White Flight From Military Service
It’s no secret that the U.S. military has been struggling to meet its recruitment goals during the Biden years. Last year, for example, the Army fell roughly 10,000 short of its recruitment target. Furthermore, all military branches have seen their total number of personnel drop over the last three years, with the Army’s numbers down more than 8%, or some 40,000 soldiers.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon continues to deny that the pushing of woke DEI policies has anything to do with the drop in numbers. Instead, the Pentagon has focused on other factors, such as the growing child obesity rate across the country, which has resulted in a smaller number of young people fit enough to serve.
While there is no question that increasing obesity rates have been a contributing factor, there seems to be a much clearer and more glaring problem associated with the Biden administration’s focus on DEI.
The number of white recruits the Army has pulled in has decreased steadily and significantly. Back in 2018, roughly 44,000 new recruits were white. However, the overall number of white recruits has been steadily dropping in each of five consecutive years. As of 2023, the total number of white recruits had fallen to just over 25,000. Call it blowback.
Meanwhile, the total number of both black and Hispanic recruits has remained relatively flat. Yet the overall percentage of black recruits has increased from 20% in 2018 to 24% by 2023, and Hispanic recruits have risen from 17% to 24%. But these percentage increases are due almost entirely to the decrease in white recruits.
The cause is both apparent and understandable: the woke focus on an ethnically and racially diverse military rather than on a colorblind military.
The question the Pentagon should be considering is that which makes for the best fighting men and women, not the color of their skin. The uniform and common cause of any military organization should always be, first and foremost, the defense of the homeland. The U.S. military’s mission should thus be focused on being the best and most lethal fighting force on the planet.
The warrior’s primary commitment is to serve his nation, which requires the willingness to fight and die. A commitment to diversity for diversity’s sake distracts and is counterintuitive from this mission, as it elevates an individual’s differences as ultimate rather than uniformity in cause and purpose.
To make matters worse, the woke commitment to DEI is, at its core, antithetical to the American founding ideal of all men being created equal. Individuals are to be judged not by their social, racial, or ethnic group but on their individual merits.
The promotion of such inherently racist concepts as “white privilege” and “microaggressions” likely has a lot to do with why fewer young white folks are signing up to serve. Think about it: Who would want to serve and possibly die for a country that tells white people they are its primary problem?
When we teach our children that America is inherently racist, sexist, bigoted, and greedy, this is the bitter harvest we reap. Is it any wonder that recruiting numbers have been steadily falling?
Pride in our good nation and a commitment to colorblindness are what is needed to reverse the downward trend.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/103592-white-flight-from-military-service-2024-01-16
**************************************************Italian Police Don't Hold Back When It Comes to Anti-Israel Marchers
Italians do tend to be sympathetic to Israel
We've seen in some cities where the reaction to leftist protesters who do things like block roadways or get violent is rather muted. Some even react to them like they have a right to block other cars and protest in the middle of a highway. Even when there is violence, it often seems like no one is arrested or suffers any real consequence from these actions. The protection of the magical "D."
I wrote earlier about the tweet from the Reagan National Airport that ticked off many because it appeared to countenance blocking roads as a "First Amendment" protected enterprise. In fact there is no such right. But these folks on the left probably think there is, since they get away with this so often. But no, you don't have the right to stomp on everyone else's rights (at least not in this regard) just because you want to toss a tantrum about the latest leftist cause.
We need to start busting this myth to stop this tactic, but that requires the police who are often in Democrat-run cities to be able to enforce the law.
But the "protesters" in Vicenza, Italy got some consequences big time when they got out of hand during a protest. Hundreds of people were there to protest that Israelis were allowed to be part of a jewelry fair in the city. That's how far these folks are reaching -- they will even protest jewelry fairs. Once again showing it isn't about protesting bombing, it's about eliminating Israel.
The anti-Israel crew began firing smoke bombs and flares at the riot cops. That's when the police charged the line of marchers, and started whaling on the activists and pushing them out of the road.
Then about half way through the video, they brought out the water cannon. They weren't messing around. They managed to clear the area they wanted and the woman who appeared to be in charge signaled them to stop. Then activists tossed another lit flare at them, almost lighting up one of the cops. So the police then pushed them back even further.
Officials said that the protest and the violence had no impact on the event, which went on as scheduled.
****************************************************
Wisconsin Lets Voters Decide On Abortion Rules Rather Than the Courts
Late-term abortions are on the chopping block as Wisconsin Republicans introduce legislation to put limits on the anti-life procedure.
This week, state Republicans called for a statewide referendum to decide on a 14-week abortion ban, asking voters to approve the policy through a ballot measure during April's election. The bill is being fast-tracked through the Legislature, with a public hearing scheduled for Monday.
However, Gov. Tony Evers (D-WI) has already said he would veto the bill if passed— even before it's put on the ballot.
On the contrary, Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Wisc.) said the measure is a reasonable approach to finding a consensus on the controversial issue that sways voters.
