Why Aren’t Liberals Enforcing A 50% Female Quota For Secret Service Agents And Bodyguards?

Gender social experiments in the military are being conducted at an alarming pace, but the protection of senior American politicians is being left–surprise, surprise–almost exclusively to men. While the national security of Western countries is being progressively dismantled by an influx of poorly qualified female military recruits, those tasked with directly keeping liberals from harm’s way are almost universally male Secret Service agents and other male bodyguards.

Hillary Clinton, for example, really, really didn’t like the idea of having fellow members of the Sisterhood shielding her during her 2016 Presidential run:

Unless these very male-looking Secret Service agents somehow identify as women and fit some kind of female quota for recruits.

At least we know that one half of the Clinton Political Machine doesn’t support gender quotas for Secret Service agents.

Alas, senior politicians are afforded the security that the rest of us are being increasingly denied–physically and mentally competent armed protectors, who are almost always going to be men. For all the SJW clamoring about patriarchy and gender bias, SJW Senators and House Members, or those simply pandering to SJWs from within Congress, are quite happy to outsource their 24/7 personal security to men, largely and even deliberately excluding women.

The two best examples of this hypocrisy are the respective usages of the US Secret Service and the US Capitol Police. The latter body is one of the few law enforcement bodies directly under the control of a legislature, rather than the executive arm of government. The overwhelming majority of frontline Secret Service agents and heavily-armed US Capitol Police, however, are men. None of the transgender or female-oriented military policies orchestrated by the Obama Administration seem to have made their way into the Secret Service or the emergency response arms of the Capitol Police.

When common sense briefly returns–but for very selfish reasons

When their own asses are on their line, liberal politicians opt for men to protect them.

Of course, all of this makes perfect sense. Physically unimpressive women (and men) are a clear liability in situations requiring the protection of government institutions, people, or simply vulnerable locations, as shown in the case of a Muslim terrorist who easily disarmed a female soldier at Paris’ very busy Orly Airport earlier this year.

But for us, the mere common folk, our local law enforcement officers do not even have to pass basic fitness tests to ensure we can be protected by them, all because society needs more female police officers ([1] [2]).

In the same vein, potential female members of the US Marine Corps are currently enjoying the white-knighting of a lifetime courtesy of deplorably relaxed physical standards, allowing them to be retained and paid for the kind of poor conditioning that would see male recruits thrown out of the military. More alarmingly still, the present American and wider Western adoration for gender affirmative action comes at the same time that China is undergoing its unprecedented rise as a global military power.

The one context where all the gender diversity madness takes a permanent vacation

Here’s a photograph showing the response of the US Capitol Police when an evidently unstable female morotist tried to attack one of their checkpoints, checkpoints designed to protect the 550 Members of Congress from death or serious physical harm:

Where are all the women running at full pace and carrying heavy automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Between early 2007 and early 2011, the Democrats, whose leaders included the ultra-SJW windbag and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had all the time in the world to take a stand for gender “equality” and mandate a 50% quota for frontline US Capitol Police. They had control of Congress, let’s remember. Yet they did nothing.

If an equal representation of women is not good enough for the bodies tasked with protecting politicians, an equal representation (or anything close to it) for institutions as vital as the US military is unacceptable, too. The very heavy division of duties in the Secret Service and US Capitol Police also obscures the very high proportion of men literally putting themselves on the line for liberal, gender experiment-obsessed politicians.

Uniformed desk jobs and other civilian roles give the appearance of a much greater female workforce when, in fact, very few women will ever face any prospect of taking a bullet for their boss. Case in point: some 90% of Secret Service agents are men, and agents across the board exhibit a great diversity (pardon the pun) in the particular dangers of their job roles.

Only by ridiculously increasing the funding for their own protection can liberal politicians feign gender “equality” in the Secret Service and Capitol Police

Nancy Pelosi and the patriarchy.

The Republican-dominated Congress has recently raised the prospect of increasing US Capitol Police funding, but Democrats have done the same thing in the past. This is probably the only way that liberal and SJW politicians could effect some kind of bizarre  gender parity in the Secret Service or US Capitol Police. Instead of having half a dozen agents or uniformed police standing with them, a particular person might be given a dozen.

Regardless of whether they choose to ignore the issue entirely or think of dishonest ways to promote gender “equality” when it comes to their own protection, leftist political figures will always ensure for themselves the kind of physical safety that the rest of us could only dream of.

We the general public will get the perverse gender experiments that put us in growing danger, whether from the violent gang-banger or the foreign military opponent like China, while liberals at the top can sleep peacefully with the knowledge that they will always be protected via the public purse–and by men.

Read More: The Australian Military Is Enforcing A 70% Female Quota For New Recruits

196 thoughts on “Why Aren’t Liberals Enforcing A 50% Female Quota For Secret Service Agents And Bodyguards?”

