Left’s Policy on Guns & Mental Health Turns on a Stiletto

Up until quite recently the official policy on the left was to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. A CNN propagandist wrote, “If there’s anything both sides of America’s heated and polarizing gun debate may agree on, it’s the need to keep firearms out of the hands of people with serious mental illness.”

The gun control group “Before It Starts” asked petition signers to, “Support stricter gun control by giving law enforcement and mental health professionals the obligation for independent mental health screening for gun permits…It’s not the gun, but the people who are permitted to use them.”

And New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo neatly summed up the left’s former argument when he declared, “People who have mental health issues should not have guns.”

Bradley Manning: Posterboy (girl) for damage trannies do in the military.

So why is the left now demanding the mentally ill have access to the most dangerous weapons in the US arsenal while still in the grip of their psychosis?

I don’t want a man who thinks he’s Napoleon Bonaparte cruising in a boomer beneath the polar ice cap any more than I want a man who thinks he’s a woman sitting in a Montana missile silo.

GI Joe and GI Jane are different people, not different facets of the same person.

Normally the left assures a gullible public that it has science coming out of its ears, but in the case of “transgender” individuals they are going to let delusion set the agenda. And make no mistake — these poor, confused people are seriously deluded and mentally ill.

A 2016 Johns Hopkins Study points out the obvious: “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”

The science, to borrow a term, is “settled.” The American College of Pediatricians holds, “Humans are male and female, biologically. Science is straightforward about this: a person’s DNA either has two X chromosomes or one X and one Y…Scientifically, human sexuality is ‘binary by design’ with the aim of reproduction. Disorders of sex development (DSDs) are “rightly recognized as disorders,” and those who suffer from them ‘do not constitute a third sex.’”

A person’s sex is coded into every individual cell in the body at the chromosomal level. Believing otherwise doesn’t even qualify as superstition. It’s just nuts.

Decisions regarding gender aren’t a range of options anymore than Bulimia is a practical alternative to a balanced diet. These individuals need serious, sustained psychiatric help, not induction papers.

Trump’s ban on these unhappy sufferers serving in any capacity in the military is sensible, scientific policy.

If they had their way where the PC commissars of the left would draw the line? Would trannies be judged on a delusion spectrum? If a black man thinks he’s a black woman he’s (she’s) good to go, but if he starts thinking he’s also Michelle Obama it’s discharge time?

The basic absurdity and consequent moral erosion of the rank–and–file military that would be caused by mainstreaming the gender–confused is evidently not a problem for cultural Marxists. The command staff is ordered to pretend these femen are perfectly normal, aside from their fundamental rejection of reality, and troops are to obey their orders as if they came from a normal person.

Only they aren’t normal. Bi–gender individuals come with a host of pre–existing conditions that are a result of living a lie. The Johns Hopkins study: “Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.”

That’s a comforting thought when one considers the firepower available to members of the US military.

Columnist Matt Barber asks, “If your daughter “identified” as a fat person…but, in reality, suffered from anorexia – would you affirm her ‘fatness’ and get her liposuction?”

No you’d get her mental help, but not in the Pentagon.

Up until Trump’s tweet, they were funding body vandalism with tax dollars, as disturbed femen demanded “gender reassignment surgery.” But why single reassignment surgery for special treatment? Wouldn’t a woman who thought she was Barbie trapped in Olive Oil’s body qualify for breast enhancement surgery on the tax dime?

If the left wants to conduct its insane social experiments in the Peace Corps it can be my guest, but taxpayers should completely reject gender experimentation in the Marine Corps.

Any general or civilian Pentagon official that thinks otherwise isn’t fit to serve either.

Advertisements

2016 “Spendy” Award Winner Announced!

It’s time to announce the 2016 “Spendy” award, bestowed upon the federal agency with the most extensive record of incompetence and contempt for the taxpayer. Bonus points are awarded to agencies performing a function completely absent from the Constitution and better left to the private sector.

100-bill-toilet-paperSpendy winners are characterized by cabinet secretaries who condescend to attend congressional hearings, where hours are spent detailing the mismanagement, waste, theft, and general uselessness found in their kingdom. After which the secretary looks the committee chairman straight in the eye and blames all his troubles on Russian hackers.

