Do you care about our military? Do you care about our nation’s ability to defend itself? Then read this.
A record 16 out of 100 Navy women are reassigned from ships to shore duty due to pregnancy, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.
That number is up 2 percent from 2015, representing hundreds more who have to cut their deployments short, taxing both their unit’s manpower, military budgets and combat readiness. Further, such increases cast a shadow over the lofty gender integration goals set by former President Barack Obama.
Overall, women unexpectedly leave their stations on Navy ships as much as 50% more frequently to return to land duty, according to documents obtained from the Navy. The statistics were compiled by the Navy Personnel Command at the request of TheDCNF, covering the period from January 2015 to September 2016. (continued here)
Men and women are different. Each sex is equal before the law, and the Bible says God loves both men and women. Nevertheless, men and women have different roles. Men do some things better than women, and women do some things better than men. A man cannot get pregnant. A woman has no business trying to be a soldier. Can women perform the functions of a soldier? In theory? Yes. In practice? No. Pregnant soldiers don’t make good soldiers.
1. WEAR. Certified maternity uniforms are mandatory for all pregnant women in the Navy when a uniform is prescribed, and regular uniforms no longer fit. Personnel are expected to wear regular uniforms upon return from convalescent leave, however, commanding officers may approve the wear of maternity uniforms up to six months from the date of delivery based on medical officer diagnosis/recommendation.
Are we going to send pregnant women into combat? Of course not! Then what is the point of pretending it makes any sense to put women in combat units?
Think I am biased? Fine. Check out what some women think of the idea of women in the military. Click on the following:
This is sort of a reblog. ColorStorm has a somewhat lighthearted post, Thought for the day, that raised a topic I thought worthy further exploration.
This cracks me up. Really busts my buttons.
People who do not believe one word of scripture, who pretend to lecture they who believe every word of it, as if the unbelievers are PhD’s in telling believers they are doing Christianity all wrong. Yikes.
They who know nothing of God’s laws, statutes, ordinances, covenants, precepts, edicts, judgments, commands, and most importantly grace………..sit in judgment of believers as if we are some type of monkey who does not know how to turn a leaf on a book. Strange I tell ya.
And I got news for you. The so-called doctors of the law……..to whom, and through whom the law was given, were a few doughnuts short in the box of understanding WHY the law was given in the first place.
Imagine a young punk who just learned the alphabet………now lecturing an English professor on the improper use of ending a sentence in a preposition. Ouch kid. You may want to put a few years of learning and context in your life before you strut your foolishness. (continued here)
In response to someone who does not believe in Christianity, I commented on the post. That commenter dragged “tolerance” into the discussion.
Here is the bulk of my comment.
Toleration is not the subject of this post. Before I quit my apostate ways and decided I had made a dumb mistake, I became a Conservative. When I took the time to listen to the Democrat Liberal news media, I often found myself torn between grimacing in disgust and laughter. For some reason the talking heads always felt more qualified than Conservatives to tell Conservatives what to do. If only Conservatives would do such and such they would be much better Conservatives. It’s silly! Any Conservative dumb enough to go to Democrat Liberals for advice is not a Conservative; he or she is a Democrat Liberal (or a RINO).
Similarly, no Christian in his right mind is going to go to an unbeliever WHO HAS REJECTED Christianity for advice on how to be a Christian. Because that person is not a Christian, he or she will not be filled with the Holy Spirit. That person has rejected Jesus and the Holy Spirit. So what would be the point? Without God’s help, we cannot understand. Until we ask for understanding in Jesus’ name, we cannot understand. We cannot be wise in the way that the Bible speaks of wisdom.
Are there people who have not heard of Jesus or read the Bible who are wise? Yes. Are some Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and so forth wise? Are they capable of giving good advice? Yes and Yes. Will Jesus save some people who are not Christians? I think so. Jesus is God. People can know God without being Christians. Still, if one wants to be a Christian, it is best to go to someone who is a devout Christian with the gift of teaching. (from here)
When I was much younger, I earned a reputation as something of a know-it-all. If I had been a real know-it-all, I suppose I would have known better and kept my mouth shut, but I was full of myself and quite ready to give advice. After being ridiculed sufficiently, I reconsidered the matter. I decided to blog anonymously on the Internet. I also observed that the people that other people go to for advice wait to be asked.
The respect that comes with expertise requires study and patience. If we yearn to teach, we have to build the expertise. If we yearn to teach, we have to wait for people to recognize our expertise and ask to partake of it.
All will not recognize our expertise. All will not ask. If you wanted to be a Buddhist, would you go to a Catholic priest for instruction? If you wanted to be a physical therapist, would you go to a school that teaches people how to be a chiropractor. For better or worse, we seek the gifts we value from the people we respect.
Toleration is just learning to accept the fact that others have the right to make their own choices. We accept what is a lesser evil than tyranny. What is tyranny? We tyrannize our fellows when we arrogantly force them to accept our choices.
