Women Combat Soldiers = Cannon Fodder

Women Combat Soldiers = Cannon Fodder
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
The definition of “cannon fodder” from the Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary:

1:  soldiers regarded or treated as expendable in battle

2:  an expendable or exploitable person, group, or thing

The Free Dictionary.com defines cannon fodder this way:  “Soldiers, sailors, or other military personnel regarded as likely to be killed or wounded in combat.”

Now, I ask you:  Are Americans going to stand by and allow the leftist social engineers to send America women to die on the alter of “progressive social experimentation?”

There is an article that you need to read entitled ”Military Gender Issue Reignites as 45 Percent of Female Marines Fail Pull-up Test.”

Here are some astounding snippets from the article:

“Despite being given more than a year’s warning that pull-ups would be the only option for testing females’ upper body strength in the Corps’ Physical Fitness Test (PFT) starting January 1, only 45 percent of those tested at Paris Island, South Carolina, met the bare minimum of three.”

And this:

“Said Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos, the Corps wants to “continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed.” In the interim, they may continue to opt out of the pull-up requirement in favor of the much less demanding “flexed-arm hang” which requires only that the soldier to hang with her chin above the bar for a minimum of 15 seconds.” 

” … 15 female and 266 male Marines took the Corps’ grueling two-month infantry course, carrying 85-pound packs and rifles and engaging in various obstacle courses while at the same time learning how to shoot, launch grenades, conduct patrols, and avoid IEDs (roadside bombs). Of the men, 221 made it through the course, while just three women finished.”  If that wasn’t bad enough the article went on to say:  “Earlier 20 female Marines attempted to complete the even more difficult officers’ training course, and none passed.”

It is said that there are lies and there are damned lies.  One of the latter is that men and women are the same. Liberal belief in such garbage is going to come back to bite us.  And it is going to hurt.

I find it more than a little difficult to support a system that will place its mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters in harm’s way for defense of the nation when there are more than enough able bodied men to perform the task of fighting our wars. Placing women in combat roles to bear the brunt of the fighting, killing, dying, the violence that is war is unjustified — period.  It is, in my opinion, just another sign of the extremity of American social decay.

Look. It is sad enough to witness men who have had their limbs blown off, or have been hideously disfigured by war.  But it is a price men have always paid in order to protect those who give life to their progeny.  It is they, the women,  who will re-populate the earth, give birth to the babies that will replace the men/warriors lost in the defense of the nation. It is they we ought to protect from the risk of being killed, disabled, or mentally damaged by war.  They are to be protected — not placed in the front lines where the dangers are the highest. 

There are a myriad of jobs in the military that do not require life endangerment.  Traditionally women have served in those roles thereby releasing men from those jobs so they can take their place in combat and other high risk positions.

“In 1948, the Israelis put women soldiers into the front lines, but had to pull them after a few weeks. Discipline broke down, morale plummeted and men ignored orders, rushing instead to protect the women. Some men lost their sanity when they saw women being blown apart.

… The Israelis quickly grasped that women have no business being in combat, and that is their policy to this day. They train women for emergency situations, removing them if combat begins.”  – SOURCE:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/892454/posts

The world has changed since 1948 and not particularly for the better.  There has been a dramatic shift in the American character. The decay of our morals has accelerated at an alarming pace. Today we seem to know the price of everything — and the VALUE  of nothing. 

That the US would place women in combat roles in its military for purely political reasons says something about just how low we have sunk as a civilized society.

J. D. Longstreet


From My Cold, Dead Booty. Feminists, Try Coming for My Panties.

pantiesWhether it’s economics, biology, or criminology, the Left is permanently at war with reality. Some of its most militant combatants are radical feminists, who refuse to accept the fact that there’s more to the difference between men and women than our plumbing. Unfortunately, as the recent insane decision by the Obama administration to lift the ban on women in direct combat shows, feminists have been very successful at infecting our society with their ridiculous, wrongheaded and destructive view of gender differences. Oh wait …there aren’t any gender differences. That’s what the New York Times, Time magazine, and every other irrelevant Lame Stream Media rag has been telling us for at least 40 years.

