Charmaine is quoted in Obama works to mobilize 'Christian left.'

She says that all voters should care, "...[A]bout the public policies the person is going to put in place."

Charmaine is pictured at left on an earlier CNN appearance debating abortion.

The policies of which Charmaine speaks are the 'vote-changing' issues Grover Norquist writes about in his book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives.

The Leave Us Alone coalition is made up of groups who want the government to do only constitutionally-restricted work, and to, well, leave us alone.

Following is a short list of loose associations Norquist cites who want less government and less outside intrusion:

Homeschoolers
Gun Owners
Church-goers
Taxpayers
Pro-Lifers

The Alert Reader will note that this conservative Leave Us Alone coalition includes the Pro-Life community. This is the only group in Grover's group that wants the government and the courts to protect life and stop the option of killing of unborn children -- just as the government stopped the option of slavery.

The Christian Left is willing to sacrifice freedom in order to pay higher taxes -- this small segment that occasionally attends church is delighted with large government and the government confiscation of property, life and wealth.

These young Christians are confusing government with God -- remember, for most liberals, the government is their god.

The Leftist group is a bit confused on Biblical teaching and looks forward to the tyranny of a ObamaNation. Mature followers of Jesus Christ look to the Ten Commandments, including the directive, Do Not Kill, or more accurately, Do No Murder.

The deliberate taking of innocent life is a vote-changer for thinking Christians.

Posted at 3:11 PM | Permalink
Comments (3)

Charmaine is taping an interview for CNN American Morning on the Senator Barack Obama flirtation with Bible believing, Jesus loving, Evangelicals who hold for the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. is pictured at left during a taping of Ethics in America with Barney Frank(D).

Obama has a chance with some church goers. About 30% of self-identified Christians voted for Bill Clinton.

Obama believes reporter Michael Weisskopf who wrote that members of the Christian Right are, "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command."

So while the poor impoverished are clinging to guns and religion, how would the elitist Obama lead the nation?

1) Bring legislation forcing citizens to embrace homosexual demands: Homosexual Marriage and the Homosexuals in the military.

2) Raise taxes.

3) Raise gas prices by punishing oil companies. He refuses to explore and drill for energy.

4) Demand that some babies born alive be left to die.

5) Force citizens how and what to think. Mark Steyn is being sued under hate-crimes law in Canada for his writing about Islam in America Alone, a must read. Barack X. Obama supports this mind-thought control through legislation.

The ObamaNation will force churches and the Boy Scouts to hire Homosexuals.

The ObamaNation will force government-controlled doctors on the country.

The ObamaNation will place women in land combat and in submarines.

The ObamaNation will take more of the citizen's money in taxes and fees.

The ObamaNation will force these government doctors to perform abortions.

The ObamaNation will force babies born during a botched abortion (re: live birth) to die.

The ObamaNation will continue the African-American genocide thru Planned Parenhood.

The clip will air next week. Hit times will be announced. Please let us know what you think. Comments are now open.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Obama may be a disciple of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't understand the Bible. And after attending Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, it figures. For example, the Old Testament dietary restrictions no longer apply. This is a "new" teaching in the New Testament that is different from the Old. Obama is going to be confused about these Old and New Testament issues:

Dietary restrictions.
Circumcision.
Animal sacrifice.

Homosexual abominations remain in effect.

Obama is fuzzy on his Biblical interpretations. And a bit confused on secular matters -- but he is consistent with the old-style liberal world view.

Your Business Blogger(R) looks forward to the continuing debate between Obama and Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Obama might come to Jesus yet...

Voters will not answer the ObamaNation altar call, Lord willing.

Click here for more on Ethics in America.

Larry Cirignano sends us this article by Bishop Harry Jackson on Planned Parenhood.

Posted at 10:09 AM | Permalink
Comments (7)

Following is from a Naval Aviator. The Dude, pictured on left with Baby Boo a few years ago at the Air Force Academy, loves jets and jet noise and wants to fly.

Charmaine is not so sure.

The Air Force crashes about 75 jets in routine training accidents apart from the war zones. The Navy budgets two jet losses per carrier per deployment.

Producing a number of widows, orphans and grieving families.

Even training is dangerous.

Our cousin Will was an F-18 pilot after graduating from Harvard.

He assures us that Naval Aviation is safe.

Except when it isn't.

Subject: Oyster Here . . I Think We Need To Rig The Barricade [ To Catch This Thing ] !

Here's a personal story of an F-18 pilot's . . at o'dark thirty . . with the carrier's barrier in place. The barricade's an impressive 20 foot high stiff net, that can be stretched across the deck to ' capture ' birds during extreme emergencies.

" Oyster, here. This note is to share with you the exciting night I had the other month. So There I was .

. . manned up with pins pulled on the hot seat for a 2030 night launch on the Hornet about 500 miles north of Hawaii. I taxied off toward the carrier's island where I did a 180 and got spotted on Cat number 1. They lowered my launch bar into position and the take-off routine began. On the run-up, all systems appeared to be ' in the green.'

After waiting the requisite 5 seconds to make sure all my flight controls were OK, I turned on the exterior lights, then shifted my eyes to the catwalk to watch the deck edge dude move his head while clearing me, left and right.

With the back of my helmet, I touched the head rest for...what was coming.

The Hornet cat shot is pretty impressive. Particularly at night. As the cat fired, I clicked in both afterburners...and I am along for the ride. But just prior to the end of the stroke there's a huge flash with a simultaneous B-O-O-M ! ...

continue reading at the jump.

This article has been circulating on the web. Credit to John Howland's USNA-At-Large.

Be sure to read Your Business Blogger(R) getting bested by his pre-teen Diva. And no, this is not a case study for women in combat. Read The FireDrill: Practice Success to Avoid Failure,

Your (Army) Business Blogger[R] had no business in the cockpit. My instructor was a Vietnam vet with MigKlr license plates on his truck.

He said the F-14 was a "Man's Plane." He sounded sexist. He explained that the old-generation hydraulics required real strength -- after a couple of hours, even the manliest studs needed two hands on the stick.

No place for girls.

Or so I thought.

But I was wrong, again.

I bring the Five-kid Penta-Posse to Oceana Naval Air Station to show them how macho military men (like their father) defeated Communism.

We get invited to some F-14 training. I climb in the simulator. No photography is permitted. And a good thing, too...

Alert Readers know that the F-14 is now retired.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 3:49 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Remembering the fallen

Watch the video
courtesy: Military Times
Alert Readers know that Your Business Blogger(R) does not care to see women any where near combat.

Real men fight their own battles.

Real men fight their country's battles.

Watch how How One Woman Serves. This is why men fight. She is why families sacrifice.

Thank you (foot)notes:

The forward torpedo room Pictured is the Penta-Posse on the retired submarine USS Becuna moored at Philadelphia. This highlights the close quarters men and women would live for months at a time under a Obamanation.

When boys and girls are close together, they get, well, close together.

The Navy will not tell us how many women get pregnant.

Our guess is that the pregnancy numbers are so high that the politically correct Navy will not disclose the prego incidents for fear of feminists. One anonymous service member said that the only women not getting pregnant in the military are the lesbians.

Barack X. Obama, the metro-sexual, girlie-man plans to put women in land combat, in harm's way and into submarines.

He is not quite a real man.

John McCain does not want women on submarines or in combat. He is a real man. With the scars to prove it.

McCain gives us his body once broken. Obama has never broken a sweat. Never had a blister, the poor sweet man.

Our poor country...

Your Business Blogger(R) was once honored to give a speech to some sub vets,

Submariners' Memorial Service, Saturday May 13, 2000, Outer Banks, North Carolina

Debt of Honor

It is an honor to join you here today and remember the submariners "still on patrol." And to remember our debt of honor due. I've asked my son, John, to join us today -- a day I expect him to remember and take to his grave.

During World War II, my dad, a teenager from New Jersey, left high school, went to submarine school and was assigned to the USS Bonefish.

When John saw previews of the blockbuster movie U-571, he asked if it was about his grandfather. The movie is a story about honor, courage, strength, character, what being a man, a warrior really is. Yes John, your grandfather was in the movie, and so were each of the submariners here today.

But in the movie the men came home. We are here today for the men who didn't.

The only women on submarines during WWII were the Korean "Comfort Women" used as sex slaves on the Japanese boats. We won that war.

Posted at 6:43 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

The Dreamer scored in the 93rd percentile in Math for her grade in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I promised her a reward night out -- But a daddy-daughter-dinner-date at Subways won't be happening.

A good deal of her education was in homeschooling where Your Business Blogger(R) worked with her on that topic that counted: Counting. The hard sciences that "girls don't do well."

Not good in Math? Not my girls. My expectation was that they would do well in the quantitatives. (Parent and teacher expectations are the biggest variable in the success of students.) My wife is a genius with SPSS and regression analysis . The Dancer and The Diva are rabid readers and love 'rithmatic -- and are bloggers.

The Penta-Posse are outliers on the bell curve of school age young'ums.

So. I promised The Dreamer a night out. But not at Subway. The restaurant is off the good-guy list for two reasons:

1) The company doesn't care for homeschoolers, and

2) They can't spell.

Our friend Don Wildmon at the American Family Association sends this along,

Subway tells home schoolers: We will not allow you to participate in our contest. Subway discriminates against home schoolers.

Subway, the sandwich restaurant, wants to hear your child's story – unless he or she is home schooled.

The national chain's "Every Sandwich Tells a Story Contest" offers prizes and a chance to be published on the Subway Web site and in Scholastic's "Parent & Child" magazine but specifically excludes home schoolers. Subway's website states:

NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied (sic) States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.

Subway will probably say they excluded home schools because of the main prize ($5,000 worth of athletic equipment to the winning child's school). But Subway could have given it to a local park, church or school of the winning home schooler's choice.

Subway's Web site promotion not only misspells "Untied (sic) States," but offers the grand prize winner a "Scholastic Gift Bastket (sic) for your home."