        1. yep. his security detail/dance squad was inspired by his love if this janet jackson video

        2. no I meant were they raped and killed as the comment indicated. Gaddafi’s bodyguards that is, not janet jackson’s?

        3. I heard many were raped anyway. Wherever a muslim goes, he must rape.
          Gadaffi was sodomised during his painful death.

        4. That’s what you get for trying to sell oil using gold coins instead of federal reserve’s dollars.

      1. The reason is the Gold dinnar and the satelite network he wanted to create.
        Attacking monopolies is far more Deadly than having terrorist friends.

    1. I miss that guy. It was kind of fun having a lunatic Bond vilain saying utterly demented shit in the UN with his harem of mamba girl assassins in chic camouflage outfits

      1. “It was kind of fun having a lunatic Bond vilain saying utterly demented shit…”
        I never thought about it like that, but since you mentioned it!
        He had a standing offer for years of $10,000,000 to anyone who could deliver to him an atomic bomb.
        He bankrolled terrorists and provided safe haven for them.
        His troops rescued Idi Amin when he fell in Uganda (Amin died in Saudi Arabia, I think in 2002; not sure about the year).
        He supported rebels throughout Africa.
        I think he turned over to the UN an atomic bomb once USA normalized diplomatic relations with Libya, about 10 years ago.
        All of this is off the top of my head, from my faulty memory. Don’t beat me up if you find details are slightly different.
        But I like your statement. He was definitely more entertaining than Fidel Castro. Hell, he’s more entertaining than the self-absorbed celebrities out of Hollywood.

        1. he also said he was acting as a safety valve against unchecked immigration from africa into europe…are we better off without him?

        2. Thanks Obama, Hillary, and the entire cast and crew at CIA…How could we Americans ever thank you enough?

    2. Well, the kind of leader who gifts citizens with thousands of dollars of oil money to help them get set up as newlyweds and first-time parents doesn’t have a lot to fear from his own citizens.
      CIA saboteurs, imported Wahabist terrorists, and Mossad agents, on the other hand…

    3. I have no complaints on Gaddafi, other than him parading around with pussy bodyguards; who can’t even save their own pussies !!

      1. A year or two earlier he went on a world tour, photographed shaking hands with world leaders, then suddenly he’s the ‘next Hitler’.

  1. Even if women are individually capable of meeting the standards, introducing them into an all male organization negatively alters the dynamics. Particularly for orgs. that operate in isolated environments like the military. Plenty of FDs in the US have standardized requirements regardless of gender. Which is how local PDs should operate. PD unions do a lot of reduce their own standards thereby allowing a entry pathway for women.

    1. Does it negatively alter the Dynamics because men are tough enough to fight and handle machine guns, but they’re not man enough to control their minds from being led by their dicks? I mean you’re basically saying above men can’t handle working with women, because they’re not mature enough to do it?

      1. You got it wrong ! don’t know the reason(s) why !! Who told you MEN’s mind is controlled by their dicks !? Are you a MAN !? If so, what is your experience !?
        @John is saying that pussies are INEPT and are NOT capable of working along with MEN, especially in the context of military. It does negatively effect the “gender” Dynamics !! As a simple example; How do you respond to a MALE colleague who does some mistake ? and can you respond in the “same manner” (voice, body language, commanding, harshness etc.) with a pussy !!?
        Heck, how do you even dare/think of (Physically & IQ wise) comparing a pussy with a MAN !? Hurrah, I got my answer; common sense is not-so-common !!

      2. For one, it won’t be only men that create conflict in these situations. Women will be more than willing to get involved with men and often do in the samples we already have available to us. Secondly, your expecting millions of years of evolution to be swept aside by a couple decades of social engineering. That’s not realistic at all and completely scientifically illiterate.

        1. I’m not saying standards should be reduced. They shouldn’t be. I’m saying this article is based on contrived a assumption of hypocrisy. I mean yeah, if you wanna call libs hypocrites it’s not hard, but still I think this article starts with a straw man assumption.

        2. It is NOT simply declining standards that leads to problems. Men and women working in close proximity in isolated environments like combat zones will inevitably develop relationships that will manifest problems in unit cohesion. And women will be just as responsible for that outcome as the men.

        3. Right, fine, I agree that in certain contexts this is true. All I’m saying is that the article above sort of assumes that every single role in law enforcement or protection is apples to apples. It presents it as if women aren’t capable of being Capitol Police, and as if the requirements for every role in law enforcement is exactly the same. Is there a specific requirement that every Secret Service or capitol police officer needs to be able to bench 250 pounds or be able to win a fight against Brock Lesnar?
          The premise of the article is contrived, just to have an excuse for bitching about SJW’s for problems that don’t exist. “Fake News”, as they say.
          We’ll see how these first female Seals do. http://www.businessinsider.com/10-realities-the-first-female-navy-seal-trainee-will-face-2016-2/#2-unchanged-standards-2

        4. I think standards should be universal. Most PDs don’t and most FDs do which is why there are a lot more female cops than firefighters. They work in much different environments than service members where isolated and limited human interactions will force unique dynamics. And I was an 18C on five deployments so I am very confident I have a high degree of intimate knowledge on this topic.

