Donald Trump meant exactly what he said when he said itabout Megyn Fox, and when he said things about other women – – which many called “derogatory.”
If you’re a guy, a male – – you never said anything similar? I never said similar? Some females never said it either?
Bullpucky, kids. Many talk like that. Many have saidthings like that.
What difference does it make? Especially if it’s true?
None. The language used makes no difference at all. Not anymore. Not is this “new” world. Not in this environment of invective and hate.
In these politically correct days, thanks to liberal-imposednightmares and utter fear of their abusive language, nobody is allowed say anything “hurtfull” about anybody else.
That is: nobody who’s a conservative can say it.
Liberals, it seems, can say anything they want about anybody. Anything. Their enablers and word masters in the media and politics will cover for them – – circle the wagons. Protect them and what they say if it’s in line with what they want to hear.
It is easy to run afoul of liberal Newspeak. For instance, we are relentlessly instructed how a woman is the physical equal of any man – – be he Green Beret or Navy SEAL.
We are told anybody disabled or in a wheel chair is the equal of any NFL player. We are told someone beating on logs with rocks and sticks is the intellectual equal of any Beethoven, Mozart, or Handel, and his “music” is equal to The Four Seasons, by Vivaldi.
Bullpucky again, kids.
None of that is true. These self-evident irrationalities would be held as sacred tenets under the obnoxious, phony flags of communism, Marxism, socialism, or progressivism.
Yes, and, this tact seems already rote orthodoxy – – true facts – – part of a new, and sacrosanct religion promulgated by the left under other names.
Names that you, the so-called, “public,” can reportedly“understand,” and relate to. This, according to Saul Alinsky, a founding Person of what might be called, the new Information Age Leftist Activism.
We are not allowed to say, a “founding Father,” anymore,because some, according to the rote orthodoxy, don’t actually have a father...or something.
The Truth About Women in Ground Combat Roles
“Lifting the ban, they say, will make the military stronger. They are wrong.”
Women have long been an integral part of the U.S. military, having performed admirably—in some cases, heroically—in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom…a succession of some of the nation’s most powerful civilian and military leaders have lauded the recent decision to remove all restrictions on what jobs women can fill in the U.S. Armed Forces. Lifting the ban, they say, will make the military stronger. They are wrong.
The very best outcome we can hope for is that the Armed Forces’ abilities will remain static. The most likely outcome, however, is that there will be some degradation in the units that are charged with some of the most critical roles: closing with and destroying enemy forces. Lifting the restrictions was, no doubt, designed to elevate the stature of women and give them an opportunity in the military equal with men. The result of the move, unfortunately, is likely to be that we’ll place women at a disadvantage and put them in a danger greater than that faced by men in combat.
President Obama commended the December 3 decision by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to open all combat jobs to women. He said that, as commander in chief, he knows “this change, like others before it, will again make our military even stronger.” Echoing that sentiment, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabusargued that lifting the ban is “not going to make [the U.S. military] any less fighting effective. In fact I think they will be a stronger force, because a more diverse force is a stronger force.” Evidence, logic and experience says these hopes will not be realized.
Approximately 90 percent of all military occupations have already been open to women for quite some time. The 10 percent of the jobs that have been restricted to men-only were the frontline, direct combat roles requiring significant physical strength such as infantry, artillery and armor. In determining if this restriction has unfairly prevented women from filling those roles, it is instructive to examine comparisons to other male-only organizations.
** There are currently no women in the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League or other professional sports leagues. The reason for their absence has nothing to do with discrimination but is flatly rooted in the fact women biologically are not able to perform physically to the same level as men.
Is this “racist?”
If it is, I didn’t know women were a race. I think some women believe they are in a race with men, but they are not. Most of our more important natural roles are already biologically, and genetically, determined by our DNA—the Master Design of Humanity. DNA is Nature’s plan for the survival of Humanity. Our reason for existing.
Trying to change these natural roles in the interest of some false, “humanist,” artificial orthodoxy is destined to fail.
Even if it takes 500 or 1000 years – – human DNA will always win. DNA will always follow the best path of survival of Humanity. The human race.
There are some exceptions to these rules of Nature—sure—but not many.
And these few should be minimized in any potential importance they may think – – or seem – – to hold. Speaking to survival, they are not important – – except to themselves.
In the oppressive, politically correct world of today, some might call this “treason.”
But, then, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, a hero of the American Revolution: “…if this be treason, make the most of it.”