Former Senator Jim Webb last night announced he would not be accepting a Naval Academy Alumni Association award because of recent protests from other alumni. At first, I thought Webb, whom I always respected as a military officer and politician (if that’s at all possible), had done something egregious, causing his fellow Naval Academy alumni to consider him undeserving of the award. And then, I find out that the “protest” was lodged by a horde of females because of an essay Webb wrote nearly 40 years ago.
That’s right. Apparently in the eyes of these shrews, Mr. Webb doesn’t deserve an award that honors lifetime service to the country, personal character, and significant contributions as leaders in business or government, because of an article he wrote nearly 40 years ago, claiming women shouldn’t serve in combat.
Now, this isn’t a debate about whether women can fight or not. It’s a completely separate issue here. I can see comments getting contentious already, so I’m saying this up front. In those days, the view that women have no place in combat was not an uncommon one. Women in many developed nations did not begin to integrate into combat roles until the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Germany opened all combat units to women in 2001, resulting in increased recruitment for female soldiers. By 2009, 800 female soldiers were serving in combat units.
The Australians didn’t start integrating women into combat roles until 2011.
A British Ministry of Defense study in 2010 concluded that women performed the same as men in land combat roles.
Israel and Denmark started exploring these options early – and by “early,” I mean in the mid- to late-1980s. In 1985, Norway became the first country to allow women in combat, but few of them were attracted by the opportunities.
Whether or not you agree with this report is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Whether or not I agree with it is also beside the point. The point is that Jim Webb wrote an article stating his opinion that women do not belong in combat roles in 1979, when such views were nothing uncommon, and the raging, squealing shrews who represent today’s “feminism” are now claiming that his lifetime of service has been invalidated, because he wrote something which they disagree nearly 40 years ago, when most other military leaders agreed with him.
But let’s put all that aside for a moment. Let’s pretend Jim Webb is a misogynist beast, who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, making sammiches for men. From what I gather, he is no such thing, but for the purpose of this exercise, let’s just say he is. The question is: does he deserve the United States Naval Academy Distinguished Graduate Award?
The Distinguished Graduate Award (DGA) program started as a concept first envisioned by Rear Admiral Ronald F. Marryott, USN (Ret.), Class of 1957, when he was president and CEO of the United States Naval Academy Alumni Association. Rear Admiral Robert McNitt, USN (Ret.), Class of 1938, helped develop the concept to its current structure. The Alumni Association’s Board of Trustees approved the DGA proposal and in May 1998 the selection committee met under the chairmanship of Admiral Carlisle Trost, USN (Ret.), Class of 1953 to determine the nominating process. Distinguished Graduates are the embodiment of what we strive to achieve in the U.S. Naval Academy’s mission:
“To develop midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government.”
As an institution, we honor our Distinguished Graduates because of their:
- Demonstrated and unselfish commitment to a lifetime of service to our nation
- Personal character which epitomizes the traits we expect in our officer corps
- Significant contributions as Navy and Marine Corps officers, or as leaders in industry or government
Each of them serves as a beacon, lighting the way for our midshipmen as they begin to chart their naval careers. They also serve by example to motivate those alumni serving in the Fleet and Fleet Marine Corps. Our midshipmen can take away much from learning about our distinguished graduates. All the Distinguished Graduates honored – lived the traits of lifetime commitment to service, personal character and distinguished contributions to our nation.
Does Jim Webb check the boxes?
He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968 and received the Superintendent’s Letter for Outstanding Leadership.
He was a combat veteran, who graduated first in his class from the Marine Corps Officer Basic School, earned the Navy Cross for heroism in Vietnam, has a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts, and was medically retired from the Marine Corps due to injuries received in Vietnam. Whatever else he may be, there’s no denying Webb is a war hero.
He graduated from Georgetown Law School with a JD, where he received the Horan Award for excellence in legal writing.
Webb worked as a staffer on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, and also as an attorney represented veterans pro-bono.
Webb 1984-87 served as the nation’s first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and was the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as the civilian head Navy Secretary in 1987.