Subway's leadership clearly does not understand the value of homeschooling. In addition to learning how to spell, we are keeping our kids clear of the public schools' Family Life Education: Which is, as is commonly known, Sex Ed taught by liberals. When almost 20% of teens have herpes -- one would hope that this objective fact might persuade our feminist free-lovers that the condom classes might not be working.

Nope. The public payroll sex trainers are working even harder.

Here's some of what appears in Family Life Education for grades six through eight,

6.1 The student will learn that there are many health care and safety agencies in the community.
No need to talk with mom or dad, or aunt Sally or uncle Joe. The Planned Parenthood abortion clinic is just around the corner.

6.7 The student will be able to describe the etiology, effects and transmission of the HIV virus.
Clean needles for drug users? Contaminated blood supply? This is more important than spelling or math? The school will not reveal the detail of homosexual sex acts in the spread of the HIV virus. I did see a very nice man who teaches the course, however.

6.8 ...[E]valuate ...sexuality, and gender stereotyping...
The feminists are determined to get women in combat in the armed services.

7.7 The student will recognize that sexual behaviors are conscious decisions...
The public schools are a bit confused even about their own world view: homosexuality is a conscious decision; a preference -- not an orientation. FLE lurched into the truth.

So Subway supports only public schools, can't spell and doesn't like homeschoolers.

Dinner at Subway? No sirree -- We all are a-going to Chick-fil-a.


Chick-fil-A

Thank you (foot)notes:

Tom Peters once remarked that excellence should permeate an organization, especially for managing the perceptions of the customer. This is why managers make so much money. Airlines, in the consumers' mind, must understand that if the tray tables are dirty, the airline doesn't do engine maintenance.

The Army taught if boots were not shined, the soldier couldn't shoot straight.

If Subway can't spell, their food will make you [sic].

Send an e-mail to Subway President Frederick A. DeLuca. Tell him you will not eat with them anymore until and unless they allow home schoolers to participate. ©2008 Doctor's Associates Inc. SUBWAY® is a registered trademark of Doctor's Associates Inc.

This is an unpaid endorsement of Chick-fil-A.

See some commonsense at The sexual ‘revolution’ that keeps on turning

This is a cross post from Pro-Life Unity.

Posted at 10:36 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Our liberal friends at PBS have put together a program on the Navy.

Remember, any time 'Hollywood' gets near the military, the result always degenerates to an anti-war film.

USS Nimitz From: Chief of Naval Operations...

Beginning Sunday, April 27, PBS will air a reality-TV documentary
entitled "CARRIER", filmed while the production company was embarked
during the entire USS NIMITZ's 2005 deployment. The program will air
over five nights from Sunday, April 27, to Thursday, May 1, 2008,
9:00-11:00 p.m. ET.

Ten hours of film will be aired, selected from almost 2,000 hours that
were shot over the course of a 6-month deployment to CENTCOM. I have
viewed the production and want to share context and some thoughts
with you.

While "Carrier" shows the outstanding work our young Sailors do every
day and the opportunities the Navy offers, it also shows Sailors
making mistakes in their personal and professional lives. The
snapshot is frank and may be somewhat disconcerting to some who came
into the Navy some time ago. However, that said, I believe it will
also resonate with a significant segment of our country, especially
potential recruits and young Sailors serving today.

1) What we did. We provided unprecedented access to our Sailors,
and this production tells their story in a very personal way. There
is no narrator -- the stories are told by the Sailors themselves.
You get unvarnished views from junior personnel about their hopes,
aspirations, and challenges of life in the Navy aboard the carrier.
We did not get between the film crews and the Sailors.

2) What we got. The production highlights the racial, gender,
religious, and socio-economic diversity of our Navy. The hard work
our Sailors perform and the remarkable feat of forging thousands of
individuals on a carrier into a truly unique team really shines
through. Culling through hundreds of hours of video, the producers
created a 10-hour reality-TV documentary that shows selected aspects
of our Sailors' personal and professional challenges. The
cinematography is very high quality and the visuals and music are
sure to appeal to younger audiences.

3) What we did not get. We did not get a Navy "commercial" in the
traditional sense. "CARRIER" is very different from the hardware
documentaries we have supported in the past. This program focuses on
our people and the reality-TV approach gives it a sense of
authenticity and credibility. Since we did not monitor the
individual interviews and ongoing production, the program contains
material that does not always and fully represent the discipline,
values and mission of the U.S. Navy.

You will see some Sailors making personal and professional mistakes,
and expressing opinions that are different from the Navy's. However,
the production shows that these are the exception, not the norm, and
that leadership is engaged to shape lives and appropriate outcomes.
There are abundant examples of how the Navy changed Sailors' lives
for the better by giving them opportunities and a disciplined
environment.

4) Why did we agree to the project? This production, although not an
all-inclusive picture of the Navy, will give potential recruits and
those who influence them a glimpse of what life is really like in the
Navy. We want the American people to know, understand and appreciate
the contribution our Sailors make each and every day while deployed
around the world. We also want them to know us, not as a monolithic
bureaucratic entity, but as a diverse organization of individual
Americans who have set aside the comforts of home and have put
themselves on the line to serve a greater cause. You already know
how inspiring our people are, but few in our Nation get to see our
people in an operational environment.

Some of you may be called upon to offer public comments about this
film to the media or to community groups. We will soon distribute PA
guidance to support your efforts and will be putting additional
information on www.navy.mil in the near future. If you need any
additional information, please contact CHINFO, RDML Frank Thorp.

Thank you for all that you do.

All the best,

Gary Roughead

Thank you (foot)notes:

Thank you to John Howland at USNA-AT-LARGE for sending this out.

See more pictures.

Posted at 11:35 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Governor Huckabee and Charmaine
In the background, Princella Smith and our Diva-girl Watching the Huckabee concession speech and leaving the race Tuesday night made for an emotional evening in the Yoest household.

Charmaine sent short emails to the Huckabee team -- their responses were each measured and even-tempered, almost upbeat, having fought the good fight.

Today's Washington Update, from FRCAction notes:

Despite his exit, no one can deny how influential Mike Huckabee was in championing values issues in this crucial race. While yesterday was clearly a victory for McCain, the Arizona senator acknowledged that his work is just beginning.


To succeed in his bid for the White House, McCain must consolidate his support among conservatives, including social conservatives, which will not happen just because he is the Republican nominee.


In the wake of the Republican scandals that began to surface in 2006 and the failure to advance most of the social conservative agenda, unqualified support for the GOP has diminished.

David Huckabee and Charmaine

A poll released last month by George Barna revealed that if the election were held then, only 45 percent of Evangelicals would vote for a Republican candidate.


That number is down from 85 percent of Evangelicals who voted for George W. Bush in 2004.


John McCain will have to convince social conservatives that their issues matter and that he can talk about them as a candidate and act upon them as president.

Conservatives/evangelicals still have questions about McCain's stand on the major issues of family values, immigration, campaign finance and women in combat. But McCain is our guy.

Obama-Clinton is not.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Read Mike and Janet Huckabee's email at the jump.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 7:24 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Alert Readers know that the best indicator of future performance is...past performance.

Is it possible to change at the age of 60? Your Business Blogger would hope that we all would embrace continuous learning and update our skills. And to embrace truth. At whatever age.

But.

How many convictions can one man change -- all at once -- all at a mature age?

Change on Reagan?
Change on abortion?
Change on guns?
Change on homosexuals in the boyscouts?

And each of the changes of heart happens to coincide with position of the Republican conservative base?

This does not seem, as we say in academia, to be authentic.

Watch the clip: Huckabee suggests that Romney found conservative puberty at 60.

Voters should be slow to completely trust any teenager...

Thank you (foot)notes:

Full Disclosure: The wife of Your Business Blogger, Charmaine, has been a paid senior adviser to the Huckabee presidential campaign.

Correction: It is not known if Romney has changed his position on allowing homosexual Boy Scout Masters.

Posted at 10:31 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Equal Treatment Under Law, by Steve Myers

Let us have the women join us, as we tumble down to war,

As we spill our blood - and others' only men have spilled before;

When the sisters see the monster that awaits us - will they cry

As it rushes, hits, and maims us in the twinkle of an eye?

Let the women see us weeping as we view our comrades, dead,

Then, continue to the skirmish with sheer mayhem in our heads,

"Follow me!" courageous mother! Mother Courage, know your name,

You may find yourself a leader when the choice is doom or fame

That takes us down to Hell's last ring, before we lift our eyes,

To a Nature without nurture - in the cordite-scented skies.

Yes, let us march together as we face the foe and fight,

You, the woman on my left hand I the man there at your right,

We will face the test together, but must struggle each, alone,

As a brother and a sister, but never quite as one.

For, when that moment happens, then the Solider-hood of arms

Confuses war's dark passion - and may do us deadly harm;

Now, command makes its decision; now the forward line will move,

It matters not this moment, whether talking heads approve,

We set aside the quibbling - take a deep and fearful breath --

The offering's gender - yours or mine - means naught to Sergeant Death.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Credit: John Howland's USNA-AT-LARGE, who says, "Maybe we will have to change the game if there are no satisfactory rules in the present contest."

Change.

Posted at 12:07 AM | Permalink
Comments (1)

MILITARY LANGUAGE CONVERSION CHART

Your Business Blogger once held a Top Secret Security clearance. This post is cleared for less than FOUO.*

Now that the US military is pushing for a Joint Service environment, we, as former service members, have to learn a different language. Therefore, this chart was created to assist in that area to help bridge the gap of service respective languages.