Who was in the running this year? Well, we had last year’s winner the US Dept. of Agriculture and the runner–up Veterans Administration, along with perennial contender, the US Patent & Trademark Office.

Then there was the Pentagon, which is always in a class of its own.

So how did I pick a winner among these unworthies and who was it? You know the drill. Click on the link below and be whisked to my Newsmax Insider column where all will be revealed.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/congress-pentagon-usda-va/2016/12/29/id/766070/

 

Pentagon Remains a Quart Low on Integrity

The biggest mistake the Germans made in World War II wasn’t the invasion of Russia. It was failing to line the beaches on D–Day with Members of Congress. Evidently these worthies are such fierce antagonists that installing a few Barbara Comstocks or Chuck Schumers in each pillbox would have meant a devastating repulse for the Allied invasion.

After that crushing setback the only hope for the Allies would have been to send GIs over as “undocumented immigrants” and hope Berlin wouldn’t notice.

defense_guide-to-cutting-waste-spendingThe news on the potency of politicians with regard to the Pentagon is deep in a Washington Post story on waste. Pentagon officials commissioned a study and when the researchers found $125 billion being spent on superfluous bureaucrats they buried the report.

The scenario was a little like Rocky I. The Defense Business Board, composed of experienced corporate executives and management consultants, was supposed to find chump change–sized waste that could be easily eliminated earning the Pentagon high praise and bonuses.

But like Rocky Balboa, the committee didn’t know they were a palooka. It discovered the Pentagon spends “almost a quarter of its [yearly] $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management.”

Compare that with overhead spending in the private sector where Alix Partners analyzed over 1,900 public and private companies with revenues over $500 million. Overhead as a percentage of sales varied between 14.6 and 15.2 percent, a bit over half what the Pentagon spends. The numbers are even worse for the Pentagon, because many private sector overhead employees are instrumental in producing revenue.

Whereas in the Pentagon, revenue just rolls in like the tide and the bureaucracy wastes it.

So what happened to the recommendations from the study? How does the Pentagon compare with private sector staffing? How much do the generals in charge of firing money into the air know about total Pentagon spending?

All will be revealed when you click on the link below, which will whisk you to the rest of my Newsmax.com column.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/pentagon-government-waste-department-of-defense/2016/12/09/id/763199/

 

Obama’s Unilateral Surrender Foreign Policy

Is-the-China-Regime-Hacking-or-Just-Monitoring-their-Investment-Epoch-TimesIt’s not always necessary for a nation to wave the white flag for its enemies to know it has surrendered. Sometimes a leak from an administration official will do just fine without requiring all the logistics of a formal surrender ceremony.

The Washington Post lays the latest Obama capitulation out in detail: “Months after the discovery of a massive breach of U.S. government personnel records, the Obama administration has decided against publicly blaming China for the intrusion in part out of reluctance to reveal the evidence that American investigators have assembled…

The administration also appears to have refrained from any direct retaliation against China or attempt to use cyber-measures to corrupt or destroy the stockpile of sensitive data stolen from the Office of Personnel Management.”

Contrast that feeble hand–wringing with the nation’s last reaction to a massive attack on the homeland originating from across the Pacific. Only four months after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Doolittle Raid returned the favor by bombing Tokyo.

Compare that with an Obama administration that can’t even be bothered to attempt corrupting the vital information stolen during the data breach. Even the French tried to spike the guns before they ran.

The much–touted Pentagon “pivot” to Asia has turned into just another Obama foreign policy plié.

This leak offers remarkable insight into the administration, and its media enablers, mindset. The reluctance to name China because of “concern that making a public case…could require exposing details of the United States’ own espionage and cyberspace capabilities.”

This is what happens when people who have spent decades attempting to destroy the credibility of Republican administrations finally get their hands on the levers of power. Since government no longer enjoys a default assumption of legitimacy — thanks in large part to their efforts — the administration can’t simply state that China was behind the attack and expect to be believed. The naysay chorus and the media will reflexively take the opposite side in the controversy, which happens to be China’s.

Self–induced public paralysis results and government legitimacy degrades even further.

In comparison, an administration that has not lied its way into disrepute, doesn’t find it necessary to drop its drawers to prove the veracity of a statement.

