j

G.I. Joe err, Jane err, Joe?

Ashton Carter, US Defense Secretary, is making good on his promise to lift the ban on soldiers serving openly in the military as the gender of their choice. The pentagon commissioned Rand Corp to review and report on any “adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness” with an implementation of transgenderism (for lack of a better word).

Although the report says it did not find evidence of negative effect, Rand Corp’s phrasing is suspect.

“The Rand report indicated there are few problems with open transgender service in foreign militaries. Those militaries, the report concluded, ‘do not report evidence of negative impacts on unit cohesion and readiness,’ based on a review of 18 countries that allow transgender personnel to serve openly, according to the report, which looked at such policies in Australia, Canada, Israel and the United Kingdom.”

The absence of negative reporting, does not necessarily mean to conclude there is no negative effect.

“Harassment and bullying have been a problem in all four…countries,” the report said. “However, these effects can be mitigated by clear policies and comprehensive training across the force.”

Harassment and bullying as problematic sounds like “evidence of negative impact” to me.

Although not a direct influence on “cohesion and readiness,” a blow to funding (regardless of Rand’s sugar-coating) of already subpar veterans’ healthcare services would be substantial if money has to be set aside for hormone replacement therapy, psychological assistance, and other “transition” treatments specific to transgenders.

 “The estimated cost of implementing a policy of open service is between $2.4 million and $8.4 million a year, a small fraction of military health care expenditures,’ which for fiscal 2014 totaled $6.27 billion, according to the study.”

Defense Secretary Carter is expected to officially make his announcement over the 4th of July weekend.

Guns, Ammo and Military-Style Rifles

Apparently, Obama’s America means Zero guns for citizens and AR-15s for paper-pushing Federal Agencies.  While Obama schemes and Dem Reps canoodle on the floor of the House with a mind to use any and all avenues to (fundraise) upend our second amendment rights, the Federal Government has been given the green light to stockpile $1.48 billion in weaponry over 9 years.

“Why Does the IRS Need Guns,” you ask? Tom Coburn (R-Senator OK, retired), in his WSJ op-ed last week, says not only is the IRS mum, the whole matter seems a bore and an inconvenience.

“In fact, we asked the IRS for an asset accounting of their gun locker—their guns and ammunition asset inventory by location. Their response? ‘We don’t have one [an inventory], but could create one for you, if important.’”

Bernie Sanders and Conservatives agree, “What is the Obama Administration up to?”

“People from both ends of the political spectrum have expressed alarm at this trend. Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical, unconstitutional and costly for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping nonmilitary agencies with heavy weapons, hollow-point bullets and military-style equipment. Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders have raised civil liberties concerns about the militarization of local police with vehicles built for war and other heavy weaponry.”

*emphasis is mine.

It’s Hot outside, but it’s ‘cooler here at RedState’s only daily Open Thread!  Drink up, RedStaters!