Posts

U.S. Secretary of Defense Carter and Transgenderism

Department of Defense Secretary Ash Carter has issued instructions to all military branches that transgender people may now join the military and serve openly as to what gender they identify with and those currently serving may disclose themselves without any repercussions, or problems.  This paper is to bring to light that women, who identify as men, are looking to do a man’s job in the military.

The transgendered women who desire to become an artilleryman will face strength challenges.  It is not so much as opening a powder canister, or screwing on a fuze, it is the lifting of the round itself (97.7 lbs, 155mm).  Also, setting the weapon up for “action”, takes a lot of physical effort from swinging a sledge hammer, to a lot of pushing and pulling.

The person who loads the Howitzer is required to have the leg and upper body strength that is required to lift and chamber the round.  The method of chambering a round is done hydraulically, if the Howitzer is self-propelled, manually, if towed, but the rest is the same.

The infantry is quite different.  These people go on patrols, engage the enemy and they do this with an 80 pound rucksack on their back.  The infantryman’s upper body must be in top form.  They must also be able to carry their wounded to safety.  This means carrying the weight they have and the wounded soldier’s weight and equipment.  Women who transgender to men, can they fulfill these tasks which are primarily designed for men?

Secretary Ash Carter has said the military will pay for the sex re-assignments. Exactly, how does this fit into the roles of the military?  It has no defense purposes and it hinders the purpose of being combat ready.  Secretary Carter among other politicians are pandering and costing the taxpayers frivolous amounts of money by pandering to special interest groups.  The statement of frivolous amount of money is really not frivolous at all.  These surgeries are in excess of thirty to forty thousand dollars.  Also, to find the cadaver is an expensive process in itself.

Secretary Carter does not understand the term, “lost time”.  If a woman is re-assigned to be a man and if they are a member of the combat forces of the military, it may take them a year or better to return to normal duty status.  This results in lost time.  The taxpayer is still paying the person for a job they cannot do and it results in extending their enlistment to have the person do the work that needed to be done in the first place.  Since Secretary Carter has allowed this, our armed forces will experience more lost time than ever before.

Due to the physical nature of the Army and the Marines, the ground combat forces will lose an insurmountable number of people to the Air Force and the Navy.  While these two services have their own special combat operations, these two services are more technical within their job structures and do not rely as much with boots on the ground.

The Army and the Marines constantly rely on the physical aspects of getting the job done.  Women who transgender to men every element of standards must be reduced to accommodate these transgenders.  We must remember the women who participated in the Marine Combat Officers program.  They were cut because they failed the requirements of the course.  In the end, the combat arms element of the Army and the Marines will suffer great loses.  The standards will be so far degraded a 5-year old will pass the requirements necessary to become an artilleryman, or an infantryman.

Men who transgender to women is not a primary concern of this paper because of the nature of the military; any job in the military can be done by a man.

Any job in any branch of the armed services that requires the physical element of their job and each service will face a myriad of lost time when a transgender undergoes sex re-assignment.  Besides the cost of doing the re-assignment, it will cost the taxpayer in lost time wages because the healing process of this surgery may take up to two years for a full recovery and depending on the pay grade of the individual, the taxpayer can expect to pay out around $50,000 a year, or more in lost time wages, then expect to pay that much after the individual returns to full duty status.  Because of the stupidity of Secretary Ash Carter, he has cost the American taxpayer more money that is required to support the military personnel in the performance of their duties.

Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner maybe the poster child for transgenderism, but this is an apples/oranges conversation.  Jenner’s situation is that of a civilian.  No military service member can be equated to Jenner’s position, or vise-versa.  Every person in the military must maintain their fitness for duty and what Secretary Carter has done is allowing this to destroy the main purpose of the military which is to train and maintain their combat readiness for war.

We must also look at the possible disability status if something like this goes wrong.  If a person becomes injured in some way during the course of their service to the country, on a normal basis, a disability claim can be made.  If, one of these re-assignment surgeries goes wrong and it fails, the taxpayer will be on the hook for disability compensation.  We as taxpayers must look at this as an elective surgery, not as a necessity.  Look at this surgery as an elective it will have the propensity of releasing the taxpayer from all liabilities that are incurred from this surgery.