And, let’s not forget that while the perpetually offended harpies are still crying about an article Webb wrote nearly 40 years ago, other females who served honorably, defended him – even back in 2006 when he was running for the Senate.
“He recognizes the crucial role that women have in the armed forces today, and the sacrifices that they’re making alongside their male counterparts in the toughest assignments in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Kate Wilder, a Democratic activist.
The military women yesterday said the television ads Mr. Allen is airing that criticize Mr. Webb for writing a 1979 magazine article questioning a woman’s place in the U.S. Naval Academy are “powerful” but “bogus.”
“American military women have moved beyond Jim Webb’s … article,” Navy Capt. Barbara Brehm said.
The military women yesterday stressed that Mr. Webb’s point of view 27 years ago mirrored the sentiment that most men held at that time. They also think that Mr. Webb’s perspective changed, saying that in 1987 Mr. Webb opened more operational positions for women in the military than any other Navy secretary in history.
Wait… that sounds familiar. Didn’t someone closely resembling me say exactly this above?
In a characteristic show of class, which is something I’ve seen several times from Jim Webb, he declined to accept the award. “I am being told that my presence at the ceremony would likely mar the otherwise celebratory nature of that special day, and as a consequence I find it necessary to decline to accept the award,” he said.
Meanwhile, Kelly Henry, a 1984 Naval Academy graduate, wrote the letter to the alumni association asking the organization rescind Webb’s award, instead of graciously accepting her hollow victory, decided to double down on the cunt. After hearing his announcement Tuesday night, Henry said she was “absolutely stunned that he did the right thing,” as if she personally knew Webb to be a first class jerk with no honor or integrity – something I have never heard from anyone who has met him or worked with him.
Henry claimed Webb’s essay was highly-circulated while she was in Annapolis and it caused “harm” to many of her classmates, but interestingly enough didn’t have problems herself, so her offense is really on behalf of others. (On a related note, the other day a friend told me he saw a bunch of Black Lives Matter protesters downtown – all white kids.) Let’s also not forget that at the time, women at the Naval Academy were still a very new thing. The first class only graduated in 1980, and change, in general, is never easy, so laying the blame on Webb’s shoulders for the ostensible difficulties faced by a batch of brand new mids at the Academy for an article he published that likely reflected the common views of the times, is a stretch.
“The women will tell you that article was like throwing gasoline on the fire,” she said.
Henry said she was one of the “lucky” ones during her time at the academy and was in a company that welcomed the female mids. She said she was surprised to see Webb honored with the award, since 2016 marked the 40th year of women attending the Naval Academy.
She attended the academy’s celebration in the fall.
“At that celebration I felt we were embraced in the community,” Henry said. “We are no longer seen as something that tainted it, but now to see this? It completely takes away that feeling.”
So she was triggered by the Academy honoring a man who has dedicated his life to service, and who as Navy Secretary helped implement policies that actually created more opportunities for women in the service, because of an article he wrote in 1979, and when he graciously declined the award, because he didn’t want to mar the celebration with controversy, she went on to malign his character by claiming she was “stunned” that he did the right thing.
Really? Class. Do you haz it?
I may not like his politics. I may think he’s sometimes a petulant child, careening between political parties after they do something of which he disapproves. But do I consider him someone who is undeserving of an award that recognizes graduates who have “personal character which epitomizes the traits we expect in our officer corps” and have made “significant contributions” as officers or leaders in industry or government, all because he held and published a commonly-held view 40 years ago that is no longer popular? No.
I’m just not that petty.
Kelly Henry and her Sisterhood of the Glittery Hoo Ha apparently have long memories and embrace and nurture their grudges like Gollum embraces his precioussssssss.
Another day, another Veterans Administration horror story. Republicans, who are supposed to be the staunch supporters of our troops, don’t seem to be able to do anything about this travesty.
A couple posted photos on Facebook and said veterans waited for hours in pain inside the Durham VA Medical Center.
He said a veteran on the ground was using his bag of medication for a pillow after being denied an available reclining chair.