Another factor contributing to Obama constipation is his viewpoint regarding the nation: A vigorous response would imply the US is right in this matter and China was the aggressor and in the wrong. Unfortunately we’re vapor–locked by administration moral equivalizers contending, “nations typically do not impose sanctions as penalties for political espionage.”

Since when is a cyber attack that vacuumed up personal records of 22 million current and past federal employees “political espionage?” With this data it’s easier for China to identify potential spying recruits, easier for China to put pressure on critical government employees and easier for Chinese counter–intelligence to identify our spies.

It’s not like Peking downloaded the Democratic National Committee’s donor files or opposition research database. That would be political espionage. This cyber attack was conducted according to von Clausewitz’ maxim: “War is the continuation of politics by other means.”

Obama’s mountain of inertia is a real morale builder for the federal employees he purports to value. During the Bush administration an over–eager and under–skilled Chinese pilot collided with one of our surveillance planes in international airspace. Our damaged EP–3 had to make an emergency landing on Hainan Island.

The dead pilot was clearly in the wrong, but China accused our crew of ramming his fighter plane. It then seized our crew and held it hostage until China extorted a statement from the US. That’s how a nation tells its employees and the rest of the world the government has their back.

Meanwhile the Obama administration is dithering over whether to offer victims of Chinese identity theft six months or a year of free LifeLock monitoring. As the Pentagon orders military recruiters to consider armed citizens who have volunteered to guard recruitment offices a “security threat.”

Yet the administration is strangely solicitous of private sector employees. When Sony Pictures’ computer network was hacked “Obama quickly blamed Pyongyang and stepped up sanctions on the regime.”

The fact is the Chinese regard Obama’s “nuanced” foreign policy as pathetic nancy–boy pleading that can be ignored without cost. That’s why China is seizing isolated coral reefs in disputed Pacific territory and building unsinkable aircraft carriers. And broadcasting a documentary showing a training exercise where the People’s Liberation Army storms a replica of the president of Taiwan’s office.

Our only hope for curbing an aggressive China rests on Princess Cruise Line. If a PLA naval vessel boards a cruise ship or otherwise impedes freedom of navigation, maybe the White House will finally be motivated to defend US interests.

Does This Ballistic Vest Make Me Look Fat?

The Pentagon is experimenting with a variety of female ballistic armor designs.

The Pentagon is experimenting with a variety of female ballistic armor designs.

Developments on the women–in–combat front are cause for concern, even for leftists that have made cognitive dissonance a way of life, because the women don’t seem to be holding up their end of the ideological bargain.

If Ranger Sgt. Rosie Riveter is going to be leaping out of aircraft and putting paid to ISIS misogynists — either by a well–placed burst from her rifle or silently dispatching him with the Camel Clutch (first made famous by the Iron Shiek) — it would be a big help if she’d quit complaining about her shoes.

I was under the impression that if a shoe didn’t hurt a female wasn’t interested in wearing it, but evidently that’s not the case. Females deployed in Afghanistan are complaining they lack access to combat boots designed especially for them.

This is where the dissonance really bites.

Feminists believe “gender” is a social construct and men and women are interchangeable. Lefty women, secure in Washington think tanks, contend that denying other women the opportunity to be killed on the front line is patriarchal discrimination.

Meanwhile women actually in the Army are hoping for something a little more strappy with a semi–open toe.

Even in branches of the service that have essentially struck their colors, women aren’t happy about equality. The Washington Times quotes a middie (maybe widdie?) at the Naval Academy unhappy that the unisex unis “make women look like men.”

Navy Sec. Ray Mabus — no doubt wondering if women are ever happy — replied there are “skirt options on a bunch of women uniforms,” which didn’t earn him any points either.

The idea behind uniforms is the clothing exhibits, here’s that word again, uniformity. If everyone is accessorizing their look depending on circumstances you no longer have a military, you have a pride parade.

Although women’s slacks have a certain amount of variety when it comes to placement, for men zippers need to be in the front. That goes for the rest of the clothing designs. Uniforms should only differ by size with the exception of undershirts, ballistic vests and maxi–pads. One relaxed–fit BDU design should work for both sexes.

Rep. Niki Tsongas (D–Dr. Scholls) disagrees. The WT reports she is sponsoring a bill that will require the Pentagon to “devise a strategy to ensure that women are outfitted with the best combat footwear possible.”

