The Right Opinion

Barack & Hillary, Sitting in a Tree...

By Burt Prelutsky · Feb. 16, 2013

There must be something in the air near the Potomac that rots the brains of just about everyone who ventures into our nation's capital. The latest example was Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta insisting that having women fighting in the frontlines would just about ensure that we'd never lose a future war.

Inasmuch as one in four women who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan claimed they were sexually assaulted, my own suggestion is that the only men with whom women in the armed services should affiliate are gays.

The propaganda would have it that women only want to have the opportunity to compete for the opportunity to serve in the infantry and armor units. People like Mr. Panetta insist that they oppose lowering military standards. To which, I say, with all due disrespect: phooey!

Just as soon as the social engineers notice that very few women are cutting it, those physical requirements will be dramatically reduced. Here in L.A., I'll point out that we used to have physical standards for the L.A.P.D. But once the move was on to start recruiting women and Latinos, the strength and height requirements were quickly adjusted to accommodate weaker women and shorter men.

Even my wife, who even in these politically correct times happens to be a woman, agrees with me. To my argument, she adds that those people who refuse to recognize gender differences even go so far as to ignore menstruation. She points out that these monthly events involve pain and blood and would radically detract from the women's ability to concentrate on the matter at hand on a battlefield.

One of the leaders in the campaign to stick women in the infantry is a retired Air Force officer, Colonel Martha McSally. In a debate I saw on Fox, when a retired general, Jerry Boykin, pointed out that flying missions and then returning to women's barracks does not involve the same sort of gender-mingling as being on the ground in a war zone, Col. McSally typically ignored his logic and instead, sounding exactly like a liberal lunkhead, insisted on fairness and gender equality.

Although she nattered on about patriotism, sound judgment and courage, by fairness, what she meant was that military promotions are more easily obtained through combat missions. In this particular battle of the sexes, Gen. Boykin emerged victorious as soon as he concluded his remarks by stating that the job of the military is to win wars, not to worry about career opportunities for women.

Speaking of women, her adoring acolytes are already promoting Hillary Clinton for a presidential run in 2016. We are being told over and over again what a great job she's done as secretary of state, although nobody has yet been able to come up with a single accomplishment, unless they're referring to the neat way she managed to accept responsibility for the massacre in Benghazi without taking even the tiniest sliver of blame.

One fact that has gotten a lot of attention is that Mrs. Clinton visited 112 countries during her four years on the job. But I fail to see how that adds up to anything. It's not as if she even has to do her own packing or rushing to catch a plane. To me, it means she found an easy way to keep her name and face in front of the public while managing to avoid Bill for weeks at a time.

For several years, one of the ugliest images I have had in my head has been of that last U.S. helicopter taking off and leaving our South Vietnamese allies stranded on a rooftop, knowing they would be tortured and murdered by the North Vietnamese. A second image has now joined that one. It's of Hillary Clinton, in referring to the massacre in Benghazi, doing her hammy version of moral outrage and insisting that it made no difference if the four Americans were killed by terrorists or by some guys who just happened to be passing by our consulate.

How anyone could watch that slimy performance and not experience moral revulsion is beyond me. But, clearly, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” is the sort of person who can swallow any swill that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama serves up and swear it tastes just like chicken.

I had given up on “60 Minutes” a long time ago, but my curiosity got the better of me and against my better instincts, I tuned in. For my troubles I got to see Mr. Kroft go from allegedly being a professional journalist to being a matchmaker.

Once I heard that it was Obama who initiated the segment, and then insisted that it only run half-an-hour, I pretty much expected what I got. Here's a guy who can spend an hour eating an ice cream cone on Martha's Vineyard and not give it a second thought, but suddenly his time is at a premium.

According to Kroft, he felt he could either ask the two of them some tough questions regarding the goings-on in Syria and Egypt, and delve into the Benghazi cover-up, or he could question the President and the Secretary of State about their personal relationship. After asking himself what Jimmy Kimmel or Katie Couric would do, Kroft naturally went with the second option.

What the viewers might have surmised from this eHarmony-style commercial is that they both like candlelight dinners and moonlight strolls on the beach. Unfortunately, what they were less open about is that they both subscribe to Saul Alinsky's approach to bringing Soviet-style socialism to America.

While watching the love fest, I couldn't help but compare it to the “60 Minutes” show in 1992 when Bill and Hillary appeared in the run-up to the election, looking like a couple of strangers seated next to each other waiting for a bus.

After watching Barack and Hillary billing-and-cooing for 30 minutes, I suspect that by the time he got home, Michelle was waiting with a rolling pin and a ton of attitude, wanting to know where he got off cozying up to that honky bitch.

For my part, I will forever regret that I wasn't on one of those congressional committees questioning her eminence, so that in response to her phony outburst, I could have replied, “For that matter, Mrs. Clinton, what difference does it really make if Bill only cheated with Monica Lewinsky or if he's cheated on you with a thousand women, including your mother, your best friend, every woman on your staff and the family mutt?”

NOTE: I have been approached to host an internet talk radio show. The only hang-up is that it requires a certain level of sponsorship in order to get started. If you own a company, sell a product or provide a service, or if you know someone – preferably someone dedicated to conservatism – who owns a company, sells a product or provides a service, who would be willing to consider sponsoring my show, please contact me at, and I will be happy to answer any and all questions. In the meantime, you will all be alerted once I get airborne. Best of all, if the show does well, I will be able to quit dunning you folks for donations to the Fund to Keep Burt Prelutsky From Pursuing a Life of Crime!

View all comments


WTD in AZ said:

Ref your wife's pertinent comments on the "distraction" of the monthly pain and blood events. Regardless of how tough and intelligent a woman is, that must have a negative effect on her capabilities. Yet, the Navy in great PC style has them in command of ships. That's despite the fact that the skipper is totally responsible 24/7 for the effective operation of the ship, and the performance and safety of the crew. The vaunted civilian leadership of our Armed Forces that is supposed to be the factor that prevents banana republic type coups is ruining the combat effectiveness of the military with their social engineering experminebnts.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:09 AM

WTD in AZ replied:

Sorry 'bout that. It submitted itself while I was still trying to correct the spelling.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:12 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

WTD: I hate when that happens, but I had already figured out you intended to type "experiments" before your fingers took leave of your brain.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:15 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

I blame it on the dyslexic computer.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:22 AM

G Dub45 in Lee's Summit, MO replied:

Howard - Should not that be spelled " Dexlysic"?

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 4:30 AM

DaneChile in Unknown replied:

Shouldn´t that be "lexicdys"?

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 8:13 AM

MIResident in Michigan replied:

WTD - I'd still say that commanding a ship or being assigned to a ship is far different than leading a infantry platoon in a combat zone. From a overall hygiene perspective, the two environments are about as far apart as you can get.

Monday, February 18, 2013 at 9:25 AM

JAC in Texas replied:

That's O.K. It just means that for about one week per month, those women deployed to the wilds of Afghanistan will not be subject to military action and someone else (male) will have to pick up the slack. If they're already in the field and run low on their sanitary napkins, I guess they can use the guaze from the first aid kits.

Friday, February 22, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming said:

Burt, there was a court case in NYC going back probably close to 40 years. It involved women in the fire department. One of the requirements for firemen was to be able to carry a sack weighing, if I remember correctly 175 pounds, down a ladder. It was supposed to simulate carrying a person down a ladder. The a##hole federal judge ruled that women applicants do not have to meet this requirement. There was also case close to the same time, in the military, where soldiers had to go on a five mile run (I may be off on the distance) in full battle gear with a full battle pack. It was changed for women, they had to dance instead (no joke). I assume the objective was to attack the enemy when they were doubled over laughing. This would work out great with the Ragheads. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:19 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Howard: I hadn't heard about these two cases, but the only surprise is that boneheaded political correctness goes back so many years.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

I tried to find a book, any book, by Phyllis Schlafly in our local library, and aside from a recent one co-written with another author ("No Higher Power" - a good book), all I could find was "The Power of the Positive Woman" published in 1977. The ERA still was up for votes in some states at the time the book was written. One of her chapters dealt with the necessary results of ERA (should it pass) on the armed forces. It's worth reading for the detail, especially seeing how women who joined the armed forces and were equally assigned to the hard work the job entails were *not* best pleased by this. Also, that when people talk about Israel sending women to combat, Schlafly points out that they did that once, briefly, in the 1948 war, and they stopped that pretty quickly when they saw what the enemy does to women in combat situations. (If we're trying to keep women safe from rape, putting them in combat situations is the worst possible approach!)

Finally, as too many people ignore, the people pressing most for women to be put into combat positions are often the same people who will claim "conscientious objector" status for themselves (or support it in their daughters). These are people who don't appreciate what the military does, or what it's mission really is, and therefore they don't see why it is structured the way it is. All they see is an ossified relic of patriarchal excess, and think that by willing things to be different, they will become so.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Alex in NJ replied:

Wow. Well said.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM

veritaseequitas in Fightertown, USA said:

"She points out that these monthly events involve pain and blood and would radically detract from the women's ability to concentrate on the matter at hand on a battlefield."
True, but the run-up to those events could be quite deadly for some poor terrorist who thinks he can get over on a female. I'm talkin' PMS here.
Joking of course. I do not believe that women should be on the battlefield.

I do believe that the "feminization" of America has been disastrous. I believe that it is the root of our service men suffering so greatly with PTSD. I believe it is the root of skyrocketing divorce rates. I believe it is the root of increased assaults on women. I believe it is the root of women's dissatisfaction of the way they are viewed by men. We also have the feminist movement to thank for the increase in abortion and pornography.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Deborah in La Mirada CA replied:

Amen!, Veritas. As a woman who came of age in the beginning of the feminine movement, I have always thought that if I were trapped in a burning building, I would want the biggest, burliest man to carry me down that ladder. Also, I feel sorry for men today. Many of them have no idea how to approach the modern female.....she's not very lovable. Men are likely to get their heads bitten off if they merely say the wrong thing.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Doktor Riktor Von Zhades in Western KY replied:

Indeed, or at the very least accused of inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 6:21 PM

DaneChile in Unknown replied:

I often say that the U.S. is a country wher the men are MEN and the women...are, also.

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Orf in Pittsburgh replied:

Sort of like the mating of the black window spider. The much smaller male has to approach the large female very, very cautiously; otherwise he is mistaken for food. Afterward, instead of lighting a cigarette, he becomes the post-coital meal. I wonder if the feminists have modeled their system after this arachnid.

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

verita: And we have most of the presidents over the past 50 years to blame for the political hacks who have risen through the ranks of the armed services.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Burt, it is more than 100 years. Don't forget what Wilson and Joe Stalin's best friend FDR did to our Republic.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Howard: But at least Patton got to be a commanding general. It would never happen today.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 10:02 PM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

I read a book a few months ago, called "The Death of Feminism" by Phyllis Chesler (pub. 2005). She identifies as a radical feminist, and has done since the 1960s, but she points out the dogmatic nature of modern feminism, which is more subsumed under Leftism (anti-Americanism, anti-colonialism, pro-Palestine, etc.) -- and how people who express views outside the "acceptable" feminist views are ostracized. Practically Party purges. One of the positions that has made Chesler unwelcome among leftist feminists is that she opposes pornography and prostitution as exploitative and abuse of women. Common leftist views on these is that we have to "reclaim" the honor of the profession of prostitution, or recognize that prostitutes were the original independent career women, with autonomy and control over their destiny. (Yeah, right.) Or, that pornography is an art form that allows people to explore their sexuality, which has too often been repressed, controlled, and "problematized" by anti-woman forces (including women whose minds have been "colonized" by men). Ignoring the fact that pornography presents women as wanting to be raped, enjoying violence in sex, and preferring all sorts of deviant practices. So promoting, praising, and encouraging pornography while condemning "a culture of rape" is so monumentally stupid or willfully blind by these college-educated nitwits.

As you can see, I'm college-educated; I can throw the same jargon around. Chesler's book is definitely worth reading, because she also shares her experience as the wife of an Afghan man in 1961, prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Her perspective on Islamic culture is clear and powerful. (Afghans are not Arabs, so the similarities in how these groups treat their women and girls is striking, and seems strongly correlated to religious belief. Especially since the same similarities are also found among African Muslims, Eastern European Muslims, Turkish Muslims, and 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim Western Europeans.)

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Becky: The irony is that it's Muslims who are always referring to Christians and Jews as monkeys and pigs.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Tex Horn in Texas said:

All this about Hillary and many, if not most Americans consider her a heroic figure for her response to questions about Benghazi. And her 112 trips. And her putting up with Billl's liaisons. And many women love her because "it takes a community." Now, if she could get her own reality show (we know her stint at the State Dept. was fantasy), she would be unstoppable. Can you imagine Hillary at the trigger of a drone? We patriots would be the first to go...just like the Chosen One has planned, as soon as he can get it by the Republican Congress. And he will. My own "conservative" Senator, John Cornyn, has already rolled over, saying it would be a big help for police. As in police state, my friends.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

During my years in the Army after women were integrated into regular units the monthly period was a concern. Most of the women I served with fought their way through it and did not let it keep them from doing their job. However, keep in mind this was during peacetime and even on field exercises not for long periods of time. There were always those few who were less than proficient during those times because of cramps and discomfort. I can not imagine most women in a combat situation having to deal with the added stress of her period along with the stress of just trying to stay alive. Social engineering is going to be the ruin of a great military and our so-called leaders are either stupid, blind to reality, or just plain too cowardly to say enough is enough.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Wayne: As Obama is so fond of saying, I venture it's all of the above.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:50 PM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

My father was in the Army for 20 years, and he had little sympathy for his daughters when we had our monthly pains, because he had little sympathy for female soldiers who wanted to be excused from PT because of cramps. "You signed up to do the mission, you do the mission."

And boy, do cramps HURT. The pain can sometimes be impervious to medication (so imagine being in the field and unable to get medication), can prevent a woman from sleeping or even lying down comfortably, and lack of sleep certainly reduces mental clarity. (And it is also very true that hormones make us more emotional at this time, which is something women candidly acknowledge among themselves, but castigate as "sexist" when observed by a man.)

Also, what about women's feminine products? Are they left littering the countryside? Do you take time to dig a hole for them? What if your supply chain is interrupted and you don't get any hygiene products? Do you go Old Testament and sit on a pot for a week? What does that do for morale, for fighting efficiency, for mission accomplishment? And, because leftists can't even agree which principle is most important, what about the environment? All those non-biodegradable FHPs polluting the environment when you're out in the field. More women in combat, more waste products....

Never mind the biological hazard that decaying blood and uterine tissue present. (I've now thoroughly grossed out everyone.)

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM

WTD in AZ replied:

Tks, Becky. Not grossed out, but now better informed.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Becky: I can take it. It's liberals who keel over in the face of logic and commonsense.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM

DaneChile in Unknown replied:

Knowing the Armed Forces, they´ll start including in the MREs (along with the Tabasco Sauce) a sanitary napkin and, perhaps, a few Midols. And instead of each squad member carrying extra ammo for the M-60 they´ll have to carry water for the "feminine hygiene" problem. But it won´t affect combat capability. Who needed that ol´ M-60 anyhoo?

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

Burt, I have to wonder if General Boykin really thinks the American people believe in winning wars anymore. Looking back on Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan I am not convinced the majority of Americans even care if we win or not. As long as it doesn't affect their lives they could care less. Stupid reality shows, movie stars, rap artists (and I use the term artists loosely), and lying politicians are their idols. God help us if we ever got into a major war like WWII again. Less than half of the population would be willing to defend the country. The rest would rather try appeasment and diplomacy than fight.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Wayne: I agree with you. Most Americans today would elect Neville Chamberlain over Winston Churchill.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:52 PM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

Remember, even the British didn't like Churchill right at the start of WWII. Thought he was a war-monger, with an irrational and insatiable itch to get the country back into a WWI style catastrophe. There were some vocal and high-ranking Nazi sympathizers in the British aristocracy, government, and educated elites. Chamberlain's acts of appeasement were quite popular at the time. If Lord Halifax had wanted to be Prime Minister in May 1940, he would have had the job (he was also a supporter of the appeasement policy); everyone else in Britain wanted him to have it. But Halifax thought Churchill's personality and talents were better suited to the worsening crisis, and that's how we got Churchill. It's a miracle that Churchill became Prime Minister, and at such a point, because to that point he'd widely been considered a bit of a nut. (And of course he was thrown out of office as soon as the war ended.)

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Burt, you have your sights set to high, they would elect Adolph over Churchill.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM

MARINE in off the grid said:

Just in case anybody forgot, Hillary is the wife of the fist Federally Pardoned President felon in the U.S. As I recall Bill registered for the draft in Sept. 1964, and through a series of different classifications,(however they work), and his refusal to report for the draft, he not only became a "draft dodger" but a felon. He was finally pardoned by Carter in 1977. The elected offices he held during that time frame he was not allowed to hold. I have the dates of the different times that he was ordered to report for military service, and refused, but I'll have to dig for them.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Marine: And while you're at it, do you think you could dig up Obama's birth certificate, his college records and his old passport application?


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM

MARINE in off the grid replied:

Burt---I would love to, but Barry has shut down the FOIA to obtain any documents on him. He has a staff of lawyers who he has paid over a million dollars to fight any legal challenges. Sheriff Joe has done the best at trying to get any verification of Barry, but has hit road block after road block. Barry dosen't want anyone to know the truth, heck even the GOP dosen't want people to know.

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM

QueensJudyG in Queens, NY said:

May Cleopaterer with the bangs brain Pharaoh Claptrap and set the dynastic dog on the concussed, seeing-double Hillary, who sat almost in the Pharaoh's lap on television. Then there will be some peace in the Valley of the Kings. May they and all NeoComs be buried under sand for thousands of years.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Tony in Texas said:

Now Burt, you know we can't give the job to the most qualified, we must give everybody a trophy, even for last place.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Tony: Of course. As we all know, there are no winners and losers...except in life, of course.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Marcus Piggus in Piggsylvania said:

If you ask any competent military ofiicer of any significant rank, they will tell you that Sun Tzu was the greatest military mind in history. So much so that he is still studied today. I recently read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" on an international flight. One of the major points I took away was that you can not run an army under the same rules of etiquette as polite society. General Boykin understands this. It's the military's job to win wars, period. Leave the job of career opportunities to the civilian sectors of our society. It's almost like the forces of political correctness in our country are out to neuter our military to the point of ineffectiveness. What they fail to realize is war is not like t-ball, where everyone gets a trophy just for participating. In war there is only a winner and a loser. Historically, when the US wins a war, we rebuild our enemies and leave them better off. When other less benevolent nations have won wars, they decimate, plunder and crush their enemies without mercy. The forces of PC liberalism that have infected our military and government will eventually lead us to defeat and destruction. Today's women in the military are not Amazon warriors or Xena the Warrior Princess, that's myth and fantasy. While I'm not saying women can't contribute to our military, it should not be in front-line combat positions. If we don't wake up to this and turn this PC nonsense around, it will be our end.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Marc: It's been a long time since we won a war. And you can't just blame the politicians. For years now, military officers have known that the first order of business isn't to fight and win, but to not cause waves. It's okay to lose your own men, but you had better not have collateral damage on your record. If you recall, in Iraq, rather than use planes to level mosques where the enemy and their stockpile of weapons were located, we insisted that our young warriors fight it out in the streets.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Marcus Piggus in Piggsylvania replied:

