Starvin Larry

I have just read in Army Times that, to my delight, the Army is making soldiers wear the prettiest red high-heels in the pursuit of gender-equality. Yes. They look like little girls playing with Mommy’s shoes. It has something to do with understanding the psychological problems of women, a matter of importance in combat. It necessarily was done with the approval of the Army’s generals in the Pentagon, particularly Chief of Staff Odierno, since they are in charge of the whole Army shebang. I write them in astonished admiration, thusly:

Dear General,

I see that on your watch the Army is turning into a transvestite marching corps in high heels, a Ziegfeld cross-gendered or bisected gay-bath sexual zoo vacuuming up every sort of erotic loony, not to mention becoming a home for unwed mothers and prostitution rings. I commend you. I have always wanted to be defended by a freak show.

I do not question your qualifications for command. You doubtless have a firm handshake, a steely gaze, an imposing presence, and a perfect grasp of PowerPoint. But a general who is so afraid of feminists that he forces his troops to play dress-up, well, I mean, what if there is a real war?

I applaud your forthrightness in bringing the doughboys out of the closet in those cute red heels. They are so precious! (By the way, have you considered foot-binding?) As a former Marine in Vietnamese days, I have always suspected the Army of being cross-dressers. How candid of you to confirm my suspicions.

True, traditionalists, and warriors, and cranky old Marines will say that you are just another sorry two-bit, peace-time, careerist politician of a pseudo-soldier who doesn’t have the balls to stand up to feminists and protect the service from becoming a display ad for Victoria’s Secret. I am shocked. How could they think such a thing?

Yes, Generral, yes. I understand. Putting GIs in those darling heels is supposed to provide some kind of uplift (though I believe brassieres are better for that). But I know perfectly well, and you may suspect—check with your dominatrix—that feminists get a hoot out of watching those macho men (ugh!) tottering around before the whole world in heels, like teen-age girls preparing for their first prom. “Heeeeeeeeeeeee-ha-ha.” Likely every diesel-dyke in a Women’s Studies department is rolling on the floor. Tippy-toe. Tippy-tippy-toe. “Hey, Sheila, look what we made them do!”

What I figure, General, is you ought to set an example for the troops by wearing panties and a bra (if you don’t already wear panties: I give you credit for miitary foresight.) A good officer–we had some–doesn’t order his men to do anything he himself wouldn’t do. Walk a Mile in Her Skivvies, General. (Actually, when I was a hard-charging young Gyrene, we spent a lot of time trying to get into women’s skivvies. Now it’s going to be mandatory?)

But you can do more for equity. There should be clear expression of the Army’s commitment to transvest–justice, I meant to say. I can imagine a whole new gendered approach to insignia of rank: Artificial hooters, in easily-washed silicone and real flesh tone. Enlisted men would get small ones. Officers would have big mommas. You, being an exalted military figure, would have three. The Command-in-Chief could wear an udder.

Now, General, I speak only for myself as a Marine who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, but others may agree with me. (A “rifle” is one of those awful long thingies (no, not those long thingies) that make boomy noises and stinky smoke and put stains on your cocktail dress that just ruin it.) Outside of Da Nang we used to lie behind sandbags at night with mortars coming in (a “mortar” is one of those gun thingies with a tube—no, a different kind of tube, General—that shoots–never mind) hoping a hit wouldn’t spray a buddy’s guts around. To a man we were thinking, why couldn’t we have a leader like a Pentagon general to give us cute little heels instead of these uncomfy old boots?

But let us get back to serious military questions. The effect on our enemies of the boob-insignia will be profound. The Afghan resistance fighters will be stunned, just stunned, to see American soldiers in high-heels and varying numbers of breasts. As the Mujahedeen gape, paralyzed with amazement, our soldiers will be able to approach them and give them therapy on the value of non-violence and rape culture. Each mujahid would be encouraged to express his feelings and find the roots of his anger. They could all be given a breast to take home and fondle.

I can see by your feminization of the ranks that you are socially progressive. Good. I imagine that you are against the culture of violence that prevails in the military. But what can you expect in a society that has so many gun thingies, and glorifies them? We need to de-emphasize war, and substitute caring activities involving cooperation. You could lead from the front by taking part in social activities, perhaps being pivot man in a circle jerk. On YouTube (No, not that….)

I hear that also on your watch the Army has taken measures to make the service more LBTG-friendly, as well as more inclusive and welcoming to single mommies. I think you should go further. For example, the Army could use armored nail-salons to keep the troops looking great and feeling good about themselves, and those funny old tanks need changing tables inside the turret-thingy. And big guns look tho phallic. They must make women anxious. The only thing they are good for is drying lingerie. The guns, I mean, not the women.

Now, mean old military historians who say that in a real war soldiers die because of posturing peace-time political pogues (I was in an alliteration company)—what do they know? A few thousand lives are a small price to pay for gender-equity. Besides, those who do the fighting are not the girly-boys, the boy-girls, the katoys, the to-be-decideds, the climbing vines with their cucumbers chopped, or the single mommies who have to look after some random guy’s kid. These, the core of the Army, will not be troubled. As you have shown, we must stay with core values.

