- Text smaller
- Text bigger
The term “moronic” is defined as “notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.” It is frequently used as an insult.
The Obama administration is moronic.
This is not an insult.
Am I suggesting that the sitting president of the United States is stupid? Not exactly – not in terms of overall intelligence. But, as Momma Gump always said: “Stupid is as stupid does.”
I’m sure that Mr. Obama has an average or slightly above average IQ. Still, objectively, measurably – as a point of fact supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence – this man stupidly, perhaps even seditiously, insists upon circumventing Congress to shovel executive order after executive order atop the Mount St. Helens of dictatorial dung heaps.
Eventually it has to blow.
Obama’s latest “notably stupid” stoke of America’s calculated slow burn is the decision to lift the ban on women in direct combat. Along with the move a few years back to turn the Officers’ Club into the Blue Oyster Bar, this most recent social experiment with national security represents one small step for the “progressive” agenda and one giant prance toward the pansification of the greatest military in world history.
It’s a jaw-dropping “lack in good judgment.”
In 1991 the late Gen. Robert H. Barrow, former commandant of the Marine Corps, gave compelling testimony on the subject before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee. He stated, “If you want to make a combat unit ineffective, assign some women to it. … In three wars – World War II, Korea and Vietnam – I found no place for women to be down in the ground combat element,” he concluded.
In a recent column headlined “Women in Ground Combat,” Bing West, former Marine officer and assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, notes that, during his testimony, Gen. Barrow “cited the 1950 fighting retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in temperatures of minus 20 degrees, with one Marine division pitted against eight Chinese divisions. Had women comprised 15 percent of his division, Barrow concluded, the Marines would have lost the battle. ‘The very nature of women disqualifies them from doing it (killing so brutally),’ Barrow said. ‘Women give life, sustain life, nurture life; they don’t take it.'”
Evidently, Gen. Barrow never met one of today’s abortion-worshiping feminist “Flukes” of nature. Still, they only kill innocent children who can’t fight back.
In short, Gen. Barrow observed that opening the front lines to, um, “infantrywomen” would not only cost precious American lives, it would ultimately “destroy the Marine Corps.”
Now, I know, who the heck do Barrow and West think they are, right? Did they ever bravely serve God and country as a glorified teacher’s assistant at Harvard Law?
I think not.
Even so, despite an obvious lack of credibility on combat readiness and a meager century or so in combined service, I think we should at least humor them a bit.
“To Barrow, a warrior admired by three generations of grunts,” wrote West, “ground combat meant killing under the harshest of circumstances. Barrow opposed the incorporation of women into infantry units characterized by primal instincts: sleeping, defecating, eating, and smelling like wolf packs while hunting down and slaughtering male soldiers.”
That’s the problem with political correctness – with liberalism in general. It raises a pseudo-utopian barrier to reality. Often times that barrier is deadly.
This is what happens when a gaggle of left-wing civilian politicians who don’t know which end of the gun goes “bang!” are placed in charge of national security. These yahoos couldn’t bust a grape with a sledge hammer, much less lift a sledge hammer.
This is what happens when we allow “progressives” to deconstruct our culture by imposing, through public policy, the fantastical delusion of a “genderless society.”
I fully support women learning self-defense and packing heat for protection. I’ve known a number of gals so tough that, for his own safety, a fellow would be better served to break it off via text message should the relationship go south.
Still, as a former professional boxer and police officer, and having served 12 years in the armed services myself, I can say this without equivocation: While there may be the extremely rare anecdotal exception, in direct one-on-one military combat, the toughest, baddest, meanest chick out there is going to get stomped by the weakest infantryman.
This is life and death stuff. Women are no more made for the front lines than men are made for childbearing.
Don’t get me wrong – I love women. I’m married to a woman and am on the hook for two future weddings of future women who, admittedly, have me hopelessly wrapped around pink-polished little fingers.
Even so, if I’m on the front lines and Ahmed, Abdul and Hakeem come charging with fixed bayonets, I danged sure want Billy Bob, not Barbara, in my foxhole.
This doesn’t even scratch the surface. What of the sensitive dynamics of sex and jealousy? How about the reality that, despite feminist protestations to the contrary, chivalry is not dead? Men are naturally wired to protect the weaker sex, even if it runs counter to combat mission. Honorable men will drop everything to protect a woman, even if it means dying in the process.
If the presence of women is not a factor, than neither is sex, jealousy or chivalry (putting aside the whole “gays in the military” debacle). More importantly, if women remain shielded from direct combat, lives are saved and battles are won. Add women, and you add weakness. Both lives and battles are lost.
Yep, “stupid is as stupid does.” The question is no longer whether Barack Obama is weakening every noble aspect of American life, including our military. The question now becomes whether the rest of us will be able to put the pieces back together once this radical lefty is finally back in Hawaii for good – Mai Tai in one hand and leather-bound copy of the Communist Manifesto in the other.
The question is whether America will survive Barack Obama.