“The nurse started yelling at him, telling him he can’t do that. He’s like, ‘I can’t get up and I won’t get up. I will be here until you can see me. Can I please have a blanket?’” McMenamin said.
You know what? This is not just heartbreaking. It’s unacceptable. We hear near daily horror stories about the VA.
A veteran died after being administered the wrong medication in Portsmouth, Virginia.
Sick, dying people who served their country are waiting for treatment – cancer patients, who can’t get an appointment.
And even after they die, their remains get no respect.
Politicians, bureaucrats, political appointees – they all promise change and accountability, but veterans, who are entitled to basic care and human decency, aren’t getting that promise fulfilled.
And it’s sick. It’s unfair. It’s vicious, callous, and inhuman.
Veterans have earned this care. They paid for it when they signed their names on that contract, promising to fight for this country, fight for our Constitution, fight to protect Americans from violence, fight to defend our rights.
They trained. They hurt. They got injured.
They got shot. They lost limbs. They were exposed to dog knows what downrange.
They took a ton of drugs – some experimental that sometimes made them sick.
They saw their brothers in arms bleed and die, sometimes holding them in their arms, and theorhearts hurt. They wept. They agonized. They lost.
They paid for this substandard, uncaring, pitiless service with their blood.
They were promised care. The VA’s motto “To care for him who shall have borne the battle,” tells them that their illnesses, their injuries, their agony, their anguish, and their bloodshed will be soothed and healed.
But instead their blood paid for these worthless, heartless, greedy, bottom-feeding bureaucrats to abuse them, to steal their health and the funds that are supposed to pay for their care, cheat them out of medical attention they have earned, and profit at their expense!
And worse yet, these leeches aren’t held accountable.
For example, the two sows who essentially stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from America’s vets – a story I blogged in 2015 – who abused their positions, who engaged in corruption, fraud, and abuse of authority, had their “demotions” (if you can even call it that, since both were still earning a six-figure salary while screwing veterans out of their care) rescinded.
Meanwhile, the promises just keep on coming, and nothing gets done.
This is a national disgrace!
“A nation is judged by how well it treats its veterans,” George Washington once said. The judgment is bound to be harsh.
First, I apologize for the hiatus. Had some medical stuff to take care of, as well as some work stuff, as well as some home stuff, as well as naps. Because naps are way more important than any other… stuff. So naps.
I have been following the news, though, and I have to say that certain elements on both the right and the left seem to be
angling demanding screaming for fomenting an actual war.
First there was an article in Foreign Policy magazine by a Rosa Brooks, who back in April 2016 wrote for the magazine that Trump actually was formulating a pretty coherent foreign policy. Recently she penned a screed discussing ways we could get rid of 45 that includes a… military coup. Um.
What would top U.S. military leaders do if given an order that struck them as not merely ill-advised, but dangerously unhinged? An order that wasn’t along the lines of “Prepare a plan to invade Iraq if Congress authorizes it based on questionable intelligence,” but “Prepare to invade Mexico tomorrow!” or “Start rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them to Guantánamo!” or “I’m going to teach China a lesson — with nukes!”
It’s impossible to say, of course. The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with open defiance is frightening — but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order. After all, military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president. For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officials might simply tell the president: “No, sir. We’re not doing that,” to thunderous applause from the New York Times editorial board.
Now, I discussed this in a previous rant during the primaries after he claimed that because he’s oh-so-cool, military commanders would just fall in line and obey his orders, and target civilians for extermination, no matter how illegal.
The UCMJ states very specifically that members of the military must follow lawful orders.
I remember very clearly sitting in the bay in Basic Training and discussing lawful versus unlawful orders. I remember the Drill Sergeants specifically telling us that not only must we refuse to obey an unlawful order, but we could be legally prosecuted for doing so! I would say murdering civilians kind of qualifies.
The “I was only following orders” defense didn’t work for Nazi assholes, and they won’t work in this country either.
But a military coup? That’s a whole lotta different from disobeying an unlawful order.