NAVY / USMC ..................ARMY .......................AIR FORCE

Head.........................................Latrine ......................................Powder Room

Rack.........................................Bunk ..................... ....................Single with ruffle and duvet

Mess Deck / Chow Hall ..........Mess Hall / Mess Tent ..............Dining Facility or 'The Cafe'

Die for your Country ...............Die for your Battle Buddy ..........Die for Air Conditioning

'Cookie', stew burner ..............Mess Cook ..................... ..........Contract Chef

Coffee / Mud ...........................Cup of Joe ..................... ..........Vanilla Skim Latte'

Bug Juice ..................... ..........Kool-Aid ..................... ..............Shirley Temple

Utilities / Digitals ..................... BDUs / ACUs ..................... .......Casual Wear

Seaman / Private ..................... Private ..................... ................Bobby / Jimmy

Chief / Gunny ...........................Sergeant ..................... ............Bob / Jim

Captain / Skipper ..................... Colonel ..................... ...............Robert / James

Captain's Mast ..................... ....Article 15 ..................... ...........Time Out

Berthing / Barracks ..................Barracks ..................... ............Apartment

Skivvies / U-Trau ..................... Underwear ..................... ........Undies

Thrown in the Brig ...................Put in Confinement ....................Grounded

Zoom Bag ..................... ..........Flight Suit ..................... ...........Business Casual

Cover / Head Gear ..................Beret ..................... ...................Optional

Ship's Store / NEX ...................PX (PX Trailer) ..................... ...AAFES Shopping Mall

TAD ..................... ...................TDY ..................... .....................PCS with family

Cruise / Afloat .........................Deploy ..................... ................Huh?

Ground Grabbers ....................Athletic Shoes ..................... ...Flip-Flops

Shipmate / Marine ....................Battle Buddy ..................... ......Don't Ask, Don't Tell or Honey

Terminate / Kill ........................Take Out ..................... ............Back on Base for Happy Hour

Boon Dockers .........................Jump Boots ..................... ......Birkenstocks

Low Quarters ..................... Low Quarters ..................... .......Patent Leather Pump

SEAL ..................... ..............SF/Ranger ..................... ............Librarian

Shore Patrol / MPs ................MPs ..................... ..................... SF

Oouh-Rah! ............................Hoo-ah! ..................... .................Hip-Hip hurray!

MRE ..................................... MRE ..................... .....................Happy Meal To Go

Salute ..................................Salute ..................... .....................Wave

Obstacle Course ..................Confidence Course ..................... .Class 6 Parking Lot

Grinder / Drill Field ................Parade Field ..................... .............What?

Ge-Dunk .............................. Snack Bar ..................... ...............Chuck E. Cheese

PT Test ................................ APFT ..................... ..................... 'No conversion available'

Dept. of the Navy .................DoD ..................... .....................DoD Lite

Midshipman ..........................Cadet ..................... ...................Debutant

Hard-Core ............................Strak ..................... .....................'Way Too Serious'

* FOUO: For Official Use Only, the lowest level of classification

Thankyou (foot)note to Stan Honour for passing this along.

And see more on military observations, at the jump. Overheard Combatant Command Staff Officer Discourse:

"Whatever happened to good old-fashioned military leadership? Just task the first two people you see."

"His knowledge on that topic is only power point deep..." MAJ (JS)

"I need intelligence, not information." Maj (EUCOM)

"I am so far down the food chain that I've got plankton bites on my butt."

Continue Reading »

Posted at 5:24 PM | Permalink
Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Charmaine at the podium
addressing last year's
crowd of 1,700 The Family Research Council is having their annual Briefing in Your Nation's Capital.

This year will be interesting. All GOP presidential candidates will speak. Sen. Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Ron Paul, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson.

No Democratic candidate has accepted.

Liberals: won't fight; won't debate.

From FRCAction,

The Washington Briefing 2007: Values Voter Summit is cosponsored by American Values, Focus on the Family Action, Alliance Defense Fund and High Impact Leadership Coalition.

The Briefing will be held October 19-21 at the Hilton Washington Hotel in Washington, D.C. A presidential straw poll, exhibit hall, radio row, book signings, bloggers' row, and much more will be packed into this three-day conference. Saturday evening Dr. James Dobson will be honored at a gala dinner where he will receive FRC's inaugural Vision and Leadership Award.

Members of the media must register for FRC media credentials prior to the event.

Contact J.P. Duffy at jpd@frc.org or fax, names, numbers and e-mails on company letterhead to 202.393.2134.

For more information regarding the log onto www.frcactionwashingtonbriefing.org or call the FRC Press Office at (866) FRC-NEWS.

More from FRC Action, the C(4)

In addition to the GOP presidential candidates, the speaker line-up includes Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Colson, Gary Bauer, Bishop Harry Jackson, Alan Sears, Mark Levin, Roger Hedgecock, Rich Lowry, Paul Weyrich, Dr. Richard Land, John Fund, Ed Meese, Ben Stein, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Representatives Marsha Blackburn and Jean Schmidt, Star Parker, Phyllis Schlafly, Senator Rick Santorum, Michael Steele, Father Frank Pavone, Bill Bennett, and Judge Robert Bork.

Charmaine, as Vice President for Communications for FRC will be working The Political Blogosphere with Soren Dayton, Political Consultant; David All, The David All Group; Matthew Eppinette, Americans United for Life; Erick Erickson, RedState; Joe Carter, Director of Web Communications for FRC

Thank you (foot)notes:

From last year: The Real Story: The Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC

The Family Research Council, FRC Action Briefing: Family, Faith and Freedom

FRC Action Briefing September 2006

People for the American Way weighs in FRC's Perkins Suggests Romney Better Than Huckabee on Religious-Right Issues

For more info,

Attendees at the Summit will now have the chance to make their own assessments of the GOP contenders in person at the Summit. In addition, members of FRC Action (see the web site address that follows) can vote in the first-ever Values Voter Presidential Straw Poll, either online or in person on October 19 and 20.

For information or to register, go to www.thewashingtonbriefing.com or call toll-free at 1-888-372-2284.

Pam Spaudling's take at Mark your calendars for the 2007 Values Voters Summit/Washington Briefing

A Buck For Huck has Washington Briefing

Posted at 3:35 PM | Permalink
Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

Kinglsey Brown Alert Readers will know of Your Business Blogger's endorsement of Professor Kingsley Brown and his research. Brown is on faculty at Wayne State University teaching law.

He writes to John Howland with USNA At Large,

“Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence that Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars” is due out on November 8, although it can be pre-ordered now on Amazon...

My book examines physical and psychological differences between the sexes and their implication for integration of combat forces. This examination includes not just individual traits -- such as strength, endurance, risk-taking, physical aggression, fear, courage, and other traits that affect both combat motivation and combat performance -- but also the effect of psychological sex differences on the functioning of groups. As you know, individuals do not fight wars; groups do, and the sex composition of groups has a substantial impact on how the group functions.

As you have yourself noted, trust is the “coin of the realm” in combat groups. It appears that men are not “designed” to easily trust women in dangerous situations. I’m sure that you and the other At-Large members have had the experience of knowing leaders whom you would be willing to follow through the gates of Hell and others whom you would be reluctant to follow across the street. Some people trigger trust in their comrades, and others –

Women in Combat

no matter what kind of training they have had – simply cannot do so. I suggest in my book that women generally do not trigger that kind of trust in men, no matter how much men like and respect women. This is not a criticism of either women or men; it is simply the way our psyches work. As the continued opposition to women in and near combat suggests, this is not a problem that can be solved simply through “leadership” and “training,” which are usually invoked as the solution to problems with sexual integration.

My book also chronicles a number of other impediments to sexual integration, many of which are well known, such as problems of pregnancy, double standards, political correctness, and so forth.

Best regards,

Kingsley

Thank you (foot)notes:

Read more on Kingsley Browne's work at Hiring Super Stars vs Tolerating Turkeys

Thanks to John Howland at USNA At Large.

More on Professor Kingsley Brown at the jump.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 9:48 PM | Permalink
Comments (4)

Navy Times, April 15, 1961 As Your Business Blogger was looking through an old Navy Times for a listing of my dad's promotion, I came across this cartoon.

The Old Salts knew even back then that sparks fly when men and women put on a uniform -- in close quarters.

Sometimes the uniforms come off:

Deanna Allen getting out of uniform
in Camp Bucca.
She is clearly not a prudent woman,
See Pirate Codes below

A sample of Pirate Codes concerning women. And these were the uncivilized men:

Bartholomew Roberts's articles,

One of the best known sets of pirate articles was set down by the famous Welsh pirate Bartholomew Roberts in 1720.

No boy or woman to be allowed amongst them. If any man were to be found seducing any of the latter sex, and carried her to sea, disguised, he was to suffer death; [so that when any fell into their hands, as it chanced in the Onslow, they put a sentinel immediately over her to prevent ill consequences from so dangerous an instrument of division and quarrel; but then here lies the roguery; they contend who shall be sentinel, which happens generally to one of the greatest bullies, who, to secure the lady's virtue, will let none lie with her but himself.]

If at any time you meet with a prudent Woman, that Man that offers to meddle with her, without her Consent, shall suffer present Death.

The Pentagon will not publish the pregnancy rate or the true number of non-deployable women. Not all military women are as, well, flashy as Deanna Allen. But the silence of the Brass makes the virtue of military women appear to be something out of the campus orgies in Tom Wolfe's "I Am Charlotte Simmons."

Are all women in the military un-dressing the troops like Deanna? I would hope not. But the pictures are compelling.

And this may get worse. Hillary Clinton wants more women in combat and open homosexuals in the military. More women and homosexuals in the armed forces; in harm's way would not be helpful for unit cohesion or for what little privacy seen in the military.

Alert Reader David Hilgartner has more thoughts on the "weaker sex" in this terrible time of war, at the jump.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Your Business Blogger is a former Army Captain in Combat Arms. And never had women under his command. Not in the military; not in marriage. And don't even ask about the daughters.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 8:38 AM | Permalink
Comments (10)

This post is under the category of war. Here is a review of Reasoned Audacity's 9.11 posts over the years.

Following is background from Your Business Blogger in an article published just after 9.11. Things have changed since then. A little.

