Louisville Paper Gets Disc With 232 Photos of Nude National Guard Women
By E&P Staff and The Associated Press
Published: September 28, 2006 1:55 PM ET updated 4:20 PM ET
***Begin Quote***
LOUISVILLE, KY. — U.S. Army officials are taking a close look at whether women in a Kentucky National Guard unit posed nude for pictures with their M-16s and other military equipment, authorities said.
A local newspaper reported that it had a disc containing 232 of the photos, which they did not publish, and do not plan to publish, E&P has learned.
***End Quote***
Could this be another reason that woman don’t belong in the military?
I have pontificated before that women are too valuable to waste in war. It’s not that they are the “weaker sex”; I know lots of capable strong dangerous women. It’s the survival of the species. In Israel, where these is no safe “rear”, women in the military is a common sense necessity. In the USA, it makes no sense to me.
This particular incident is just embarrassing (i’m bare ass) stupidity. It exemplifies the coarsening of our civil society. And, it just takes private beauty and makes it into public porn.
Sadly shaking my head and wondering what is this world coming to?
WorldNetDaily: People power, not police power
between the lines Joseph Farah WND Exclusive Commentary
Posted: September 27, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
***Begin Quote***
The biggest manhunt I ever saw – the one for “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez in California in 1985 – quickly came to an end, too, when police allowed those of us in the press to publish a sketch. The mass murderer was nearly lynched by civilians the morning the paper came out. The police had to rescue the killer of 13 who had terrorized the entire state for more than a year.
It’s people power – and we need more of it in the U.S. today. We don’t need a Department of Homeland Security – we need an army of responsible, motivated, vigilant, self-governing people entrusted by their government officials with their inalienable right to bear arms. And we need a government that recognizes it is not all-knowing and all-powerful and stops treating its citizens like helpless children.
***End Quote***
We learned in Katrina, that when the good citizens of NOLA left, law and order left with them.
So why do we credit the police with an orderly law-abiding society?
It is the people, using:
(a) their willingness to follow a law;
(b) their moral authority of a group agreement,
(c) their willingness to police themselves, and others,
(d) their willingness to support the police (remember how many people will help their police when the situation warrants),
(e) their willingness to convict the guilty (remember that juries have had, since the pre-Revolutionary War Zenger trial, the right to judge the Constitutionality of any law under which the government seeks to use to gain a conviction), AND
(f) their willingness not to protest over an issue thru their elected representatives.
The people ARE the police. (Remember the old westerns when the sheriff swears in deputies for a posse?)
Who is required to register for the Selective Service?
Federal law states that all men between the ages of 18 to 25 who are living inside the United States, or its Territories, must register with the Selective Service.
This includes young men who have already signed up for military duty, both legal and illegal alien males, dual nationals, and certain classes of disabled, hospitalized, or incarcerated males. Women are not required by federal law to register with the Selective Service.
There are some exceptions and exemptions from this law. We recommend speaking directly with the Selective Service for further information.
***End Quote***
Since there’s no way that the american people will stand for another draft, why not nuke the Selective Service. We have laws against slavery. Why is this any different?
People talk of restraining government, but there will be no restraining government so long as the monetary system permits government to expand and spend without limit. So long as their debt is not traded with a default premium, so long as the government and all its connected institutions are considered to be too big to fail, we are going to have a problem with the expansion of power and the loss of freedom.
***End Quote***
So basically we have no way to constrain the growth of government. Boy, the dead old white guys should see this mess!
A plan in the early 1970s to create a massive artificial reef off Fort Lauderdale has turned into an environmental mess with the U.S. Navy, Broward County and others trying to figure out how to remove about two million tires covering 36 acres of ocean floor.
***End Quote***
Ahhh, yes do gooders, but their intentions were pure. It takes government to really screw up, to damage the environment, and all the time we are paying for this stupidity. Arghhh!
Let’s leave decisions to the free market place. It would NOT throw away some “very good” tires (They were not good for driving on, but a bright inventor might be able to find a good use for them.) bit represent an opportunity for some one to turn a profit.
Loyal amp podie here with feedback on Tuesday’s 12 Sept hour#2 show specifically the caller form Montana (I think):
(1) LBJ took office after Kennedy’s assassination. SO he was in office in 1964, then elected on his own in 64 taking office in 65. Don’t be so quick to denigrate the caller’s take on historical events.
(2) The caller the tried to talk about how the Civil Rights Act of 64 broke the family.
May I elaborate, because I think I understood his comment and there is some basis in fact for what he is saying. (I too lived in this era. And you youngsters may not appreciate the nuances)
Let’s remember the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Especially where government is concerned, there are ALWAYS those unintended consequences.
Let me set the stage for the caller’s point.
