The Urban Grind

When states want to purge their voting rolls of non-citizens, or when they push to request identification for voting, the Democrats immediately yell “disenfranchisement” and racism” And of course Eric Holder launches lawsuits right and left.

But apparently, it’s not disenfranchisement when Democrats try to restrict military voting, like they recently did in Ohio.

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

The National Defense Committee reports:
[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.

Of course Obama wants to restrict military voting. The military is one group of government employees that is usually conservative (unlike most public school teachers). That’s why Democrats/liberals are hostile to them. They don’t want America to be a super power.

As for Obama and Eric Holder, with all their lawsuits and executive orders, they’re opening up the America’s floodgates in order to bring in a new voting base who they know will always vote Democrat.

The Marine Corps, bowing to the pressure to become politically correct, is now moving women into combat roles.

The Marine Corps, the most male of the armed services, is taking its first steps toward integrating women into war-fighting units, starting with its infantry officer school at Quantico, Va., and ground combat battalions that had once been closed to women.

The moves — announced by Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, in a message sent to all Marines on Monday night — are intended largely to study how women perform in formerly male-only units, and reflect new Pentagon rules released in February allowing women to serve closer to the front line.

The new Pentagon policy continues the ban on women serving as infantrymen, Special Operations commandos and in other direct-combat positions. But it has opened the door to thousands of new jobs for women, who represent about 15 percent of the force.

This smacks of military affirmative action to me. So what about the differences in upper body strength between men and women? This one former Marine infantry officer doesn’t see it as a big deal:

Greg Jacob, a former Marine infantry officer who is policy director for Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group, said he was concerned that the corps might try to use data from the physical tests to prove that women are not strong enough to be infantrymen.

But he also praised some of the new measures, saying that putting women into more front-line jobs would help advance their careers. “It puts women in a position where they are more likely to be in an expeditionary or combat role, which in the future will be looked at when it comes time for assignments and promotions,” he said.

In other words, it’s all about equality of outcomes. With this rationale, the fact that Marines have always been male, is just plain sexist, never mind the strength required in a combat zone. So even it means dropping standards, that’s just too bad (snort!) After all, these women have their careers to think of.

But don’t just take it from me. Here’s what one man on a military forum had to say:

I spent 5 years in support units. Here are some observations I think are relevant to this matter:
1. I saw exactly two females complete forced marches carrying all their gear. I recall a handful completing marches if someone else carried their ruck, weapon, K-pot, LBE, etc. AND had a crew of Soldiers verbally encouraging them. The vast majority of females I saw on forced marches fell out and went on sick call around the 2-4 mile mark.
2. I can’t recall ever seeing a female successfully operate a crew served weapon off of a weapon range. In short order they collapse and go on sick call if they had to do anything more involved than pull a trigger.
3. During my stint, I observed a number of enlisted females holding MOSs which involved manipulation of heavy gear (vehicle mechanics, fuel handlers, etc). With rare exceptions they were ineffective as they couldn’t deal with heavy objects. After a couple rounds of sick call they would get shunted into light and/or administrative work.
4. I don’t recall seeing a female willing or able to drive a vehicle larger than a HMMWV.

5. Very VERY few females I observed could deal with lack of bathing facilities for an extended period without suffering from a massive drop in morale.
6. No female I met was able to march with gear, operate a crew served weapon in a field environment, drive large vehicles, go without a shower for a couple days AND perform adequately in a MOS requiring some level of strength.

7. In due time most female Soldiers I worked with would maneuver themselves into traditional WAC jobs such as clerk/typists, admin assistants, etc. Ironic, huh?

I think we all can agree this is it. If the Marines will let females into grunt officer training, they will have to graduate them in adequate numbers whether qualified or not. From this the rest of USMC combat arms and Army combat arms will open too. I suspect we will see just what I saw in Army support units. You’ll have a handful of female grunts unable to perform. They will manipulate their way into “cush” jobs in company orderly rooms, battalion and higher staffs, etc. Despite this the handful who stay will advance despite not developing professionally. And everyone is just going to have to suck it up.