RELATED ARTICLES:

LGBT Groups Seek to Entrench Agenda at the UN

How the Left Is Using Intimidation to Silence Free Speech

Presidential Candidates, Members of Congress, and Governors Call for Military Right-to-Carry

Following the murder of four U.S. Marines and a U.S. Navy sailor by a terrorist in Chattanooga, presidential candidates, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R), businessman Donald Trump, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker (R), and former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), have called for a change in federal law to allow stateside military personnel to carry firearms for protection. In addition, the governors of Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas have directed the adjutants general of their National Guards to authorize Guardsmen to be armed in their states.

Before the attack in Chattanooga, congressional Armed Services Committee Chairmen Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) had been planning to include legislation in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act to clarify an Army post commander’s authority to allow the carrying of personal firearms for protection. Now, numerous other senators and representatives have stated their support for legislation to allow military personnel to be armed for protection of themselves and their fellow troops here at home.

The outpouring of support for allowing military personnel to protect themselves is more than justified by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which included an attack upon the Pentagon, and events related to other military facilities thereafter.  In 2009, a terrorist killed 12 military personnel and one civilian, and wounded 30 others on Fort Hood, Texas. That same year, another attack occurred upon a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, resulting in the death of one soldier and the wounding of another. Over the next two years, law enforcement authorities foiled planned attacks upon military facilities in Baltimore and Seattle. In 2013, 12 people were killed and four were wounded in an attack upon the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard. And only eight months ago, the FBI issued a warning that ISIS was recruiting extremists to attack our military personnel here at home.

Military personnel are effectively prohibited from carrying personal firearms for protection by a Department of Defense Directive of 2011, which states:

Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed…

That directive traces back to another Directive from the early 1990s, which contains similar language.

EDITORS NOTE: We encourage readers to contact their U.S. senators and representatives, to voice their strong support for legislation to allow our military personnel to carry firearms for their protection.

Florida to Lose 79,459 Jobs Due to Defense Cuts

The Jacksonville Business Journal reports that Florida stands to lose 79,459 jobs and $4.1 billion in labor income by the end of fiscal 2013 if $1.2 trillion in federal defense cuts take place in January as planned.  A report conducted by George Mason University by economist Stephen Fuller says Florida would suffer the sixth most job losses of all the states. The report measures the impact of both defense and nondefense employment reductions at federal agencies and their contractors, as well as at businesses that count them as customers. A little more than half of Florida’s lost jobs in the next fiscal year — 41,905 — would result from Department of Defense cuts, and the rest would stem from reductions at civilian agencies. During that period, Florida would also see gross state product losses of $8 billion. To read more click here. The George Mason University report concludes – The magnitude of economic impacts resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011 over the combined FY 2012-FY 2013 period have been shown to be large and their impact on the U.S. economy to be significant:

• Combined DOD and non-DOD agency spending reductions totaling $115.7 billion in FY 2013 would reduce the 2013 U.S. GDP by $215.0 billion.

• These spending reductions would result in the loss of 746,222 direct jobs including cutbacks in the federal workforce totaling 277,263 and decreases in the federal contractor workforce totaling 468,959 jobs, thus affecting all sectors of the national economy.

• The loss of these 746,222 direct jobs and 432,978 jobs of suppliers and vendors (indirect jobs) dependent on the prime contractors would reduce total labor income in the U.S. by $109.4 billion.

• The loss of this labor income and the resultant impacts of reduced consumer spending in the economy would generate an additional loss of 958,508 jobs dependent on the spending and re-spending of payroll dollars associated with the direct and indirect jobs lost as a result of BCA.

• This loss of $215.0 billion in GDP and 2.14 million jobs in 2013 would erase two-thirds of the GDP gains projected for the year and raise the national unemployment rate by 1.5 percentage points by the end of 2013.

• These economic impacts would affect every state with their respective vulnerabilities to projected DOD and non-DOD spending reductions being determined by their agency mix and relative magnitudes of federal payroll and procurement. Based on current patterns of federal spending by state, ten states account for more than half of total federal payroll and procurement outlays. This significant concentration of federal spending represents a major threat to these states’ economies in 2013. While other states may appear less vulnerable to federal spending reductions, these may also suffer significant impacts dues to their smaller sizes or more specialized economic structures.

Florida is has twenty-one military installations, and is home to U.S. Central Command at MacDill AFB in Tampa.