Don’t pay attention to those macho infantry men (ugh!) who say that women should try walking in men’s shoes—unloading a six-by of 81mm mortar rounds under fire, or changing a truck tire in sand in Indian territory with night coming on. Everyone knows that trucks unload themselves by pushing some kind of button or something, and anyway we have drones.

Them’s my thoughts, General. And I suspect that every guy who ever served in a combat zone shares my overwelling respect and admiration for you. If anyone criticizes you and you feel all upset and flustered, take your Midol, breathe deeply and it will get all better soon.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/PussyGeneral.shtml

h/t NC Renegade

By Susan Duclos – All News PipeLine

Read the whole thing.

Excerpt…

“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” in which veterans were named a threat in multiple instances within the report.

On page two-three of the nine-page report, under the heading of “Key Findings,” it stated:

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return ofmilitary veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communitiescould lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremistscapable of carrying out violent attacks. 

[…]

 (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that areattractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwingextremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order toboost their violent capabilities.

On page seven, under the header of “Disgruntled  Military Veterans” it stated:

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit andradicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived frommilitary training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost thecapabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry outviolence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremistgroups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering fromthe psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning militaryveterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwingextremist groups.

— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbersof potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are nowlearning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movementthat some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan havejoined extremist groups. 

The full doument will be embedded below the videos at the bottom of this article.

As Americans are being conditioned to seeing massive military convoys on the streets across the nation and military “drills” and exercises are being scheduled, some already implemented, to further desensitize US citizens to what is happening under their very noses, leading them to consider the militarization of our country as “normal,” a number of events are occurring that indicate the time is rapidly approaching where political opponents, constitutionalists, survivalists, Christians and other religious affiliations, and any other group that would oppose living in a police state, will be targeted and are already on the “red list,” and it is the veterans that top that list.

You know the endgame has accelerated when “they” aren’t even trying to hide the fact that the lists exists.

They know who you are. They know where you are. They know what your capabilities are.

Read the rest @ http://allnewspipeline.com/Veterans_Top_Red_List.php

Wednesday on Fox News Radio’s “The Alan Colmes Show,” FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said the government taking control of the infrastructure of  internet with “net neutrality” will eventually lead to attempts to take control of content on websites like the Drudge Report.

Pai said, “It’s not so much the FCC that I’m worried about in terms of online content regulation. But what we do see is that at places like the Federal Elections Commission there is a regulatory impulse to regulate what heretofore has been a pretty open marketplace of ideas.”

He continued, “Net neutrality would insert government jurisdiction over the infrastructure of the internet and in time, other agencies might try to regulate the content.”

He concluded, “If you look at what some of these agencies are thinking about doing right now—last year for example at the Federal Elections Commission, three regulators suggested that they did want to consider online content, like the Drudge Report, potentially as an in-kind contribution given that it had an impact on political campaigns.”

Read the rest plus video @ http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/14/fccs-pai-fec-wants-to-regulate-drudge-like-campaign-contributions/

Via David Codrea

A successful businessman, his wife, son and housekeeper have been brutally murdered inside their $2 million home in an exclusive neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Speculation at this point is they were held captive before the adults were stabbed and bludgeoned to death, and the child was burned.

It is not known at this writing is if they knew their killer(s). Also unstated at this time is if Savvas Savopoulos or his wife Amy owned guns, especially in light of the bureaucratic hurdles associated with “legally” owning firearms in the District, and if they did, if that would have made a difference. What is known, but is not being disclosed by mainstream media, is that the executive and his company supported a politician who is a strong proponent of “gun control.”

The Center for Responsive Politics “tracks[s] money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy” on its OpenSecrets.org website. A donor search reveals Savopoulos made substantial donations to the Victory Now Political Action Committee and its Honorary Chairman, Rep. Chris Van Hollen.

The purpose of the PAC is to “promote Democratic candidates and important causes in Maryland and across the country … to implement a new agenda for this country together with President Obama.”

Gun owners are well aware of what that agenda is.

Van Hollen himself is a doctrinaire gun-grabber — he was rated “100 percent” by the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and was given failing grades by both Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association, He is a proponent of ending private sales, banning standard capacity magazines, and suing gun manufacturers for criminal abuses of their products, that is, misplacing blame for evil actions by others and using litigation against the firearms industry to reduce ownership by making guns prohibitively expensive. To show logical consistency, he should also support suing manufacturers of knives, blunt instruments and lighters or matches, as were evidently used in the Savopolous slayings. And if we are to believe the admonishment that a gun in the home increases the likelihood its owner will be injured or killed, so too must risks increase with the presence of any tool or object that can be deployed as a weapon.

http://www.examiner.com/article/murdered-executive-supported-gun-control-backing-politician?CID=examiner_alerts_article