Fwd: CITIZEN Offending with Truth JOURNALIST

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 15, 2012 9:42 pm
Subject: CITIZEN Offending with Truth JOURNALIST

                           CITIZEN Offending with Truth JOURNALIST

    As Sgt. Friday used to say: "Just the facts, ma'am." Our Motto: "We Report/You

              Decide As Yogi Berra used to say: "It's deja vu' all over again

       (Do we have enough titles? Or, put another way, Is our title long enough?)

(The following demonstrates the Citizen Journalist style quite well: while others are

employing just the one argument: the natural inclination to protect; CJ will present

numerous some original, thereby, giving his moderate and conservative readers

ample ammunition. As always, feel free to email this and other posts, we only ask

that we are credited. Please tell friends that they can connect to CJCS Comsats

(web sites) via Facebook - Second American Revolution. Thank You)

Women in uniform are hot!...The TRUTH ABOUT WOMEN IN UNIFORM...

LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION VS. NATIONAL DEFENSE...

Our military is planning to allow women to serve near the front line in war-time.

Is this in the best interest of our security or is this the consequence of

liberal political pressure? What are the facts? In basic training (Army and

Air Force) and in boot camp (Navy and Marines) women don't train with

and aren't graded against men. Why? It is felt that the male recruit is

somewhat immature and might engage in verbal and/or physical harassment

of sexual, as well as, non-sexual nature. This constitutes an absurd mode

of thinking. It should logically follow that the male recruit is too immature

to wear a uniform. Further, aren't women capable of defending themselves!?!

The other reason is unspoken...we shall speak it...women wouldn't perform

as well as men if their were to train and compete together. Feminists would

have a fit that women were being humiliated. At the same time, feminists

try to gloss over the difference between the genders. Feminists chose to

ignore the fact that women have to reach lower standards - mental and

physical - on tests in order to pass basic and boot - and now they should be

allowed near the front! You could have an all-male army and succeed but not an

all-female or all-homo. What about morale? Recently, the military ended Don't Ask/

Don't Tell - in spite of the fact that over 60% of Infantrymen, Marines and Special Forces

didn't want to serve with homos. Parading their Perversion in Public...and in barracks!

 MILITARY MORALE SHOULD TRUMP LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION!!! We

assume that their opinions and objections will be ignored regarding opening up combat

positions near the front to the female. A male soldier doesn't always secure the

occupation that he requests. If he is assigned a combat position, he can't opt out.

Women would be afforded the option. Further, they will be afforded the opportunity to opt

out of a dangerous assignment meaning that a unit might have to perform a task with fewer

individuals than are deemed necessary. Presently, women serve in support

roles. In Iraq, that did walk the streets (as street walkers, we josh) a long

with males when all the fighting in that town (a type of front) was over - all the fighting

 having been done by males. It was dangerous for their were snipers. A role that

women, heretofore, had not assumed. We bet that their were more female

casualties than male. Of course, we will never know: the U.S. Military fears

feminists orgs like N.O.W. On the other hand, there might have been fewer

female casualties, as of result of, male protection. (We confirmed most of the pre-

ceeding with a former soldier who did two tours in Iraq; rest-various sources).

Lest year, we saw a doc on basic training in which males and females - separately, of course -

had to crawl on their stomachs pretending that bullets were being fired above

them. One soldier had the additional task of pulling a heavy load. The male

struggled but succeeded. The female couldn't; two other females had to drift

back to assist her. The narrator said that the important thing was that the job had

been done and that women generally achieved goals via cooperation more often

than men. Let's objectively analyze the situation; three people doing the job of

one is a positive?; what if those two soldiers were need for something else,

they were no longer available; three soldiers clustered together making for an

easier target is a positive!?!

Who can forget America's heroin...pardon me, hero Jessica Lynch, the first

female soldier to be captured in Iraq. The liberal media, feminist groups and the new

politically-correct military made her into a hero. She was a support soldier who

found herself in proximity to the enemy. Why? Should didn't know how to use a

compass and read a map (How did she pass basic? - That's right, we know how). Was

she a hero for getting lost? Was she a hero for attempting to avoid capture? No;

she didn't do that. Was she a hero for saving lives? No, again. After capture did

she attempt to escape - no, we were told that she was too wounded to do so (Is it

possible that she was too terrified; we'll never know). They don't make heroes like

they used to (forgive me for Offending with Truth and forgive me for ending a

sentence with a proposition!!). LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION.

America's joke: the new military. Be all that you can be in the sissy army. There

was an expression used by real soldiers in WW1: "Praise the Lord and pass the

ammunition." The modern version should be: Praise the Lord and pass the lipstick.

HOLD IT! Lord? God is being removed from the military - a tradition dating back to our

nation's founding due to new minority rule in the military (for more on this, as well as,

women in uniform {learn about the dirty little secret concerning women cops} visit web

site Citizenj - you can connect via Facebook: Second American Revolution).

Do you have a strange feeling of having been there before?

Several years ago what is about to happen in Army had already transpired - The case of

the Navy and Marines: The Tail Hook Incident: Male Marines sexually assaulted

and harassed female officers. All cases were one-on-one; none of the women could

successfully defend themselves - what malfunctioned regarding the female fighting

machines!?! Result: Billy-boy Clinton decided to punish all fighter jocks in Navy and Marines

by making them except females in combat flying roles. No studies to determine if fems could

handle it or what effect it would have on male aviators: their balls had to be shrunk! We now

 know the result of that LIBERAL SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION. According to former Navy

Secretary John Lehman and many others the warrior/fighter jock culture has been diluted.

The old swagger and confidence removed. Standards have been lowered for those

with vaginas so that they can pass - males are compelled to pass them. It is reasonable

to assume that fem casualties are higher, on the other hand, it could be male due to

incompetent flying whores or due to males maneuvering to protect them, thereby,

endangering themselves. Male nature: protect women! Public will never be supplied with

data because now the military is afraid of N.O.W. (National Organization of Women).

Before all-volunteer military was establisheded in '74, only nurses allowed near the front not at

it like corpsman and medics. Female support soldiers weren't allowed to bring supplies to

the front, as a result. temporarily be there - that too will change. Getting back to the Navy

and Marines, we'd like to proposes to new mottos for them: Fly your Flag, Sail and Skirt

High; When Fighter Jock Fly, Shoot Them in the Fly.