Of course, the unhinged leftist celebricunts didn’t let that stop them. After either having read the piece (doubtful, since most of them would need a thesaurus and additional brain cells to comprehend it), or just come up with the bright idea after a night of snorting Lithium ground up with paint chips, and sipping Drano, they are insanely claiming that the military would stand with them in a military coup against Trump.
I. Shit. You. Not.
The amazing lack of self awareness from a crowd that is too cowardly to defend themselves with a firearm, and promotes citizen disarmament writ large, claiming that men and women with guns will stand up with them to promote their unhinged agenda would be hilarious, if it wasn’t sadly delusional.
Such deranged retards include the always entertaining (in the sheer lunacy of her statements) Sarah Silverman, and the sputtering, spewing, frothing, former Minnesota Vikings punter and current DERP! potato Chris Kluwe(less).
While I appreciated Kluwe(less)’s ardent defense of marriage equality and gay rights (after all, even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes, and in this case, the squirrel and the nut are one and the same), his moronic social justice bleating and this current claims of somehow being an “expert” at combat (no, the armed forces do not use the Glock 17 – as a matter of fact Sig Sauer just beat out Glock, FN America, and Beretta – the maker of the current M9 service pistol – in the competition to become the military’s handgun), make him less than competent to comment on current or potential combat situations. Video games and kicking a football =\= real life combat, you pugnacious fucktard. And encouraging your frothing buddies to loot gun stores and armories will only get them killed.
And then, there were the fires, looting, and riots at Berkeley.
Why? Because the special snowflakes couldn’t possibly allow someone with whom they disagree to have the opportunity to speak. Home of the free speech movement, indeed. It’s more like a bowel movement nowadays. This caused the Trump Administration to threaten to cut off funds to Bezerkeley, and rightfully so. I’m a taxpayer, and so is every individual who holds views that differing views from the howling psychopaths who set property on fire in order to silence a speaker whom they dislike. And personally, I don’t want my tax dollars used to fund suppression of free speech. I’m fairly sure others don’t either. If Bezerkeley insists on doing so, they don’t need my hard earned dollars.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday released a statement calling the president’s apparent threat an “abuse of power.”
“President Donald Trump cannot bully our university into silence. Simply put, President Trump’s empty threat to cut funding from UC Berkeley is an abuse of power,” she said in the statement.
So Trump can’t “bully” the university into ostensible silence by withholding federal money that belongs to all taxpayers, but the university can use federal money that belongs to all taxpayers to bully an invited guest into silence? Is that the way it works, you dried up, hypocritical hag? You want our money to fund your tyrannical tactics, and if we threaten to pull our funds, you call it bullying?
Yeah, how about you go get fucked by a rabid wildebeest, MKAY?
The university claims that masked agitators came onto campus and began throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks, and interrupting a protest.
Yeah, I sure believe that one. Pull the other one, will ya?
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who the agitators were. They were there to start a war. They were there to instigate violence. Just like these celebricunts are doing (from the relative safety of their gated communities, of course). Just like the jackwagons who decided a Bank of America and a Starbucks were cool (and easy) targets in DC to vandalize.
You want a war, cupcakes? You won’t like the outcome. That’s a promise. We are better trained, better prepared, and better qualified to kick your hairy, unwashed, pussy hat-wearing asses than you and your mewling band of paintball buddies.
Shut up and sit down before you hurt yourselves.
There are few things that make me really lose my shit. I mean, get so pissed off, that I feel physically ill and fight the urge to throw up. I mean, violent headache, enraged to the point of wanting to throttle everyone who looks at me wrong-type angry. Those who betray our country, who violate their oath, who aid and abet the enemy – whether it’s because they’re too stupid to understand the harm they cause or because they hate America and want to bring her down due to some kind of twisted ideological short circuit – are the ones who evoke the most visceral reaction possible.