"Out of an abundance of respect for how sensitive this issue is, we would like to hear directly from the voters whether they agree that this is what they want the law to be - striking a balance between protecting life and showing compassion and respect for women who find themselves in difficult situations," Felzkowski said.
"The bottom line for me is this: Wisconsinites should be able to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions without interference from politicians who don't know anything about their lives, their family, or their circumstances. And I'll veto any bill that makes reproductive healthcare any less accessible for Wisconsinites than it is right now," Evers said in a statement in December.
Last year, a Dane County Circuit judge ruled that a decades-old Wisconsin law does not prohibit abortions, cleaning the state bans feticide but not "consensual medical abortions." A Republican district attorney appealed the ruling from Dane County Circuit in December, in which state Rep. Amanda Nedweski predicted that the appeal would fail in the liberal state Supreme Court.
Abortion has become the central issue in political races in Wisconsin. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos— who co-sponsored the bill— said he wants voters to decide on abortion rules rather than the courts.
"I'd like to put something on the ballot in April that allows the people of Wisconsin to be the ones who get the final say on deciding on abortion. So it's not the court. It's not the Legislature. It's not the governor. It's going to be the people who get the final choice," he said.
***********************************************************
Maybe They Really Do Hate Christians
We hear a lot about hate these days. It might be a “hate crime” against an individual or property. It might be “hate speech” about someone or something. But defining hate is difficult because it’s mostly subjective. It’s a little like what Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart said about defining pornography in 1964: “I know it when I see it.” But one definition of hate is easier to quantify, one denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice. Using this criterion suggests government bureaucrats hate Christianity.
I don’t mean to be provocative, but recent events indicate they do. The latest example comes from the House Judiciary Committee, which announced on Wednesday that the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is in possession of documents showing that our government is surveilling the financial transactions of people buying Bibles and other religious texts.
For what purpose does one surveil another? Surveillance ordinarily involves people who are suspected of something. That means our government is so concerned about people buying Bibles that it’s spending tax money to determine who they are. This sounds like a hostile action.
For all I know, this net of surveillance may have ensnared me. I wrote a check last summer to purchase some new hymnals for my church and wrote “Hymnal Fund” on the memo line. Aside from traditional Christian hymns, the books include Old Testament Psalms, reformed Christian prayers and creeds, and a confession of faith so that the government might classify it as a religious text. In the interest of conserving taxpayer money, there is no need to surveil me any further; I freely admit to buying Bibles and religious texts.
This week’s revelations about surveilling Christians are not isolated. We learned last summer that the FBI was spying on Roman Catholic churches because they were suspected of conducting mass in Latin. Catholics have done this for more than 1,000 years, yet the government believes this is suspicious enough to merit surveillance by men with guns. This, too, sounds a little hostile.
There are many other examples of hostile actions against American Christians and their churches. From legislation that seeks to pierce the confidentiality of the confessional to a growing number of federal actions against people and institutions of faith, there’s a steady stream of hostile actions toward Christians.
I’ve received my share of unsolicited nastygrams from people who call me names, insult me, libel, and defame me, but I’m not sure whether they actually hate me. Candidly, I don’t care. People are free to disagree and believe whatever they wish; their beliefs are none of my business.
But someone’s beliefs become my business when they manifest themselves in hostile actions toward me. The hateful behavior of a couple of people is inconsequential, but the federal government is a whole different animal; they have rifles tactical vests, and prisons.
The surveillance and punishment of Christians for the crime of having and believing in the Bible is nothing new. If you live in a place ruled by the Taliban or Houthi rebels, Bible ownership is either illegal or severely restricted. China and North Korea also ban or restrict Bibles, as did the former Soviet Union.
The common thread that connects these nations is they all have authoritarian governments. Defectors report that entire families in North Korea, including a two-year-old toddler, are serving sentences of life in prison because the parents had a Bible. The Chinese Communist Party is a little less bad; a man who sold Bibles and other religious tracts was sentenced to seven years in prison. Bible readers in Afghanistan reportedly face summary execution.
This 'progressive' ideology is persecuting 21st-century Christians in a frighteningly regressive way, mirroring the Dark Ages and Medieval Europe. We’re not seeing news about Bible believers being burned at the stake, but summary executions and toddler imprisonment don’t seem like very progressive policies.
This all begs the question: Why is the government of the United States surveilling people buying Bibles and other religious texts? They must be doing it for some reason. Still, it’s unclear why the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has “urged large financial institutions to comb through the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression,” extending to “the purchase of books (including religious texts).”
It pains me as a Christian to say this, but all these hostile actions make me wonder whether they really do hate us. I’m not suggesting we should expect the incarceration of two-year-olds or death sentences anytime soon. Still, I am reminded of the words of famed Irish politician and orator John Philpot Curran. As a lawyer arguing in defense of religious freedom, he observed, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” He’s not wrong.
https://townhall.com/columnists/scotthogenson/2024/01/21/maybe-they-really-do-hate-us-n2633913
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
<> http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment