Joint
Chiefs Looking to Lower Combat Standards
Now that
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has decreed that women may not be
excluded from front line combat positions, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey ordered a review of the
standards applied to personnel in these positions. Dempsey's order
specifically requires all commanders to justify any minimum standards
that would tend to disproportionately impact women.
“As it
stands now, many of the physical requirements imposed on combat
troops are beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of female
soldiers,” Dempsey said. “This makes the standards inherently
discriminatory and denies these female soldiers equal rights. The
Commander-in-Chief has made it clear that it is his policy to have an
army that looks like America. Regulations must be revised to
accommodate this goal.”
While
acknowledging that “women might lack the physical strength to lug
wounded comrades to safety,” Dempsey contended that “these
deficiencies might be more than compensated by women's greater skills
in nurturing those who are injured and frightened. Many grievously
wounded soldiers' final thoughts are of their mothers or wives. The
presence of female platoon mates could help ease their transition to
deceased status.”
The
General expressed a hope that “international agreements would be
reached that would help level the playing field for combat between
units of all-male troops vs. units of mixed genders. We're optimistic
that a sense of chivalry can be instilled which will give the female
soldier a fair chance of surviving a hand-to-hand encounter with a
male enemy soldier.”
NLRB
Appointments Ruled Unconstitutional
A
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
ruled that President Obama's “recess appointments” to the
National Labor Relations Board last January were invalid. The
decision effectively nullifies every action taken by the NLRB over
the last year.
The Obama
Administration is expected to appeal the Court's decision, alleging
that “the pro forma sessions convened by the Senate to avoid
being in a 'recess status' were a sham aimed at denying the President
the opportunity to make valid recess appointments as provided for in
the Constitution.”
The fact
that the Senate is controlled by the President's Party and that both
Republicans and Democrats have used pro forma sessions on
numerous prior occasions for the express purpose of preventing the
appointment of persons that they have not vetted and approved were
casually dismissed by Press Secretary Jay Carney
Carney
called the ruling “novel and unprecedented. This is one court, one
case, one company. President Obama is the supreme leader of America.
He has been given a mandate by the voters to govern and will not be
turned aside by the carping of those who oppose him.”
Senate
Hearing on Benghazi Infuriates Boxer
Senator
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) stormed out of the Senate Hearing into the
deaths of the US Ambassador to Libya and others. The spark that
ignited her fury was Senator Rand Paul's (R-Ken) questioning of
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Rather
than let her retire from her post with dignity, Paul insists on
poking around into performance issues that have no relevance at this
late date,” Boxer complained. “Maybe Secretary Clinton should
have taken a greater interest in security for the Ambassador and his
staff, but as she so artfully asked, what difference does that make
now? Isn't it just 'Monday morning quarterbacking?' I mean, she's
already accepted full responsibility, does she have to accept blame,
as well?”
Boxer
pointed out that “accepting responsibility is more than her husband
did in that whole Monica Lewinski mess. If we can move on from that
why can't we move on from this? Is there a sexist double standard at
work?”
“I just
can't get past how improper it is for a person of Paul's minimal
qualifications to be challenging one of the best, if not the best,
Secretaries of State in one of the best, if not the best,
Administrations this country has ever seen,” Boxer marveled.
The
California Senator said she was “somewhat comforted by the
widespread media agreement that none of the Republicans has the
requisite standing and stature to question this great woman.”
Kerry
Defends President Obama's Unilateral War-Making in Libya
Forty
years ago, John Kerry, currently a Democratic senator from
Massachusetts and President Obama's nominee to take over as Secretary
of State, denounced US bombing of Cambodia. More recently, he has
excused President Obama's bombing of Libya.
“How are
these two instances different?” Senator Rand Paul (R-Ken) asked at
Kerry's confirmation hearing. “Weren't both acts of war taken
without Congressional authority? Doesn't the Constitution vest the
war-making power in Congress?”
“The
issue is a complex one with many nuances,” Kerry replied. “In an
effort to simplify it for you, let me point out that the bombing of
Cambodia took place in a war that I already opposed. It was ordered
by then President Nixon, who as it turns out, was a criminal that
would've gone to prison if it weren't for President Ford's pardon.”
“In
contrast, the bombing in Libya was ordered by a Nobel Prize winning
President Obama,” Kerry pointed out. “Since President Obama is a
credentialed man of peace his actions carry a patina of legitimacy
that goes beyond the strictures of one nation's Constitution. He is
clearly a 'man for all seasons' and justifiably, in my opinion,
cannot be restrained from using his superior wisdom to resolve
international disputes.”
That the
intervention ordered by Obama may have contributed to strengthening
al-Qaeda in Libya and leading to the later assassination of
Ambassador Stevens was brushed aside as “an unforeseen series of
unfortunate events” by Senator Kerry. “Who could have predicted
such an outcome? When even the best minds at the Department of State
are stumped who are we to second guess them?”
Congressional
Pay Protected by Constitution
Recent
legislation passed by the House of Representatives to extend the debt
limit included a clause that will withhold salaries from members of
Congress if they do not pas a budget. While existing law appears to
require that Congress pass an annual budget, the body has neglected
to do so since 2009.
Representative
Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) contends that this salary withholding clause
is unConstitutiuonal. “The 27th Amendment says that 'No
law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have intervened,'” Jeffries asserted. “My
salary is Constitutionally protected regardless of what I do or don't
do while I'm here.”
That the
intent of the Amendment was to block Congress from increasing its own
pay didn't seem to faze Jeffries. “It doesn't say Congress shall
not increase its pay,” he pointed out. “It says the pay shall not
vary.”
Jeffries'
interpretation received support from across the aisle as
Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) agreed with his assessment. “As
much as I concur with the sentiment that Congress ought to be
required to do its job in order to get paid, the Constitution says it
doesn't,” King observed. “Does this make us a privileged class?
Maybe, but as a strict constructionist I feel that my hands are tied.
It's up to voters to defeat those who don't do their jobs.”
Inaugural
Address Redefines Basic Freedoms
Urging
that “we break free of the archaic notions of our nation's
so-called 'Founding Fathers,'” President Barack Obama launched his
second term with a stirring call to “update our concepts to fit our
modern circumstances.”
The
President maintained that “the Founders' original idea that
'liberty' means freedom from government abuses and usurpations has no
relevance today. Our government does not usurp our rights. The people
elect their rulers and expect them to create the kind of rights
appropriate to the world we live in now.”
“How
much liberty does a person have if he lacks the will or ability to
make his own way?” Obama asked. “Instead of leaving such a person
alone and saying he is 'free to do as he pleases,' today's caring
government must provide the means for his pursuit of happiness.
Merely having the opportunity to seek employment is not enough. Some
aren't suited to such a life. Should they then be denied the fruits
of the nation's abundance?”
“And
what about those whose freely exercised choices would entrap them in
lives of misery?” the President continued. “Can we truly call our
selves free if we are slaves to our vices"overeating, drinking,
smoking, owning guns, listening to talk radio? Shouldn't government
step in to try to help free people from these damaging
predilections?”
Obama
vowed “to continue the struggle for a more perfect union and not
rest until every single person in America is assured that his welfare
is the heartfelt concern of his government. I pledge that I will not
be deterred from this course. No obstruction from the naysayers will
be permitted to impede our progress.”
“If
those aiming to stave off the march toward a brighter future ask 'by
what authority' I act,” Obama concluded. “I will say that I act
for the benefit of all of humanity. No higher authority is needed.”