(A) The Social Security Insurance, a giant Ponzi scheme (but that is another matter for another day), had the unintended consequence of weakening the multi-generational family. (I charitably say “unintended”. A strong family, like strong churches, fraternal organizations, and a strong civil society can obviate the need for government to take power over the people. For the government to grow out of its Constitutional bounds, it needs crises and kill alternatives.) By giving welfare to old folks, it took them out of the multi-generational family. Grandma and Grandpa retire and move to Florida. In the old days, they would live on the family farm or, in my family’s case, in the same apartment building, where they could provide help and support to the family unit. Old folks “need” their children’s help for certain tasks (i.e., things that require strength and agility) and the children need the old folk’s help for certain tasks (i.e., watch the kids while Mom runs to the store). Have a problem, you can always borrow a few bucks from Grandma or Mom. No need for gubamint, if you can get all the help from the family living in close proximity. Social Security Insurance welfare gave the old folks the financial freedom to abdicate this essential familial responsibility. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it does take a family to raise everyone’s standard of living. SSI allows the old folks to abscond with the SSI money and who takes their place? The gubamint is empowered to do all sorts of things — “public” “education” (that’s neither public; nor educational), Welfare, AFDIC, Food stamps, rent control, yada yada.
(B) The War on Poverty further broke the family by UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of its “requirements”. A woman with children could draw welfare if there was no man living in the home. Men were then thus freed of their familial responsibilities. Another consequence was that women became farmers of children. More kids; more welfare. Young girls could get more “stuff” by getting pregnant. It spawned an “immoral” generation. “Immoral” not in the church sense, but in the sense that the family unit served no further purpose. The gubamint would do it all for you. Men could fornicate with abandon. Women were encouraged to be “liberated”. That broke the backs of the churches.
(C) LBJ’s GUNS AND BUTTER tried to spend for welfare to win the war on poverty and the Viet Nam “ersatz war”. Gubamint spending went thru the roof, taxes went thru the roof, and wealth plummeted. This increased taxation and lowering the standard of living thru inflation, induced women to leave the home in droves to maintain a standard of living.
(D) Affirmative Action was passed as remedial for the discrimination against black. The woman’s lib, which wanted to be womyn’s lib, “horned in” on Affirmative Action. That diluted the effectiveness of the government’s program for blacks and institutionalize the “ima victim” mentality. Womyn became prized in the corporate world where one had to deliver numbers. This drove up the wages paid women and allowed them to leave the home and earn, in some cases, far better money than their spouse. There goes another nail in the coffin containing the notion of a nuclear family.
SOOOOOOO
What the caller was TRYING to say was the gubamint, either deliberately or unintendedly, destroyed the american family by:
(1) stripping the old folks away by social security thus empowering the gubamint to solve people’s problems;
(2) nuked the church as source of support and moral authority by the war on poverty and the liberalization of morality thus empowering the government by removing the church as an alternative and counter weight to gubamint;
(3) broke the economics of the family unit by throwing men out, making them worthless, and demeaning them in the eyes of their women thus empowering the gubamint to become the ersatz father to these women and children;
(4) put everyone, by inflation and higher taxes, on a gerbil wheel to try to maintain the same standard of living thus empowering the gubamint with more money to spend;
(5) using affirmative action to increase artificially increase the value of women in the marketplace thus empowering the gubamint to “protect” women from “discrimination” and putting gubamint in the role of “child care”;
(6) using affirmative action to create a permanent culture of race sex “discrimination” empowering the gubamint to be the arbiter of “fairness”.
I think that is what the caller was trying to get out.
Gubamint bad! And, while there may be no going back without a bloody revolution, these problems need to be addressed.
1. Legalizing drugs would make our streets and homes safer.
2. It would put an end to prison overcrowding.
3. Drug legalization would free up police resources to fight crimes
against people and property.
4. It would unclog the court system.
5. It would reduce official corruption.
6. Legalization would save tax money.
7. It would cripple organized crime.
8. Legal drugs would be safer. Legalization is a consumer protection
issue.
9. Legalization would help stem the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
10. Legalization would halt the erosion of other personal liberties.
11. It would stabilize foreign countries and make them safer to live in
and travel to.
12. Legalization would repair U.S. relations with other countries and
curtail anti-American sentiment around the world.
13. Legalization would prevent children from consuming drugs.
14. Legalization would encourage pharmaceutical companies the research
of safer and healthier drugs.
15. Legalization could teach people to live safe with drugs.
Businesses Adapt to Airport Restrictions
Sep 18 2:32 PM US/Eastern
By ANNA JO BRATTON Associated Press Writer
OMAHA, Neb.
***Begin Quote***
Fifteen live lobsters? Those you can take on a plane. But the ice or gel packs to keep the lobsters cold are not allowed under the recent ban on liquids and gels in carryon luggage
***End Quote***
I like their solution frozen vegetables. I don’t like that we allow the gubamint to “run” security at the airports. What we have is what Bruce Schneier calls “security theater” http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/more_than_10_wa.html Nothing of what we are seeing would make an iotas difference. What it does do is to put the gubamint firmly in control of the population. Real Id, sneak ‘n’ peek, imprisonment without trial, and even more restrictions on our liberties are all steps on the way to the next genocide. It can happen here. Think the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and the Japanese Internment. We need to object. I don’t consent.
FJohn Reinke
Consultant at Technology Legacies LLC
Advisor, Computer Governance Committee at Manhattan College
Editor / Publisher at Jasper Jottings
Greater New York City Area
Posted by reinkefj 
You must be logged in to post a comment.