Booby traps at the Pentagon: Charmaine and Jack Yoest introduce you to the Pentagon's babes in arms. What do they want? An "open dialogue" on breastfeeding. (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services)

Originally published in The Women's Quarterly; January 01, 2002;


Pentagon attack
ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, [2001] the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, the group most responsible for promoting women in combat, gathered in Pentagon Conference Room 5C1042. This civilian advisory committee, whose members have the protocol status of three-star generals, monitors the concerns of women in uniform. And what was the topic on the eve of the worst attack in U.S. history?

After briefings from representatives of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, DACOWITS, as the committee is known, issued a formal request for more information on what they deemed a matter of paramount military significance:

breast-feeding.

As the terrorists prepared to hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon itself, our military leaders were directed "to engage in open dialogue" on lactation tactics.

The Defense Advisory Committee on Women celebrated its fiftieth anniversary last April. At the birthday party, President Bush's deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, a man well regarded for his level-headed and conservative approach to military issues, lauded DACOWITS in his address as an outstanding organization" and told the assembly of earnest women that he "looked forward to [their] advice."

Read the article.

Dad & The Dude
prepared for war
September 11, 2001
photo credit:
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D. Just after 9am on 9.11, I was doing what all business owners were doing: selling something. I was on the phone with a client. Making a pitch to attend a series of seminars, with CNN on in the background. I was a bit distracted by the live feed of a burning building.

While making 'the ask,' it was clear that my customer was not aware that we had just been attacked. I wanted to say something, like, Turn on your TV and stare at real pain. It just didn't look real. I continued instead with the conversation. Your Business Blogger is not normally so focused. In denial, perhaps. Disasters are not normally good for business.

There was work to be done. My next class was on September 19.

And I didn't want the customer on the other end of the phone distracted until the sale was closed. Then we could go to war.

The deal done, I noticed my boy, The Dude, was concerned that the attacks would continue down to us in Charlottesville, Virginia. "We got to get ready!" he shouts and scampers around digging up my old uniform, boots, saber and his grandfather's bayonet. (Old soldiers never die, they just file away. Apologies to MacArthur.)

The Dude spent the rest of the morning marching outside our front door. Looking out for terrorists. It must have worked.

Charlottesville was not attacked.

But we were affected. Everyone was. But I wasn't sure that the bank was going to delay getting their money over a pesky act of war. I still had to earn a living.

How would the war affect business? Not the macro, but mine? I had a seminar and clients coming into town in little over a week and the world was on fire. Would anyone show up? Would anyone care?

We North Americans do business like we do war. We win. Donald Trump becomes Victor Davis Hanson. At 8 am on 19 September 2001, 86 professionals showed up and got down to business. A packed room.

The free lunch helped.

Even my business partner, Faisal Alam, came down from New York City to join us. He is Muslim.

The country was mourning, but on the move.

I started with a minute of silence in remembrance of those lost in the World Trade Towers.

Then we all got back to work. Each making the world a better place. Even with a war on.

King Kong in New York CityFrom time to time, Your Business Blogger works out of a client's offices at the edifice at 350 Fifth Avenue in NYC.

Also known as The Empire State Building.

It is still standing.

So what didn't happen on New Year's Eve?

Nothing.

Enemy Jihadists didn't blow anything up. And they didn't touch Times Square packed with people at midnite 31 December.

President George Bush has been keeping us all safe since 9.11.

Even Michael Moore.

In war every soldier's death is a public event.

The Falling Man

credit: Richard Drew, AP

Because of 9.11, we are all soldiers now.

The Pentagon circa 9.11.06. Lit by 184 lights to commemorate each life lost there on 9.11.01
Credit: Unknown

A Thank you note to Michelle Malkin on 9.11 for Tom Junod's The Falling Man in Esquire.

Basil's Blog has open trackbacks.

Posted at 2:31 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about American exceptionalism; the American experiment,

If I am asked how we should account for the unusual prosperity and growing strength of this nation, I would reply that they must be attributed to the superiority of their women.

Your Business Blogger is not sure that this is what Alexis de Tocqueville meant:

Vanessa Dobos, gunner: the superior woman?

Following is Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American woman and psychologist from Los Angeles. She is debating the clash of civilizations. She reviews the fact that inferior civilizations use "women as beasts." There might be some confusion on how Islam jihadists and the American armed forces use women in combat.

Watch the clip here.

The video is a must see.

Thank you (foot)notes:

President George Bush said our women will not be in ground combat.

A C-130 doesn't count, I guess.

Thank you to Alert Reader Stan Honour for finding this vagina warrior.

Posted at 9:23 AM | Permalink
Comments (6)

Robespierre guillotined during the Reign of Terror, 1794
Some historians state that he was executed face up --
to watch the descending blade. There has been some concern and backlash on the 'justice' rendered to Naval Academy...attendee... Lamar Owens.

Gerald L. Atkinson writes on The New Age 'Diversity' and Its Discontents as part of his series on the Looming American Matriarchy. His article,

[A]ddresses the origins of the modern ‘diversity’ movement. It traces this movement in the U.S. Navy and in our broader society as well. It attempts to tie the loose ends of this subject together as it relates to the Looming American Matriarchy and the ‘counter-culture’ revolution of which it is a part.

Whereas the previous issue of this journal revealed the surprising depth to which the modern idea of ‘diversity’ has wormed its way deep into the heart and soul of the U.S. Navy -- and with the appointment of ADM Michael G. Mullen to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- eventually into the entire military.

This issue attempts to understand this phenomenon, ­ its essence, origins, adherents, and purpose. How could the radical feminists and their supporters embedded in every institution across the land over the past three or more decades have usurped the civil rights movement to the point where sexual politics trumps race?

The answer is straightforward.

We are fortunate to have a seminal book on this subject: Diversity: The Invention of a Concept by Peter Wood, Encounter Books 2003. Th[is] book provides an in-depth treatment of ‘diversity’ as a modern ideology.

The interesting aspect of this treatment is the striking parallel of the ‘excesses’ of the French Revolution with the New Age ideology of ‘diversity.’

One can imagine the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the counterpart of Robespierre ­-- the Fool as Revolutionary and Midshipman Lamar Owens and the hundreds of naval officer ‘warriors’ who have been ‘purged’ over the past two decades and are still being purged as the counterpart of the innocent Catholic priests who were put to the guillotine and drowned on barges in the wake of the blood bath of the Reign of Terror in France in 1789.

When will the modern day Robespierres find their just end?

It may be likely that the same forces that are alive and boiling under the surface in America ­ those forces that forced the politicians to scrap the recent seriously-flawed immigration legislation proposals will carry the day.

We must understand the difference between the Franco-German way and the Anglo-American way if we are to preserve our civilization as it was handed down to us by our Founding Fathers.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Half of Rape Allegations are False: Seven Clues from Your Business Blogger. A not so subtle point in Management Training.

And it is not just Lamar Owens. see Girls win -- Boys lose: Webster Smith, Coast Guard Academy Cadet Convicted What is it about feminists and black men?

Posted at 9:21 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

My good friend Bob Miller has a compelling article on women in combat that deserves a wide audience.

Female sniper,
United States Air Force In September of last year, the Naval Institute Proceedings commemorated thirty years of sex-integration at the U.S. Naval Academy with a Commentary by Sharon Disher, USNA ’80, entitled “Women CAN Fight.” As a member of the first sex-integrated Naval Academy class, Disher wrote in conspicuous contradiction of former Marine combat hero, and now Senator, James Webb’s (USNA ‘ 68] then-troublesome 1979 Washingtonian Magazine essay: “Women Can’t Fight.”

Well of course women CAN fight. In Iraq, US military women have fought and still do fight bravely and selflessly. These armed daughters, sisters, wives and mothers can also become wounded, maimed, captured, abused and killed. In fact one hears military women, in particular, declaring their willingness to "die for my country," words far less often heard from men.

And women can kill; there's no doubt about it.

But please, put aside for a moment the tendency to rationalize, trivialize, scoff or scorn a cautionary perspective in order to reflect with candor on what this unarguably historic innovation of the "woman as warrior" may signify about a phenomenal cultural trajectory.

The stakes are high.

Read his entire article at the jump.

Robert H. Miller, CAPT, USN ret
Hope For America
PO Box 1007
Willow Grove, PA 19090
hfa@aol.com

Continue Reading »

Posted at 10:09 AM | Permalink
Comments (14)

Homosexuals at sea The Other Side of the Story

by Allan Slaff

On 13 June, the Wall Street Journal printed an op-ed piece by former congressman Bob Barr entitled “Don’t Ask, Who Cares” in which he argued that barring homosexuals from openly serving in the military was unfair, un-American and counterproductive. Mr. Barr writes that he has become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services. With all due respect to the two authorities that he refers to, ex Senator Simpson and General Skalikeshveli, both of whom I greatly admire and respect, neither of them have any first hand idea of the sociological problems of going to sea in a man of war.

I strenuously disagree with Mr. Barr and his military authorities, and I would like very much to offer “The other side of the story”. Since I am a retired naval officer, I shall write to what I know well and that is going to sea in a man of war. I served in eleven ships of the Navy and had the unique honor of commanding four combatants including the heavy guided missile cruiser Albany all of which, by the way, were at the time considered among the finest combatants in the Fleet.

In a combatant ship our bluejackets are literally packed into berthing compartments, typically holding about 40 men. They are afforded minimum privacy even under the most enlightened habitability standards. As a nod for the need for some human privacy the modern enlisted bunks are fitted with a privacy curtain which they may close. Public nakedness is the reality of enlisted life in Navy ships and that pertains to the heads, and wash and shower rooms as well.

Our ships get underway for months at a time. The typical deployment when I was in the Fleet was for nine months and I understand that that is still typical. Thus, those compartments become the bluejackets’ home for very long periods of time. There is no such thing as going home ashore after your watch or if you are in a liberty section so that you may enjoy the company of your homosexual partner. There are of course occasional liberty ports but liberty for enlisted personnel usually expires in the late evening. The Fleet doesn’t even enter port for replenishment. All of that is done underway.

