Fwd: ADDed Article 3, Version 2 or Article 8, Version 4 continued

-----Original Message-----
From: rrdd3939@aol.com
To: rrdd3939@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Mar 8, 2010 8:39 pm
Subject: Fwd: ADDed Article 3, Version 2 or Article 8, Version 4 continued

        Subtitle: We Don't Shy Away from Controversy Here, We Wallow in it!

                                          by Richard DePersio 

       Take it off...Take it all off...Take off that uniform - preferably on a stage! Fact:

In the early 1980s very few women could pass the mental and physical tests to get

into police academy and few of the few who did couldn't successfully graduate from it.

Result: One by one cities lowered their entrance and graduation standards. Cities

claimed that the old tests were outmoded. Everyone knew the dirty little secret that you weren't suppose to talk about but this guy did. He was never P.C. They lowered it

because of pressure from liberals in general and feminists in particular. This writer isn't

being sexist. He's talking public security here.The police shouldn't be the place for liberal social experimentation! Of course, a women - a real women - shouldn't want to war such a uniform. But this is a free country and she has every right to do so even if it means lying to herself. Pride: Take any type of civil service exam and get 10 points added to your exam score if you have a vagina or dark scin.No wonder people complain about the incompetence of most government workers. How can they be proud of themselves? How can you know which women and minorities deserve the job that they have because they really passed and didn't have to resort - lower themselves - by invoking affirmative action. And then there are the affirmative action scholarships

given to women and minorities to go to college, in spite of the fact, that they barely

passed high school! Set-asides are affirmative action contracts that federal, state

and local government give to female- or minority-owned companies even though they

didn't give the lowest bid. They are eligible for 8 out of every 10 contracts if they give

the lowest bid but only they can receive 2 out of every 10 which cost the taxpayers

more money.

      Let's get back to plaid uniforms...uniforms...that's for an entirely different type

of website...uniforms are the most serious. President Nixon established the

all-volunteer military in 1974 by 1980 only about 5% of the military had breasts.

Why? They rarely compete with, train with and rarely are graded with men - true to

this day. Obviously, that didn't represent sufficient affirmative action - more was needed. They still had to do the same things that men did in basic training (army and air force) and boot camp (navy and marines; which is slightly tougher) but the passing grade was lowered. Today, women who comprise a whopping 15% of the military - should we lower passing to "f' for female - serve proudly in their uniforms! Confirmed for this writer by two off-duty and out-of-uniform soldiers. (Nothing homo implied; homo is immoral according to Bible and abnormal and unnatural according to evolution).

      Even though, they are endangering lives! A retired police office once told this

guy that he didn't have a problem with women in uniform (have you seen the website?!)

but didn't want one as a partner.The police shouldn't be the place for liberal social

experimentation! He explained that a partner is  suppose to protect his partner but

shouldn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so. Men by nature and

on a subconscious-level are compelled to protect women and he didn't want to

spend an inordinate amount of time doing so. Further he explained, the bad guys would be inclined to shoot more bullets in the direction of the male cop.(Subconscious at work).

       By law, women cannot serve in a combat zone. Now-a-days, they can serve in

semi-combat zones. Patrolling an area where there may be snipers in order to finish

securing the area after the battle - harsh fighting - is over. They have served in support

since 1974 and occasionally certain support soldiers have to be briefly in a combat zone. Our motto is fair and balanced. However, if they ever released the figures on

male vs. female casualties (killed or wounded), we'll wager that, in spite of the fact,

that they can't be assigned to combat duty but semi-combat and support that their

are a disproportionate number of female casualties - more the 15%.

       Fire departments having been fighting fires and fighting to keep their standards

high since the early '80s not to keep women and minorities out but in the name of

public safety. In 2000 and even more so last year, they lost the fight. They were

compelled to lower entrance and graduation requirements for fire academy and redesign tests in such a way that more women had minorities could pass. Last year,  the 'new and improved' requirements and tests imposed. Low and behold, only men passed and 9 of them white! Liberals cried foul and felt the men shouldn't be allowed to became firemen (sometimes this writer is old-fashioned) - did you ever hear of something so ridiculous. Fortunately, the case went to a constructionalist judge who found the case silly and absurd. It went to the appeals court which upheld the lower court decision - one appeals court judge ruled in the negative and is the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court!

       Did you ever wonder why there are so many overweight and illiterate cops -

lower standards for one group and other groups may take advantage of it. Did you

ever observe roadside workers where the women watch while the men unload the

heavy equipment.

       Liberal social experimentation vs. public safety, domestic security and national

security. It has nothing to with discrimination and everything to do with high standards

to protect Americans. Laugh: equal-pay-for-equal-work! Someone once said: "you can have an all-male army and be successful but not an all-female or all-gay one and protect Americans!

       There is only one solution: requirements and tests: hip-hop and cosmetics!

       They were known as progressives from 1870 and liberals since 1950. A liberal

prior to 1850 was like a libertarian or conservative today. Example: Our Founding

Father's (Framers for the 'elite' P.C. crowd) instituted classical market liberalism

- later know as capitalism. During the 1980s, Reagan and conservatives turned

liberalism into a dirty word (rightfully, so) and ever since then more and more liberals

have embraced the term progress ism again. Two of their heroes (or one hero and

one heroine for the non-P.C. amongst us); Wilson and Sanger (Your Secretary of

State Hillary (we're good friends) reminded us of how wonderful they think that they

were). Wilson was a progressive Democrat who did marvelous things like segregate

blacks from whites in the military (and you thought that it happened after Reconstruction), institute the progressive income tax (there had only been a 1%

tax on the 1% wealthiest income tax during the Civil War to help pay for it), initiate

the useless League of Nations (which Americans refused to join; what an embarrassment for little Wilson) the forerunner of the useless U.N., got us into WW1

and incarcerated some of his opponents in spite of free search! Sanger, author of

"Breeding the Thoroughbred," is another great one: she started Planned Parenthood

and supported eugenics, including, the sterilization of blacks, the mentally and

physically impaired, favored allowing judges to use it as part of a sentence and

aborting babies right after birth if deemed 'defective'!

         During Obama's Inaugural Address, He stated: "We are a nation of believers and

non-believers." I was alone. I hollowed: "Oh, no." I knew what it meant: liberals

felt ready to replace the real Constitution with the progressive 'living' socialist con-

stitution! It would take weeks, if not, months for some moderate and conservative

so-called experts to realize it. This reporter, at the time, suggested that there was a remote possibility that we would become a communist nation. Only recently, and we believe for the first rime, Beck suggested it on his T.V. show (this is small potatoes. last year, we scooped him twice big-time!). Recently, O'reilly indicated that he suspected that their were problems with Fannie and Freddie in 2007; 2006 for this letter-puncher. Not long ago, Hannity stated: "Didn't our enemies say that the would get us from within?" We pointed out in our communist article that Krushev (is that how you spell Ruskie's name; he died persona non grata in his own country - are we being ADDed?!) stated that "America would be destroyed from within." We thought about those that surrounded Obama before and since becoming President - we saw red! Small wins.Petty? A few notches above. We need another big one!

           NASA warmest January (average temperature since official since official records have been kept!

           China implied that it wouldn't do anything regarding U.S. Bonds within next

five years. Experts: Because, it might hurt them. This Expert: various weapons have

been sold to Taiwan by U.S. some of which China objects. Delivery is due soon. Let's see if sale's manifests changes.To the best of our knowledge that's constitutes a BOLD and FRESH prediction. Last year, China prevented Australia from making certain economic moves to reduce it's inflation because China thought that it might - just, might - have ramifications for it's economy. Australia like the U.S. is owned by China!