nation stronger, much stronger.” You’d think that Chuck would have some empathy for the trans crowd given that he’s recently completed his own metamorphosis from courageous Republican maverick to Uncle Sham’s lapdog.
So where to next? It’s telling that DoD has so quickly adopted the radical homosexual agitprop if not its complete agenda. The Pentagon may not be quite ready to integrate the apparently complex group that is “transgender,” but I’m sure the top brass and civilian leaders in whom we’ve entrusted our young combat warriors are working hard on their plan to enlist the agender, bigender, third gender, pangender, ambigender, non-gendered, gender-fluid, intergender, genderqueer, androgyne, transsexual, pansexual, polysexual, asexual, cross-dressing, drag queen, drag king, transvestite, two-spirit…
The thought police over at DoD are at it again…
WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2013/Dayton Herald-Post/ She survived 25 bombing missions in Europe in World War II, shot down eight Nazi aircraft, earned the stateside mission of touring the U.S. with her flight crew promoting war bonds and inspired the making of two major motion pictures. The Boeing B-17F Flying Fortress nicknamed Memphis Belle is perhaps the most recognizable historical military aircraft in the world. Her fame is due not only to her combat accomplishments, but also to her iconic “nose art” depicting a curvaceous Belle in a tight-fitting swimsuit and heels.
For some, the vintage art arouses a range of emotions from pride in the flyboys who waged war over the skies of Europe and the Pacific to general nostalgia for a bygone era known for its big bands and the “greatest generation.” But for others, the “cheesecake” on the side of an American military aircraft, even one that is no longer in service, is a painful reminder of a patriarchal and misogynistic tradition that still exists in today’s armed services. In a turn of events that surprised veteran Pentagon reporters, the Department of Defense has apparently sided with those that hold the latter opinion.
So, like jeeps, c-rations and the prohibition on women in combat, the zaftig Belle and her swimsuit, will soon be a distant memory. Reaffirming DoD’s commitment to addressing sexual harassment and assault in the military, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Richard Stilton announced today that the famous, but offending, artwork will be removed from the nose of the aircraft. “While the Department of Defense honors the proud heritage of Memphis Belle and her brave crew,” said Stilton, “we feel that the art on the foreword fuselage is demeaning to the 200,000 plus women serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces and contravenes current DoD policy regarding sexual harassment.”
The most famous of the United States Air Force bombers in Europe, Memphis Belle was named for pilot Robert Morgan’s girlfriend, Margaret Polk of Memphis, Tennessee and the image is based on a pinup drawing from Esquire magazine’s April 1941 issue. After the war, the aircraft was saved from reclamation by the city of Memphis for a mere $350, and was then parked outside the Tennessee National Guard armory well into the 1980s. Slowly deteriorating from the weather, souvenir hunters, scavengers and vandals, Belle was eventually donated back to the Air Force. The aircraft is currently undergoing extensive restoration at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio.
As part of the restoration process, the swimsuit pinup images will be carefully removed by technicians using the slowest and safest chemical solvents, including Methyl-Pyrrolidone, which dissolve paint from the top layer down. The technicians will not touch the other painted images, including the 25 bombs (one for each mission), eight swastikas (one for each German aircraft shot down by the plane’s crew) and the crew names stenciled below station windows.
Memphis Belle is only one of many existing WWII aircraft depicting voluptuous women in various states of undress, but most are privately owned and beyond the reach of the DoD. In addition to Memphis Belle the National Museum of the United States Air Force holds Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, also a Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress. This aircraft’s artwork includes the backside of a topless woman in half a swimsuit, which is scheduled for removal after work on Belle is completed.
OK, enough. Yes, I made up this story. But tell the truth, you believed it for awhile, didn’t you?
Don’t walk to the latrines alone.
This advice to women soldiers from Margaret Carlson, Bloomberg and syndicated columnist and women-in-combat booster, in her latest treatise on military effectiveness.