In this video, General Petrus “Peter” Van Uhm, the Netherlands’ chief of defense explains why military strength is crucial for civilized societies. Overall, his rationale is very good. However, I disagree with his assertion that the monopoly of physical force should be reserved only for a democratically elected government. Then again, the general lives in a very liberal country where gun ownership among civilians is very low. This quote of his was spot on:

“Sometimes only the gun can stand between good and evil,” he says. “And that is why I took up the gun. Not to shoot, not to kill, not to destroy. But to stop those who would do evil. To protect the vulnerable.”

In honor of the heroic navy seals who killed Osama Bin Laden, here are some pictures of them going through their grueling training.

Read all about their training here.

This is what Jodie Evans of Code Pink told a woman whose son was killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

That was the despicable message Gold Star mom Debbie Lee got from Jodie Evans and her Code Pink organization regarding her son, Marc Alan Lee of the United States Navy, who was killed in action in 2006. She tells her heartbreaking story at Big Peace.

Evans, a major Obama ally and fundraiser, is about to hold a fundraiser for California Democrat and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown. In her spare time, she raises money for terrorists and other America-haters – with impunity. This includes helping launch the “peace flotillas” against Israel in order to help the Hamas terrorist organization, a project on which she works with the president’s friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (the former Weather Underground terrorists).

Melanie Morgan explains Move America Forward’s protest against Evans’s Brown fundraiser, here. That so disgusting a figure as Evans could be a mover and shaker in Democratic Party politics explains a lot about the current mood of the country.

Via The Jawa Report

Isn’t diversity great? (Snort!)

The U.S. military either can’t or won’t accept the fact that putting Muslims in their ranks is like having a fox guarding a hen house. Therefore these fifth columnists are tolerated and sought after, no matter how much damage they cause. This time, five Muslims working in the Arabic Translation program were arrested just before Christmas, for trying to poison the Ft. Jackson SC food supply.

CBN News has learned exclusively that five Muslim soldiers at Fort Jackson in South Carolina were arrested just before Christmas. It is unclear whether the men are still in custody. The five were part of the Arabic Translation program at the base.

The men are suspected of trying to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson.

A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators suspect the “Fort Jackson Five” may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.

Now some of you might be thinking “Zelda, we need Muslims in the military. They know the language and the customs. So what else can we do?”

To that I say baloney!

There are plenty of American Jews and Christians of Middle Eastern ancestry who know Arabic. They should be hired instead of these Muslims, who are nothing but eternal malcontents.

As half of a saying goes, all terrorists are Muslims. In the case of Hasan, his computer records show he was clearly a supporter and promoter of Al Qaeda.

Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church in 2001, when its spiritual leader was Anwar al-Aulaqi, a figure who crossed paths with al-Qaeda associates, including two Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, one senior U.S. official said.

Since Aulaqi left in 2002 and settled in Yemen, his lectures promoting the strategies of an al-Qaeda military leader have shown up in computer files of suspects in terrorism cases in the United States, Canada and Britain, officials said. It is not clear whether Hasan knew the preacher well then or only later through his lectures on the Internet.

Now notice that all the MSM (more specifically, the author of this article) is concerned about is that Hasan’s ties to this imam will cause a backlash against US Muslims and the Muslim world.

Hasan’s possible contact with extremists such as Aulaqi would complicate matters, suggesting that U.S. authorities may have missed chances to prevent the cleric from instigating this incident and others. But if it turns out that Hasan acted in the throes of an emotional breakdown, his questionable ties could be misinterpreted in ways that damage U.S. outreach to the Muslim world or provoke an overreaction that divides Americans.

Can you believe this? Thirteen Americans are dead and thirty more are seriously injured all these mealy mouthed liberals care about is backlash against Muslims and what Muslim rogue states will think of America?

The military is not much better either.

On Sunday, Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey Jr. cautioned troops against jumping to conclusions about what might have motivated Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to allegedly shoot and kill 13 people and wound 38 Thursday at the nation’s largest Army post.