Now assign a few homosexuals into that living compartment when all of them including the homosexual are very young and when their hormones are at their most powerful and you have an invitation to disaster. It would be akin to inserting a few heterosexual males into an all female compartment where nakedness is a way of life and sending them off for months at a time. Impossible! And thus it would be exactly the same for the homosexual in a heterosexual male compartment.

As Mr. Barr correctly points out, the homosexual has as fine an intellect as the heterosexual. They thus eventually and inevitably they will be advanced in rating. As petty officers they will be in a position of powerful authority over men of lesser rating and thus in a position to exert exquisite sexual pressure on their subordinates.

For these very apparent sociological reasons it would be a disaster to change the present policy. It would reap havoc on the fighting efficiency of the Fleet and good order and discipline so necessary in a man of war. It just cannot happen.

Allan Slaff

Thank you (foot)notes:

Allan Slaff submitted this letter to the editors of The Wall Street Journal.

Credit to John Howland at USNA At Large.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 10:19 AM | Permalink
Comments (3)

Some time ago, Your Business Blogger was invited by FOX NEWS to discuss social programs in the military and the new Congress. Following are the back of the envelope notes for the show prep.

Damascus Nancy Pelosi
Courtesy: Rush Limbaugh Liberal Democrats have taken control of Congress in this terrible time of war. What does this mean for the armed services?

High on the law makers' agenda is the Global War on Terror. The debate raging over our involvement in Iraq has been high profile and headline-grabbing.

But there is another agenda; a hidden one that isn't making headlines. An agenda that is attempting to change the culture of our military.

High on the hidden agenda is to advance liberal ideologies by remaking the military. This re-engineering campaign is a three-pronged effort:

1) Reinstituting the draft
2) Entrenching women in combat and
3) Encourage homosexuals in the military.

The Draft

Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel is pushing the draft, using involuntary conscription as a legislative tactic to end what he sees as an unpopular war by having even smart rich white kids get killed.

But what is driving the congressman’s hidden agenda is to provide manpower in the cultural war. A few years ago army veteran Rangel first introduced legislation to bring back the draft for both men and women; with no exception for conscientious objectors. Draftees would “volunteer” for some approved social public-works. Liberals want legions of indentured servants for government programs.

The purpose of the draft is to maintain military numerical strength in an extreme national emergency. Because the draft is designed for combat replacements, only men -- not women must currently register.

But many social engineers including Rangel would want women drafted to fight in combat.

Women in Combat

Men have to do 3 chin-ups to be in the
Marines. Women don't have to do any. Zero. None.The hidden agenda also includes advancing women in land combat. President Bush has clearly stated that women will not be placed in land combat and be subjected to Direct Ground Fire. But the left-leaning Flags of senior generals and admirals are not only placing women in harm’s way but also into combat. 77 women have died in our current war, where only 16 died in Vietnam, most of them were nurses.

Feminist have long preached that men and women are interchangeable and that being a male or female was simply a social construct. The new congress will want to advance these egalitarian goals in the mistake of pursuing the women’s vote as (former) senator George Allen did. (See Allen's support of women at VMI.)

But the military is not subject to the Equal Opportunity and Employment Commission. The battlefield is not regulated by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Combat is violence against women.

Liberal Democrats in the coming months will force the armed services to evolve, to grow; to achieve higher consciousness. Liberals in Congress will demand EEO hires into OSHA compliant combat to remake a new and improved military.

The end result is a liberal Department of Defense which may or may not win any wars but will pass EEO muster.

After training by feminists in Anger Management.

Over the past few years, armed forces policy has been the domain of the generals and less of the civilians elected and appointed. The civilian leadership ceded control to the Pentagon Brass. Empty civilian Armani’s were replaced with Class A military Uniforms.

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that...

Except the military leadership was as liberal as the civilians they replaced. Forgetting the true job of the armed forces. The purpose of our military has a single goal: To defend our institutions. Our way of life. Freedom. Congress is charged with providing for the common defense.

Unfortunately Democrats in Congress will demand control to change the culture of the military.

Lifting the Homosexual Ban

As recently as 1993, Congress affirmed in law that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. But Clinton-era "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" regulations contradict the law and cause confusion. Democrats and homosexual activists will use the confusion to work to remove the regulation and change the law, in a single synchronized move.

The key difference in our current culture wars is in understanding unit cohesion. This is the unique bond that is needed for survival in combat necessary for victory. Unit cohesion is all but unknown and nearly unnecessary in the civilian world.

In 1982 the Department of Defense said that he presence of homosexuals, adversely affects the ability … to maintain discipline and morale; to foster mutual trust. And unlike the civilian workplace military men and women, …must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy…. Sexual attraction and tension destroys unit cohesion and may detract from mission accomplishment.

Few civilian shift managers expect employees not to date each other. Few first line supervisors expect staff to jump on stray hand grenades.

What should Congress do?

Liberal Democrats have a hidden agenda for changing the military culture. But what should our law makers do instead to improve military readiness?

Keep the volunteer army. As recent studies by The Heritage Foundation have shown, our current All-Volunteer Army is well motivated, well education and truly looks like America. If the Pentagon needs more young men for combat, President Bush can lead the recruiting drive by call to arms from his bully pulpit. We have heard no such exhortation from the President.

The Army can follow the president’s orders and keep women away from Direct Ground Combat. The president can order the Pentagon to stop the charade of assigning women to non-combat units, then attaching and “co-locating” women with combat units. At the very least, the military can hold women to the same physical training standards as men.

The Pentagon can repeal the Don't Army Don't Tell regulations. And keep the current laws against Gays-Lesbian-Bi-sexuals and Transgender genders from serving in the military. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, then-Vice-President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton have admitted that Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell was a failure.

Homosexuals can honorably serve our country in many ways, including,

Peace Corps,
America Corps,

But not the
Marine Corps

We are a nation with citizen soldiers. We should not burden combat leaders with the needs of citizen cross-dressers. "Unfair" as it may be.

It is enough to ask the combat leader to fight and win battles with out being worried about the special needs of gender-identity politics.

By taking these actions we might have a prayer in the Global War on Terror. Because if we fail, any prayers we have will be toward Mecca.

Posted at 6:56 AM | Permalink
Comments (1)

Heather Wilson
A few years ago Charmaine tangled with Congressperson Heather Wilson (R) (!) on MSNBC on women in combat.

Representative Wilson wants women exposed subjected to direct ground combat.

Unfortunately, women are not held to the same physical training standards as men.

Note in the video clip Charmaine's emphasis that our Armed Forces like to win -- as much, say, as teams in the National Football League like to win. Not many chicks near pro teams, except the campfollowers on the sidelines.

The difference being, of course, that the Army team is a merely a fight to the death.

And the NFL fights for money.

When the mission is really important, who does it right? The Army or the NFL?

(Former) Private Deanna Allen
does not represent
all women in the military Watch the clip here.

Full Disclosure: there is no nudity in the clip.

Posted at 8:07 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Fox News here in Your Nation's Capital is taping a segment on women in the military. The interview will air on the 11th. Veterans' Day. I will be discussing the contribution of women in the uniformed services.

Location: MC RECRUIT DEPOT, PARRIS ISLAND,
SOUTH CAROLINA (SC)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)
DoD photo by: SGT R. KLIKA
Date Shot: 20 Jun 1985Our women in uniform are serving with distinction and honor in our Armed Services. The nation is proud of our women in uniform for their outstanding contribution to the security of our nation. They have faithfully discharged their duty and oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. We are grateful for their service.

To defend out institutions and our way of life. Our women in the military have made sacrifices. And for too many, the supreme sacrifice.

Women have served with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan in the global war on terror. There is no debate, no question on the patriotism of our women in the military and their contribution to our national security.

Nothing that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan changes the debate on women in combat. That women have been placed in combat.

The President, the Commander in Chief, has said that women willl not be in [land] combat.

Congress has decreed that women will not be in land combat.

Army rule and req have forbidden the placement of women in land combat.

The American people have demanded that women not be placed in land combat.

But.

Women are dying in combat.

Todate, 67 women in the service have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Vietnam era only 17 women were killed. And most of those female casualties were nurses. We do not have to sacrifice our women in combat.

What has changed?

During the Clinton era army regulations were weakened to where women are now exposed to a substantial risk of capture. The end results of this change has been tragic. As we now have seen with the capture, torture and murder of our female soldiers.

We are proud of our women in the military. But we did not send them off to a war zone to be killed and captured in combat.

Double Standards involving Women (DSIW)

...here's what a 22-year-old man and woman must do to "max" (get a perfect score of 300) the physical fitness test in each service.

Marine men must do 20 pull-ups, 100 sit-ups and run three miles in 18 minutes. Women Marines must hold the flexed-arm hang for 70 seconds, do 100 sit-ups and run three miles in 21 minutes.

Army men must do 75 push-ups, 80 sit-ups and run two miles in 13 minutes. Women soldiers must do 46 push-ups, 80 sit-ups and run two miles in 15:35.

Women are held to lower physical standards than men. Lower physical standards can jeopardize mission accomplishment and evacuation of wounded fellow soldiers.

Only about 3% of military women test as well in physical training as the average male. Women have much to offer in knowledge, skills and abilities to our armed forces. Man-handling an 80 pound back isn't one of them.

If one of our soldiers is wounded, do we know that a female could move her buddy to safety?

This doubt, this hesitation on rescue is what destroys unit cohesion.

Women in combat does not improve the ability of our Army to fight and win.

Pullups. Men have to do them. Women don't. Double standards. For the feminists.

Thank you (foot)notes: Update: The interview was bumped. We'll let you know when segment is re-scheduled. Your Business Blogger serves as the Vice President of the Center for Military Readiness

Posted at 7:01 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

How does one know when one has arrived?

When you are the subject of a cartoon.

We were honored to have Karin Agness, President of NeW, as one of our panelists for the Center for Military Readiness Celebration last week.