So when I read that Barack Obama commuted the 35-year sentence of Bradley Manning – the treacherous shit weasel who stole hundreds of thousands of classified documents and handed them over to WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, who saw it fit to publish the sensitive data, endangering not just sources and methods, but troop procedures, sensitive State Department communications, and the lives of innocent people, whose only “crime” was to cooperate with the coalition forces in Afghanistan, I saw red.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday overruled his secretary of defense to commute the sentence of former Army soldier Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of stealing and disseminating 750,000 pages of documents and videos to WikiLeaks.
The decision — which a senior defense official told CNN was made over the objections of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter — immediately touched off a controversy in the closing days of the Obama administration.
Let’s get something straight. Manning is no hero. He’s not a whistleblower – he didn’t even try to report any wrongdoing through the right channels. The only thing he cared about was revenge – revenge against the Army, revenge against his fellow Soldiers, and revenge against Uncle Sam.
As he told hacker Adrian Lamo, he was just way too smart for the Army. An effeminate boy genius, whom everyone picked on, whom no one noticed, who didn’t get the respect he thought he deserved, and who took drugs to assuage his fragile chafed labia.
(11:49:02 AM) bradass87: im in the desert, with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors… and the only safe place i seem to have is this satellite internet connection
(11:52:09 AM) bradass87: i could be hanging out here in limbo as a super-intelligent, awkwardly effeminate supply guy [pick up these boxes and move them] for up to two months
(1:40:20 PM) bradass87: ive been so isolated so long… i just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life… but events kept forcing me to figure out ways to survive… smart enough to know whats going on, but helpless to do anything… no-one took any notice of me
(1:43:59 PM) bradass87: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)
This pathetic little bastard didn’t even know what the hell he was stealing! When pressed for details, after a self-aggrandizing build-up about alleged evidence of “scandals” he stole, he admits he didn’t even know what was in the files he had been stealing for numerous months.
(1:45:00 PM) email@example.com: what kind of scandal?
(1:45:16 PM) bradass87: hundreds of them
(1:45:40 PM) firstname.lastname@example.org: like what? I’m genuinely curious about details.
(1:46:01 PM) bradass87: i dont know… theres so many… i dont have the original material anymore
If he truly had wanted to report wrongdoing, there are whistleblower channels he could have used.
If he really wanted to ensure justice, he didn’t need to steal hundreds of thousands of records that identified – if not by name, then by description – Afghans who cooperated with coalition forces, and endanger them and their families.
He didn’t have to steal communications that revealed U.S. and our allies’ infrastructure that was critical to our national security.
He didn’t have to release tactics, techniques, and procedures which subsequently were found in the compound of Osama bin Ladin.
He didn’t have to steal hundreds of thousands of private State Department communications that exposed the cards of our foreign policy, shredding our tactical and strategic advantages.
But no. He decided to release hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to anyone with a computer, because the Army didn’t treat him like his mommy and daddy and buy him a fucking pony for being a special snowflake who was sooooo much smarter than everyone else around him!
The pathetic little fuck goblin broke the law, violated the terms of his contract, got into fights with other Soldiers, and ultimately decided to get his revenge against Uncle Sam for refusing to see just how important he was!
(02:40:26 PM) Manning: i mean, i was never noticed
(02:41:10 PM) Manning: regularly ignored… except when i had something essential… then it was back to “bring me coffee, then sweep the floor”
(02:42:24 PM) Manning: i never quite understood that
(02:42:44 PM) Manning: felt like i was an abused work horse…
His betrayal of his country had nothing to do with justice, and it had nothing to do with a desire to do what was right.
It had everything to do with his pathetic ego, and his entitlement mentality.
And for this he got his sentence commuted, and will be getting out of prison in May!
The White House claims, Manning didn’t dodge blame, and eventually confessed to his crimes, making him oh-so-much more palatable a criminal than the traitorous piece of garbage Edward Snowden, who fled right into the arms of the Russians and has been tongue washing their ball sacks for more than three years while feeding them sensitive information.