That would seem to fly in the face of arguments from the women–as–cannon–fodder movement that women are just as capable as men. If that fanciful contention were true, then the only difference in the shoes should be size.

But it’s not true. The WT quotes a British study that found women suffer seven times the rate musculoskeletal injuries found in men and ten times the number of hip and pelvic fractures. And those figures don’t include statistics on pregnancy that, Bruce Jenner aside, don’t affect male combat trainees.

The Marines have had a great deal of trouble finding a few good women. So far the Infantry Officer Course remains undefeated. Recruiters scoured the Corps looking for 100 women eager for the chance to die in the mud and could only persuade 29 to give it a shot. Of those 29 every woman failed the course.

The Army, seven times larger than the Marines, found 113 women to try the Ranger Training Assessment Course. Out of the 113 women, 20 passed and began Ranger training. Out of those 20 every woman failed the course.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who knows all about photons and nothing about females, is eagerly awaiting the first women volunteers for SEAL training, scheduled to begin after Sec. Mabus determines the ideal length for a neoprene skirt.

Frankly if I were Sec. of Defense it would concern me that the only militaries wholeheartedly in favor of the US integrating women into frontline combat units belong to the enemy. As his increasingly disruptive and damaging search for Wonder Woman continues, maybe Carter should contact videogame manufacturers.

They seem to have no shortage of heroic women with large busts that are ready, willing and able to kick some behind, even if they are entirely imaginary.

Let a Smile Be Your Ballistic Vest

US Army’s everyone–wins–a–beret leadership continues to be confounded by poor morale in the ranks. They don’t understand why their efforts to accommodate malcontents, losers and the mentally ill are undermining the confidence of majority of the troops.

Don’t the grunts realize that with this administration if you’re in the Pentagon and want a promotion you have to put “diversity” and “inclusion” far ahead of unit cohesion?

If they could only find a way to reduce the amount of testosterone in the ranks, short of adding potassium nitrate to the macaroni! In the meantime, the Army has wasted almost $300 million on a morale–boosting indoctrination program that doesn’t work.

Expensive details in my Newsmax column at:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/Homeland-Security/2015/05/01/id/642030/

Pentagon Buys a $400 Football

We’ve been treated to months of dire speculation and military hand–wringing regarding the impact of the sequestration’s budget cuts on military readiness and how it leaves the U.S. vulnerable. A private business with declining revenues and a bleak future would cut the ad sponsorship of football bowls and spend the money on higher priorities. The executives could watch the game on TV.

In the government the football sponsorship budget is protected so the brass can be seen on TV.

Even if money wasn’t tight the spending makes no sense because the military is downsizing. IBM doesn’t run recruitment ads when it’s laying off part of the workforce. It’s bad for morale among survivors and an insult to those looking for work.
Evidently the Pentagon is simply oblivious or could care less.

Complete details in this week’s Newsmax column at:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/Military-Spending-NFL-Pentagon-Taxpayers/2015/01/16/id/619034/

New ISIS Definition: Idiotic Spending Increases Substantially

Obama doesn’t like to use our military to advance the interests of the United States, but when Saudi Arabia needs a Foreign Legion, he’s happy to loan the Pentagon. If ISIS is an existential threat, then why don’t we see Saudi and Egyptian boots–on–the–ground?

The chopping block is much closer to Cairo and Riyadh than Washington, DC.

Sure ISIS has murdered a couple of journalists, but Putin’s minions in the Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner and Obama didn’t so much as send a bullet. Of course they didn’t post a YouTube video of the missile launch and that’s probably the difference.

The rest of the story is here:

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/Spending-ISIS-Obama-weapons/2014/09/26/id/597091/

Militia Nightmares

It’s no wonder the left is so opposed to private ownership of guns and the concept of a “well–regulated militia.” After watching what the ragtag ISIS militia has accomplished in Iraq, no doubt they fear adding American know–how to a domestic group would be a real threat to future government nannytarians.

Iraq is also giving conservatives indigestion, but for another reason. After spending nine years and $25 billion to train, equip and presumably motivate Iraqi security forces; we are greeted with the spectacle of an Iraqi army that vastly outnumbers ISIS — which looks more like outtakes from The Road Warrior, than an organized military unit — disappearing like Obama Administration email the first time they hear an ISIS round whistle past their ear.

A Reuters reporter managed to interview an Iraqi soldier as he was feverishly changing into civvies and the soon–to–be civilian complained, “We can’t beat them. We can’t. They are well trained in street fighting and we’re not. We need a whole army to drive them out of Mosul.” Which is exactly what US taxpayers thought they were getting for their $25 billion, but evidently not.

Taxpayers would have gotten more bang for their buck if Uncle Sam had hired a biker gang and called it the Iraqi army. And speaking of bang for bucks, if you follow the news it appears the Pentagon was able to equip two armies for the price of one.

Initially, the Iraqi Army was issued weapons. The Iraqis and their hardware looked smart on the parade ground and during reviews for visiting US brass. Later — after learning that fighting ISIS was significantly more challenging than extorting money from businessmen and motorists — Iraqi troops threw down the weapons to improve their time in the 40 as they ran from combat. Whereupon army #2, the ISIS insurgents, picked them up. And are evidently making much better use of the gently–used firepower.

And now Obama, immune to learning from experience, wants to double down by spending $500 million to train and arm Syrian rebels, evidently forgetting Syria is where ISIS originated.

This is an outcome we’ve seen before. Uncle Sam is the Norm Van Brocklin of military trainers. We can do the fighting ourselves, and like Norm earn a spot in the Hall of Fame, but we are unable to coach anyone else to do it.

During our time in Iraq American taxpayers spent $90 billion on a variety of infrastructure and military projects. The bulk of the spending, some 75 percent, was paid for and supervised by the Pentagon after we routed Saddam’s army in a lightning campaign. (Could that have been a hint regarding the reliability of Iraqi troops that Pentagon trainers missed?)

The spending was completely out of proportion to the economy that received it. In 2003, the year we invaded, the GDP was only $29 billion. This means the approximately $10 billion–a–year the US pumped into the economy added almost a third to pre–war GDP and was a recipe for inflation and waste.

And that’s pretty much what we got. With no central coordination by either the State Department or the Pentagon, spending fell prey to bright–idea–ism. Some paper–pusher had a brainstorm or fell for the pitch of a traveling aid organization and the project began. Spending was plagued by overcharging, fraud, inefficiency and simple incompetence. And the supremely galling fact is in many instances the supposed beneficiaries didn’t want the power plant, school, prison, factory or Mercedes. (Well, maybe the Mercedes.)

The Army Times reported, “In too many cases…U.S. officials did not consult with Iraqis closely or deeply enough to determine what reconstruction projects were really needed or, in some cases, wanted. As a result, Iraqis took limited interest in the work, often walking away from half-finished programs, refusing to pay their share, or failing to maintain completed projects once they were handed over.

So if they walk away from a free power plant, why should we be surprised when they run away from a fight?

One program that was temporarily successful was Rent–an–Iraqi. According to CSMonitor.com during the second battle of Fallujah Marines deployed “a powerful weapon – money – to drive a wedge between the insurgents and the people.” The money went for “immediate needs and to settle disputes.” Here that’s bribing, but in Iraq it’s ‘winning hearts and minds.’ This makes the US military unique in history as the only victors that pay Danegeld to the defeated.

But as bad as this news is for taxpayers, it is not the worst. Iraq is only the second most expensive nation–building project in our history. Afghanistan is the largest and President Obama is planning to leave behind a $100 billion token of our esteem when he withdraws all troops in 2016.

Eros and Estrogen on the Front Line

Do women–in–combat cheerleaders realize Lt. Ripley was only a movie?

Do women–in–combat cheerleaders realize Lt. Ripley was only a movie?

This December it will be 42 years since the last male was drafted into combat, but it looks like the fun is just starting for women. Not that they will be going to the post office to register anytime soon. Instead woman already in the military — who thought they were being all they can be by typing 130 WPM or checking PowerPoint presentations for typos — will find themselves assigned to combat arms to meet a quota designed by a wide–load Member of Congress whose most strenuous activity is the Pilates class she makes once a month.

Still, they won’t be seeing the elephant overnight. Right now only a handful of the 203,000 women currently in the military can pass the physical for combat infantry or Marines. When faced with the reality that women can’t pass the test, Congress and Pentagon paper–pushers will change the test until they can pass.