So, let’s stipulate that all the recent numbers regarding sexual assault in the U.S. military are accurate—even the outrageous 26,000 guesstimate by the Department of Defense itself—and that all the accusations are legit. And let’s agree, of course, that not one of these incidents should have ever occurred and that all perps are brought to justice. Now, stipulations stipulated and agreements agreed, let’s revisit the notion of women in combat in light of the epidemic.
You can’t go to an action-movie these days without watching a 98-pound lass giving several muscle-heads a proper drubbing, but back in the real world women are still not warriors. Women—including women soldiers—are vulnerable.
The press, the Congress, the military and the women soldiers themselves admit as much. In fact, they insist that women soldiers are vulnerable—not to the enemy, but to their own male comrades. Further, they say that women soldiers are “victims.” And so confirms the DoD, which uses the word “victim” 3,553 time in its 729-page 2012 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.
Now, in my brief stint in the Marine Corps infantry, including combat, I can count on exactly no fingers how many times one of my comrades or I referred to a Marine as a victim. I can only imagine the reaction should any Marine ever claim to be a victim—of anything. The very concept is (or was) anathema. If you read E.B. Sledge’s With the Old Breed, a grunt’s very honest and gruesome account of Marine warfare on Okinawa and Pelelieu in WWII, you will find the word “victim” only once and it refers to an enemy soldier on the receiving end of a Marine’s bayonet. And let’s not ignore the Army. Scouring Bataan Death March: A Survivor’s Account by Medal of Honor recipient Lt. Col. William Dyess you will find “victim” 16 times in 196 pages and the term largely applies to those who died or “fell victim” to dysentery or diphtheria or in horrific accounts such as, “The victim had been bayoneted. His abdomen was open. The bowels had been wrenched loose and were hanging like great grayish purple ropes…” and “During the afternoon the three victims stood naked and shivering in the downpour. The rain cleansed their wounds and bodies at times, but the Japs (sic) opened new wounds with the whip as often as they thought they could do so without killing.”
So, if women soldiers are so vulnerable that they can’t physically fend off men in their own barracks, who presumably are less likely to fight them to the death than, say, Afgani tribesmen or Al Qaeda-in-Iraqis, isn’t it reasonable to reassess the rush to rush women into combat? If women are unsafe walking to their own latrines well behind friendly lines, doesn’t that suggest they will be far less safe a few klicks forward? Why the eagerness to send women into worse harm’s way?
The American public has been continuously assured that as man jobs are opened to women military readiness will never suffer. But this has proven to be the nonsense that men who’d fought in war predicted it would be. Former Virginia Senator and Vietnam combat Marine Jim Webb was dead-on back in 1979 when he wrote Women Can’t Fight for Washingtonian. “Men fight better,” asserted the Navy Cross recipient. “We can try to intellectualize that reality away, and layer it with debates on role conditioning versus natural traits, but it manifests itself in so many ways that it becomes foolish to deny it.” Gen. Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps and also a recipient of the Navy Cross—for heroism at the Frozen Chosin—was incredulous as he testified in 1991 before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Women in Combat: “It’s uncivilized and women can’t do it!”
And worse, not only is readiness suffering, but the warrior culture itself is under attack—by its own brass and the DoD. The aforementioned Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military lists such horrors as:
- Male victim alleged that he and female subject were at a farewell party when subject slapped victim on the buttocks.
- Multiple male victims alleged that female subject grabbed buttocks of multiple males.
- Male victim alleged that male subject touched his buttocks.
- Male victim alleged that male subject touched his inner thigh and made suggestive comments then grabbed his buttocks.
And reports Robert O. Work, Undersecretary of the Navy, “Many individuals are now more comfortable reporting long prior sexual assaults, and we see gradual progress in the proportion of male victims now coming forward.”
Oh, joy. The men upon whom we rely to “locate, close with, and destroy the enemy with fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat” are now much readier for the grist mill of war because we’ve created an atmosphere in which they feel comfortable admitting to the world that they are victims of buttocks-touching.
After a decade plus of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are some indications that the American public might be up for a national discussion about our country’s use of force in the world—perhaps even a closer look at what truly constitutes national security. This is good and overdue. But the U.S. is unlikely to disengage anytime soon. And, alternatively, if men like John McCain and Lindsey Graham have their way, we’ll be at perpetual war in places where American women aren’t typically held in high regard. So, if we really care about women, we’d re-prohibit them from serving not only in combat, but anywhere near combat.
