Mediaboss Marketing

In 2016, President Barack Obama lifted the ban on openly transgendered people entering military service. His administration announced, further, that the Pentagon would pay for medical gender transitions. This was viewed as necessary lest transgendered servicemembers turned instead to suicide, or drug and alcohol abuse.

President Trump reversed this decision last week. He made the announcement, as is his self-destructive wont, via Twitter, making it essentally impossible for him and his administation to explain their rationale. A limit of 140 characters, or a multiple of that in a series of tweets, is not remotely sufficient to lay out a case for a complex and contentious policy. But Trump does not seem to care for making the case his very similar snap announcement and lack of coordination on his "travel ban" was very similar preferring to drop bombshells, letting critics freak out, and leaving it to his underlings to clean up the mess as best they can.

But, on the substance of the transgender decision (as with the travel ban), Trump, or rather Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, is right.

To understand this decision it's best not to start with Trump, but to go back to Obama's earlier choice, made at the tail end of his term in office. Because of the nature of the military, the burden of proof for such a big change to its culture rests on the person proposing the change.

The military is unlike any civilian institution. Members of the military give up their freedom when they sign up to serve. Every enlisted person and officer is under an obligation to follow all lawful orders under pain of court martial, imprisonment, and possibly even death. This feature makes the military a tempting target for those who want to conduct fringe social experiments. Because military personnel must obey, they are in no position to refuse their commander in chief's orders, whether those orders are good or, as in Obama's case, disruptive, unnecessary, and bad.

The second unique feature of the military is that it is a purely functional body. It does not exist for personal enrichment, leisure, community, the pursuit of happiness, or for its own sake, as civilian institutions do. The military's sole purpose is to smash and destroy enemies. Even when it is merely used as a deterrent, the military's usefulness derives entirely from its ability to accomplish that goal in battle. This means all decisions about how the military is run should be subordinated to questions of military effectiveness, including morale, discipline, equipment, logistics, troop readiness and the like.

Our military regulations reflect this, exempting the services from rules that other employers must live by. There are many examples, but the relevant one is that the services not only reserve the right but actually have a mission-based obligation to discriminate in some cases where civilian employers would be sued for doing so. People with physical disabilities and bad health are routinely turned away. If you are over the age of 35, it's already too late to join the Army, Navy, or Coast Guard, and far too late to think about a career in the Marine Corps. The Air Force won't take you after age 39, and federal law forbids enlistment beyond age 42. Don't even think about bringing an age-discrimination lawsuit. You may think it unfair, but fairness isn't the goal.

Rules on military recruitment are based entirely on its goal of breaking things, killing people, and defeating enemies as effectively as possible within the laws of warfare. When Obama made his decision on transgender service and recruitment, it was not taken with this singular goal in mind. (He had a singular goal, which was to embarass his successor, just as President Clinton sought to embarass President Bush with last minute environmental regulations). This means the Obama transgender rule is not sacrosanct, much though the left-wing reaction to Trump's decision has been what it would have been had he been overtuning a time-honored and popularly supported tradition. It needs to be remembered that that's what Obama was doing, not what Trump is doing in reversing it.

Imposing a fringe ideology about gender differences that is not widely accepted in civilian life on hundreds of thousands of people sworn to obey creates logistical and morale problems, too.

By the time Obama permitted open service by gay men and lesbians in 2011, the majority of society had made its peace with that idea. This is one reason it has not apparently had severe consequences for morale or military effectiveness. Civilian society has not drawn a similar conclusion with respect to the idea that we can wish away the biological reality of sex and identify people as "he" or "she" when in truth they are she and he.

Can a person with male anatomy be a woman? Leftists opinion insists that the answer is yes. Yet people who are physically of one sex but think they are actually members of the opposite sex are regarded by most people and widely by the medical profession as having a psychological problem, not a physical one. In the argot of psychiatry it is called gender dysphoria.

The most generous thing one can say in argument with those who insist that men can be women, and women can be men, is that the question isn't even close to being settled.

Most people want to be kind and charitable, but it doesn't mean they embrace the idea that male and female are mere social constructs and not scientific reality. If they did, then most people attracted to men or to women (whatever their sexual orientation) would not insist on a partner who is physically and not just notionally male or female. Transgender activists point to this unavoidable reality as evidence of discrimination, but it is, rather, evidence that almost no one accepts the idea that a gender continuum can replace the biological concept of sex. If pressed in private on their discriminatory dating habits, the 99-plus percent of the population that harbor them would probably say it's because you can only stretch things so far, even in an effort to be inclusive.