You know what this is really about? Putting a male who claims he is a transgender female into a men’s prison! Because in this social justice society, we can’t possibly imprison this bastard for his actions – actions that have caused grievous harm not just to the United States, but also to innocent Afghans – because he’s special…
I refuse to refer to him as a woman. I have friends who are transgender, and because I respect them, I refer to them by the gender they feel they are.
I have no respect for this piece of shit. He used his precious little feelz to evade responsibility for his despicable actions – actions that have endangered lives, revealed sensitive information to our enemies, and caused hundreds of analysts to work around the clock for months assessing the damage he has caused. He stole information that did not belong to him. He assaulted fellow Soldiers. He undermined the mission. The only thing preventing me from calling him a traitor is that the definition of “treason” does not apply in this case.
Bradley Manning was tried and convicted. He should be forced to serve the sentence imposed on him by the court – not let out because he doesn’t want to be attached to his penis any longer.
But instead of respecting the decision of a court, the people whom Manning compromised, and the defense officials and intelligence officers who have spent countless resources and manpower working to assess the damage Manning has caused, Barack Obama simply let him go. Because TEH FEELZ!
Bradley Manning is a criminal. Period. He should be treated as such.
I don’t know about you guys, but my news feeds were all filled with the buzz that retired Marine Corps General James Mattis was selected by Trump to be nominated for the position of Secretary of Defense. Every single veteran and current service member I know has been singing the praises of this particular choice – regardless of political views – and Mattis memes are dominating my social media page like I’ve never seen before.
As critical and doubtful I am of our President-elect, this was a stellar choice.
Mattis knows and understands the military.
His troops love and respect him – even now that he’s retired.
He is widely considered to have been one of the most competent, seasoned military officers in recent history.
He understands military strategy and tactics, and is able to effectively balance the mission with care for his troops.
And he understands military-civilian relations, which is critical in the position of Secretary of Defense, as he works with both civilian policy makers and military personnel to lead America’s defenses. Hell, he’s edited a book about this!
But of course, there’s at least one doofus who has gone full potato (and was stupid enough to publicly admit it) about the suggestion that James Mattis become Trump’s Secretary of Defense.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) came out against Donald Trump’s selection of retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of Defense, saying she would not support a necessary congressional waiver to allow him to take on the role.Gillibrand is the first lawmaker to oppose waiving the prohibition on former military officers heading the Pentagon less than seven years after retiring.
“While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver,” she said in a statement. “Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”
This is where I have to laugh at this daft bint and challenge her claim that she’s opposing Mattis’ selection for the sake of any kind of fundamental principles, especially not ones of American democracy.
First – we already have civilian control of the U.S. military. He’s called the President of the United States, or… you know… the Commander-in-Chief of the US military.
Second – it’s not like we haven’t had veterans serve as Secretaries of Defense! Over the last 64 years, there have been numerous SecDefs who have served – seven have come from the Navy, with seven from the Army, and one from the Air Force.
Who better to care for our armed forces, participate in decision making that impacts the military, and represent us in military alliances than a man who has spent a lifetime as a warrior, who is known for caring for the troops, and is a known intellectual?
Gillibrand’s excuse for opposing Mattis doesn’t pass muster. It is more likely that she’s already positioning herself to be the anti-Trump in the 2020 election, and what better way to do that than to oppose his nominees?
Of course, if that’s the case, she has not picked her battles wisely. Mattis is widely respected by a vast number of people in Washington, and chances are, he will not just get the Congressional go-ahead and be confirmed as the Secretary of Defense, but it will likely happen with overwhelming support from both sides of the political aisle, leaving her as one of the few doofuses who screeched for attention in the wrong arena.
But hey, if she wants to squander her political capital on a cause as stupid as opposing a supremely qualified candidate to head the Pentagon, so be it. All it will do is mar any credibility she may have had as a potential Commander-in-Chief.
Hey, did you hear Kirsten Gillibrand is running for President?
Isn’t she the moron who opposed the nomination of Jim Mattis as SECDEF?
Yeah, and now she wants to be the Commander-in-Chief!
*gigglesnort* Yeah, that’s sure to emphasize her understanding of the military she wants to be elected to lead!