President Obama sends his daughters off to war...

Beyond President Obama's advocacy for the continued slaughter of almost a million and a half unborn babies in our United States each year, his administration has now declared the weaker and fairer sex will no longer be protected from bearing arms as warriors in defense of their brothers, sons, and fathers.

It's not enough that President Obama's mother shed her blood to bring him to birth in a hospital. He now wants to be known as the President who freed her to shed her blood to protect him on a battlefield.

This is the condition of black manhood in our White House, today.

How may any war be considered "just" now that innocent civilians will be carried into harm's way in combatants' wombs? To establish accurate body counts, will the military give pregnancy tests or perform autopsies on our mothers and sisters who die in the line of duty?

Need anyone ask what the First Lady's thoughts are on this wickedness? From all appearances the President and First Lady are equally yoked.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

It is absolutely despicable...

No need to qualify the pathetic state of American manhood by noting it's the state of "black" manhood; Leon Panetta is about as fishbelly white as any of us, and he and the (lily-white) JCS are also among the castrati singing this revolting tune.

Dear Bert,

I would expect better of a black man than a white man, and thus my wording. If anyone understands the failure of manhood, it ought to be a black man raised to prominence and authority. So it's even worse that it was President Obama who forced this through.

Love,

How tragic that our nation is celebrating having our sisters and daughters being sent to war to die.

It is unfortunate that the administration doesn't understand that to treat our women like this isn't making them "equal" to men.. It is actually demeaning them, and demeaning men who are not in their place.

To have a woman do a man's job is demeaning to her. Yes, demeaning, to all those reading.. It doesn't benefit her by fulfilling a role that she was never intended to fulfill. (And vice versa with men).

When did our nation become so unwilling to let men do their jobs, and have women do it instead?

Why are we so willing to have our woman and daughter torn to pieces and shot up and then celebrating that as "women's rights?"

Our androgenous president is merely an Asherahist of the 21st century; if you've ever seen video of the dude throwing a baseball or bowling, you'd know at once why he'd rather have a woman--any woman--on the battlefield than have a man like his sorry self.  He and his wife are like the people in Jeremiah 44:15-28 who fulfilled their vows to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven; and failure to repent will lead to a similar result.

"The question you've got to ask yourself every single time you make a change like this is: Does it increase the combat effectiveness of the military?...I think the answer is no," Hunter said. (California Republican)

And such is the state of manhood in the Republican Party. No principle higher than pragmatism. No concern the weak beyond platitudes.

Has anyone heard if there are plans to make it mandatory for women to register with selective services?

>>mandatory for women to register

It will be a decade before that happens. It would be great if some Christian filed a suit based on sex-discrimination. Between a rock and a hard place they'd be.

Love,

Worth a read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedrummond/2012/10/16/marine-corps-women/

This was fairly recent. Being a Marine I heard much of the women going to the course when they first began, but then virtually nothing when they both dropped(one on the very first day). In like lions and out like lambs.

This decision is first and foremost not Biblical and is morally wrong. When thought about with common sense this is even more ridiculous. I'd like to ask Mr. Panetta some questions.

 Are women going to be integrated into male platoons or will they be in separate platoons from men? Neither option works. Thinking tactically, what enemy would rather attack a male platoon if given the option of attacking a female platoon? As an infantryman 10 times out of 10 I'd rather fight an opposing force that is physically weaker. If women are integrated with men in platoons, what about rape? What about that cute junior female Marine who never seems to get put on the hard working parties by her seniors? What about that female Marine who decides a month into deployment that she'd like to go home and gets pregnant?

On deployment we often live in austere environments. We went months without showers, for instance. We lived together, slept together, ate together-we literally did everything together. What happens when I'm sexually attracted to the Marine who is literally sleeping right next to me? Or is she going to get her own hooch while I share mine with 25 other guys? What happens when we get in a firefight and it is our entire squad's natural reaction to protect a female Marine over everyone else?(Hint: It would be disastrous)

I could go on and on for days. The Marine Corps likes to pride itself on the fact that it is the "Most elite fighting force in the world".. So if we truly are, then why do we need to change? What advantage do women bring to the table? Name one.

