Pete Hegseth’s nomination to become Secretary of Defense has reopened the women in combat controversy because of the nominee’s views on the subject. Hegseth is a veteran of infantry combat in Iraq, and has expressed concerns about using women in combat roles, particularly in infantry and armor where close combat would be involved. In the past few decades, women have been increasingly integrated into units such as artillery, military police, and combat aviation. A female fighter pilot was one of those tasked with the kamikaze mission of crashing her fighter into one of the airliners involved in the 9/11 attacks if all else failed, and the Marine Corps now allows women to lead infantry platoons if they can pass the grueling physical and mental challenge of Infantry Officers’ School at Quantico Virginia. My personal experience with women in a combat role came in 2009 and 2010 in Iraq. As a civilian State Department field advisor, I had a security detachment led by a female lieutenant for a number of months. Several of the soldiers in the detachment were women as well. We went outside the wire nearly every day to inspect building projects and meet with key local leaders. The women were polite, professional, and ready to kill if necessary. On one mission they were detached to take a group of visiting VIPs to a refugee center. On their way back, they were hit by an Iranian built IED which blew the leg off of one of the male soldiers in the team. The lieutenant did an excellent job of handling the MEDEVAC and in restoring morale in her badly shaken unit. She was subsequently put in for an award for heroism. Despite all of that, I share some of Mr. Hegseth‘s concerns on the subject, but perhaps for different reasons. Every female member of that that security team was a volunteer. They actively sought the duty. That is fine in the limited wars we have fought since the turn of the century, but there are some politicians — mostly Democrats — so interested in DEI, that they would actually draft women and put them into combat roles whether the females involved want it or not. That might not matter in peacetime, but if we get into a serious shooting war, I believe that  the whole edifice would collapse. Forced Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Of all the women I know, only one or two might want to be involved in a combat role and most would object strenuously to being forced into such a situation. This concern is not entirely academic. Last June the Democrat dominated Senate Armed Forces Committee approved a proposed bill which would require women along with men to register for the draft at age 18. If we ever get into a real shooting war with Vietnam-like casualties where a draft is reinstated, we’ll likely see that the Democrats and feminists will be the first to change their tune when the body bags come back with large numbers of women in them. If there is an analogy, it is the African American experience. In World War II when many black men were kept out of combat roles and largely relegated to being cooks, truck drivers, and other support roles, many complained bitterly. Fast forward to Vietnam with its totally integrated military. By that time blacks were complaining equally bitterly about being used as cannon fodder in disproportionate numbers. There is a more recent analogy regarding gender equality in military terms. Women were first assigned to serve on warships shortly before the first Gulf War broke out. When they first joined, most expected to serve on shore duty. For some, sea duty was an unpleasant surprise; but feminists cheered. When deployment orders to the combat zone were issued, many women sailors suddenly became pregnant and undeployable. That is a dirty little secret that feminists and their friends in politics quietly swept under the rug. The Nature of Men and Women A 1997 Rand Corp. study titled New Opportunities for Military Women found that pregnancies can hurt unit readiness for the simple reason that “pregnancy can affect the availability of women” and that “the effect is greater when the unit has many women.” And combat readiness may not be the only negative effect pregnancy represents. Behavior associated with the romantic attraction necessary for pregnancies to occur — including jealousy, sexual harassment, and reckless daring or protectiveness associated with male gallantry — may also affect cohesion. The Rand study continues, “When gender negatively affected cohesion, it was generally because gender is one way that people break into categories when conflict surfaces … or because dating occurred within a unit.” Some experts believe that these and other problems — e.g. the particular vulnerability of captured female soldiers to rape and sexual torture — can be managed with competent leadership and preparation. My own view is these kinds of problems are unlikely to overwhelm the services because the number of women who seek combat roles and meet the physical qualifications will be low. But keep in mind, if women are forced into combat units involuntarily in large numbers, it will be a very different situation. DEI is unattractive when standards are lowered to include the unqualified. But it looks even worse when the DEI commissars are prodding you into a foxhole. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: 7 Ways to Move Toward a Trump Doctrine Wokeness Is Responsible for the Military Recruitment Crisis Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel. After retirement, he served as a Special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and later as a civilian field in Iraq and Afghanistan. The post The Dark Side of Women in Combat appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

There was a time — it was a long time ago, it seems — when car companies were in the business of designing and selling cars. They worked to make the cars they designed appealing as something more than just appliances. Jaguar was among the leaders, once upon a time. It just took the lead — in a very different direction. You may have already seen it. Jaguar’s Copy Nothing ad campaign. It doesn’t feature a single Jaguar. Which begs the question: What is Jaguar trying to sell? Well, it looks like what whoever was behind the opening montage for the summer Olympics in France a few months back was trying to sell. That also had nothing to do with the Olympics but much to do with mocking Jesus and the Last Supper. Which — at the time — begged the question: Why do that? Well, for the same reason that Jaguar is doing it now. The company that once designed and sold cars that were so beautiful it didn’t matter that they didn’t always run very well (it was said a Jaguar looks better on a lift than most cars look on the road) no longer cares much about cars, having committed to manufacturing battery-powered devices going forward. This “commitment” can be seen as a commitment to androgyny, one device being interchangeable with any other device. The identity of a device comes down to what it is called — much the same as a man who calls himself a woman has assumed an identity. But without underlying reality. In the case of androgynous cars, there is very little need for more than a few identities — that is, brands — because of the fundamental sameness. Of course, the idea seems to be that — just like the Alphabet People insist — there can be a limitless number of identities and that there will be a market for all of them, too. What you just heard was the sound of Jaguar (and other would-be device peddlers) whistling past the graveyard. A “Jaguar” that is just another Tesla with a different identity is not a Jaguar. It is a device trying to be another device. Tesla at least has an authentic identity in that the brand is synonymous with devices. That is what people who buy a Tesla want. A device. To understand the distinction between a Jaguar and a device, take a look at a 1960s E-Type and then take a look at a Model X, or any other model Tesla sells. Take a look under the hood of a Jag equipped with a V12 and then take a look at a Tesla’s “frunk.” What you see — and don’t — is all the difference. Jaguar no longer makes cars like the E-Type or the XJs that looked just as good and maybe even better than Tawny Kitaen did back in the 1980s when she cavorted with them on MTV. And Jaguar no longer makes or sells the magnificent Jaguar engines it used to sell, either. Like so many other brands that have lost their identity, Jaguar made the mistake of shifting from selling beautiful cars — sedans and coupes — to selling crossovers, which are inherently appliances. It is difficult to make an appliance beautiful because the form does follow function when the driving parameters are how many cubic feet of cargo space there are behind the second row and does it have a third row. Jaguar’s crossovers are by no means ugly. But they aren’t beautiful works of art like the E-Type and XJ were and will always be. They lack the kind of beauty that makes up for other things, such as practicality. And even reliability. For exactly the same reason a man will indulge an exceptionally beautiful woman. Today’s Jags are also already well down the road to being the same as everything else in another way. Most new Jaguar crossovers come standard with 2.0 liter turbocharged four-cylinder engines, just like most other crossovers — including crossovers that cost a third less than what a Jaguar-branded crossover costs. This sameness is a consequence of compliance. Jaguar, like every other car company (most of them now crossover companies), didn’t fight when they might have won the fight. Instead of spending money on ad campaigns explaining to people why it was becoming impossible to sell magnificent in-line sixes and even more magnificent V12s, money was spent on designing compliance engines, of which the 2.0-liter turbo four is the archetype. There is a reason why literally every brand that once sold its brand-specific engines now sells the Universal Engine — a  2.0 liter turbocharged four. It is the same reason, in its essence, why almost everyone wore a “mask.” Because they were told to. Because they complied. Behold the ugly results. Why buy a Jaguar-branded crossover with a 2.0 liter four when you can buy a same-shaped crossover from another brand with a 2.0 liter four for a third or less the cost? This question seems to never have occurred to the people running Jaguar now. Beauty sells. And sameness costs. “The car,” said Sir William Lyons, the founder of Jaguar, “is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive.” Jaguar created many cars that were so alive it was easy to imagine them leaping. As opposed to what we’re seeing now. Live Vivid, everyone! READ MORE from Eric Peters: Tariffs, Cars, and the Whiskey War Birth Control Seats The Imminent Death of Volkswagen The post Jaguar’s ‘Copy Nothing’ appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Following President-elect Donald Trump’s swift victory on election night, the chattering class turned its gaze towards the approaching Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. The only thing worse than Trump’s victory, these hosts opined, would be sitting across the table from the smug family members who voted for him. Whatever familial bliss Norman Rockwell depicted in his World War II-era Freedom From Want painting is long gone. Today, if the mainstream media is to be believed, holiday gatherings are just another opportunity to play the victim and gather ammunition for a post-holiday therapy session. Americans Fear Politics at the Table A survey of 2,000 Americans — split evenly between men and women ages 25 to 65 and located across all 50 states — who regularly celebrate Thanksgiving found that election-related stress is impacting holiday plans for 64 percent of Americans. (RELATED: Don’t Be a Turkey on Thanksgiving) Nearly a quarter of respondents said that they were “considering skipping Thanksgiving altogether.” And just about half of Americans wanted a “total politics conversation ban for all guests and family members.” As for the source of their anxieties, both sides are equally to blame. Harris voters are the source of “election and Thanksgiving anxiety” for 48 percent of Americans, while Trump voters are the cause of worry for 52 percent. Hosts of The View Disagree on Holiday Plans In the week after the election, the ever-insightful ladies of The View opined on whether or not differences in political opinion should be an obstacle to family gatherings at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Sunny Hostin saw no room for coexistence with relatives who voted for Trump, saying, “I really do feel that this candidate, President-elect Trump, is just a different type of candidate — from the things he’s said, and the things he’s done, and the things he will do.” “It’s more of a moral issue for me,” she continued. “I think that people feel that someone voted not only against their families, but against them and against people that they love.” But Sara Haines felt differently: “I wouldn’t have had any holidays if I had to only pick the ones where everyone agreed with me.” In Haines’s mind, toxic personalities — not political affiliations — are the cause of frustration during family gatherings. “I would never let my politics be the reason that I don’t show up to see my family because they won’t always be there,” she said. Ana Navarro took a similar approach, explaining that she and her husband will be gathering with his five children, even though they voted for Trump. The reason? He wants to see his grandkids. “For our family, he has told them, ‘I will not let politics split up our family,’” Navarro said. (RELATED: A Happier Thanksgiving) Navigating Political Polarization Where Hostin’s view tracks with the 23 percent of Americans who planned to avoid family gatherings, Haines and Navarro take a more sensible approach. Political division in the family isn’t a foregone conclusion — it’s a choice to prioritize feeling safe or morally superior over relationships with family members. Obviously, there are certain boundaries to relationships that can help relatives navigate bumpy relationships or an antagonistic family member. But recognizing, as Haines does, that skipping out on holidays now costs precious time with parents, grandparents, and other relatives is key for younger Americans to overcome the discomfort of disagreeing over dinner. Similarly, Navarro’s point that taking a principled stand on politics would cost her husband time with his grandchildren is a reminder to older generations of what can be lost when politics is prioritized over people. Thanksgiving has earned a bad rap as the holiday for unwanted political conflict at the dinner table, and it’s become an opportunity for some mainstream media pundits to encourage separation rather than coexistence. And though the message obviously resonates with a significant number of Americans, most people aren’t willing to set aside their familial relationships over election results. Mary Frances (Myler) Devlin is a contributing editor at The American Spectator. She graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2022.  READ MORE by Mary Frances Devlin:  Kevin Roberts’s Fiery New Fusionism Dissatisfied Democrats Voice Frustrations With Party Line on Transgender Issues Florida Turns the Tide for Social Conservatism Despite Massive Spending Gaps  The post Even <i>The View</i> Hosts Don’t Want You to Skip Holidays With Family appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Be brave. Break this cycle. Feed your natural immune system! pic.twitter.com/PGm2C0UI1L — The Truth About Vaccines (@TTAVOfficial) November 28, 2024

from Arcadia Economics: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Eric Zuesse, The Duran: Colonel Douglas Macgregor is one only 5 military analysts who have been right on everything they’ve said and predicted regarding the Ukrainian war (and other earlier wars); and, so, he’s one of only five individuals whose statements about this war I take as being evidence, and not only as being […]

The overrated musical Wicked has been propped up by Broadway for years as the greatest work of art ever to exist. If you’re a theatre kid like me, the number of screeching renditions you’ve heard of “Defying Gravity” at every audition is enough to make you want to bang your head against a wall. At its core Wicked is nothing more than a woke cliche that spins off the classic Wizard of Oz: The Bad Witch is actually good, and merely a victim of the fascist fairyland she terrorizes.  With a new movie remake we didn’t need, Hollywood diddy types have now found a way to make the land over the rainbow even gayer. But this time, it kind of makes sense.  For a while, we’ve allowed circus freaks guilt trip us down the goose poop covered brick road to an Oz-like dystopia. An upside down that rejects reality to cater to society’s most deranged. But if our 2024 Presidential Election results revealed anything, it’s that the Wicked Woke of the West is finally melting. Just not soon enough to quit calling them out every Tuesday on “Woke of the Weak!” Join me on a trip to the Emerald City in our latest episode!   Related: EVERYTHING IS GAY: Ariana Grande Says Wicked's Glinda 'Might Be a Little In the Closet'

This Thanksgiving, I'm giving thanks to God for the gift of my parents and their upcoming 50th wedding anniversary. Be not alarmed. All things considered, my Boomer parents, Richard and Karen, are in remarkably good health. That my family is not cherishing this holiday season in fear that it may be the last for one or both of them is itself a blessing. We weren't always so lucky. Just a few days before Thanksgiving in my senior year of high school, my father nearly died when an aortic aneurysm that had been silently ballooning in his chest suddenly ruptured. Only by the grace of God did he survive. So many others who have his condition, including late actor Alan Thicke, do not. After that catastrophic event, my entire family underwent a thorough medical assessment, at which point doctors discovered a severe congenital heart defect in my mother, then in her early 40s. Over the next two decades or so, her health slowly deteriorated until she received a heart transplant three years ago. Had she not qualified for a transplant, she might not be here today. I am not trying to be morbid this holiday season or to fixate unnecessarily on death. But I know that I am likely to outlive my parents, and when they're gone, Thanksgiving and Christmas will never be the same. The older I get, the more I witness the heartbreak of other people my age losing their parents. In November 2021, my best friend from high school lost her mother to a rare and aggressive form of ALS. Six months later, my friend's father was gone too, less than a year after he and his wife celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. Another friend, two years younger than I, is still reeling from the unexpected death of his mother in the summer of 2023. Yet another friend is savoring whatever time remains with his mother, who was recently diagnosed with cancer. And I would be remiss if I did not remember the death of my beloved Aunt Linda in May 2021 and the loss of my husband's uncle a few weeks ago. Though memento mori is a good mindset to adopt at any time of the year, I am not trying to be morbid this holiday season or to fixate unnecessarily on death. But I know that I am likely to outlive my parents, and when they're gone, Thanksgiving and Christmas will never be the same. I know no parents are perfect, but I am extraordinarily fortunate to have the parents I have. My mother, a skilled designer, taught me about the importance of beauty and acting like a lady. My dad instilled in me a love of sports, and his quick wit reminded my siblings and me never to take ourselves too seriously. But even more important than those lessons, my parents gave me the gift of my Catholic faith and taught me through words and actions the importance of the sacrament of marriage. To this day, I would be devastated if my parents divorced, and I cannot imagine the pain and trauma endured by children of divorced parents. That every day my parents wake up and choose each other is a blessing worth recalling this Thanksgiving. This spring, the two of them will celebrate 50 years of marriage. My in-laws are also still married, as are the parents of my two sisters-in-law and my brother-in-law. These couples are not impervious to marital strife. At various times, some of them have overcome addiction, financial hardship, estrangement from other family members, and, of course, devastating illness. Commitment is a choice. My brother and his lovely wife, the mother of my darling nieces and nephews, now have 20 years of marriage under their belt too. So it seems that while divorce can be a generational curse, marital commitment can be passed down through the generations as well. God willing, my husband and I will someday celebrate 50 years together. If we do, we will have God and our parents and their respective examples of marriage and commitment to thank. I don't know why God has thus far spared my parents, Richard and Karen, and continues to allow them to live full and relatively healthy lives, but I'm grateful that He has. However many Thanksgivings we have left together, I'm especially thankful this year for them and their faithful commitment to one another — in sickness and in health. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Merry Krampus! Serious Street Scares are SNOW Joke to Kids in Austria (WATCH)