That memorable line comes from James Mitchner’s Korean War novel, The Bridges of Toko-Ri. It refers to intrepid aviators lifting from a carrier, flying into untold danger. They know they may not return. They launch anyway. In boldness unfathomable to many, they willingly, artfully fly into peril. They are warriors, men of rare talent, intellect, and courage – a combination essential for victory.
Needed warriors are now being purged from the U.S. military. If America went to war right now with China or Russia, we could lose because of these purges. We’re losing top-level warrior-leaders to make the crucial differences in battle. They’re being systematically drummed out as politically incorrect. When the going gets tough, political correctness (PC) is useless. Then the brilliant, wily fighters, the coolest heads, the most courageous warriors, are needed to lead regardless of social views or record.
Today, in large measure, our fighting forces are led by briefcase-carrying busybodies, yes-men more interested in enforcing political beliefs and social change than leading in battle. They care more about their careers than what’s happening to the military and thus the country. Just last week, a new downsizing of the army was announced – without a protest.
Warriors are not prized. They are criticized and ridiculed. Up-and-coming warriors who admire the purged want to emulate them, see what’s happening, and are exiting as a result.
“Soldiers like George Patton or Curtis LeMay are no longer wanted,” writes LCOL Greg Lee, USMC (ret.) in a well-circulated internet forward. “The fundamental job of the military, ‘kill bad people and break things,’ has become critically hampered by ‘rules of engagement’ [and policies] who’s [sic] guiding logic is political outcome, not successful combat. If the US military is ever defeated, it will be because [rather than honing fighting skills, nurturing fighting thinkers and leaders] it is running the best Day Care centers in the world.”
Political correctness, social change, even care for the enemy are now the battle cries of the U.S. military hierarchy in the Pentagon. The rules of engagement (ROI), changed to limit civilian deaths under President Obama, are now so dangerous that American soldiers have been made into sitting ducks. In years past, generals and admirals resigned over such disregard for their troops. Today’s leaders acquiesce and espouse confusing non-military goals. The president confounds Coast Guard graduates saying their enemy is climate change. He sends 3,000 troops to battle...Ebola?
Pentagon priorities are women’s and gay rights and defeating the world’s social ills – disease, hunger, and poverty. These are worthy causes for a Peace Corps, church group, or diplomat, but not for the military, whose sole constitutional purpose is defending Americans against military threats. Do you send a sniper to nurse a baby?
The Senate voted to end debate on the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) Wednesday, 86-12, allowing for a final vote on Thursday on the measure that is that chamber’s version of the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law.
An amendment to the bill, introduced by
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
100%
, that would have allowed parents to opt their children out of standardized tests, was rejected by the Senate Tuesday by a vote of 32-64.
Lee’s amendment would have allowed parents to opt their children out of standardized tests in writing, without causing any penalty to the parent, the child, any school leader or employee, or the school itself.
In addition, the amendment would have also allowed states to implement their own opt-out criteria for additional state and/or local assessments.
“Parents, not politicians or bureaucrats, will have the final say over whether individual children take tests,” Lee said, according to the Washington Post, regarding his amendment.
The ECAA was introduced by
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
24%
, chairman of the Senate committee that oversees education, who worked closely with ranking committee member and co-sponsor
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
0%
.
Alexander himself voted to reject Lee’s amendment allowing parents the opt-out right, asserting that the amendment would remove the right of states to decide whether parents should be allowed to opt their children out of tests.
“I say to my Republican friends, do we only agree with local control when we agree with the local policy?” Alexander asked.
Writing at Townhall, Jane Robbins and Heidi Huber observed recently that, despite Alexander’s claim that his legislation would provide more parental and local control of education, it “doesn’t ignore the ‘opt out’ movement – in fact, it adds language that effectively encourages the states to lower the boom on noncompliant students and parents.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's standing is falling among Democrats, and voters view her as less decisive and inspiring than when she launched her presidential campaign just three months ago, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
The survey offers a series of warning signs for the leading Democratic candidate. Most troubling, perhaps, for her prospects are questions about her compassion for average Americans, a quality that fueled President Barack Obama's two White House victories.
Just 39 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That's an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.
The drop in Clinton's numbers extends into the Democratic Party. Seven in 10 Democrats gave Clinton positive marks, an 11-point drop from the April survey. Nearly a quarter of Democrats now say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light.
"I used to like her, but I don't trust her," said Donald Walters of Louisville, Kentucky. "Ever since she's announced her candidacy for the presidency I just haven't liked the way she's handled things. She doesn't answer questions directly."
While Clinton's approval rating fell, Obama's stayed constant at 46 percent since April. More than 8 in 10 Democrats have a positive view of the president.
At least part of Clinton's decline may be due to questions about her character, a topic Republicans have been trying to make central to the 2016 campaign. In ads, stump speeches and online videos, they paint her as a creature of Washington who flouts the rules to get ahead.
While Clinton has spent decades in the public eye, she's focused in recent months on creating a more relatable — and empathetic — image. In public events, she frequently talks about her new granddaughter, Charlotte, and references her early career as a legal advocate for impoverished children.
The survey suggests that voters aren't sold on her reinvention: Only 4 in 10 voters say they view Clinton as "compassionate." Just 3 in 10 said the word "honest" described her either very or somewhat well.
Stephanie Bergholdo, a Democratic voter from Oak Park, California, says she finds Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren far more sincere in their liberal views — though she's likely to vote for Clinton should she become the party's nominee.
"She's piggybacking on some of the things they've been talking about," said Bergholdo. "I don't think she comes across very genuine. She just seems a little stiff to me."
The percentage of respondents calling Clinton at least somewhat inspiring also slipped from 44 percent to 37 percent.
Obama National Security AdviserSusan Rice, ofBenghazi fame, went on CNN to promote the P5+1 nuclear deal with the Iranian regime.
During the discussion Rice admitted that NO AMERICAN EXPERTS will be allowed in to inspect the Iranian nuclear sites.
BLITZER: “Let’s clarify a few points as far as the nuclear deal with Iran is concerned. I take it that all of the IAEA inspection teams, all inspectors who go in will have to be from country that have formal, full diplomatic relations with Iran. As a result, no Americans will directly be involved in any on the ground inspections in Iran — is that right?”
RICE: “Wolf, yes. The IAEA, which is a highly respected international organization, will field an international team of inspectors. And those inspectors will in all likelihood come from IAEA member-states, most of whom have diplomatic relationships with Iran. We of course are a rare exception.”
BLITZER: “No Americans — I want to be precise on this. Sorry for interrupting. No Americans will be on the ground in Iran actually inspecting?”
RICE: “No Americans will be part of the IAEA inspection teams.”
BLITZER: “Will Americans be outside –”
RICE: “There are Americans in Iran on a daily basis, Wolf. I’m not sure what you are asking.”
BLITZER: “American government officials or military officials who could be inspecting?”
RICE: “They’re not going to be independent American inspectors separate from the IAEA. The IAEA will do the inspections on behalf of the United States and the rest of the international community.”
BLITZER: “I know there are American tourists and Americans who go visit family members in Iran. I’m talking U.S. government sent people, diplomats or others to go in there and see what is going on. I take it they will not be doing that?”
President Obama has two routes for getting the Iran nuclear deal approved by Congress. The more difficult path involves attempting to woo Republicans, though they've already vowed to kill the deal. Or Obama could just shore up support among Democrats so when he vetoes the GOP's "resolution of disapproval" Congress won't have the votes to override him. Supposedly the White House has not settled on which path it will pursue, but Obama's decision to invoke the name of the GOP's favorite human in explaining his rationale for the deal suggests he isn't all that concerned about angering them further. He said in an interview with the New York Times' Thomas Friedman:
You know, I have a lot of differences with Ronald Reagan, but where I completely admire him was his recognition that if you were able to verify an agreements that you would negotiate with the evil empire that was hellbent on our destruction and was a far greater existential threat to us than Iran will ever be [then it would be worth doing]. I had a lot of disagreements with Richard Nixon, but he understood there was the prospect, the possibility, that China could take a different path. You test these things, and as long as we are preserving our security capacity — as long as we are not giving away our ability to respond forcefully, militarily, where necessary to protect our friends and our allies — that is a risk we have to take. It is a practical, common-sense position. It’s not naïve; it’s a recognition that if we can in fact resolve some of these differences, without resort to force, that will be a lot better for us and the people of that region.
Obama said he doubts they'll get many Republicans onboard, since "there’s a certain party line that has to be toed, within their primaries and among many sitting members of Congress." But he said that's "not across the board" and called out one candidate by name. "It’ll be interesting to see what somebody like a Rand Paul has to say about this," Obama said. Apparently the interview took place before Paul had registered his opposition with a series of GIFs.
Hannibal Lecter ain't got nothing on the profit-maximizing abortion ghoul caught on tape hawking aborted baby parts as she swilled wine and nibbled on a gourmet salad.
In newly released undercover footage from the pro-life Center for Medical Progress, seasoned abortionist Dr. Deborah Nucatola, who serves as national senior director of "medical services" at Planned Parenthood, chitter-chattered eagerly about fulfilling the bloodthirsty demand for "intact hearts," "lower extremities" and lungs.
Price tag? "You know, I would throw a number out," she babbled breezily as she twirled her fork. "I would say it's probably anywhere from $30 to $100" per specimen.
Hollywood couldn't conjure monsters this chillingly, banally evil.
Nucatola exulted at how fetal livers have become tres chic: "A LOT of people" want them.
She then spoke of the new hot trends in body-parts trafficking as if she were raving about the latest craze for crop tops or artisanal cheese.
"I was like wow," she gushed to her potential clients about the market for unborn baby hearts, "I didn't even know!"
Like wow.
This master of murderous euphemism repeatedly referred to an unborn baby's head as a "calvarium" and casually described the tricks and techniques she and her fellow abortionists use to "increase your chance of success." Rotating the babies so they are delivered breech before being mutilated and slaughtered by the practitioners of Planned Butcherhood works fabulously, in case you were wondering.
Pausing only to swig more luxury libations from her jumbo wine glass, the loquacious death doc explained to investigators posing as fetal tissue company executives how her "providers" use "ultrasound guidance" to target the coveted body parts — "so they'll know where they're putting their forceps."
In a singsong recitation, this lettuce-chomping Mengele in a silk tank top detailed how the "providers" use ultrasound to become "cognizant of where you put your graspers."
This method is not employed to reduce the pain and suffering of unborn baby and mother, mind you. It's to get "good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that — so I'm not gonna crush that part.
AD FEEDBACK
I'm going to basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact."
Think about that. Planned Parenthood has officially declared it "torture" for women to see their unborn children through ultrasound before submitting to abortion. The billion-dollar abortion industry has lobbied vociferously against increasing ultrasound access to pregnant women on the fence about abortion.
But when the same imaging technology is used to help Planned Butcherhood's "providers" place their forceps strategically to protect their precious organ commodities, it's invaluable "guidance."
Now you know if you didn't already or if you were in abject denial. Planned Parenthood's fetish for late-term abortion stems not from compassion for mothers, but from the cold-blooded drive to drum up cold, hard cash. The practice has continued for at least 15 years, when Planned Parenthood's human harvesters in Kansas were first uncovered.
Can it get any more stomach-turning? Brace yourselves. This video is just the first in a series by the Center for Medical Progress, which has been investigating Planned Butcherhood's illegal, immoral trafficking of aborted fetal parts for almost three years.
The expose comes after years of undercover journalistic work by Lila Grace Rose and Live Action, who have caught government-supported Planned Parenthood officials covering up for sexual predators, promoting gendercide, flouting health regulations and disclosure laws, soliciting money from racist eugenics zealots who want more black babies aborted, and perpetuating a homicidal racket in the name of "reproductive health."
Nucatola is no rogue underling. She's Planned Parenthood's "senior director" of "medical services" with years of scalpel-wielding, hands-on abortion training. She bragged not only about her own expertise in procurement of baby body parts, but about the everyday trafficking that goes on "behind closed doors" at countless "affiliates."
When you've recovered from your nausea, ask yourselves this: What kind of country do we live in where law-abiding businesses are fined, threatened and demonized for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but barbaric baby butchers are hailed by feminists, Hollywood and a president who asked God to "bless" them?
Every day, American families get in their vehicles and drive. Whether it’s dropping the kids off at school, commuting to work or going to the supermarket, we rely on our highways, bridges and roads to get us where we need to go.
But can our transportation infrastructure rely on Washington?
A substantial percentage of each state’s transportation budget relies on money from the federal Highway Trust Fund. This fund is financed from gas taxes and provides money for projects such as fixing crumbling highways and bridges.
But the future of the Highway Trust Fund is in doubt. As Americans increasingly drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, money flowing into the fund is dropping. Congress is having a hard time figuring out how to address the resulting gap between the fund’s revenues and expenditures. Moreover, the Highway Trust Fund’s authorization is expiring at the end of the month.
So what should Congress do?
Some lawmakers — including us — want to reform how Washington spends highway money and find savings to close this funding gap. Others take the opposite approach and want to raise taxes.
In recent years, Congress hasn’t been able to solve this impasse. Short-term “patches” that transfer taxpayer dollars into the highway fund have been passed, but this solution is nothing more than a gimmicky Band-Aid.
And it looks like Congress is about to do the same thing at the end of July.
It does not have to be this way.
Instead of more short-term fixes, we believe there’s a sensible way to pass a long-term highway bill that fully funds our highways, roads and bridges, does not increase taxes, grows our economy, creates jobs and reduces the deficit.
Sounds too good to be true?
It’s not. Let’s pair highway funding with modernizing our immigration system for highly skilled workers.
As we saw last Congress, there are forward-thinking bills that would expand opportunities for highly skilled immigrants to come here, grow the economy, create jobs and pay taxes. They are not only good policy, but also a revenue windfall for Washington.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has determined several of these bipartisan proposals would generate more than $100 billion in tax revenues. These revenues are more than enough to pay for a long-term highway bill and reduce the deficit at the same time.
Under this approach, there would be no need for higher gas taxes or a new mileage tax, which Pennsylvanians and Hoosiers do not want — and should not have — to pay. More taxes not only mean less economic growth and fewer jobs in our states, but it also means less money for families to spend on groceries or rent, or to save for their children’s education.
This approach also would grow our economy and create jobs for American workers.
For example, each year, our universities churn out tens of thousands of foreign graduates with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Our immigration policy currently forces these graduates to leave and help companies overseas that compete with U.S. firms. Instead, we should be encouraging such graduates to work here, contribute to our economy, pay taxes and help drive innovation, job creation and economic growth.
The mayor of Kansas City, Kansas, in an address to the radical socialist organization National Council of La Raza, bragged that his city is no longer majority white and the city’s schools now have students who speak 62 different languages.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Kansas City, Kansas, was 52 percent white.
But in a speech before the La Raza National Affiliates Luncheon earlier this week in Kansas City, Mayor Mark Holland boasted that only five years later his city’s white population has been reduced to 40 percent.
He seemed to suggest that La Raza was at least partly responsible for the progress. But he also cited the refugee resettlement work of the United Nations and U.S. State Department for the city’s transformation into a gleaming example of multicultural diversity.
Kansas City, he said, “is very proud of the work of National Council of La Raza.”
“Kansas City, Kansas, is a city with no ethnic majority. Kansas City, Kansas, is 40 percent white, 28 percent Latino, and 26 percent African-American,” Holland said. “Our school district speaks 62 different languages by the children every single day. And Kansas City, Kansas, has a proud heritage of welcoming all people into the community, people who are not welcome in other places.”
Latinos started coming with the Santa Fe railroad more than 100 years ago, to build the railroad, he said. Another railroad, the Underground Railroad, brought African-Americans to Kansas. “If they could get across the river they were free and settled in a township of Quindero.”
“We continue to have a number of groups of refugees from around the world,” he added, mentioning the large Hmong community that came in the 1970s and 80s following the Vietnam War.