P.S.-At first we might just see women in combat units. As of right now in my battalion even the POGS(non infantrymen) have to all be male, I'm sure the first thing they will do is just allow women to serve in combat units like mine. But it's only a matter of time...

You can rest assured that there will be nary a critical peep about this new decision from our top conservative talk radio hosts and other high powered Republicans.  For years they have honored the "men and women" defending us.  Always makes me cringe.....  But in their case it's all about money and power (which is, of course, what's behind this disastrous decision in the first place).

Blessings,

Nancy

A former classmate of mine was one of the first women firefighters on Denver. At one point there was talk of her suing the department when they lowered standards to recruit other women. She was angry because she had passed under the old male-only standards. last I heard, she had risen to the rank of Captain. 

A gal I follow on Twitter had this response:

Sole concern: can you fireman-carry my wounded husband out of a firefight? If not, stay out of Combat Arms MOSs. Simple as that.

I have a few more concerns than that, but I take her point. 

what would you say are the key biblical passages addressing this topic?

Tim: got it, and agreed.  I was just thinking that by mentioning color, you can drag in all kinds of nonsense about perceived racism.

My other thoughts about this; Israel's experience with women in combat parallels the warnings of John Alberson (they can't afford such nonsense), and what sense does it make to put women into combat units when the rate of sexual assaults in the military is already about three times the national average? 

The prophet's mockery "your soldiers are women" comes to mind here.

Daniel,

thanks for the link

Flameproof jammies on...

I understand the point you are making and have my own reservations about opening at least many of the combat positions to women.

But it seems to me like many of the posters sound like women in the military will now be forced to take on new combat roles. Maybe I'm too naive, but:

  1. Women decide on their own whether to join the military; no one forces them to join up.
  2. Will women be required to select one of the new combat specialties now open to them?

If the answer to #2 is that if women voluntarily choose a combat specialty, this doesn't bother me nearly as much as if they were forced into a combat role, particularly because they joined a branch of the military of their volition.

Flameproof jammies off.

Flameproof jammies off.

If you don't have compassion for the women who are going to go in harm's way then have compassion for the men who will be under their command (almost no enlisted women will opt for combat, it will be nearly all officers).

Dear Sue,

A couple brief responses.

>>I understand the point you are making and have my own reservations about opening at least many of the combat positions to women.

I'm not opposed to many, but all. Did you read the paper study paper I posted on this? Really, that must be the starting point for any biblical discussion of this matter. In our evil day, every one of our opinions on sexuality has been corrupted by the Spirit of the Age and is entirely untrustworthy. We must start with Scripture and work our way down to the obscene culture we live in and among.

>>it seems to me like many of the posters sound like women in the military will now be forced to take on new combat roles.

There has never been any evil that, first granted as an option, doesn't quickly enslave. It would never do for President Obama to announce he's given an executive order for the Selective Service to begin registration of women as well as men. He'd have mutiny on his hands, even from liberal democrats. Evils go down easier incrementally. So who cares whether they're drafting our daughters right now, and whether those drafted daughters who are butch will have to serve as Marine grunts right now? Wickedness is predictable and those who can't see it are culpably naive.

>>if women voluntarily choose a combat specialty, this doesn't bother me nearly as much as if they were forced into a combat role...

Either way, it's evil. Read the report—all of it—and then come back and let's talk. I want you to read what the Scripture's and fathers in the faith have said about in past millenia. It's worth your time to sit at those fathers' feet.

Thanks for your good questions.

Love,

Read this and weep for us and for our children -

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682864-shell-kick-your-butt...

Blessings,

Nancy

Sue, there is first of all the Biblical argument that women are not intended to fill these roles, whether voluntarily or not, whether commissioned or enlisted. 

The second--since our pluralistic society won't always accept the authority of the Scriptures--is whether women are physically suited for this.  The Marines just answered this last October by allowing two hand-picked female lieutenants to attempt infantry training.  The results?

