Passing The Buck On Sexual Assaults In The Military

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – If the army is really there specifically and solely to defend the American people, to be called into war if they must, shouldn’t you then begin the immediate discharge of the females from your midst because they are providing a major, massive distraction?  Since we have a bunch of perverts in our armed services they can’t seem to stop and they can’t seem to quell their sexual desires and lusts, then if we really have to go out and win these wars, do we have time to squander and waste while we participate actively in the re-socialization of the entire male portion of the armed services?  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

[reading]

The military chiefs acknowledged that they had neglected the spread of sexual abuse in the ranks.

[end reading]

Mike:  That is paramount to common defense.  Defending female nether regions is now also part of our common defense.  You can forgive the military leaders for not owning up to this, can’t you?

[reading]

They said they were amenable to legislative changes that would take tougher action against sex offenders and provide more support to victims.

[end reading]

Mike:  Yes, now the victim culture makes its way inside the Army.  Oh, genius.  Oh, great muse, where have you been our whole lives?  Let’s have a Department of Victimology.  Who is the Joint Chief of Victimhood this year?  Who’s Obama going to nominate to be Joint Chief of Victimhood?

[reading]

But they drew the line at one bill, co-sponsored by a fifth of the Senate, that would strip commanders of the legal power to oversee major criminal cases and transfer that authority to uniformed prosecutors. Such a change, they argued, would undermine the foundation of military culture by questioning the judgment of unit commanders.

“Without equivocation, I believe maintaining the central role of the commander in our military justice system is absolutely critical,” said Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff. “Removing commanders, making commanders less responsible, less accountable, will not work. It will hamper the delivery of justice to the people we most want to help.”

Mike Church Show Transcript: McCain And The Media Continue Ginning Up Support For War In Syria

The chiefs did not play down the severity or scope of sex crimes in the armed forces and promised to redouble their efforts to root out abuse…

For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK]

[end reading]

Mike:  I have a question, a very serious question.  If since the forced integration and comingling of the sexes in the armed forces has been the touchstone that has set off all this sexual abuse and harassment and whatever it is being termed, whom were the military types abusing and harassing before they had close-quartered females that they could prey upon?  If I’m to believe that this is all the fault of the male enlistees, shouldn’t we then find in the historical record a disproportionate share of sex assault, abuse, rapes and whatever else before the integration perpetrated against the civilian population?  In other words, this is a non sequitur.  This does not make any sense to me.  The same deviant horn dogs who are apparently chasing women all around tanks and APCs and barracks at Fort Pendleton and whatnot, wouldn’t they have been chasing women around barstools and lunch counters and tabletops inside of pubs and what have you if they didn’t have prey close at hand?

[reading]

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited the demands and distractions of 12 years of war, [Mike: If it’s the war’s fault, maybe you ought to end the war. Maybe Congress should say we’re taking our marbles and going home.] saying that he had not always monitored subordinate commanders closely enough to ensure that they took sexual abuse seriously enough.

“I’ll speak for myself: I took my eye off the ball a bit in the commands I had,” Dempsey said. “When you tie it all together, I wouldn’t say that we’ve been inactive, but we’ve been less active than we probably need to be.”

The influence of gender was a palpable factor during the hearing. The six male military chiefs received some of their toughest grilling from the seven women on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“You have lost the trust of the men and women who rely on you that you will actually bring justice in these cases,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.

She asserted that raw sexism and ignorance were a large part of the problem. “Not every single commander necessarily wants women in the force,” she said. “Not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape because they merge all of these crimes together.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a former district attorney, didn’t hesitate to chide Odierno, a hulking combat veteran, for his statement that the military cannot “simply prosecute our way out of this problem.”

“With all due respect, General Odierno, we can prosecute our way out of . . . the problem of sexual predators, who are not committing crimes of lust,” she said. “My years of experience in this area tell me they are committing crimes of domination and violence. This isn’t about sex. This is about assaultive domination and violence.”

[end reading]

Mike Church Show Transcript: Military Sexual Assault Is A Reflection Of Our Morals As A Society

Mike:  I’m going to ask this question again.  If they are predisposed and if the entire military is comprised of young perverts, where is the evidence that they commit these atrocities when they’re not in uniform?  Isn’t it just a bit disconcerting, though, ladies and gentlemen, just a bit?  Isn’t is just a bit of hyperbole to, in a public hearing, assess before a watching world that the honor and integrity and code of honor and conduct of the once-great United States military force has been compromised by testosterone?  If that’s the case that you’re making, is it in the interest of the United States to have the military become a patrol by psychologists and prosecutors and counselors all with an eye toward fixing the human mind and curing it of all of its lust?  Is it in the interest of the United States and the people of the United States to pursue that course of action?

If the army is really there specifically and solely to defend the American people, to be called into war if they must, shouldn’t you then begin the immediate discharge of the females from your midst because they are providing a major, massive distraction?  Since we have a bunch of perverts in our armed services they can’t seem to stop and they can’t seem to quell their sexual desires and lusts, then if we really have to go out and win these wars, do we have time to squander and waste while we participate actively in the re-socialization of the entire male portion of the armed services?  Of course, the females are doves in all this.  They are innocent bystanders.  Why don’t we just get rid of all the men?  We’ll have an entire female fighting force, that way the only harassment that will be going on will be of the Ellen DeGeneres type, female on female.  You can deal with that, can’t you, General Odierno?  Or do we need female Odiernos?

I find it positively ridiculous that I am actually having this conversation about real-life events and that this isn’t something out of a Mel Brooks movie or an episode of Monty Python.  Really?  Of course, this also points out the glaring need for positive male role models in the lives of too many young men.  How many of these young men may see some of this activity and go: I was raised differently than that?  They don’t participate in it or are being swept up in what it is that’s happening all around them.  It’s tragic, folks, absolutely tragic.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

[/private]