Saturday, January 9, 2016

Marine Corps scolded for dragging its feet integrating women into the infantry

Washington Times ^ | 1/8/16 | Rowan Scarborough 

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has sent scolding memorandum to the Marine Corps, warning commanders that problems with integrating women into the infantry should not be used as an excuse to “halt the policy.”
Mr. Mabus is also ordering the Gen. Robert Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, to remove the word “man” from titles, apparently meaning the job title of “infantryman” is a casualty.
Mr. Mabus, a former Democratic governor of Mississippi, has followed the Obama’s administration’s priorities in other ares. He has named war ships after liberal politicians, push climate change initiatives and followed the first lady’s lead on nutrition by limiting fried foods for sailors.
In this case, his Jan. 1 memos are carrying out Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s Dec. 3 decision to open all ground combat jobs to women in infantry, armor, special operations and artillery.
The Marine Corps, then led by Gen. Joseph Dunford, stood alone among the four branches in recommending an exemption for infantry units. It did a three-year assessment that warned of damage to unit cohesion, more injuries and increased risks for casualties in battle.
Mr. Mabus openly dismissed the Corps’ publicized opposition last fall. Mr. Carter sided with him and rejected advice from Gen. Dunford who by that time had become his chief military adviser as Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Sexual Politics That Hound Hill and Bill ^ | January 8, 2016 | Suzanne Fields 

"Sexual politics" once described the power relationship between a man and a woman, but that has changed, like everything else, with the changing times. In the age of the Internet, with its blessings and curses delivered at warp speed, presidential politics expands (some say narrows) to include what goes on between a man and a woman.
The Garden of Eden, where Satan once enticed Eve to nibble the forbidden apple (which was not an apple at all, except in the secular telling), has become overgrown with weeds and roses thick with thorns. That first couple's political descendants worry very little about what they do in God's eye, only how it plays out in the public eye. Moliere's notorious hypocrite, Tartuffe, understood in the 17th century that the greatest crime is exposure: "It is public scandal that constitutes offense, and to sin in secret is not to sin at all."
But public scandal isn't what it used to be, either, and Tartuffe's perception is flawed and dated in the modern sexual politics of double-think ethics. Donald Trump is no moral giant, but he had Hillary's Achilles tendon squarely in his sights when she dispatched her husband to campaign for her in New Hampshire: "If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong," he said. He warned Bill to be prepared to defend a bad hand. He insinuated further that he might leave Bill's sins alone if the Clintons cooled their accusations against him. How disarming.
The Donald is quick to see the vulnerability of opponents in a sensationalized world of thrust and counterthrust, and he easily exploited the four clay feet of the two Clintons. When they joined themselves at the hip to campaign for Hillary, they doubled the size of a juicy target. The Washington Post, no friend of Republicans, assisted by educating the newest of the voters, who were barely out of diapers when Bill left the White House, with a catalogue of accusations by a regiment of women. The Post primly separated his "consensual affairs" from "allegations of unwanted sexual encounters."
Bernie Sanders, whose campaign strategy is to find opportunities to pull his punches, told ABC News that "we have more things to worry about than Bill Clinton's sexual life." No doubt true. But Hillary understands what Bernie doesn't, that she's uniquely vulnerable on the point because she must win a robust turnout of younger women to run a credible race. Her antique feminism is a hard sell to women of the protest generation. Bill's campaigning for her carries risks.
Young female voters came of age after the sexual accusations against Bill Cosby, which finally, after 40 years, are getting the nation's attention. These women don't necessarily find Bill Clinton similarly guilty as accused, though the story of a 22-year-old intern named Monica Lewinsky sounds like credible workplace harassment. Women in the 21st century workplace have learned to lean in, not lean back, and they have little patience with any man who once took advantage of the weaker, "second-sex" mindset of an earlier era.
By including Bill in her campaign, Hillary's exploitation of an imagined Republican "war on women" is likely to be muted. She struck a defensive tone with her New Year's resolution to ignore the Donald's attacks on her foreign policy and his assertion that she helped to create ISIS. It's hard not to see her as a wounded warrior on two battlefronts. The softer, gentler version of Bill Clinton on display in New Hampshire reveals few traces of the lying Lothario whose tales of randy adventure plagued the Clintons in the past. He talks of being a harmless grandfather and says he's not angry at anybody. The rake might be making progress. But it's an image without seductive bite. The New York Times described him in Hillary's 2008 campaign as being on "a short leash." And this week, a headline over an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, suggesting that Hillary took Bill to the vet, inflicted real sting: "The Big Dog Gets Fixed."
A neutered Bill reflects the sordid past without his saving roguish manner. The photographs of young women standing behind him during a speech in New Hampshire showed them grimacing, smirking and fighting off yawns. Chutzpah was once protection for the Clintons' chutzpah; one outrageous revelation after another cancelled a collective impact and made it difficult for one to stick. So it may still be. Bill is clearly the politician in the family, but this time he may not be Hillary's "secret weapon." She would have been wiser to let the sleeping dog, "fixed" or not, sleep undisturbed.

Evil Twin


Government as Santa

Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 1/4/2015 | Joseph Lehman 

Why is it that most people eventually abandon the idea of Santa Claus … and yet so many never abandon belief in an omnipotent government?
Santa Claus is magic. His toy sack never empties, he traverses the globe faster than lightning, his reindeer never tire, his elves never strike, and he’s never too fat for the chimney. Awed by his powers, young kids approach the Jolly One clutching wish lists that itemize the objects of their “unbridled avarice,” as a popular Christmas movie put it.
And why not? Santa’s little supplicants are prodded by plenty of parental encouragement. No toy is beyond the ability of Santa’s elves to build. Nothing Santa gives to one child takes away from what he can give to any other child. Plus, Santa knows who’s been naughty or nice, so the great toy distribution is bound to be fair in some cosmically satisfying way, with everyone getting what they deserve and probably a little bit more. Who wouldn’t want to live in such a world?
Too many adults treat government the way kids treat Santa. But government is not magic.
Most adults expect government to provide at least the basics of society like courts, police, defense, roads, mail and schools. Yet these so often seem beyond the reach of government that we may seriously question whether some of them, like schools, should be entrusted to government at all.
Many adults want government to cover everything under Santa’s flying sleigh. Their wish lists say, “subsidize my retirement, my big house, a year’s worth of unemployment, my medicine, my college loans, my electric car, my auto company, my union, my bank, my bad decisions in general, and my ethanol and solar companies.” But unlike Santa’s bottomless bag of toys, every subsidy government gives to someone must first be taken from someone else. For every happy kid there is another whose toy was ripped from his hands.
Adults then may expect that only the deserving ones get the goodies, but the dilemma of fairness inherent in forced redistribution needs no elaboration here. Let’s just say it takes a lot of magic government fairy dust to make it all fair.
My point is not to ridicule those who want government to provide what they believe they deserve, which would be rude and especially out of season at holiday time. Rather, it is to confront the reality of an extremely durable myth — government as Santa Claus — and to prevent belief in that fable from destroying our nation.
Children may be sad to realize there’s no Santa, but Mom and Dad can usually ameliorate that disappointment. No one will rescue us when our collective “unbridled avarice” runs up a debt so high it can never be repaid. All the little children will be crying then.
Belief in Santa is endearing in children. Belief in magic government is sad, tragic and destructive in adults. One of the greatest gifts we can give this holiday season is to help others confront the myth of magic government.

Clinton Indictment Talk Swirls

Rush ^ | January 8, 2016 | Rush Limbaugh 


RUSH: Joe diGenova in the past couple of days has been making media appearances talking about the voluminous evidence that the FBI's collecting on Hillary regarding her e-mail servers and the classified data she was trafficking in.

He said it's so much evidence, it's so overwhelming that she's gonna be indicted in 60 days -- and if she's not, there's gonna be a revolt in the FBI. If the Regime, if the attorney general, Loretta Lynch and FBI don't bring charges, diGenova says, it's gonna be a revolt. It's that bad. Well, Bob Tyrrell on the American Spectator has a piece today on that very subject and that very investigation. He adds even more via his sources to what diGenova has been saying, and when you read this, you ask, "How can this woman even be a candidate?"

You should know that Plugs Biden and John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) are both waiting in the wings for whatever if anything might happen to Mrs. Clinton. Now, the odds are that nothing will. I mean, the safest place to be if you are a criminal in this country is to be a Democrat ranking member of the administration

And, by the way, you should know that Plugs Biden and John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) are both waiting in the wings for whatever if anything might happen to Mrs. Clinton. Now, the odds are that nothing will. I mean, the safest place to be if you are a criminal in this country is to be a Democrat ranking member of the administration. That's the safest place if you're a criminal. I mean, it's a tough call. It's a toss-up being in Chicago or Washington.

But probably if you've engaged in criminal behavior and you are a ranking Democrat, the safest place to be is in Washington right now where the Democrats are running the show because they probably will not do anything about it, and that's a prevailing opinion. Even with diGenova out there saying, "It's gonna be 60 days. They've got no choice; they have to indict because of the evidence. A lot of it." It's not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen.