Closing on a note of sanity, here’s a longer excerpt from Gen. Barrow’s riveting testimony:
Those who advocate change have some strange arguments. One of which is the defacto women in combat situation…that women have been shot at, that they’ve heard gunfire…well, exposure to danger is not combat…combat is a lot more than that, it’s a lot more than getting shot at or even getting killed by being shot at. Combat is finding and closing with and killing…the enemy. It’s killing, that’s what it is…It’s uncivilized and women can’t do it…and I may be old-fashioned, but I think the very nature of women disqualifies them from doing it. Women give life, sustain life, nurture life. They don’t take it.
Hear, hear, General! A society that sends its mothers and daughters to war is serious about neither society nor war.
It didn’t take long for Caitlin Tiller’s story to get bumped—not only off page one, but out of the news cycle entirely. According to Google, the last two major media accounts of the teen mom appeared on HuffingtonPost.com and Examiner.com on May 6, four days after the story broke. And Caitlin’s cause is conspicuously absent from the torrent of cyber-opinion, where stories develop, crusades are launched and offenders are held accountable. In case you’re not familiar with Ms. Tiller’s story, here’s a brief recap from ABC:
A high school student is fighting back after her senior photo was pulled from the school yearbook. The photo shows North Carolina senior Caitlin Tiller holding her now one-year old son. The school asked students to have their picture taken with something that best represents them or an achievement. Tiller chose her son because he represented her drive to stay in school. The school didn’t see it that way. Caitlin says she was told the picture promoted teen pregnancy. She sees it as a symbol of responsibility and love. “They should be proud that the students are willing to stay in school and graduate and make something of their self and not try and hide it,” Tiller said. School officials would only say the yearbook should be all about the student and not an extension of the student’s family.
So, where is the outrage from the champions of “choice?” Here’s a young woman who made a brave decision to keep her baby and finish high school, but nothing from Maureen Dowd, Cecile Richards, Rachel Maddow, Ilyse Hogue, et alia? Meanwhile Sandra Fluke continues to grab favorable headlines on an almost weekly basis even though Rush Limbaugh hasn’t called her a “slut” since February, 2012.
A search on Slate.com for “Caitlin Tiller” produces one result…for George Tiller, the notorious late-term abortionist who was murdered in 2009. A search for “George Tiller,” of course, produces seven pages of results, including glowing stories like, “The Bravery of George Tiller” and “What Made George Tiller so Special?” Other news and commentary outlets that carry water for the abortion industry have lots of positive stories about “Doctor” Tiller, as well, but here are the stats for Caitlin:
The Nation: 0
The Village Voice: 0
The Kos: 0
The New Yorker: 0
Mother Jones: 0
The New Republic: 0
Planned Parenthood: 0
A case could be made for the downside of publishing a photo of Caitlin with her one-year old son in the yearbook, i.e. promoting teen pregnancy, but no one seems up to that task. And there was a time when any birth out of wedlock, much less a teen birth, was kept quiet to minimize shame and scandal. But in these “progressive” times, it is absolute hypocrisy that those who try to badger and bully the rest of us into celebrating promiscuity, buggery, late-term abortion and other “choices,” simply ignore the choice of young Caitlin. Abortionistas are quick to accuse pro-lifers of having a “love affair with the fetus”1 while doing nothing to support women with “crisis” pregnancies or children who are born into poverty. This is complete nonsense, but not the subject of this post, so I urge you to visit the Pregnant on Campus Initiative or any major pro-life website for proof and elaboration. On the flip-side, however, when it comes to supporting women who choose life, there is a deafening silence in the pro-abortion crowd.
1. Incredibly, this moronic quote came not only from an M.D., but from the M.D. in 1994, President Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders.
No doubt the irony of placing these two articles next to each other is lost on the editors of the Miami Herald and fans of intentionally giving harmful products to 15 year-old girls.