That's the most glaring evidence that this issue is far from settled in civilian life. There is plenty of other evidence, though. The spectacle of biologically male athletes dominating women's sporting events is an obvious and natural source of controversy, not unity. The removal of legal protections against biological males openly inhabiting spaces reserved for women remains a serious point of contention as well.

Society might someday change its mind, setting biology aside to give inclusion precedence over fact. It has of course changed its mind on other, bigger questions more than once in recent times. If so, perhaps military policy on transgenderism will have to be revisited.

But the military services should be the last place where such such social changes are imposed, not the first. As Obama subordinated the military's mission to unrelated considerations, at the risk of complicating that mission, the reversal of his decision is the right course.

As tempting as it is to force controversial ideology on large groups of people who are obligated by law to obey, it is a cynical urge on the part of a radical commander in chief, and it should be resisted when military effectiveness is at stake.

Read the rest here:
Trump right to reverse Obama's transgender experiment on the military - Washington Examiner

My anger was caused by something much deeper than watermelons. You see, growing up in the United States, I've been culturally conditioned to see the world always through the suffocating prism of race. And it's not just me. This is a basic instinct for Americans of every race. No matter how much we say "everyone is equal," our government policies, our history and our daily social interactions betray this lie.

Without a second thought, I freeze with terror when I see a police officer -- in any country -- or wake up in a panic when I know that my son is driving home late. It often feels like there's no escape from this nightmare.

Calm down and breathe is what I told myself as I cleaned up those watermelon rinds. It's nothing. But generations of toxic cultural indoctrination do not die easily and even now, weeks later, I'm still trying to get over it and my suspicions about some of my expat neighbors, many of whom like me are from the United States and travel around the world towing their own racial baggage as white Americans.

This is what racism does to you. It scars you and dehumanizes us all. It makes us mistrust one another. And if you don't fight it every day, the hate will defeat you.

That remark cut as it was intended, she said. But Michelle urges us to acknowledge our pain, work to heal our wounds and hold on to our power at the same time.

She knows the path is not easy. The moment the Obamas stepped onto the national stage it was apparent that America just couldn't resist the ugly racial jabs, whether done in jest or with malice. And it's not just Twitter-crazed private citizens who've attacked.

The two were celebrating with a fist-bump standing beside a portrait of Osama bin Laden. As if black folks winning the White House was more horrifying than terrorists taking over our nation. The magazine called it satire, humor meant to make a mockery of all the racist stereotypes aimed at the Obamas. No black people I knew were laughing, though. We weren't liberal enough to get that joke.

In 2010, she launched Let's Move!, a project to fight childhood obesity by making school lunch programs healthier, encouraging exercise and promoting community gardening. Her Joining Forces project, launched with Jill Biden, supports veterans and their families with mental health, education and employment services.

Michelle understands that these days it's easy for young people, for all of us, to get discouraged by life -- especially people who look like her. And that our problems are much larger than name-calling or racist cartoons.

Still, like the former First Lady, I believe we have the power change lives. Michelle's refusal to let her humanity be stripped down by hatred is really the only hope for all of us. Because literally the chronic stress of racism is cutting our lives short.

I need look no further than my own family over the past three generations. Black women and men stood strong because they were never allowed to be weak. I've watched my relatives sacrifice their mental and physical health, internalizing their pain day after day. Those sacrifices cannot be in vain. But it's time we found a better way to manage our pain. We can practice self-care and still fight passionately for the full equality that has forever evaded us.

Michelle's ability to continuously rise above hate, to speak with love and compassion for all people is her true power -- it is not her Harvard degree, her title or her husband. She has found a way to acknowledge her pain without sacrificing her dignity or robbing others of their own.

She inspires me to join her on this journey.

Read more from the original source:
When racism cuts, Michelle Obama helps us heal - CNN

Conservative Review

Obama holdover tasked with 'Countering violent extremism resigns Conservative Review George Selim, a prominent Obama administration holdover known for engaging fringe Islamic radicals, has resigned from the Department of Homeland Security. Selim left his post as director of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), a senior administration ...

Excerpt from:
Obama holdover tasked with 'Countering violent extremism resigns - Conservative Review

News accounts of Gov. John Hickenlooper's recent decision to accelerate renewable energy goals for Colorado and join the "U.S. Climate Alliance," aligning the state with international commitments President Obama made as part of his Paris climate pact, frequently missed the mark on a number of key points. So let me provide context that was missing from much of the coverage I saw.