One of the reasons I speculated that it isn't gonna happen, is I talked to a very powerful, influential member of the Republican establishment this morning who is convinced that Obama wants Hillary to succeed him so that his agenda will continue and will be even tacked further to the left. We were not talking about the investigation. We were not talking about diGenova or the FBI. I was just relating it. If the guy I was talking to is right, then there will not be any indictment of Mrs. Clinton.

Shunning Hillary Is the Prescription for a Trump-Cruz White House

The Huffington Post Huffpost Politics The Blog ^ | January 8, 2016 | Earl Ofari Hutchinson 

Here's a horrific "what if" in the months after November 9, 2016. That's the day after the presidential election and the winner is declared.

The nomination and confirmation of one, two, maybe even three more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomas's to the Supreme Court.

The quick repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the shut-down of the Department of Education, the total scrap of the Dodd-Frank financial industry regulations, the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and outlawing of abortion, the gut of the EPA, a cheer of the notion that Global Warming is a fraud, the giveaway of millions of acres of public lands to oil, gas, and real estate interests, the categorical rejection that fracking poses safety and environmental hazards, the scrap of the Voting Rights Act, a total blind eye by the Justice Department to police misconduct, and a wink and nod license to ramp up anti-Muslim hysteria in the country. A perpetual confrontation with Iran, Russia, and U.S. boots on the ground in Syria and anywhere else in the world that the White House occupant deems a threat to alleged U.S. interests.
This is not a made up nightmarish Orwellian scenario for a future America. It's not an agenda slapped together to scare wavering Democrats about Hillary Clinton let along guilt trip progressives into holding their nose and backing Clinton, if Bernie Sanders fails to get the nomination. This is the agenda that GOP presidential contenders Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, to varying degrees Marco Rubio, and couched in flowery jargon, the Republican National Committee has spelled out as the agenda for a GOP White House in 2016 and beyond.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Facing Criminal Indictment, Obama 2016 Surprise in the Works


Opinions on Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016 come in two forms with not much in between: "It ain't happening"  and "Hillary's got it locked in." We may soon find out which one of those prognostications is right.
Washington insiders are saying that the evidence in the FBI's investigation into Clinton's "unique email arrangement" has reached "critical mass." The American Spectator's R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. joins former prosecutor Joe DiGenova in predicting that a decision to indict is coming soon.
The charges will consist of some of the following:
1. Improper disclosure or retention of classified information.
2. Destruction of government records.
3. Lying to federal agents.
4. Lying under oath.
5. Obstruction of justice.
There are those who have told me that the FBI has been engaged in a ruse. And that the Bureau will report it has come across nothing criminal. Then the whole imbroglio is expected to blow over.
But such cynics are in the minority. Most sources have told me the investigation is genuine, serious, and all but completed. One told me that it was completed two months ago. The Bureau has put together a case that as one source put it “is locked up. It is solid.”
In the past, as FBI agent I.C. Smith wrote in his book Inside: A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies, and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI, the Clintons have benefited from a few corrupt agents, usually in Arkansas. But that was years ago, and in Arkansas. This is the FBI in Washington, at the top where there are plenty of utterly professional law enforcement officials. They believe truth matters and so does the pursuit of justice. “They have been building a case that is unassailable,” one source told me. “It is beyond the case against Petraeus.… It is about the violation of federal statutes.”
An indicted Hillary may try to brazen her way to the finish line, but she could be too damaged by scandal to get elected (even by an unscrupulous Democratic electorate). But if she doesn't make it to the finish line, that leaves the race wide open for all sorts of Democrat chicanery.
Author Richard F. Miniter writes at the American Thinker that President Barack Obama may be "planning a huge surprise for the 2016 election."
So here’s a prediction: if Clinton gets indicted, Michelle Obama gets the Obama team’s nod for the nomination.
Can Barack and Michelle pull such a thing off?  No, but the point is that they will think they can.  Remember the confidence, one might even say arrogant confidence, with which they flew off to Copenhagen in order to get the Olympics for Chicago and how flummoxed they were when the IOC gave them the back of their hand?  Remember how confident he was that his eighty-something speeches around the country would produce a groundswell of public opinion in favor of Obamacare?  How certain he was his Cairo apology would have the Middle East running to learn at his knee?   How certain she was of sainthood for insisting upon “healthy” school lunches?  Indeed, just look at how both he and Michelle drip sticky condescension on any of the lesser minds who disagree with them.
A more likely scenario would have Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, with perhaps Michelle Obama as the VP nominee. (Biden recently told reporters that he regrets his decision to drop out of the race and admits to having second thoughts.) Other possibilities for the number two spot include Senator Elizabeth Warren and former governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick.