In 2020, Democrats again plan to mess with the mil
Post# of 51168
(Total Views: 82)
Posted On: 01/02/2020 6:34:51 PM
In 2020, Democrats again plan to mess with the military
By Andrea Widburg < >
President Obama signed an executive order allowing people who claim to be "transgender" to serve in the military. President Trump reversed that order. Just when you thought the issue was over, Democrats are trying to reverse the reversal.
Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat who heads the House Armed Services Committee, announced in an interview with Defense News that the Democrat-majority House intends to take the question of "transgender military service" away from the commander in chief and make it a legislative issue:
Smith said that next year he might revisit several provisions excluded from the bill, including those ending a ban on transgender military service; restricting the president's ability to use military funds for a border wall; banning new detainees at the military's Guantanamo Bay detention facility; and banning deployment of a new low-yield nuclear weapon.
"I think all of those issues were not resolved to the satisfaction of me and the Democratic Party," Smith said. "The question is what's doable in those areas and what statement do we want to make on the policy. Even if we know Donald Trump and Jim Inhofe haven't changed their minds ... do we want to take another run at it and how are things we're going to be discussing with a lot of people in great detail."
Smith's words highlight the fact that too many Democrats view the military not primarily as a core institution for American defense, but as a Petri dish for social justice experiments.
Democrats also believe that every person who falls outside of the mainstream should be able to eat his cake and have it. They refuse to acknowledge that while a free country allows people to make personal choices about their lifestyles (provided such choices aren't illegal), that doesn't mean that people who have made these choices can force societal institutions to bend to their will.
As a fighting machine, one of the most important things the military needs is some assurance that its people are mentally stable. The fact that 41.8% of people identifying as transgender have attempted suicide is an issue the military cannot and should not ignore.
It does not matter whether the high suicide rates stem from bullying, rejection, and pre-transition unhappiness or whether they stem from the fact that identifying as non-binary or transgender points to deeper psychological issues such as depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, PTSD, and autism. Until the matter is sorted out, the military should not be embracing such a statistically troubled population. (As an aside, even in countries that strongly support people identifying as transgender, that community continues to have significant mental health problems.)
In addition to the psychological risks associated with allowing so-called transgender people into the military, the actual costs are high, too. During the Obama era, the military (i.e., you, the American taxpayer) was paying for "sex reassignment" surgeries and hormone therapy. In addition, the aftereffects of surgery and hormones create their own problems — problems that must inevitably affect the service-readiness of many who have had taxpayer-funded surgery and treatments.
The Democrats' dogged focus on messing with military readiness should be at the forefront of every voter's mind during both the primaries and general elections.
By Andrea Widburg < >
President Obama signed an executive order allowing people who claim to be "transgender" to serve in the military. President Trump reversed that order. Just when you thought the issue was over, Democrats are trying to reverse the reversal.
Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat who heads the House Armed Services Committee, announced in an interview with Defense News that the Democrat-majority House intends to take the question of "transgender military service" away from the commander in chief and make it a legislative issue:
Smith said that next year he might revisit several provisions excluded from the bill, including those ending a ban on transgender military service; restricting the president's ability to use military funds for a border wall; banning new detainees at the military's Guantanamo Bay detention facility; and banning deployment of a new low-yield nuclear weapon.
"I think all of those issues were not resolved to the satisfaction of me and the Democratic Party," Smith said. "The question is what's doable in those areas and what statement do we want to make on the policy. Even if we know Donald Trump and Jim Inhofe haven't changed their minds ... do we want to take another run at it and how are things we're going to be discussing with a lot of people in great detail."
Smith's words highlight the fact that too many Democrats view the military not primarily as a core institution for American defense, but as a Petri dish for social justice experiments.
Democrats also believe that every person who falls outside of the mainstream should be able to eat his cake and have it. They refuse to acknowledge that while a free country allows people to make personal choices about their lifestyles (provided such choices aren't illegal), that doesn't mean that people who have made these choices can force societal institutions to bend to their will.
As a fighting machine, one of the most important things the military needs is some assurance that its people are mentally stable. The fact that 41.8% of people identifying as transgender have attempted suicide is an issue the military cannot and should not ignore.
It does not matter whether the high suicide rates stem from bullying, rejection, and pre-transition unhappiness or whether they stem from the fact that identifying as non-binary or transgender points to deeper psychological issues such as depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, PTSD, and autism. Until the matter is sorted out, the military should not be embracing such a statistically troubled population. (As an aside, even in countries that strongly support people identifying as transgender, that community continues to have significant mental health problems.)
In addition to the psychological risks associated with allowing so-called transgender people into the military, the actual costs are high, too. During the Obama era, the military (i.e., you, the American taxpayer) was paying for "sex reassignment" surgeries and hormone therapy. In addition, the aftereffects of surgery and hormones create their own problems — problems that must inevitably affect the service-readiness of many who have had taxpayer-funded surgery and treatments.
The Democrats' dogged focus on messing with military readiness should be at the forefront of every voter's mind during both the primaries and general elections.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