It’s not enough that feminists have managed to convince at least one, and probably two, generations of women that the ultimate in liberation is to hit the sheets with as many guys as possible, comfortable that their state-mandated contraception will eliminate any unpleasant, style-cramping consequences, or knowing that in a worse case scenario, in which they find themselves in what we used to call “a family way,” they can quickly and easily get rid of that inconvenient tissue mass and move on as if it never happened. It’s also not enough that they have practically made it a crime for little boys to be boys in public schools. It’s not even enough that they have forced the government to recognize their “right” to weaken the U.S. Military and threaten our national security. Now they want our panties.

Sarah Fentem, who is identified as “a writer based in Chicago,” writes in the Atlantic:

Every month or so, I receive a glossy coupon from Victoria’s Secret in my mailbox. “Free panty!” it beckons. “No purchase necessary!”

Reading those words, I cringe a little bit. Not because I hate underwear—I’m an ardent lover of underwear. It’s because I hate the word “panty.” I hate the plural form of “panty” as well. “Panties” creeps me out.

And apparently I’m not alone. In addition to a slew of blog posts and message boards denouncing the word, The Huffington Post’s Zoë Triska named it “the worst word ever.” Cracked.com included “panties” in its list of the “Five Words That Need To Be Banned From English.”

Why does the word “panties” bother so many people?

Oh, she is so right. Anti-panty fever is obviously sweeping the nation!

I do agree with her, in part. “Panties” creeps me out, too, but only because so often while watching some of our alleged male leaders, I ask myself “Gee, I wonder what color panties he’s wearing?”

It’s easy to dismiss Ms. Fentem’s column as absurd, which it is, but it is also an insight into the rat’s nest of intellectual confusion that is the liberal mind in general, and the feminist’s in particular. To understand how anyone can even write the sentence “Why does the word “panties” bother so many people?” you need to think (and I use the word “think” loosely) like someone who has had every ounce of common sense wrung out of her by years of feminist indoctrination, someone who buys into all the “gender is a cultural construct” baloney that they bleat incessantly. Why do feminists hate the word “panties?” It’s simple. “Panties” are something innately feminine, as in something worn by women, who are distinctly different from men, and happily so. It’s a word that conjures up visions of lace, underwire bras, nylon stockings, and sexually-alluring females, desired by and pursued by men. Yikes! If any feminists read that last sentence, it’s probably all they can do to keep from falling out of their combat boots, and there lies the real kernel of truth in this silly, anti-panty idea. Feminists despise the basic biological fact that men are attracted to good-looking women. I will leave it to you decide why that is so, although I might suggest that a Google images search of the names of some prominent radical feminists might provide some insight.

I’m sorry, my chunky, short-haired sisters, it’s true. Attractive women are desirable to men, and men chase them, buy them jewelry and want to be with them. And, because alluring women are desirable, they can be selective. Consider the research from Notre Dame sociologist Elizabeth McClintock, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

The better-looking a man is, the more lifetime sexual partners he reports; the better-looking a woman, the fewer. Good-looking men are more likely to have had sex soon after meeting a partner; good-looking women, less likely. Good-looking women are likelier to describe their relationships as “committed”; good-looking men, less likely.

That’s what the feminists really hate. Pretty girls can choose the men they want, and get them to not only buy them dinner, but marry them, and support their children. It’s actually nature’s way, and I for one, love it.

There I said it. I enjoy being a girl. I dare you, Feminists. Try coming for my panties.


The Irony of Hillary’s “What’s the Diff?” Comment-Show Notes, The Teri O’Brien Show, 1-27-13

Thanks to our guests, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, and Leslie Eastman, publisher of the bog Temple of Mut, contributor to Legal Insurrection and producer/co-host of Canto Talk.


While both Democrats and Republicans slobber all over Hillary Clinton when she finally appears before Congress to try to explain what happened when 4 Americans were murdered in Benghazi on 9/11/12, an objective review demonstrates that the Obama foreign policy of “leading from behind” is a disaster. Ted Koppel, Bob Woodward and John McCain agree on that. Unless we’re counting frequent flyer miles, isn’t Hillary a huge failure? Except for that “beautiful voice” mentioned by Chris Matthews, of course. What about the obvious irony of Hillary Clinton, a woman who cut her political teeth by pursuing a sitting president for lying, now saying that it doesn’t matter if a president lies?