“I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” Casey told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Whatever happened to making sure our soldiers are safe from fifth columnist traitors in their own country?

It turns out that there were warning signs that Nidal Malik Hasan was an America hating, terror supporter all along. This just makes me wonder why no one reported him or why no one requested that he be thrown out of the army. Personally, I think he should have been thrown out of the United States permanently. But that’s just wishful thinking being that our military has become way too politically correct. It’s pretty darn pathetic when we focus more on prosecuting our own soldiers for killing/hurting the enemy. This has got to stop.

First off, there’s news of Hasan saying outright that Muslims should “rise up” against Americans.

“He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.” He said that Maj Hasan said he was “happy” when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June. An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings.

Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square” in New York.

This monster has also told military colleagues that infidels should be beheaded. (Via View From The Right)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America’s Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

Stuff like this should have been grounds for immediate dismissal at the very least.

Wherever there are Muslim terrorists, Barack Obama is sure to be somehow involved. In this case, the Muslim terrorist shooter Nadal Malik Hasan was on an advisory panel for Obama’s transition.

The gunman who killed 12 people today at Ft. Hood appears, based on current media reports, to be Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who was listed as a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute’s presidential transition task force last year.

The task force was not officially affiliated with the White House. It was a project of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, an independent thinktank housed at George Washington University, aimed at drafting policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration.

According to the task force’s May 2009 report [pdf], a “Nidal Hasan” from the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine was a task force event participant. Other participants included Senate and House staffers, Department of Homeland Security officials, Defense Department officials, and reporters for Politico, the Washington Post, and the London Times.

Let’s be honest here. You don’t have have to belong to a terrorist organization to be a terrorist and to commit terrorist acts. But the fact is, all of today’s present day terrorists are Muslims. So let’s not beat around the bush.

The MSM has been dancing around this. They’ve blaming the shooting rampage in Ft. Hood by Muslim psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hassan on discrimination, bigotry, and post traumatic stress disorder. But the fact is this Hasan is a devout Muslim who is opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What else does anyone need to know in terms of a motive?

Hasan, graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997 and earned a doctorate in psychiatry from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda. He spent at least six years at Walter Reed before moving to Fort Hood.

He had been a “very devout” worshiper at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, attending prayers at least once a day, often in his Army fatigues, said Faizul Khan, a former imam there.

“To know something like this happened, I don’t know what got into his mind,” Khan said. “There was nothing extremist in his questions. He never showed any frustration. . . . He never showed any remorse or wish for vengeance on anybody.”

A co-worker identified as Col. Terry Lee told Fox News that Hasan opposed the U.S. role in Iraq and Afghanistan and told others that “we should not be in the war in the first place.” He said Hasan acknowledged that soldiers have a duty to follow the commander in chief’s orders, but was hoping that President Obama would order a pullout from the conflicts.

“When things weren’t going that way,” Lee said, “he became more agitated, more frustrated with the conflicts over there.”

Well what do you know? Here we have a devout Muslim who is opposed to the U.S. war on his co-religionists. Yet he achieved the rank of major! Wasn’t anyone the least bit suspicious when he showed that his loyalties were clearly to the Koran and his fellow Muslims as opposed to the country that gave him everything?

This is a man who once got in trouble for pushing Islam on his patients and fellow soldiers.

Hasan is also believed to have praised Muslim suicide bombers in internet postings.

One post parallels suicide bombers to a soldier who threw himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

“To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause,” said the Internet posting. “Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers.”

Furthermore, this hideous beast, who is the son of fakestinian immigrants to the U.S. did not identify with the country that gave him so much. He actually listed his birthplace as Arlington, VA but listed his nationality as fakestinian!

Yet with all these glaring signs, he was still allowed to serve in our great military! That’s liberalism for you. There’s no objective standard of right, wrong, good or bad. The only cardinal sin is discriminating or being, gasp, racist! This is such a terrible thing in our warped society that we are willing to sacrifice our own people on the altar of political correctness! This has go to stop!