That's why we either need to be "in it to win it" or not go in the first place. It's a damn shame that the imposter Obama and traitors like Kerry and are in charge now. What these commies fail to understand is that the only way to win a war against insurgents, is to turn the people against them. In a place like Iraq, you need to do the following: First, ring the town with an overwhelming force. Second, tell all of the people to leave and for them to wait beyond the borders of the town. Third, flatten the town so not even a cardboard box is left standing. Fourth, have the trucks roll up and drop a load of tents and tell the people that this what they live in now. Then move on to the next town and start over. After the second or third town, the locals will start throwing the scumbags out or will gladly show us where they are. Maybe we will regain our greatness after the next American Revolution if we don't crumble to dust first.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

marc: The problem is that there's nothing to stop the enemy from leaving town with everyone else. I don't believe you will win the hearts and minds of Islamists, no matter how nice you are.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Marcus Piggus in Piggsylvania replied:

Burt, while things in general aren't looking good for the American way, there is a glimmer of hope on the domestic front. So far three firearms manufacturers have taken a stand. Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York. (source:Daily Caller) Additionally, both Barrett and LaRue have said they will not sell guns, nor accoutriments, to any government agency, nor any police department, that may not also be owned by private citizens. (source:John Farnam's Dtiquips). If we could get Glock, Sig, Colt, Smith & Wesson and the rest do all follow suit, the assault on the 2nd Amendment would be stopped in it's tracks.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:31 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

And we don't recognize the enemy within, and allow Isam to flourish on our own soil, The idiot marxists even would allow a mosque at 911 ground zero, a virtual monument to an islamist victory. We should be killing everything that moves in any country that attacks or supports an attack on America, I endorse the Black Jack Pershing Doctrine.

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 9:09 AM

OKBecky in Ponca City, OK replied:

I know there will be a lot of women who might have volunteered for military service, who now will not because they don't want to go into combat. And if combat is for everyone, regardless of gender, then you can't volunteer for "domestic desk duty" or radar stations or what-not. You go where you're assigned, based on the operational needs of the organization. Period.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM

WTD in AZ replied:

A strong, effective (well trained, well equipped) military is a deterrent to war. A military viewed as a paper tiger is an invitation to it. T.R. Roosevelt was right, "carry a big stick and talk softly". A country that talks big, but takes no action is open to threats and intimidation; i.e. bullying. Chamberlain and "peace in our time" didn't cut it back then, and doesn't work today.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA said:

"There must be something in the air near the Potomac that rots the brains of just about everyone who ventures into our nation's capital."

Arkansas (D) senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor always acted and voted different when they got to Washington from the values they ran on. However, 18 months or so before they had to run again they would try to turn into staunch conservatives.

Blanche was finally sent packing in 2010. She couldn't overcome the bad taste her constituents had for her vote on ObamaCare.

Pryor is up for re-election in 2014. The content of his emails/newsletter over the past 4 months have moved to the Right. He has to be sweating the gun bills knowing a vote FOR will probably sink him at the polls. If so that would make the entire Arkansas delegation Republican.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Marcus Piggus in Piggsylvania replied:

Arlen Spector used to the same thing in PA. For the 18 months leading up to the election, he was reliably conservative. As soon as the election was over, it was 3 1/2 more years of liberalism.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Marc: It actually works out to 4 1/2 years because a Senate term is six years.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Kevin: Harry Reid must break out in a rash every time that Obama demands a vote on guns. Reid, who has collected millions in campaign funds from the NRA, knows the price that Democratic senators will pay if they are forced to vote to banish any guns.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

"... the price that Democratic senators will pay if they are forced to vote to banish any guns."

They're sweating bullets. lol

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 8:15 PM

DaneChile in Unknown replied:

But only ten.

