While many Americans are weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, just as Jesus said, can you pause for a moment to learn how Obama and Hillary have reshaped what is left of our Armed Forces?
Let’s take the United States Army under these Democrats. Eric Kenneth Fanning is the Secretary of the Army. He is the man in charge of the Department of the Army! His leadership team consists of his Under Secretary of the Army and two military officers of four-star rank, the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. The Secretary of the Army is in effect the chief executive officer of the Department of the Army, and the Chief of Staff of the Army works directly for the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary presents and justifies Army policies, plans, programs, and budgets to the Secretary of Defense, other executive branch officials, and to the Congressional Defense Committees. The Secretary also communicates Army policies, plans, programs, capabilities, and accomplishments to the public. So who is this powerful leader? What are his credentials for holding such a powerful position? Did he lead a charge up San Juan Hill or lead troops during the liberation of Kuwait?
Actually, Secretary Fanning led the San Diego Gay Pride Parade this year. He is the highest ranking openly gay member of the Department of Defense. He was a member of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund from 2004 to 2007. He favors the adoption by the U.S. military of a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He has said: “I personally like to see these things in writing and codified.” He has expressed a preference for the establishment of such a policy by the Department of Defense rather than the Obama administration. He supports allowing openly transgender persons to serve in the military as well. Basically, rather than being led into combat by a George S. Patton type, our troops are more likely to be led by a drag queen.
When the Democrats place folks, who would not be caught dead in a military uniform, in leadership positions, what effect does it have on the morale of our men and women in uniform? Here is the results of a Military Times survey of troop morale that sampled a huge number of our troops. The numbers were brutal. In response to the statement, “The senior military leadership has my best interests at heart,” only 27% agreed, down from 53% in a previous survey conducted in 2009. As for: “Overall Officers in the military are good or excellent,” only 49% agreed, down from 78% in the 2009 survey. Agreement with: “Overall my quality of life is good or excellent,” dropped from 91% agreement in 2009 to 56% in 2014 and President Obama’s personal approval rating was an eye-catching 15%. Do you care what our young men and women have to endure to defend America? Does Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama care? I damn well care!!!!!!
By anyone’s standard, these numbers should have constituted an alarm for senior defense policymakers, suggesting that whatever they were doing, they should probably try the opposite. So it was disheartening to many people and even a little stunning to see the news that the president was nominating Eric Fanning, a Washington insider and defense bureaucrat who never spent a single day in uniform, to be the next secretary of the Army.
Since Ash Carter’s appointment as secretary of Defense, members of the United States Army have had a civilian chain of command from McHugh through the president composed entirely of men who have never put on a uniform for their country. Hagel, Panetta, and Gates had all served.
Ask McHugh or Fanning or any of these men about the value that veterans bring to American society, and you are sure to get an earful about the need for American industry to recognize the unique talents of those who have served; to hire and promote them for the greater good. But at the Pentagon, bizarrely, this does not appear to extend anymore to those positions with overall responsibility for the state of the services. One exception among the current service secretaries is Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, who served briefly in the Navy as a young man and has not exactly covered himself in glory as a result.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has raised a few eyebrows with some of the names he has picked for naval ships.
Why, critics questioned, would he name a ship in honor of the late gay rights leader Harvey Milk or after former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords when there are plenty of military heroes to choose from?
Mabus has said he is honoring people who have shown heroism, just as past Navy Secretaries have done. He said he believes that by looking outside the military, at times, for heroes, he can help connect people with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. When you think about heroes to name Battle Ships after, does Milk and Giffords come to mind?
Mabus is officially announcing five new ship names on visits to Mississippi and Massachusetts beginning Saturday. Among the group, a replenishment oiler will bear the name of abolitionist Sojourner Truth.
“I have named ships after presidents. I have named ships after members of Congress who have been forceful advocates for the Navy and Marine Corps,” Mabus said in a recent interview. “But I think you have to represent all the values that we hold as Americans, that we hold as a country. And so that’s why I’ve named ships the Medgar Evers, Cesar Chavez, John Lewis and Harvey Milk. Because these are American heroes too, just in a different arena.”
Republican U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, of California, objects to Mabus naming ships after Milk, farm labor leader Chavez and others. He wants ships to be named after service members honored for valor to inspire their crews.
Evers and Lewis were civil rights activists. Lewis is now a Georgia congressman. A measure stalled recently in the House that would have prevented the Navy from naming ships after lawmakers who haven’t served in the military or as President.
Retired Vice Adm. Doug Crowder questions naming a ship after Giffords, who survived after being shot during a constituent meeting. It’s the secretary’s right to name ships, and previous Secretaries have made political decisions, but there’s an inherent risk in making a string of political statements, said Crowder, who served as a deputy chief of naval operations before retiring in 2010.
“It just doesn’t help at all for what the basic sailor or officer thinks of his chain of command, up to the Secretary of the Navy,” he said. “Is it catastrophic? No. But that’s the risk you run.”
Crowder said he doesn’t think a ship should be named after Peyton Manning, either, “to take it to the ridiculous end state to make a point.”
It’s also up to the navy secretary to choose sponsors to christen the vessels and Mabus is willing to break with the tradition of having female sponsors.
Mabus said he asked the male spouse of a female naval officer to sponsor a ship but was turned down.
Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, and the women who integrated Little Rock’s Central High School in Arkansas in 1957 are sponsoring submarines. Transgender Navy veteran Paula Neira and Sen. Dianne Feinstein are sponsoring Milk’s ship.
So far, no ship has been named for Bowe Bergdahl, Nadal Hasan or Colin Kaepernick.
If you have ANY respect whatsoever for our Armed Forces Personnel and our Veterans, you will vote for politicians who will redirect the focus of our military from social experimentation to National Defense and Security, period!