Karin Agness at the Center for Military Readiness Briefing

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription or RSS for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Karin L. Agness is the Founder and President of the Network of enlightened Women (NeW), which helps female college students to confront radical feminists and liberals on fifteen college campuses. Ms. Agness is a Phi Beta Kappa member and student of law, University of Virginia. She has collaborated with the wife of Your Business Blogger, Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D..

Read Rebecca Hagelin's take at TownHall.

Posted at 10:40 AM | Permalink
Comments (2)

The Feminist and Women in Combat, Scott Maxim
www.geeksoncaffeine.com

Your Business Blogger is honored to report to Elaine Donnelly who heads The Center for Military Readiness. We have been asking questions of both candidates to clarify their positions on women in combat. Yesterday CMR released this information.

From Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness, 5 October 2006:

In the Virginia Senate race, the issue of women in combat has suddenly become a matter of great controversy. The Center for Military Readiness is non-partisan and neutral in that race. We do not endorse candidates at any level. As a public policy organization our primary mission is to provide accurate information and background on issues of concern to CMR.

On September 12 Senator Allen raised the issue of women in combat by sponsoring a high-profile news conference featuring female Naval Academy graduates. The former officers criticized Mr. Webb's 1979 Washingtonian article opposing women in combat, titled "Women Can't Fight." Video from the news conference is prominently displayed on Allen's campaign website and in a series of ads regarding respect for women. Webb apologized for some of the statements in the article, and one of the news conference speakers subsequently said that if she lived in Virginia, she would vote for Webb.

Others can debate the etymology of Allen's unfortunate slang word or Webb's seventies-era rhetoric. CMR is more concerned about the issues that matter today. One of these two men will be sworn in as Virginia's Senator in January 2007. Since both candidates have put the issue of women in combat front and center, we believe the voters are entitled to answers on their records and future plans on military personnel issues of concern to CMR

To determine the candidates' positions on current issues -- not just things that were said in the past -- CMR submitted four specific questions to Senator Allen and to Jim Webb. We had hoped that we would have written answers to report by now, but we have yet to receive answers from the Allen campaign. A spokeswoman for Mr. Webb provided verbal answers to three of the four questions. Our inquiries and the Webb campaign's partial answers are posted here.

On September 17, Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press put several valid questions to Allen and Webb about the Army's practice of placing female soldiers in certain support units that are collocated or embedded with direct ground combat troops. These units are required to be all male. For months CMR has been reporting on these illegal practices, which were the subject of a major debate in the House Armed Services Committee in May 2005. Neither candidate, however, seemed prepared to answer current questions on women in land combat or related issues. Erroneous statements were made by both.

In the interests of accuracy and context, we have also posted some points of information to correct or clarify issues of concern to CMR that came up during the Meet the Press debate. This information has been shared with both candidates.

If we receive answers to our inquiries from Senator Allen or James Webb, we will let you know right away.

The four questions are at the jump.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

A Reminder - Join Us on October 12!

In the meantime, we are finalizing plans for our Eleventh Annual CMR Issues Briefing on Thursday, October 12.

By coincidence, our scheduled panel discussion could not be more timely or relevant to issues being discussed today. I am looking forward to joining distinguished panelists Kate O'Beirne of National Review, attorney Charles Gittins, and Karin Agness of the Network of enlightened Women (NeW) in discussing: Respect for Women: Where is the Military Taking Us?

You will not want to miss the panel discussion, which will be followed by the CMR Celebration Reception -- our main fundraising event of the year. This reception gives us the opportunity to share good conversation and refreshments with friends from around the country.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 8:44 AM | Permalink
Comments (1)

Following is background from Your Business Blogger in an article published just after 9.11. Things have changed since then. A little.

Booby traps at the Pentagon: Charmaine and Jack Yoest introduce you to the Pentagon's babes in arms. What do they want? An "open dialogue" on breastfeeding. (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services)

Originally published in The Women's Quarterly; January 01, 2002;


Pentagon attack
ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, [2001] the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, the group most responsible for promoting women in combat, gathered in Pentagon Conference Room 5C1042. This civilian advisory committee, whose members have the protocol status of three-star generals, monitors the concerns of women in uniform. And what was the topic on the eve of the worst attack in U.S. history?

After briefings from representatives of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, DACOWITS, as the committee is known, issued a formal request for more information on what they deemed a matter of paramount military significance:

breast-feeding.

As the terrorists prepared to hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon itself, our military leaders were directed "to engage in open dialogue" on lactation tactics.

The Defense Advisory Committee on Women celebrated its fiftieth anniversary last April. At the birthday party, President Bush's deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, a man well regarded for his level-headed and conservative approach to military issues, lauded DACOWITS in his address as an outstanding organization" and told the assembly of earnest women that he "looked forward to [their] advice."

Read the article.

California Conservative has Open Post 9.11

Posted at 9:34 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

KARMAH, Iraq -- Lance Cpl. Erin Libby doesn't want to be treated the same as her male Marine Corps counterparts. But she does want to be treated as an equal -- even in combat.

In a way, she got her chance last weekend when Marines from the 3rd Battalion...

Photo: Sandra Jontz
Chief Warrant Officer 2
Jill St. John
Combat Logistics Battalion 8

Here we go. Again. From the Stars and Stripes, "Marine raid breaks gender barrier." (See story at Lucianne.)

Photo: Sandra Jontz
Lance Cpl. Erin Libby
"Rocking on the front line"
Handing out toys in Karmah

The Stars and Stripes is reporting that this past Saturday, the Marines took 14 women from the Combat Logistics Battalion 8 with them on a raid 15 miles northeast of Fallujah. The women's usual jobs involve "supplying ammunition, food, water, fuel and mail."

The reason for the change in job assignment?

Cultural sensitivities precluded male Marines from searching women, so the female Marines were meant to deflate fears of Iraqi men and women, said the battalion executive officer, Maj. Larry Miller. It was a first in Iraq to have female Marines embedded at the lowest levels of infantry companies and working alongside their male counterparts.

So "cultural sensitivities" now justify violating Department of Defense regulations against taking women into combat and the law which requires Congressional notification before doing so?

The problem with this vignette explodes in several directions. The article uses female suicide bombers to explain why we need to be searching Iraqi women.

That's a real problem. But let us 'understand' our enemy: because terrorists encourage their women to blow themselves up, we have to send our women into harm's way? To respect "cultural sensitivities?"

Here's Daniel Pipes on our efforts at cultural sensitivity: "This is probably the most "culturally sensitive" occupation of a country in all of recorded history. . . and is not likely to be rewarded with reciprocal good will."

And then there's the inherent contradictions in the situation -- they're in a combat zone. . . handing out teddy bears and plush toys. It's like some sort of weird fluffernutter sandwich. They are using this experience to say that women can handle combat as well as men, boiling a frog thread; this is a perfect example) but they have enough leeway to take time and hand out stuffed animals afterward.

Lance Corporal Erin Libby is quoted as saying: "We're out here, and we're rocking on the front line."

Our cultural sensitivities, and our law, includes not sending women into combat. This issue of using female soldiers to pat-down female Iraqi's did come up in our recent Pentagon meeting: it's time for Congress to exercise oversight about women in combat policy.

This an example of the Marine's taking female support troops along on a combat raid, in the same duplicitous double-talk that is the Army's argument with the gender-integrated Forward Support Companies. Where women are taken into combat.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Cross Post from Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity.

The Belmont Club points us to The Washington Post that has risk analysis in Iraq.

BaylyBlog has the question: Women and Children First(?) With compelling insight,

...if you think about it does it seem just that the sex that's already had her body split open and shed her blood to give birth to the child should also have to shed her blood to defend that child? Isn't one war enough for women? Why can't men step up the plate and bear their fair share?

Satyameva Jayathe has a new high in PC about the challenge of women in combat in India.

On One Foot has Thoughts on a sensitive subject... homosexuals and women in combat in the same post.

Soldier's Angels has a big day.

Mudville Gazette has a toast to Maryann at Soldiers Angels.

Posted at 9:16 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

NOW Chapter President
Desiree Nall
Admitted Rape Hoaxer It is a lie, that women never lie.

And when it comes to rape, women tell the truth about half the time.

Which creates a problem for law enforcement. When a woman cries, "Rape," a crime has been committed. The challenge for cops is, who is the criminal -- the man or the woman? Either a rape has occured. Or a slander has occured. The police officer could flip a coin to determine truth with equal statistical probability.

Or could he. Are there other indicators that law enforcement could use to determine the likelyhood of the crime of rape?

Elaine Donnelly, to whom I report to at the Center for Military Readiness has Sex, Lies, and Rape: How to Distinguish Truthful Allegations form False Ones.

She cites Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D. and Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D. who have made a number of studies involving women who claimed rape, then recanted the charge -- even under the criminal penalty of filing a false report.

Bottom line: Some women lie. Here's how the legal eagles spot the liars:

1) Revenge -- Is the girl out to get even with a man or boyfriend?
2) Alibi -- Does the girl need an explanation for having sex?
3) Emotional Instability -- Does the girl have problems or a desire for attention?
4) Timeliness -- How long did she wait to report the crime? -- Some women take a year to file a police report.
5) Physical Evidence -- There may not be any.
6) Self Inflicted Wounds -- But never sensitive areas: no lips, eyes, gentialia, nipples.
7) Incapacitated -- Drunk or drugged remembering few details.

These clues are merely clues, but can help alert investigators on the credibility of a complainant.

Donnelly quotes Warren Farrell, a former board member of the National Organization for Women who matured from a male feminist to an advocate of truth and equality that does not discriminate against men,

False accusations are not a rarity, they are themselves a form of rape...

But not all NOW-ists have so matured. Wendy McElroy writes about one Desiree Nall, that,

On April 8, [2005] the president of the Brevard, Fla., chapter of the National Organization for Women was charged by the Florida state attorney's office with filing a false rape report and making a false official statement.

She could be imprisoned for one year on each count and forced to pay for the police investigation she incurred. The case has far-reaching implications for gender politics and for women who report sexual assault in the future.

And the NOW chapter president recanted; the rape was a hoax, McElroy continues,

According to police, on Nov. 19, Nall phoned and asked to have the case dropped. When Detective Jon Askins questioned her original report, Nall reportedly confessed that she was "not a victim of a sexual batter." The police speculate that Nall, a vocal feminist, may have been trying to "make a statement" about violence against women. The alleged rape occurred during Sexual Assault Awareness Week, which was intended to highlight the issue of sexual violence against women.

As feminist Cathy Young correctly says,

We need a serious, honest, open discussion on false accusations of rape. Being able to accuse someone of rape is a form of power (of course that's true of any accusation, but a charge of rape packs a unique emotional and legal punch); and it would be naive to expect women never to abuse the power they have, just as it would be naive to expect it of men.

Our feminist friends should join us conservatives to focus scarce law enforcement resources on the actual crimes of criminals. And not waste time with liars, hoax-ers and false accusers.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Your Business Blogger is proud to serve as the Vice President of the Center for Military Readiness.

Elaine Donnelly is quoted in Martha Mendoza's AP Probe Looks at Recruiting Misconduct.

Wendy McElroy writes False Rape Accusations May be more Common Than Thought in Fox

Alec Rawls has clear thinking on the science.

Glenn Sacks is re-running an interesting column on Research Shows False Accusations of Rape Common.

Army veteran Billoblog has insight at False Rape Accusations Are Not Rare.

Cathy Young has Who says women never lie about Rape? in Salon. Cathy Young blogs and has a post on Rape, lies, and videotape.

Columbian Journalism Review has analysis.

Alas (a blog) has False Rape Reports.

Update 19 Sept 2006 -- Also see another 'Victim" in the Washington Post.

Posted at 8:17 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Microsoft has one real point measurement for hiring.

IQ

Your Business Blogger has hired (computer) coders, sales reps...and government bureaucrats.

When given the option of head count and budget flexibility, I always recommended to my managers to hire the most expensive talent possible -- the Super Stars.

Even when hiring government workers.

Into Good and Evil reminds us that when talent really counts, when talent determines life and death, who would get hired? He points us to Professor Kingsley Browne in The Ace and the Turkeys,

"Given the cognitive and temperamental patterns required, it is not surprising to find that the ability to fly aircraft successfully in combat is an ability that not many have. Indeed, it is not an ability that even all combat pilots have. Aviation analysts recognize that the majority of combat kills are scored by a small minority of pilots. Mike Spick has observed: "The gulf between the average fighter pilot and the successful one is very wide. In fact it is arguable that there are almost no average fighter pilots; just aces and turkeys; killers and victims."

Fighter pilots, like sales guys in a role playing exercise, can practice and give a passable presentation, but,

As one Air Force pilot stated, "Most guys can master the mechanics of the systems, but it's instinctive to be able to assimilate all the data, get a big picture, and react offensively. Not a lot of guys can do that."

But the Air Force has a challenge most sales managers don't: Separating the Aces from the Turkeys,

Ideally, one would have only "aces" or "killers," leaving the "turkeys" and "victims" to another career path. The difficulty lies, however, in the fact that there is no known way to separate the aces and the turkeys prior to combat. Unfortunately, many of those who will end up being turkeys often do not know what they are getting into. These pilots may have the ability, intelligence, and know-how to fly the plane well, but they ultimately lack the "fighting spirit" that they will need in combat. " (Buffalo Law Review,Winter, 2001, 49 Buffalo L. Rev. 51,Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective By Kingsley R. Browne)

But the hiring manager does have an advantage over an Air Force Wing Commander, the civilian Ace has a track record of Kills.

The best indication of future performance is past performance. Our armed forces are hampered by looking only to recent combat or aerial engagements -- and there aren't that many of those dogfights. The hiring manager has different metrics of combat measures for top business talent. Eat what you kill. Who had produced the best numbers?

In this human resource practice and strategy, there are down-sides as Anita Campbell, my editrix at Small Business Trends citing the Trizoko Biz Journal mentions. She and others make the valid point that Super Star and Aces are nearly impossible to manage. And, indeed, can only be managed by Super Star managers.

But if these crazy iconoclasts can be harnessed, a big 'if' to be sure, big numbers are sure to follow. For example, when I had a modest software company, I learned the hard way that a one genius coder was worth a half dozen coders. And not because he (and he was usually a 'he') was faster, but that his work was nearly bug-free. Which saved me from hiring three coders just to patch.

With my sales teams, Pareto's 80/20 Principle always played out. But the top guy, usually a deviant was always a standard deviation above the norm. My #1 sales guy was sometimes double the sales of #2, the rest of the sales team on the long tail. That #1 guy drove me nuts. But I loved his numbers.

And government bureaucrats? Goodness. I once had an agency head 'lose' a $100 million department. It was necessary to find it for obvious political reasons, but we only became aware of the lost unit because I was working the Y2K rollover and really needed to find all the laptops. We finally found it. Hidden away, quietly working away. And there were lots of good excuses why it was floating alone off on its own org chart, in its own universe. How they got paid is outside the scope of this post. I was assured that it was not illegal.

So Anita and Trizoko Biz are right, Super Stars are a pain.

But I wonder how many $100 million business units are lost. And could be found with a few dozen more IQ points.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Your Business Blogger's columns appear in Small Business Trends on Tuesdays and Small Business Trends Radio on Fridays. Please tune in.

Posted at 10:38 AM | Permalink
Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

The Great Seal The World's Only Super Power wields its power through the arrows of the Armed Services in one hand and in the other hand is the olive branch of...marketing.

The olive branch is traditionally known for peace, but also for known for prosperity. Commerce is usually difficult in times of war. The olive branch these days seems to represent peace as the absence of warfighting, but might also be seen in the marketing in warfighting.

If there is anything we Americans know how to do -- is fight wars and sell stuff.

The Army now has a combined arms team of lethal power. Nothing on earth can resist the might of our military co-located with its American Marketing Machine. That is being turned loose on the masses of US lasses to put women in combat.

The marketing message is delivered with smart bomb precision and subtlety. It began with omissions, as when the Air Force Academy took down its huge sign, Bring Me Men. And now is actively selling with clever word changes.

Which is marketing defined. As Mark Twain said about the right word being as powerful as the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

Words count. Army Regulation 600-13, Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers, Dated March 1992,

...allows women to serve...except those battalion size or smaller units which are assigned a primary mission to engage in direct ground combat or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct ground combat mission.

It is the intent of Congress, the President and Army Regulation that women are not permitted in ground combat.

But note how the feminists in the armed forces are changing wording to change policy. For example,

The Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) Rifle Squad variant and Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) Weapons Squad variant each deliver 9-person infantry squads to a location from which they will conduct a close assault.

Close assault is ground combat, from which women are excluded. The Alert Reader will notice that the Army calls this fighting machine a 9-person vehicle. Where it should be a 9-MAN infantry squad.

The Army substitutes "person" for "man." Which is the feminist agenda. Male substitution wherever possible.

The military goes a-marketing.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

See the Army's website.

More on the Seal at the jump.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 9:56 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

What's a Feminist to do?

All of modern marketing makes clear that the modern girl doesn't need a man...

Don't need a man
if you got a can
of Pepsi, Please

All of academia tells the young lasses to burn their bras.

Professor Diana York, Women's Studies

From higher education to edgy advertising the Feminists become empowered. And they can then become combat veterans:

Lynndie London, the empowered Feminist at Abu Ghraib jail.

As this Feminist points out, Men? Who needs 'em? I got all I can handle.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Feminists Law Professors have more. Fun.

Be sure to bookmark Ipso Facto comic blog.

Posted at 10:21 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Janet Parshall's America Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness will be interviewed on Janet Parshall's America. Today live around 4pm EST. Check local listings.

Elaine will be explaining why the death toll among military women has been so high. And will discuss the seven major consequences that the Defense Department and Congress are inviting by failing to ask questions on how women are co-located with combat units.

Tune in the Salem Radio network for an eye opening debate.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Full Disclosure: Your Business Blogger serves as the Vice President for the Center for Military Readiness.

Posted at 11:32 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Federal Law, governing our armed forces, prohibits women in land combat.

But how would one know, from the ads we are bombarded with.

So, I don't know, what do you think? Would you go with the pearls, or would they be too much with this . . .?

Or maybe the boyfriend is wearing the jewelry. At home. On the couch.

Holding his manhood cheap.

(From Martha and Charmaine. . .)

More on Henry V at the jump.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 11:17 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Lori Piestewa,
single mother of two,
killed Katie Couric recently refused to go to Iraq. She gets this right,

Katie Couric, who takes over the CBS Evening News in September told Access Hollywood that at this point, she would not venture into the Middle East hot spot.

"I think the situation there is so dangerous, and as a single parent with two children, that's something I won't be doing," Katie said.

Couric lurches into the truth: War zones are not safe for anyone. Especially for moms and the kids left behind.

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness reminds us that,

To date 60 women have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11. By contrast, only 16 women killed in all the years of Vietnam, most of them nurses. In the First Persian Gulf War, 33,000 women were deployed, but only 6 perished due to scud missile explosions or accidents.

Women should not be killed in combat.

No single mother with children should go to war. Not Katie. Not Lori.

Katie Couric

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Kathryn Lopez at NRO points us to Access Hollywood, blockquote above.

Full Disclosure: Your Business Blogger also serves as the Vice President of the Center for Military Readiness.

See Saving Private Lori.

Get Women Out of Combat.

Mudville Gazette has Open Post.

Posted at 2:53 PM | Permalink
Comments (4)

An Alert Reader, Martha, a former Air Force enlisted, who has been following the thread on women in combat with concern, writes to explain the "Abracadabra" issue:

I have heard horrid stories from deployed friends about the attitude toward women in the ranks. Even unattractive girls have a throng of men around them all the time when they are in "Bad Guy Land". The names they give those women is crass. "Golden P**sy Syndrome" and similar things.