One washed out on day one, the other before three weeks were out, and this in a service that (thank God) does NOT have separate physical fitness requirements for men and women.  So to implement women in combat, the DOD will need to pretend that basic requirements for infantrymen in place since Roman times (20 mile hikes, packs half the soldier's weight, etc..) no longer need apply for women.

The result will be simple; instead of learning at home that they are not ready for combat, they and their platoons are going to learn this while under fire.  Body bags will be filled because our nation will not listen to either Scripture or simple evidence that women are, as the Scripture says, the weaker vessel.

And in other news, President Obama isn't quite sure he'd allow his son to play football.

Bert

A quick comment. All of the services, yes even in the USMC, have separate physical fitness requirements for men and women.

http://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-fitness-requiremen...

In fact, the USMC is currently discussing right now in terms of implementing pull-ups into the female version of the PFT (physical fitness test). Currently they simply have to hang on the bar for a certain amount of time. So, the change to pull ups for females hasnt come (yet).

I am in the Navy and I have been stationed at USMC bases for the last 4 years, and I have met many female marines who have weak upper bodies, and couldnt do a pull up to save their life. So, it is pretty obvious that they couldnt do the male PFT. (To be fair, there are some females that can do pull ups... It just isnt a requirement for the female PFT).

Other than that, the rest of your argument is fine.
Perhaps you meant that the infantry course doesnt have separate requirements. If this is actually what you meant, then this is true since those two women were the first ones.

But, it seems that you meant in general, not about the infantry course.
Anyway, it doesnt really detract away from your main points.

Again to be fair, the second woman that dropped out also dropped out with several males. But I stress again, your original philosophical points are still valid, (maybe some minor modifications could help tighten up your points based on the information that I gave you).. 

Chris

Christopher, I gladly accept the correction, though I would have dearly liked to believe that at least the Marines had not succumbed to the insanity of pretending that the physical requirements for a job depend on one's sex.

To use what Fr. Bill taught us elsewhere, there are some "idols" in and reporting to the JCS, "idols" that are going to get a lot of body bags filled.

Of course the thing is the Marines didn't succumb in a very real sense.  But the civilians who run the Marines did succumb so the Marines will suffer accordingly.

Bert: no worries..

David: I would generally say what you are saying is true. However, this is not always the case. I am not sure about this particular issue about PFT standards, but I know of other times when high level officers simply either roll over or are even complicit.

You can read about the LtCol that was teaching about Islam at the War college and he was immediately fired for speaking "unfairly" about Islam, even though he had been teaching that course for over a year at least, and it was approved by the college. (not sure of the exact length of time)... Utterly ridiculous.. Look it up.

I even know of a retired full bird Col who thinks that it is totally acceptable to have women in combat positions. So, while the majority (whatever percentage that is) understand that women should not be in combat units or think of any other issue, there are still those out there that tow the liberal party line on their own.

The DADT issue was a little bit more interesting.. Again, just anecdotal.

After Congress in its microscopic lame duck session wisdom decided to repeal DADT, the entire military all had to do mandatory PPT training.. I have sat through this training 3 times in 3 separate commands..  (2 with the Marines, 1 with the Navy).

The first time, it was with the Marines. As we were going through it (prerecorded webinar presentation), the Base CO (full bird Col) and the rest of the staff in the room were doing their best to hide their frustration and disgust and utter annoyance at this training.. They didnt say anything outright, but I could tell by the mannerisms, inflections, tone and body language that they thought that this was total BS.

So, it is a mixed bag, but since the military is very good at following orders (most of the time), many people can confuse the military's compliance with actual internalization, which is not always the case.

In general, many people "accepted" DADT repeal and it wasnt openly discussed, so, on the surface, from an outsider's viewpoint, it seems that the entire military is willing to implement, but that isnt true.. (Of course, there are those in the military that will do anything godless,.. but you get the point)...

It is really pathetic and sad.. 

Chris

In many respects the senior officers in the services are civilians in uniforms.  They are handpicked by the White House and DoD leadership and tend to reflect that fact.  And of course at the lower levels there are people seriously screwed up in their understanding but it is a lot less common.

Add new comment