Barack Hussein Obama, Neville Chamberlain, Jr.

2nd Amendment update: Diane Feinstein calls the NRA “venal,” as in “corrupt” and “dishonest.” They actually have the audacity–I hope that you are sitting down–to train children how to safely use guns!!!!

Pat Robertson says “awful looking women” are responsible for problems in marriage.

Seven Reasons Why Women-in-Combat Diversity Will Degrade Standards – News & Commentary – Center for Military Readiness

» Missouri bill demands parents report gun ownership to public schools » News — GOPUSA

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Iran sentences American pastor Saeed Abedini to 8 years in prison | Fox News

» Death By Regulation, California Style – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion


A Week in Bizarro World-Today on The Teri O’Brien Show

This week was one of bizarre spectacles, over and above the 2nd inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, praise be his name. That event featured Richard Blanco’s poem “One Today.” “My face your face” is part I remember. Seriously? “My ass, your ass,” I thought. Of course, I’m probably just a peasant who doesn’t appreciate great art from a man who is both Latino and an open homosexual, and therefore, above criticism.  Then the great speech by the One himself. I didn’t notice. Did they hand out the little red books to the assembled cadres there or is Organizing for Action going to send those out using their tax-deductible contributions?

In other bizarro world events, consider the following:

  1. After making sure that anyone who might challenge her narrative had laid their cards on the table before she went on the record, Sec. of State, Hillary “What Difference Does it Make?” Clinton finally recovered from her vapors and appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to tell her story about the murder of four Americans in Benghazi. Libya on September 11, 2012. Her acolytes in the Lame Stream Media praised both her spunky pushback against the Republican dolts who dared to pose serious questions, and her tearful recalling of her greeting flag-draped coffins at Andrews Air Force Base. Missing from their slobbering reports was any mention of the glaring irony of a woman who cut her teeth in the Watergate investigation, pursuing dishonesty in the Nixon administration, raising her voice to proclaim that such dishonesty should make no difference. Nor did they mention the ridiculous performance by her former Democrats, who agreed that it’s time to “move on” from the Obama administration’s many shifting stories about four dead Americans, but who wanted hearings on the Bush administration’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq, a decision, for which, just sayin’, Mrs. Clinton voted “yea,” a fact that they also failed to mention. Also missing was any mention of her vow to pursue to ends of the earth the heinous film maker who caused all this trouble in the first place, except her really didn’t, and anyway, it’s time to move on.
  2. Meanwhile, a U.S. Senator who at one time had her own concealed carry permit because of fears for her own safety, presented her plan to disarm her fellow Americans. In another irony, she and her fellow gun-grabbers bleat incessantly about the phony “gun show loophole,” while presenting their very own gun show, a presser which was even opened with a prayer, an apparent loophole of their own. Did Barry Lynn’s beeper go off? Is the ACLU preparing a lawsuit? What happened to their precious “separation of church and state?”

Of course, if any of these people appreciated irony, they would take Speaker Newt Gingrich up on his proposal that we hold gun control hearings in Chicago, which just happens to have both the strictest gun control laws in the country and three times the murder rate of New York City, and double that of Los Angeles. How can that be? There’s a real head scratcher.

Lame duck Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta dropped a bomb while going out the door, lifting the ban on women surviving directly in combat, a decision no doubt calculated by the One’s administration to be less politically radioactive if done by someone who is leaving Washington to return to his walnuts in California. With sequestration looming, three more Americans killed in Algeria in the aftermath of the “Arab spring,” and al Qaeda clearly not decimated, but on the march, is this hat tip to political correctness, another shiny object that they hope will distract us from their disastrous foreign policy? What will be the impact on our military? We’ll get the 411 from our guest Elaine Donnelly, of the Center for Military Readiness.

Also joining us will be Leslie Eastman, contributor to the terrific blog, Legal Insurrection and member of the San Diego Tea Party. We’ll get her take on what the GOP needs to do to get its mojo back, and time permitting, ask her her opinion of Pat Robertson’s latest “there he goes again.” You didn’t hear about that? Don’t miss it!

Tune in today for the rest of the story.


Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.