One major Colorado newspaper, for instance, reported that Colorado was joining a "growing number of states" that were "committed to meeting or exceeding greenhouse gas reduction targets set in the international Paris climate treaty that President Donald Trump rejects." But that's wrong on three counts quite an achievement for a single sentence.

The president is not jettisoning legally binding commitments because the Paris accord is not a treaty. No matter what name is attached to it "accord," "agreement," "pact" or "deal" it has no constitutional, legal or political standing comparable to a treaty because it was never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Why didn't President Obama seek Senate approval? Because, just like the Iran nuclear agreement he negotiated, his Paris pact had no hope of getting the two-thirds vote required for treaty ratification. The Constitution requires U.S. Senate ratification because the Founders did not trust executive branch politicians to unilaterally commit the American people to international agreements. Nothing in the Constitution allows states or governors to engage in foreign policy freelancing. The governor thus has no authority to make a commitment to an international agreement of any kind.

And how far is the governor willing to go in order to comply with the terms of a nullified non-treaty that a former president approved in irregular and unconstitutional fashion? Is he also going to monitor compliance by China and other pact participants, and attempt to impose sanctions if they fall short of benchmarks or get caught cheating? And what about the $3 billion in payments Obama committed the U.S. to make as part of the "deal"? Will Colorado and other "Climate Alliance" members be stepping up to make good on that commitment, using tax dollars?

Clearly, the governor has given too little thought to the legal, constitutional and practical implications of this proposal.

It's also wrong to suggest Colorado is one of a growing number of states joining an alliance that opposes the president on the Paris accord. Since June 8, when 13 states had joined, only one additional state joined Colorado. Moreover, not one additional state has joined since the Governor's July 11 statement. That rate of progress would make a snail envious.

It would be more accurate to say that 14 governors have joined that group, not 14 states, given the undemocratic way this "movement" has evolved. Like Obama with his pen and phone, Hickenlooper wants to commit the entire state to this without involving the people's representatives in the lawmaking branch of government. But there can be no revision for acceleration of Colorado's established greenhouse gas emission goals without the involvement of the state Legislature. I don't believe the governor can commit Colorado to the goals of the Paris accord while acting alone.

Hickenlooper repeatedly said he believes these measures will have little to no adverse impact on taxpayers, utility ratepayers or the state's business climate. He promises big benefits on all fronts all winners and no losers. All that's missing from this picture is a prospect of puppies and cotton candy for all.

The governor's attempt to unilaterally commit Colorado to the goals of the Paris pact isn't therefore just questionable, impractical and unwise. If he attempts to implement the plan without legislative approval, it is also unconstitutional, which could open the door to costly litigation that will forever taint whatever climate "legacy" he hopes this gambit will achieve.

The good news is that there is still time for the governor, who generally has shown a deliberative and collaborative approach on such central policy questions, to climb down from his high horse and reconsider this embarrassing misstep.

Kevin Grantham is president of the Colorado Senate and represents Senate District 2.

See the original post here:
Guest opinion: Governor's climate gambit reeks of Obama-style overreach - Glenwood Springs Post Independent

By Joseph Pisani

Associated Press

NEW YORK | A savings program put into place under President Barack Obama and designed to get more people to put away money for retirement is being killed by the Treasury Department, which said it is too costly to maintain.

The program, called myRA, was launched about two years ago for those who dont have access to a 401(k) or another retirement plan from their employer. The myRA accounts had no fees or minimum deposit, and were meant to appeal to low-income workers.

Unfortunately, there has been very little demand for the program, said U.S. Treasurer Jovita Carranza, in a release Friday. The cost to taxpayers cannot be justified by the assets in the program.

The Treasury Department said myRA savers had put away about $34 million since late 2015, and that the program cost taxpayers nearly $70 million. It would have cost $10 million a year to continue the program, the Treasury said.

About 30,000 accounts were opened, and 10,000 have no money in them. The average account holder has about $1,500 in their account, the Treasury said.

Participants received emails Friday requesting a stop on automatic deposits made to any myRA account.

The Treasury advised those with an account to transfer money to another retirement account, known as a Roth IRA, at a bank or brokerage firm. The accounts can also be cashed out, but those that do may have to pay tax penalties.

The Treasury said it doesnt have a deadline yet for when the accounts need to be closed. Accounts with a zero balance will be closed starting in September.

See the original post here:
Obama-era retirement savings program for workers gets the ax - Florida Times-Union