Dateline: 4 August 2001, RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom. I arrived in East Anglia with two teenagers and a wife. About five weeks later the world changed. You, dear reader, may recall the events of 11 September 2001. America was attacked by that existential enemy of all civilized people, (radical) Islam.
Beginning in early October, my unit deployed all over the theater (which then included Europe and (mainly) northern Africa) to support the efforts to defeat our enemy in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF). My flight (a company-sized unit in Army speak) consisted of about 23 intel people, six COMSEC troops, and a SERE expert. After we had sent most of our equipment (that means ‘airplanes’) and personnel down range, we were tasked further. So it was that the senior enlisted intel guy (me) and my senior enlisted COMSEC guy (Teresa) were the only people left to deploy to support the mission.
So we deployed, leaving no enlisted leadership at our home base. This is a dangerous situation, as one never wants to leave officers on their own; they get up to all sorts of mischief. It’s what plants crave.
Seriously, the reason we were the only ones left was that we were the leaders. At this point, we were the only fully qualified people who could be sent to support flight operations. The 100th Air Refueling Wing had no trained up and experienced intel people still at home apart from my boss, a senior captain who was our Flight Chief (and who was also brilliant - love ya Trish) who could be sent to kill people and break their things. So Teresa and I moved out to Rhein-Main Air Base in Frankfurt, Germany.
I say all that to say this: Allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. military is among the stupidest ideas that has ever been thought up. Imagine this: On that October day in 2001, me and Teresa leading our teams and being the last two qualified troops available… what if one of us (or some other troop who had already deployed) were unavailable because of some mental issue? Gender dysphoria is a mental deformity, kids. The APA can change terms all they like, but “dysphoria” means “confusion,” and that’s fucking crazy.
Worse, what if a qualified troop was convalescing from an elective surgery (paid for by you, by the way) and was unable to deploy to support the mission (which you also pay for)? I suppose if you never served, you might think this is something that is easy to deal with. You’d be wrong as a wrong thing in Wrongland on wrong holiday. Authorized manning levels do not change. So if I am sent a deranged troop (a ‘transgender’ or serial killer or clown or otherwise mentally deficient), and it goes into elective surgery (which the DoD does not pay for in any other cases), I do not get another body to replace it while it is doing all the bullshit we are paying for to support its mental illness.
Tell me, Mr. Civilian (or specifically, SJW retard): How do we overcome this? A military force has one job: Destroy the enemy and protect the country from external threats. Transexuals (people with the mental illness now called ‘gender dysphoria’) have built-in mental issues and are not suited to military life. Do you know transsexuals have a 40 percent suicide attempt rate? I served 23 years, and I can tell you that suicide rates are far higher in the military than they are in the civilian world. It’s a stressful way to make a living. Now add to that the madness of not being able to see your sex organs and understand this basic core of mammalian existence (or whatever the fuck happens in these psychos’ heads). Yeah, glad I don’t have to lead a platoon of psychotic people into a fight.
It is often said that the military isn’t the place for social experimentation. I don’t necessarily agree completely with that. The military was the first institution that tried racial integration, and met with great success doing that. It took a while, and there were fits and starts, but we got it done. It was also the military where females first gained equal footing with males in the context of pay and career opportunity. I know some will argue we haven’t fully achieved that integration, but I don’t believe women should be front-line ground troops. That is a debate for another time. We do have female combat pilots and women serve on ships. There are also many homosexuals serving in the armed forces. I was retired by the time Obama canceled DADT, so I don’t know if my concerns about that have panned out. But DADT worked well. And I knew quite a few gay people. I knew it, they knew it; I didn’t ask and they didn’t tell.
To my mind, allowing people with gender dysphoria to serve at all will generally cause problems. I understand there are a few currently serving and keeping quiet about the problem they have. That’s bad, but there is no perfect way for a recruiter or DI to diagnose many mental afflictions. Gender dysphoria definitely fits this category.
Readiness. Unit cohesion. Esprit de corps. These are terms which might not mean much to a politician or to a silly kid who believes in equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. But to the United States armed forces, they mean everything. Our missions are global, and we have to be prepared to go anywhere, at any time, with little or no notice. This is the very nature of our business. Some people might read this and call me a bigot for my way of thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not ‘hate’ people based on generalities, and I certainly do not hold any resentment or anger because a person has a mental disorder. That would be cruel. I genuinely hope every single transexual person in America gets the help they need to deal with their disorder. I also will not celebrate or try to normalize any sort of ‘dysphoria.’ That might even be crueler.
Some of my words here might seem ‘mean’ or worse. I don’t mean it ‘mean,’ but our military has to be ready at all times. Allowing people who have a known mental disorder to serve makes no sense. It’s a dangerous idea which should be discarded post haste.
Thanks for reading and #AimHigh!
Rex, MSgt, USAF (ret)
An unsecured border is an open pathway for human trafficking, and this could be the strongest but most neglected argument to convince skeptics of the need for regulated immigration. When we turn a blind eye to those crossing the borders, we are ignoring the criminal activity of human trafficking. Individuals who were promised freedom get exploited and abused, sold into labor and prostitution. Often proponents of tough immigration laws are accused of lacking compassion, but there is no compassion in ignoring the smuggling and trading of human beings, nor in protecting traffickers or inhibiting investigations with sanctuary cities. If the left cares about human trafficking, they need to recognize that illegal immigrants are especially vulnerable and unenforced law does not help them.
The promises and policies of the Obama administration made easy targets for human traffickers, and the lack of immigration enforcement was an enabler. Human trafficking is profitable and with lessened border enforcement, it was easier.
The influx of unaccompanied minors across the southern border between 2011 and 2016 was met with no resistance under the Obama Administration. The Washington Post reported on the difficulty in tracking these children. One official conceded that “identity requirements” for those claiming to be family members of the children were “relaxed” to place the children more quickly. The children were released to individuals who were not assuredly verified as relatives, and with limited follow-up, if any. Such an acknowledgment would seem to indicate complicity in trafficking, or at the least, pure negligence. Legal advocates for the minors said the children faced abuse, and sometimes vanished. This is how Guatemalan teens ended up being held captive as forced labor on an egg farm. That discovery is what prompted Senator Rob Portman to launch an investigation. The Washington Post highlighted the findings of the report by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (part of the DHHS) which stated the minors were placed with shady caretakers. The DHHS failed to properly vet the sponsors and allowed them to avoid oversight by caseworkers.
Why wasn't this a core focus of those trying secure the border? It seems that the mainstream media interest in human trafficking as a result of Obama policy was largely absent. In the midst of pro-illegal immigrant reporting, such a story fell to the wayside. However, it's the lack of consistent discourse on illegal immigration and human trafficking on the right that is notable and concerning. It's not that it doesn't exist, only that often it is drowned out by other concerns in the immigration debate. Advocates for tightening immigration appeared to favor cultural and economic arguments, but setting aside the human trafficking situation gave Obama and the Democrats a huge pass in accountability. More so, it permitted a horrible consequence to go uncovered.
The Trump Administration has vowed to combat human trafficking. Let's hope it is sincere, and policy toward immigration does not ignore it.
The Heritage Foundation
“The Human Tragedy of Illegal Immigration: Greater Efforts Needed to Combat Smuggling and Violence”
Just a gaggle of people from all over who have similar interests and loud opinions mixed with a dose of humor. We met on Twitter.