“social system based on collective ownership,” 1843, from French communisme (c. 1840) from commun (Old French comun; see common (adj.)) + -isme (see -ism). Originally a theory of society; as name of a political system, 1850, a translation of German Kommunismus (itself from French), in Marx and Engels’ “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Compare communist. In some cases in early and mid-20c., a term of abuse implying anti-social criminality without regard to political theory.
Each [i.e. socialism, communism, anarchism] stands for a state of things, or a striving after it, that differs much from that which we know; & for many of us, especially those who are comfortably at home in the world as it is, they have consequently come to be the positive, comparative, & superlative, distinguished not in kind but in degree only, of the terms of abuse applicable to those who would disturb our peace. [Fowler]
Thanks to all these mushy isms, it is a little difficult to speak of the difference between a collective and a community. Nevertheless, people form collectives deliberately for a specific purpose. Whereas people form communities by living together and forming strong ties with each other.
Therefore, only when we speak of a community does it make sense to apply this verse.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
When we form charitable organizations, because there is a personal relationship it makes sense to provide charity at the community level. Unfortunately, our political leaders have created new and improved charities. They have used the state, especially that great collective we call the Federal Government, to give away our tax dollars using expensive health, education, and welfare programs. Hence we have politicians spending other people’s money on people they don’t even know. The result has been phenomenal fraud, waste and abuse.
Ideally, because the personal relationship between those who give and those who receive charity is so important (It is about love, after all.), charity should only be the function of local, private organizations. Only when we have no other alternative should we involve government, and that should be local government. Only when we have no other alternative should we involve either the state or the Federal Government.
What is the big issue of the moment in Washington DC? It is Obamacare. What is Obamacare? It is about whether the average American will be able to make his or her health choices without overriding interference from nameless bureaucrats. It about disconnecting the desires of people who pay the bills from the people who provide health care services. It is about giving politicians power just because they want it. It about turning our whole healthcare system into a wasteful and inefficient government-run charity rife with fraud, waste, and abuse.
Please let your senators and congressman know you want Obamacare repealed. You want them to do the same thing they did when they knew Obama would veto their repeal bill. Then you want them to replace Obamacare with laws that allow us to use our own money to make our own decisions. Do we really need their help to provide charity for our neighbors, the people in our communities. No. Not if we actually care about each other. If we don’t, there is nothing they can do anyway. If we don’t care, they won’t either.
What is the problem of proving voter fraud? We have to have people running our voting systems who are willing to look for it.
Consider the irony. What’s the big news? Democrats, without any evidence, claim Russia fixed the presidential election. Yet Democrats are unwilling to: ensure that only citizens can register to vote, clean up the voter registration rolls, or require proof of identity when people vote. No one except the Russians are trying to cheat in our elections?
What are Democrats doing to our voter registration and vote tallying systems? They are working to eliminate any effort to verify people vote honestly. Instead the are diligently working to make it as easy and as convenient as possible to register and to vote. How do we know someone is who they say they are when they register to vote? Who cares? Isn’t everyone honest? Are you who you say you are when you vote? Who cares? Isn’t everyone honest?
If we don’t even look for cheating, we will not find it. It is cinch the cheaters will not inform on themselves.
Is there evidence of fraud? Yes, but you won’t find much of it in the Modern Liberal news media. So you have to dig deeply for the evidence, but your can find examples.
Really, most of the evidence is in our local news. That’s why Delegate Rob Bell sent out this email in November 2016.
Still don’t believe in voter fraud?
In Alexandria, a campaign worker for a Democratic-aligned group was arrested and charged for registering fictitious voters.
In Newport News, a man received a voter registration at his address, but with a different name. He brought it to prosecutors, who identified 32 others cases where this may have happened.
In Harrisonburg, a canvasser working for a group organized by a local Democrat was caught after attempting to register 19 dead Virginians.
Honest elections should be a priority for everyone. But Mark Herring is still refusing to defend Virginia’s photo ID law in court. And Terry McAuliffe vetoed photo ID requirements for absentee ballotsand a second bill to help keep non-citizens off Virginia’s voter rolls. Democratic leaders are fighting our commonsense efforts to stop voter fraud in the first place.
After the last few weeks, not even Democrats can credibly argue that voter fraud doesn’t exist.
If you have evidence of voter fraud, be sure to report it to authorities. And as we try to move forward, we need your help. If you haven’t already, join the fight — sign the online petition by clicking here.
Delegate Rob Bell
Republican Candidate for Attorney General
What will you find easily find online when you google voter fraud evidence. To prevent a proper investigation, the largely Liberal News media is ridiculing reports of voter fraud. This behavior looks much like the Wizard in the “Wizard of Oz” telling Dorothy not to look behind the curtain. The only proper description for it is suspiciously weird. Why wouldn’t the news media love to see such an investigation? If nothing is found, then the president they hate looks bad. If something is found, it makes for fascinating news. They cannot lose — unless they care more about getting Democrats elected than what is good for the country.