In recent years, the city has welcomed more refugees from other parts of the world, including Muslim Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, Hindus from Bhutan and Buddhists and Muslims from Burma.
“Nip/Tuck” actress Kelly Carlson began training in Kali, a form of martial arts from the Philippines, when she was 19. But despite her extensive self-defense training, she found herself in a life-threatening scenario where her martial arts background wasn’t enough.
"Owning a firearm...was life changing for me because women for sure, but even men too can be in a very, very vulnerable position with no options if you have intruders or any scenario where you're being dominated physically," Carlson told FOX411. "[A firearm] is the only equalizer you have."
The 39-year-old revealed a person in her past began stalking her in 2012 and even hired people to break into her home and tap her phones. After several break-ins and being followed on the streets, she contacted law enforcement who were not sympathetic to her situation.
“Law enforcement, they didn’t take me seriously. probably because I’m an actor but also because my situation was a little crazy,” she admitted.
One good thing came out of the scary ordeal: Carlson met her husband Dan after hiring him to teach her counter-surveillance.
"I had learned self defense for many years but I just knew around that time I needed some help," she admitted. "My attorney and I were interviewing some people that provide security but no one that we interviewed understood counter-surveillance." Carlson ended up calling a friend on the East Coast who recommended someone who could help her.
Major Garrett had the audacity to ask Obama why, with all the fanfare around the Iran deal, that he’s content to leave four Americans in Iran. Well, that kinda pissed Obama off and he scolded Major Garrett for suggesting that he’s content:
Obama pretends that if he had made the four Americans part of this deal, that Iran could have used them to squeeze even more concessions out of them. Heh, is that even possible?
In reality Obama could have demanded the release of the Americans as a pre-condition to negotiation, so that before the negotiations had even begun, they would have been home already and wouldn’t be part of the actual negotiations.
So he can scold reporters and feign outrage that Iran is holding these four Americans, but in reality if he really cared, they would be home already.
A Democratic congressman wants millions of people who hold U.S. green cards to become American citizens in order to send Donald Trump and other Republicans a message that they're 'mean and frankly, let’s be honest, racist.'
Louis Gutierrez, who is the senior House Democrat from Illinois and a Puerto Rican immigrant, spoke on the House floor just after 10:00 Wednesday morning, delivering a message especially to more than 5 million Hispanic U.S. residens who are eligible for citizenship today.
'Every time you see Trump’s face on your TV, vow to learn a little more English or a few more history facts so you can take the [citizenship] test,' he said.
'Let’s turn Trump’s negative words into something positive. That is how you deal with bullies and bigots.'
Gutierrez spoke next to a poster of an angry-looking Trump, at times becoming just as animated himself.
Gutierrez said Hispanics with temporary immigration status in the U.S. should take a page from other groups throughout American history and join the group of voting-eliible Americans.
'Latinos should do just what the Irish and the Polish and the Italians did. Become citizens and vote,' he said.
'Almost all of the immigrants in this country are going to remain in this country until the day they die, let’s be honest. So for the millions who meet the requirements of citizenship I say: take the step.'
Gutierrez spokesman Douglas Rivlin told DailyMail.com that while Trump's rhetoric has energized the national debate about illegal immigrants, 'he is not making a prediction about who will be the nominee. Only that for many Americans, right now, Trump is the face of the Republican Party.'
'In the past, anti-immigrant rhetoric has had a political consequence for the GOP,' Rivlin said in an email, 'and the congressman hopes that citizenship and voter registration are among the consequences for the GOP in the wake of Trump’s attacks.'
Trump has emerged as the GOP's presidential front-runner, placing first with 17 per cent support in a new Suffolk University/USA Today poll. Just six weeks ago he was polling at 2 per cent.
But his campaign launch lit up the airwaves with the claim that 'rapists' and other criminals are streaming into the U.S. from south of the border, and the Obama administration is unwilling to stop it.
A Trump campaign official told DailyMail.com on Wednesday that 'Mr. Trump believes a nation without borders is not a nation at all.'
'He is the only candidate who will build a wall to secure our border and maintain the rule of law. The silent majority will no longer be silent.'
“Where do we find such men?”
