The US flag: a “threat to Muslims” in America

American Flag Threat To MuslimsFrom KHOU.com:

Man says apartment complex called his US flag a ‘threat to Muslim community’

by Alice Barr

WEBSTER, Texas — A Webster man says his apartment complex manager told him his American flag was a “threat to the Muslim community,” and that he has to take it down. But he’s not giving up without a fight.

Stepping onto Duy Tran’s balcony in Webster, one thing is clear: “It means a lot to me,” he said.

He’s talking about his American flag that he proudly put up when he moved in just a few days ago. But then an apartment manager at the Lodge on El Dorado told him he had to take it down.

“What really stunned me is that she said it’s a threat towards the Muslim community,” said Tran. “I’m not a threat toward anybody.”

There you go.  The American flag is a threat to the Muslim community.  Not in the Middle East, mind you.  No.  In the United States of America.

This occurred in Webster, Texas, at the Lodge on El Dorado apartment homes.  Their mealy-mouthed pablum-smeared PC response:

“While the Lodge on El Dorado admires our resident’s patriotism, we must enforce our property rules and guidelines. Such guidelines maintain the aesthetics of our apartment community and provide for the safety of all residents. The apartment community already proudly displays our country’s flag in a safe and appropriate manner at the entrances to our community.”  

A “safe and appropriate manner.”  Just what would that be, pray tell?  And how does one display the American flag in an unsafe and inappropriate manner?

However, Mr Tran has said:

“I’m gonna leave my flag there, as an American, until she shows me proof that I don’t have the right to leave my flag there,” said Tran.

To Tran it’s about so much more than stars and stripes.

“I have friends that died for this country,” he said.

First: good for Mr Tran.  This is a man who plans to persevere in his efforts to honor the American flag.

Second: how is is that we as a nation have become so incredibly cowardly in the face of the Politically Correct Gestapo?  It is fear that drives this Leftist movement.  And apparently the administration in this Webster complex is comprised of the craven.

BZ

 

Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up

Female Combat DiscriminationNow that’s the way to assure the survival of females in combat — since females can now serve in combat positions within the US military services.

From CNSNews.com:

by Barbara Boland

(CNSNews.com) — Females in the Marine Corps currently are not required to do pull-ups as part of their physical training, and a deadline mandating that they do at least 3 pull-ups by Jan. 1, 2014 as part of their  training has been delayed for at least a year, the Corps quietly announced on social media.

Unlike their female counterparts, male Marines have long been required to do at least 3 pullups as part of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT). That’s the minimum requirement for males.

Currently, “women aren’t able to make the minimum standard of three pull-ups,” Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan told CNSNews.com. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were unable to do three pull-ups (1 percent of male recruits also failed).

Marine officers told NPR off-the-record that, given the three-pull-ups rule,  they were afraid of losing “not only new recruits, but also current female Marines who can’t pass the test.”

Women in the Marine Corps will be allowed into ground combat in 2016. The delay in meeting men’s physical standards has raised questions about “whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat,” reported NPR.

“‘If you can’t pull yourself up, have the decency to pull yourself out,’  Ralph Peters, a retired Army officer and military historian, told Time.com. “‘The military, despite all the post-modern technology, is still essentially physical.’”

With that in mind, I recommend the exchange between Time Magazine and retired Army Lt Col Robert Maginnis in reference to his book “Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat.”  It turns out he is completely correct in his fears:

Time: What’s the key thing you learned in writing Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat?

Pentagon brass are kowtowing to their political masters and radical feminists to remove exemptions for women in ground combat in defiance of overwhelming scientific evidence and combat experience. This craven behavior is terribly dangerous for our armed forces, our national security, and especially the young women who will be placed in harm’s way.

Pentagon officials insist they won’t lower standards to enable more women in combat units. Do you believe them?

I don’t believe them, and neither should the American people.

The Obama Administration and the Pentagon say they will maintain high standards “to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender,” in the words of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Personnel policy, however, is driven by the “diversity metrics” outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Diversity, not military readiness, is the highest priority.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted as much. In the press conference announcing the rescission of the 1994 rule excluding women from ground combat units, he said, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high?”

The proper question is “Do we have the personnel we need to meet the current high standards for combat units?”

The answer right now is yes.

There is no shortage of able-bodied male volunteers who meet the existing, battle-tested standards for ground combat positions.

So why ask the services to consider changing the standards? Because this has become more about politics than fielding the most capable fighting force.

I thought Marines were the toughest of the tough.  Apparently not.

If women want to be in combat, they should pass the same requirements as men.

If women want to be cops, they should pass the same requirements as men.

If women want to be firefighters, they should pass the same requirements as men.

You want equality?  That is true equality.

BZ

P.S.
Perhaps the most insightful exchange between Time and Lt Col McGinnis?  The following:

What do you think will happen, given the push to let women serve in combat, if the nation ever needs to reinstitute the draft?

Lifting all combat exclusions for women virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will declare male-only conscription unconstitutional.

And a return to the draft is far more likely than most people realize. The unsustainably high cost of the all-volunteer force, especially with $17 trillion in national debt, and the expected requirements of future military operations will probably lead to a resumption of the draft, however politically unpopular it might be.

When that happens, women will be drafted and forced into ground combat roles.

How about it, young little urban Baby Mommas and Valley Girl chickies?  Ready for your being drafted into the US military for combat?

Gird thy thongs.

 

First Amendment Word Police: “Seattle officials call for ban on ‘potentially offensive’ language”

Tolerant LeftistsFrom FoxNews.com:

Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms “citizen” and “brown bag” are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions.

KOMO-TV reports that the city’s Office of Civil Rights instructed city workers in a recent internal memo to avoid using the words because some may find them offensive.

Right.  “Citizen.”  “Brown bag.”  Offensive.  Let’s see; to whom?  Oh yes, illegals.  Mexicans specifically.

“Luckily, we’ve got options,” Elliott Bronstein of the Office for Civil Rights wrote in the memo obtained by the station. “For ‘citizens,’ how about ‘residents?'” 

Luckily, there isn’t one set of actual testicles in the entire OCR.

Seattle, however, isn’t the only city with an eye on potentially disruptive words.

The New York Post reported in March 2012 that the city’s Department of Education avoids references to words like “dinosaurs,” “birthdays,” “Halloween” and dozens of other topics on city-issued tests because they could evoke “unpleasant emotions” among the students.

Dinosaurs, for example, conjures the topic of evolution, which could rile fundamentalists and birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Halloween, meanwhile, suggests an affiliation to Paganism.

Officials said such exclusions are normal procedure, insisting it’s not censorship.

Of course.  That Bill of Rights and First Amendment, such a terribly oppressive and limiting document.

Heavy sigh.

BZ

 

 

July 4th

Obama Imperial FaceI’m at work today, but in celebration of this day, I recommend reading the information at these links:

The Declaration of Independence.

The US Constitution.

The Bill of Rights.

The Federalist Papers.

When in doubt, always, always go back to the basics.

God bless America, the last and best supporter of freedom on the planet and, as always, an experiment in progress.

Today’s government, unfortunately, confiscates your rights and then sells them back to you via taxes and blood.  The greatest threat to this country and its American Taxpayer is not Islam or Right Wing radicals and soldiers — as the federal government would have you believe.  It is that government itself.

BZ