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA said:

A woman is wounded in combat. She is bleeding. A woman is in her menstrual period. She is bleeding. The woman is the same. She is bleeding. The Corpsman must stop the bleeding. The woman is losing blood from two distinct conditions: one a natural bodily function, the other is life-threatening. The Corpsman must apply pressure to the bleeding wound. The other is not possible to stop, applying pressure will not stop the natural flow, and likely The Corpsman would be prosecuted for sexual assault, but this natural bodily function is now life-threatening.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

enema: You would think that even Democrats could grasp this simple biological fact. But where liberals are concerned, logic must never be assumed.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:25 PM

BJ in St. Cloud, MN said:

What's wrong with women on the front lines. 50 million abortions since legal, homos in the Boy Scouts. "Piss Christ" arresting kids that say "bang" in school, Benghazi Gate. etc-after all, that stalwart bastion of Constitutional knowledge, Joe Biteme just said "It is clearly within the right of government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public." Do these goons really not understand or even know what's in the Constitution?

The irreducible challenge the Second Amendment poses to gun restrictionists is that it does not bestow upon the people a right they previously lacked. It proscribes the government from infringing upon a right the people already have. It is not that the people are allowed to arm. It is that the government is disallowed to disarm them. “Shall Not Be Infringed” does not give the current regime any rights whatsoever concerning our guns. They do not have the right to nibble around the edges and diminish our capacity to rise up against them. They can’t restrict us to using a knife, we do get to bring a gun of our choosing to the gunfight.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

BJ: When even justices on the Supreme Court feel justified to ignore and even demean the Constitution, we shouldn't be too surprised that politicians hold it in contempt.


Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Burt, one of my senators, Enzi, is sponsoring a Balanced Budget Amendment. A major question I have is, The crooks and/or mental midgets in Washington don't follow the Constitution now, why would they follow an additional amendment? If they followed the Constitution the budget would be balanced as probably 90% or more of the budget items are not authorized by the Constitution. And who is to say the budget is balanced as most of the mental midgets can't add 1 and 1. If the budget is not balanced will the Supremes order a tax increase?

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM

WTD in AZ replied:

"They do not have the right to nibble around the edges" They've already done that to the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Honest Abe in North Carolina replied:

We must NEVER, EVER allow Washington to call a Constitutional Convention! If they do, good-bye liberty.

Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Cowboy in San Antonio said:

I distinctly recall reading the story written by a woman aircrew, a physician, who was on a plane that crashed in Iraq during one of our fracases there. She survived the crash, and though seriously injured, was repeatedly raped by the Iraqi soldiers who found her. Israel's experiment with women on the front lines was a disaster because the men spent most of their energy trying to protect the Israeli women instead of trying to kill the enemy. It is a natural instinct for men to try to preserve women, since men cannot continue the human race by themselves. Dumbing down the physical requirements helps the enemy and hurts us. If you do not believe me, ask most cops who they want as a backup, a man or a woman? The answer will tell you how successful women in combat will be.

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Merry in Cave Creek, AZ said:

Oh to hell with monthly ills as an excuse or reason for not having women in combat. Honestly, it was never a bother for me.

The number one reason this idea sucks is it will go from voluntary to mandatory! How can women be so damned stupid? I was always fearless, agile, athletic, and a hell of a shot BUT at 100 pounds I couldn't drag or pick up a wounded man or woman. Who the hell would want to fight with me by their side. Sniper--maybe. I sure as heck wouldn't wan to be in combat with a woman my size!

Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Merry: You make good sense. But your experience with what used to be called "the curse" apparently isn't all that typical. When my wife was a teenager and even in her 20s, her periods resulted in cramps that were disabling...and since writing the article, I have heard from other women who suffered in similar fashion.


Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 12:22 AM

WTD in AZ replied:

Good, some, like Merry can handle it, but what great benefit is gained from women aboard ship and in command? Coming up with a quick, correct response in a tense ship handling situation, or a shipboard emergency is tough enough, why exacerbate it by adding an unnecessary, serious negative factor?

Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 1:40 AM