Then, on the flight home, "abracadabra" they are ugly again. The rejection is as sudden and violent as an IED attack. How can men be allowed to treat fellow soldiers like this, then turn around and treat them with respect on the battlefield?

Sadly, I didn't have to go further than today's New York Times to get a real-life illustration of why this kind of thing is no small matter. In an article, Behind Failed Abu Ghraib Plea, a Tangle of Bonds and Betrayals about Lynndie England, Charles Graner and Megan Ambuhl, the reporter, Kate Zernike lays out a tragic story that puts an even sorrier twist to the already sordid tale of Abu Ghraib.

Lynndie England and
Charles Graner

Credit: L.M. Otero/A P
Megan Ambuhl,
Graner's new wife

The short version of the story is that Charles Graner was treating the United States Army like his own personal harem, carrying on overlapping affairs with both Lynndie England and Megan Ambuhl. Then, when Lynndie got pregnant, and sent home, they broke up. Graner sent an email to his father: "I stopped seeing her back in january but when all this garbage came out i started seeing her again," he wrote. "chances are very good that it is my child....o well....daddy what did you bring home from the war????"

That's some war souvenir.

With Lynndie sent home, Graner focused on Ambuhl. The two co-conspirators recently married at Ft. Hood, a surrogate groom standing in for Graner, who is already in prison.

A few quotes from the NYT piece at the jump.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Cross post from Reasoned Audacity.

Full Disclosure Your Business Blogger also serves as Vice President for the Center for Military Readiness, a non-profit think tank in Your Nation's Capital.

Mudville Gazette has Open Post.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 7:36 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

I was dropping the Little Woman off at Nordstroms and decided to spend a few hours in Your Nation's Capital.

Watching a lawyer get beat up.

By some other lawyers. You'd think someone would be getting sued. But not in this venue -- the Dirkson Senate Office Building, Room 226. This is the Judiciary Committee where Jim Haynes gave testimony to testy senators.

Today's hearing was confrontational. The blood sport in DC.

Along with protesters. I stood next to a middle-aged fat-guy hippie with a TORTURE t-shirt. Very stylish.

I wander in and smile at a Maureen Dowd look-a-like at the press table. She didn't smile back -- must not have been her.

Soon after the hearing begins, one woman in an orange jump suit started shouting in an inappropriate "outside voice" (as would be described by parent to a child). She goes only a few seconds with "I'm an army colonel" and "Don't confirm him" and how bad Haynes was for the Army. Before Specter angrily ordered her removed.

I'm disappointed that she is too quickly overcome. If she were really former Army, she'd put up more of a fight. Women in Combat and all that.

But Nina Totenburg started smiling. This was going to be a good show.

Haynes starts with family introduction family values stuff: Loyal wife of 24 years; three kids, public schools...whatever. Now I love this family stuff; I've got one too. But somehow, Haynes doesn't pull off the sympathetic family-guy thing. Republicans are expected to be up-tight prudes. Not news. But it is a contrast.

To be questioned by Ted Kennedy. It is the odd nature of politics these days where conservatives make the move to being soft and cuddly and liberals pretend to be hard and warlike.

Ted Kennedy preaching obedience to the law. Goodness.

So Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Graham, Leahy let loose. Even the chairman Specter.

Republican Graham, from conservative South Carolina, also came out swinging.

And the punches landed. Blood on the walls. Even with Cornyn and Sessions saying the right, nice things couldn't clear or clean it up.

But, as with everything in show business Your Nation's Capital, Haynes didn't have the stage presence of mind to counter senatorial heckling from the bench. He brought it on himself.

And he didn't quite have his one-liners down. He starts with a story about his mentor musing that a lawyer, "Should never attribute to malice, that which can be attributed to stupidity."

At which point I heard a Code-Pinker in front of me stage whisper, "So that makes us stupid?"

Which, of course, it does. But by now, even this early, the crowd was lost, the battle was lost. For Haynes.

I really don't know what was worse: the contemptuous questions. Or Haynes' gosh-awful answers.

My favorite exchange was from Leahy: Who told you, you would be a good judge?
Haynes, ...the President must have thought...I would do a good job...
(When Haynes talked, there was a lot of " ... ".)
Leahy, Did the President ever say you'd be a good judge?
Haynes, No.

The crowd was stunned into silence. It is seldom that one sees such a punch-in-the-nose in public.

Leahy continues with the haymakers, Tell me about who first told you that you were to be nominated -- when you first learned about being a judge on the Fourth Circuit.

Haynes, ...I don't remember...

Leahy, Can you tell us who first told you about being a judge?

Haynes, ... [and] ... [and some more]...[finally] I really don't remember.

This is an odd answer from an afternoon filled with odd answers. There are events that release so much epinephrine that the memory is forever imprinted. Where You Were When Kennedy Was Shot. Where You Were When You Got Your Draft Notice. The NFL Draft Call. That Wife Stuff. Your Kids Being Born. The WTC Attack.

The Call To Be A Judge On The Federal Appeals Court.

Haynes doesn't recall. Leahy says that in his 32 years in this business, "This is the first time a nominee didn't remember The Call."

How did Leahy know to ask that question? And know that he'd get such an embarrassing answer?

The audience shifts in their seats uncomfortably. Even those who don't support Haynes now feel sorry for him.

Except for me. I'm hoping the Senators will ask Haynes about the Army placing women into combat, breaking rule and reg.

But all the Committee wants is to torture Haynes with torture. It seems that Haynes assembled a team of lawyers to fulfill a General's request to use extraordinary means to get information.

They needed some clever wordsmithing to get around cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which is prohibited by law.

And Haynes came up with some very clever work-arounds. With which I would agree.

But.

But, the law is clear: we can't do degrading things like having a terrorist walk around nude on leash. If the Army interrogator wants a nude terrorist on a leash, change the law.

Goodness: This is insane. Nekked arabs on a rope is not torture. But the wording of the law is clear. Change the law so that we can torture with sleep deprivation and forced viewings of The View.

Instead, Haynes is too clever by half. And changes the meanings of words. Haynes says that it depends, "[how you] define that phrase..." and stumbled over an answer on 'degrading' interrogation techniques.

The Judiciary Committee didn't get to Women in Combat. But they didn't have to. Haynes has shown us an unfortunate pattern of word-change-definitions. Something about defense of necessity and lawyerly talkie-talk which made it clear that he was making it up.

When the issue is: either obey the law, or change it.

Haynes may be complicit in the changing of definition on women in combat. Somewhere, someone with clever lawyerly oversight, changed the definition of "co-locate." Where women are now being placed into army units that are required to be all-male.

The pattern on Haynes' advice to the DoD on torture seems to be the same with the semantics of women in combat.

The control of the military is slipping from the President and Congress to Army lawyers who can re-define "degrading" and "co-locate" and lots of other words to do anything the Army wants.

Which is not always a bad idea. But change the law first.

Haynes should not be nominated, unless he answers questions about women in combat.

Full Disclosure: I serve as the Vice President of the Center for Military Readiness.

Mudville has Open Post.

Big Lizards has excellent analysis on Article 3.

Basil's Blog has a picnic.

Red State Blue State has Open Trackbacks.

Posted at 9:49 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Human Events Elaine Donnelly, President of the CMR, has an article at Human Events, opposing the nomination of Jim Haynes, currently the General Counsel for the Department of Defense. He's up for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 4th can be a stepping stone for the Supreme Court.

In William Haynes Needs to Explain Why Pentagon Put Women in Land Combat, Donnelly says:

. . .we wish we could join conservative friends in supporting the nomination of William J. Haynes II...

We cannot do so at this time, however, for the same reasons that we questioned the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

...The Army is ordering women into certain units that are required to be all male.

Why did Mr. Haynes allow this to happen?

The President has said, "No women in [land] combat."

The Congress has said, "...the intent of the Congress, which was no [land] combat for women."

The Army has said no women, "...in battalion size or smaller units which are assigned a primary mission to engage in direct ground combat or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct ground combat mission."
AR 600-13 Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 27 March 1992, Unclassified.

The Army is currently operating outside Presidential order, law and (even worse!) outside Army Regulation.

To break a reg, and a big one at that, lotsa of lawyers have to shuffle lotsa paper. The Pentagon's top legal counsel is Haynes. His job is to provide oversight, guidance, and direction regarding legal advice on all matters arising with in the DoD, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Haynes has avoided answering questions that could clear this up and remove any doubt about his fitness to serve. But Haynes hasn't answered.

I don't need to know how Haynes would rule in the future -- I'm only interested in how he advised and counseled on DoD regulations promulgated on 13 Jan 1994.

He should not be confirmed, unless Haynes answers questions about Women in Combat.

Read questions for Haynes at the jump.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Full Disclosure: I am honored to serve as Vice President for the Center for Military Readiness.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 9:53 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)

The Navy's
Combat
Action
RibbonGirls used to wear ribbons in their hair. Now girls wear them on their chests. Left breast, to be exact.

Bill Gertz is reporting today in The Washington Times that the Navy is expanding the award criteria for the Combat Action Ribbon to include IED's.

A Marine officer said to Gertz,

Your don't have to return fire to win a combat action ribbon.

"Direct Exposure" is now in the same category as "Direct Fire."

The Army's
Combat Action Badge
1st AwardWhich is as it should be. But this will now mean that women will be eligible -- the CAR is the Navy's equivalent to the Army's Combat Action Badge. Which is now being awarded to women.

With which I would also agree. Except.

Except this is more of the Pentagon's incremental change where we continue to see 'women' and 'combat' in the same phrase.

So what's all the fuss about women getting combat decorations?

The truth is that women shouldn't be deliberately subject to any hostile fire, direct, in-direct, mines, or improvised.

Women are being placed at "the tip of the spear."

While men abed in America
Hold their manhood cheap...

We few, we happy few,
We band of...siblings.

Was this helpful? Do comment.
Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

See Reasoned Audacity with Combat Action Badge: Unisex Design.

Posted at 12:47 PM | Permalink
Comments (1)