From Ann: URGENT ACTION ITEM REQUEST FROM THE USMC, ET AL

Posted by Ann Barnhardt – June 27, AD 2012 9:08 PM MST

I received an email from an active-duty Marine who is an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran asking me to help generate traction on a very important issue that is being overlooked, even in the alternative media.

I am DELIGHTED to help, as much as I can.

The issue is the current push by the Marxists to put women into COMBAT. Not merely “women in the military”, but women in full-on combat, including putting women into all branches of the Special Forces.

Make no mistake, this business of putting women in combat has nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with “equal rights” or any other such nonsense. This is a cold, calculated effort by the Marxist contingent to render the United States military totally ineffective and completely unable to effectively prosecute and win any war, or “kinetic military action”, as they now call it.

In the spirit of my apparent vocation, let me just drill down to the bone right away, because time is of the essence.

Women, no matter how well-trained, can never, ever be anywhere close to a match for a man in combat. They do not have the strength, especially in the upper body, and never will no matter how hard they train. They can not carry loads, and they do not have the endurance of men. And I will tolerate no delusional horseshit arguments to the contrary. I don’t care about “this one girl you know” who can do X, Y and Z. Her strength is exceptional RELATIVE TO OTHER FEMALES, but she is absolutely no match for a man, even a man of a significantly lower fitness level.

On a personal note, I can testify. I have been doing CrossFit-like training five days per week since November. I am 5’4″ and weighed 130 pounds on the nose this morning. Do you honestly think that I would be any match at all in combat with a man with average to below-average fitness who was 5’10” and 180 pounds? Heck, I wouldn’t be any match for a man who was 5’4″ and 130 pounds like me. The upper body strength advantage of the man would itself be more than enough to put a quick end to any fight. This is why I carry a gun at all times, as all women and men of good will should.

Now let’s assume equal height and weight. The woman is still at a massive anatomical disadvantage. Men are built for strength, speed and endurance. A woman at 5’10” and 180 pounds is physically constituted to gestate and then breastfeed babies. Big, big difference. This is like trying to use a Toyota Siena minivan as a dumptruck. No matter what you do, or how many lies you tell yourself, it is never, ever going to work.

Next to the moral issues. Again, I’ll be blunt. Putting women in combat will destroy the ability of the military to fight, and will kill the women in question, and kill them ugly. But exactly like Operation Fast & Furious, that is precisely what the Marxists want. They WANT the optics of dead American women in order to kill morale and drain the nation of any will to fight ANY aggressor.

The current rules of engagement have already handicapped our military to a large extent. Putting women in combat will utterly destroy what little combat effectiveness remains. Why? Because women who were captured would be raped to death, beheaded, their bodies desecrated and mutilated, all on video which would be posted on the internet, and this would destroy all will to fight. Commanders would simply lay down and surrender before sending women into any situation that could result in capture – which means that we would be totally unable to fight at all. Further, the American people would themselves demand surrender when faced with the videos of women soldiers being raped, killed and mutilated, and the Marxist, satanic media would absolutely foam at the mouth to run such videos on a perpetual loop, lusting the carnage and the sensationalism for ratings, and in loyal service to the Communist, anti-American cause.

Again, I can personally testify. Earlier this year the video of my burning of the koran that was subtitled in Arabic by the Coptic Christians in Egypt, who are dying in a genocide as we speak, went uber-viral in the Mid-East. It is now flirting with 700,000 views, almost all of them in the Middle East, and Dearborn, Michigan. I see the comments left in English. Let me put them into a nutshell for you. They involve putting me in traction, raping me, and then killing me not by beheading, but by raping me to death with objects – tearing apart my internal organs and puncturing my diaphragm from inside and below. Then, after I was dead, my corpse would be decapitated, then mutilated, then displayed. Think Mogadishu with rape. All on video, of course.

If you put women in combat, I promise you, that is what will happen to any that are captured. Knowing this, what commander is going to hand the enemy that kind of propaganda victory, not to mention sending the woman to a horrific, horrific death? Any sane commander for both personal AND tactical reasons MUST shield and show tactical “favoritism” to any females in his outfit. All this accomplishes is massively reducing the efficacy of the outfit, replacing able-bodied men with not just a woman of inferior physical ability, but also a huge burden and liability that would have to be effectively “babysat” and “protected”, thus draining the outfit of even more combat ability.

But Ann! What about Joan of Arc?

Joan of Arc was a full-blown physical miracle of the Holy Spirit. Do you understand? If I opened the window and flew to Kansas City at Mach 3, it would be an equal physical miracle to Joan of Arc. Why do you think the French Army dropped everything and happily followed a seventeen year old girl into battle? The French had not yet become the race of cheese-eating surrender monkeys that we see today. That descent only happened within the last 200 years. Why? Why would rough, rough men follow a little girl? Because she did things in all of their sight that were physically impossible for a girl to do – like learning to ride a battle horse in full armor, wielding a shield and longsword, with two weeks training. Most men twice her weight couldn’t do that with two YEARS training. That would be like me going into SEAL training and setting new records in every discipline and doing it easily. Let me assure you, that would be a miracle of Biblical proportions. Akin to Joan of Arc. So please, let that all go.

Finally, PLEASE watch this 13:30 testimony of General Robert H. Barrow before congress in 1991 on this very topic. Gen. Barrow was a combat and command veteran of WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and he fought at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. If you have streaming Netflix, there is a documentary called “Chosin” that you simply MUST watch in order to understand what combat is. Gen. Barrow was there, one of the “Frozen Chosin.”

This was the last generation of non-Marxist, competent, masculine, oath-keeping flag officers of integrity in the United States. That is why we have to go back over 20 years to hear from a General of any integrity or sense on this matter. Please listen to this, and then send the YouTube around.

The remnant of constitutionally loyal Soldiers and Marines in the United States Military are specifically pleading for help from YOU civilians on this matter. Please answer their call.

No women in combat. Not now, not ever.


My only comments to this relate back to my time in Basic Training and AIT (Advanced Individual Training… where you actually learn your job beyond just being a basic foot soldier). I was in AIT for NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Operations) and we had females in our company. I had no real problem with this, but I’ve always had the opinion that a female doing a man’s job (and all military combat-ops jobs are mens jobs) must be able to meet the exact same standards of performance. Most of our females were pretty strong and rather butch (but, to my knowledge, none of them were lesbians). Anyway, I was a pretty good soldier (if I do say so myself) and was promoted to Platoon Leader. I held this position for a couple of weeks, but then I got pulled into the 1st Sergeants office. It turns out that I was accused of sexual harassment. After some discussions with the 1st Sgt, the Cpt and all of the Drill Sergeants (including the female ones), none of us could find any evidence that I was sexually harassing anyone. So, separately, they questioned the girls that complained about me (to this day I don’t know for certain which ones complained about me). It turns out that their complaints were that I was ‘being mean’ and treating them differently from the males. None of the Drill Sergeants had witnessed any of this and they all agreed that I didn’t treat the females any differently than I treated the males. It turns out that was the problem. I held the females to the exact same standards as I held the males and they couldn’t perform adequately, so they were given more extra duties than the males to attempt to get them up to standard. So, because of this accusation, and even though all of the Drill Sergeants and 1st Sgt and Co agreed with me and found no evidence to justify any punishment for me, I was relieved of my Platoon Leader position.
The only reason I even mention this is because I have seen first hand that females are simply not capable of performing to the same standards as males, and when you try to treat them the same as you treat males there is a good probability that you will get harassment charges thrown at you because you’re being harsher to them than you are to the males.

Foreign Policy

I keep wanting to comment to other peoples threads about foreign policy but life keeps interrupting, so I figured I’d put my thoughts here. In particular, I keep reading AP’s rantings on the relationship between US and Israel, and originally I was upset by his words. Not that I really disagreed with him, it just sounded so… harsh. Over time he’s kept repeating and ranting about it, and I keep finding that I agree more and more with him.
It *sounds* like he could be an anti-semite, but if you actually read his words and don’t read anything extra into them, I don’t believe that he is anti Israel. I believe that he simply wants the US to get out of that discussion and let Israel handle its business. This leads me to my own view on foreign policy. I agree that we should not be in Israel’s business either. Or any other nations for that matter.
Mankind is brutal, but if a nation exists, no matter whether it fought to conquer its lands or it was granted lands from the people that conquered them (didn’t the British conquer that land then give it up for the creation of the Jewish state?), then that nation has every right to exist… until someone with the power to do so conquers them. That nation also has every right to pre-emptively strike at whomever threatens them if they think it is necessary. Here’s where you may think it gets sticky… but it really doesn’t. If Israel thinks that Iran wants to wipe them off the face of the planet, Israel has the right to do what it thinks is necessary to remain in existence. But the other side of that coin is that if Iran thinks that Israel is going to nuke them back to the stone age, then Iran has every right to do what it thinks is necessary to stop Israel. Notice that the US is in neither of these scenarios in this writing. That’s for a reason, the US shouldn’t be in either of them. We shouldn’t be giving aid/money/weapons to either of these two nations (or anyone else). If they want our weapons and we think that it is not outside of our national interests, we can sell our weapons to these nations. This is a hard decision to make, but I would probably not sell weapons to either Israel or Iran any time soon. Israel has been using us for too long and Iran currently does not like us. Iran has performed “exercises” that can logically be followed through to Iran preparing for war against us: they have missiles capable of carrying a nuke, they have launched these weapons and then detonated them at their apex (perfect elevation for an EMP, btw), they have launched these missiles from ocean freighters, they have run similar freighters within our waters to test our response time (they have not fired from there that I know of)… all of these things can point to preparations for war against us. So, in the Iran/Israel brouhaha, we just need to back the heck out of it.
As for my foreign policy with the rest of the world… It’s essentially identical to what’s listed above. I believe that we should pull all of our troops home from everywhere else in the world and let the locals handle their business. If North Korea wants to invade and conquer South Korea, so be it. If South Korea has the money, we can sell them weapons to defend themselves. If South Korea wants our help, they must submit to our rule completely. I do not mean that they should become the 51st state, but they would become one of our territories. The same goes for any other nation that we currently have bases in and any other nation that wants our assistance. If our troops are to remain overseas, then those lands become US soil.
I struggled with this one, but my other option of letting South Korea (or Germany, or Japan, etc) simply pay all expenses required to keep our troops there, to include our troops salaries, would mean that we were now just providing a global mercenary force. I don’t really like the thought of that, so, if a foreign nation begs us to come to their aid then they must become our property.
The idea of “Force Projection” is no longer valid in my opinion. When I was in the 82D I heard rumors that there was an exercise to deploy a brigade exactly half-way around the world. The story goes that the alert went off and the units packed up and boarded the planes. They dropped onto a DZ somewhere in Russia in less than 18 hours. I have never verified this because at the time I did not expect the people that told me to be lying (and I still don’t think they were), and I also believe that it could be done. 18 hours may be pushing a little bit, but we can deploy at least a few brigades damn near anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. I don’t believe we need to keep our troops elsewhere any longer (is South Korea really vital to our nations security?)
As to what we should do with all of these troops once we get them stateside… build more military bases along our borders and let our troops patrol our borders. I believe they would be much more effective at providing for the national security if they were, you know, providing for our national security by keeping trespassers out.

I realize that we cannot be commercially isolationist as there are, indeed, some things that we simply don’t have under our soil, but I believe that we should be militarily isolationist. If a bully starts picking on my child, I’m not going to move into the bully’s house. I’m going to teach my child how to kick the bully’s ass (and no, Israel is not our child)

That’s my opinion on foreign policy in a nutshell (although I may be a pretty big nut)