A luxury of living in our modern enlightened times, is that we can all proudly boast that we would never have condoned—much less participated in—the cruelties and barbarisms of our ancestors.
Just fill in the blank yourself: “I would never ______________!”
enslave my fellow man
consider a person of color inferior
allow children to work
accuse someone of witchcraft
close my eyes to genocide
burn someone at the stake
watch two men fight to the death
feed people to lions
stone an adulteress
crucify my Lord
Well, not so fast. The pro-life bloggers and Tweeters that got the media and the nation to finally pay attention to the trial of late-term abortionist “Doctor” Kermit Gosnell have re-exposed a legal barbarity that is very much still with us.
Lest one think that Kermit’s house of horrors was just a one-off in an otherwise beneficent women’s reproductive health industry, at least 15 states have launched investigations over the last three years into abortion providers for inferior and/or improper “care.” Reports Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life, “In seeking to advance their own financial and political interests, Virginia abortion advocates blatantly ignored evidence of substandard conditions in Virginia abortion clinics, refusing to even acknowledge, and failing to contradict, evidence presented to the commonwealth’s board of health.”
And let’s not forget the details of the various legal late-term procedures themselves. Here they are in brief, but please do click on the links for more details:
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)—inserting forceps into the mother’s womb the abortionist grasps and dismembers the baby by twisting and tearing the parts of the body. Because the baby’s skull has often hardened it sometimes must be compressed or crushed to facilitate removal.
Saline Injection—the abortionist inserts a long needle through the mother’s abdomen and injects a saline solution into the sac of amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby is poisoned by swallowing the salt and his skin is completely burned away. It takes about an hour to kill the baby. After the child dies, the mother goes into labor and expels the dead baby.
Prostaglandin Induction—prostaglandins prematurely injected into the amniotic sac induces violent labor and the birth of a child usually too young to survive. Typically, the violent contractions crush the baby to death, but if not, and it is delivered alive, it will usually die within a few hours from exposure. Often salt or another toxin is first injected to ensure that the baby will be delivered dead.
Intracardiac Injection—abortionist injects medication into the fetal heart to stop it beating.
Caesarean Section—the abortionist cuts the umbilical cord while the baby is still in the womb, thus cutting off his oxygen supply and causing him to suffocate.
As disturbing as these legal methods are, Planned Parenthood and other abortion enthusiasts continue to bemoan the proscription of intact dilation and extraction (aka partial-birth abortions) and would gladly bring back the gruesome practice, which is described by one abortion M.D. thusly:
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus…he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity…and pulls the extremity into the vagina…the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through…At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers. Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities…While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger…the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull…spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening…and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.1
Now, if that doesn’t make you cringe and get you to recalculate the actual altitude of your moral high ground…
Of course, the pro-aborts are always ready to help us realize that the pro-life movement uses deception to make the gullible public unreasonably squeamish. As an example, Amanda Marcotte writing for RH Reality Check a website focusing on “reproductive health and justice issues” warns
Anti-choicers’ best weapon is exploiting the disgustingness of surgery, any surgery. (If you described root canals like they do early term abortions, and put up doctored photographs of the results, you could get half of Americans to freak out and agree to be “pro-tooth”). But late term abortion is by far the grossest, most distressing of abortion procedures. They really do remove fetuses that are very close to the baby stage…
You see, it’s just gross and distressing because it’s surgery, not because it’s killing a baby. But a baby is what he or she is. The more honest abortionistas are admitting as much these days. Not convinced? Go visit a couple “preemie” websites or read this post from the Associated Press: Tiniest preemies growing up healthy despite odds. Or follow the work of Dr. Edward Bell, a University of Iowa pediatrics professor who runs an online registry of the world’s tiniest babies and reports that “survival of infants born weighing less than 400 g [14 oz.] is rare but increasing.”
We can continue to deny the personhood of our progeny in utero—even when they are “very close to the baby stage”—and employ euphemisms to disguise their humanity, but science and God urge us to do otherwise. So, what will our enlightened descendants say about us in the future?
1. Martin Haskell, M.D., Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion, Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992