(For details see the shifting metrics that define Obamacare. Currently the administration has ruled that if a patient is able to get an appointment with the foreign–born medical professional she’s stuck with in the new, severely limited health care network — and the doctor doesn’t recommend bleeding as a cure — the program is a success!)

Unfortunately, when you lower standards by definition you get substandard material. This is not to say women as a group are substandard. I’m married to one that’s outstanding, but even in her twenties she wasn’t ready for combat.

The Marine Corps, which I was counting on to maintain standards, is showing signs of going wobbly. CNS News reports the Corps has delayed a requirement that female Marines do a minimum of three pull–ups. The postponement came after 55 percent of females in boot camp couldn’t meet the standard. By comparison, only 1 percent of the males failed.

This test is important for the future of our military’s combat effectiveness because upper body strength is vital both in combat and on the front line where soldiers carry ammunition, lift the wounded, manhandle sandbags and tote weapons.

I suppose we could allow women to push a shopping cart into combat or issue ‘spinner’ luggage. But that won’t work either because after she fills the bag with shoes there won’t be any room for equipment.

The deadline for degrading the combat arm is 2016 and as the date approaches, and the lack of qualified women becomes obvious enough for even a Democrat to see, that’s when the pressure to change the test will be the most severe.

Pentagon mouthpieces may continue to reassure an anxious public that physical standards won’t be lowered to pass females into the combat arm, but recruiters also telling female recruits they can keep their doctor.

What’s really strange in all this is the left’s inability to maintain a consistent story line. On one hand every female recruit is a potential Lt. Ellen Ripley. On the other, current female troops are already engaged in hand–to–hand combat with members of the opposite sex and they’re losing. The female that’s ready to put her life on the line in defense of her country is evidently incapacitated by a pat on the behind.

The Pentagon recently released the results of a survey that showed 6 percent of the women in the military (a total of 12,000) were victims of unwanted sexual contact. This covers everything from rape to following too closely in the chow line. (Maybe the left wants women issued rifles so they can defend themselves when they’re on the receiving end of sexual friendly fire.)

But as The Washington Times Rowan Scarborough has pointed out the Pentagon’s results are wildly out of step with overall US statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey showed that in contrast to the Pentagon’s 6 percent, only “one-fourth of a percent of women ages 18 to 34 had suffered such abuse in 2010. Preliminary numbers for 2012 show a rate of just over four-tenths of a percent.”

The difference in the numbers reflects methodology. The Pentagon survey, so beloved by sexual harassment axe grinders, used email for results. The Bureau survey used 146,570 in–person interviews and follow–up telephone sessions. In–person and telephone interviews are the gold standard of survey research. By comparison if cheap email surveys were accurate, politicians would use them in their campaigns, but they don’t.

The Pentagon survey even manages to have a larger total of victims than the total of completed surveys. One item that was particularly interesting is the 14,000 men that claimed they were victims of sexual assault, which means some men were evidently telling in spite of official policy not to ask.

Of course inaccurate results are no obstacle for leftist social engineers if the numbers can be used to advance an agenda. The Obama administration likes to depict our fighting arms as havens for macho cavemen that need to be curbed. One gets the feeling they are shocked the military, of all places, attracts men with a high testosterone count.

The Soviet Red Army had political commissars assigned to every unit, maybe the Pentagon plans on assigning sexual commissars to tell soldiers how much fraternizing is allowed with your battle buddy. I’m thinking commissars will prove invaluable during those unfortunate times when females are captured by the enemy and the captors are agonizing over the knotty moral question of whether a simple rape or the more inclusive gang rape is allowed.

Leftist social engineers never account for reality in their planning. The enemies we are most likely to face don’t have women in combat slots and they aren’t making the barracks safe for lavender. The fact that no successful military in history has put women in combat has escaped Pentagon HR planners completely. Brunhilde, and Ripley for that matter, were only a myth.

When conflict occurs armies aren’t matched according to brackets or seeds. If that were the case we could volunteer to fight the Isle of Lesbos and leave it at that. The obvious solution for sexual assault in the military is fewer females in close proximity to males or at least a more accurate survey, but with this administration neither is likely to happen.