NRA Women's Network - Rising Through the Ranks

Katie Francis is one of the youngest female junior shooters in the circuit. At only 13-years-old, she has already accomplished more than most. Her father, Sergeant First Class Chad Francis, bought her a .22 when she was 9-years-old. At the age of 10, she got her first buck, an 8-point, with an AR-15. Today, the ambitious teenager has her sights set high, and counts the possibility of making an Olympic appearance as one of her goals.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Women in Combat: Felony Stupid

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.

President 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.

Did they ever do “a little blow,” march with the Black Panthers, “organize their communities” into welfare-dependent hellholes, or drink lattes with “Marxist professors and the structural feminists”?

No.

Sheesh.

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, let alone 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. It’s felony stupid.

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.

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.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).

First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies.

I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Lisa Lampanelli and Joy Behar as our first offensive. Talk about shock and awe! The enemy would crap their pants (or whatever it is they wear).

Heck, those ladies wouldn’t even need to bring weapons, Leon. Just send this unholy trinity in with matching Frederick’s of Hollywood teddies juiced up on a pot of espresso and then have them confront hajji with their spurious insights, high-pitched, nasally voices and their unfunny comedic screeds, and our foes will shoot themselves in the face. War on Terror over. Boom. It’s that easy. You’re welcome.

If for some reason Barr, Behar and Lampanelli’s sensory assault on our enemies’ sensibilities doesn’t immediately devastate our adversaries then I suggest sending wave after wave of liberal college students, at the height of their PMS rage, into the thick of battle and have them quote Sandra Fluke and Lady Gaga at the top of their lungs. I believe (and I could be wrong) that this would absolutely demolish any forces that survived the initial onslaught of the Tres Amigas.

From a PsyOps standpoint you could work soft targets and wear down our foes and their enablers with Yoko Ono’s latest solo album blaring from trucks with loud speakers. On top of that scary scenario, we could simultaneously have choppers drop leaflets over the various villages warning them that if they don’t surrender now Yoko’s going to show up at their village and do a six-hour concert. They’ll fold up quicker than the Beatles did. Guaranteed. And radical Islam will leave us the heck alone for many, many moons.

With that said, I share the following concerns that my buddy who works with the U.S. Army and special forces has with deploying the ladies to combat positions:

One of the most significant issues with women in combat arms (MOS) is the lack of suitable hygiene. In other words, there are times in our military careers where we go through extended periods where we don’t have showers. Women have monthly hygienic concerns that a man doesn’t.

When the government mandates acceptance into a job/work force scenario, standards must be lowered to accommodate the numbers. Most females are not as strong as men. This will be a direct issue in combat. If you have a 5’10” male weighing 200 pounds, he will weigh between 250-275 pounds by the time he has donned a full combat load. How many women, after being hit by an IED (improvised explosive device), could drag 275 pounds out of a burning vehicle while drawing fire? Or how about if a unit is assaulting a radical Muslim compound and a soldier weighs 250-275 pounds. Can his female battle buddy pull him out of the room while shooting several muzzies in the face? This goes back to height, weight, psychological and physical exercise standards. If you lower the standards, the mission is compromised. Last year and this year the U.S. Marine Corps tried this by allowing women in their infantry school without lowering standards. Only two signed up, and neither made the grade. None signed up this year.

When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together. So will women be given separate quarters and showers? What if a female platoon leader (in charge of 40 men) becomes pregnant? Will she go home? Will she have to stay in combat? What if she is the only female in the platoon … does she not have to bunk with a man?

Emotionally women are not made like men. There is nothing like being face to face with your enemy and pulling the trigger again, and again, and again. Women have been in combat zones and have performed excellently, but to put them in combat arms responsible for the killing of others has not happened yet. What is the emotional and psychological effect of this on women (not meant or created for war) versus men (who were created to protect and be warriors)?

What happens when the first female is captured in combat and brutally murdered? What about when al-Qaeda rapes a woman on video and uploads it to YouTube for all to see? How will the American public handle that? Will men act more carelessly and recklessly to spare their female counterparts than they would another man?

Look, I’m cool with and appreciate anyone wanting to give and/or receive a bullet on my freedom’s behalf, but I believe putting girls on the front lines of combat is a bad, bad, bad idea.

Doug Giles

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Prager University - He Wants You

Men look at women. That's their nature. But is this fascination with the female body a threat to their spouse or the woman they are with? That's the question that best-selling author and nationally syndicated talk show host, Dennis Prager, deals with here. His answer will be a revelation to most women... and a relief to most men.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.