  2. There’s a simple explanation for this. All of the male bodyguards for the elite are trannies. And the entire operation is overseen by Wonder Woman. (When she isn’t shopping or riding the dick carousel…)

    1. Don’t make fun of Wonder Woman. If it weren’t for her we would have lost both world wars and would all be speaking kraut

      1. My god ! We would be Under the control of somewhat intelligent, ordered people who would have eventuellaly get rid of their own extremists and would work hard to build a stable, industrious world ?

        1. “somewhat intelligent, ordered people…”
          At the Nuremburg trials not a few were tried and convicted of undue fastidiousness

        2. Yes, most of them keep working for us… Von Braum for the Space Adventure, Claus Barbie against communists, and so many others…

        1. She was basically the double D in the triple entente that took the Allies to victory against the Hun, and secured world peace for a while. Don’t scoff, as of July that is now official twentieth century military history and is probably being taught in schools up and down the country. Apparently the original comics actually had her fighting the nazis, typically getting caught and tied up in S&M type situations

  3. Good article. This should really become a key demand every time they start some big push for tokenism

  4. According to Ben Thompson, in his ground-breaking series Badass, Chandragupta Maurya (340-289 BCE), was protected by a “highly trained, hyperelite, well-armed personal bodyguard of more than five hundred Greek and Indian warrior women.”
    Eventually, he abdicated the throne to his son, went to the desert, and fasted until he died.
    Well, I am no ladies man. But, when two or more women get together and start jabbering, can any man understand what they find so funny or interesting?
    Listening or overhearing more than two women talk is enough to drive a man insane. What if you had to hear over five hundred women a day; jabbering about this, jabbering about that, laughing about shit that not even they quite understand. Even bragging about their sexual conquests the night before.
    Poor Chandragupta!
    The bitches did what powerful armies failed to do; they overthrew him.
    The people in Congress, who don’t want women in the Secret Service and the Capitol Police prove to me one thing. They are smarter than they look.
    And apparently they know all about our good friend, Chandragupta Maurya, and his demise.

    1. This is my pre-edited comment held over as spam. My improved, more popular version, lurks above on the first page. Kindly disregard this one. Thanks to whomever sorted this out and realizes this is not spam.

  5. There’s another reason.
    There are by définitions lots of old hags in the political system.
    And they don’t appreciate to be surounded by somewhat fit and Younger women in plain sight . Much more desirable than them.
    Women hate to not be the center of attention.

  6. I recently saw where George Clooney was moving back to the US from the U.K. Because of security concerns. A spokesman told the press that Clooney has the best security possible to keep his family safe and they said his California home was more secure than his London home. How can this be, they have very strict gun control in the U.K. along with unfettered immigration which according to Clooney are the greatest things ever?
    The day Hollywood burns to the ground can’t come fast enough.
    I guess Trump being president isn’t as dangerous as Clooney thought it would be.

    1. how can you feel safe when not even the local cops carry guns? only guys who have guns are their version of the SWAT team, and at that point if you need to call for them, all hell has already broken loose

      1. I wouldn’t be as concerned if the cops had them or not as I would be if I could have them or not. After all if trouble starts and the cops need to be called I’m already there.

      2. kikikkikikikkiki. Its like that in many British colonies in my country police dont carry guns but then again I have never heard a gunshot in my entire life while living in a country of 14.5Million people.

        1. As we discovered in Rwanda, if you don’t have a gun with which to defend yourself, the machete that kills you doesn’t make much noise at all.

        1. Not quite the same. The cops shoot more people in Germany than in Britain. As you would expect.
          Interestingly, just prior to WW1, London had more liberal gun laws than NYC and still had less gun deaths. Culture matters.
          Also, on the original point raised – I feel considerably less safe when I see armed police.

        2. are you sure? Do you have any numbers? In germany no more than 10 people get killed by cops annually (usually less)

        3. Its about half that in Britain, sometimes we go years without shootings but the recent terrorist attacks have dragged up the average. That said, I accept that there is more to the story that simply whether the cops have guns or not. This is also true for an armed population.

      1. Wealthy Jews are not. America is so well under Jewish control its a province of Israel. Jews deceive, lie, and swindle.

        1. They become fool, also, that’s why they got expelled so many times from European countries. You should watch the Jude Süß movie. Excellent German movie.

        2. Jews in America have Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslim. Jews did this to demoralize and divide white people. Fill white countries with massive numbers of third world immigrants while keeping Israel exclusively Jewish.
          Multiculturalism is a big lie, even many non white immigrants believe this as well. Jews pawn people against each other in America.

        3. jews are comfortable in a multicultural society because their ethnic corporatism passes undercovered more easily that against a homogeneous society.

        4. That is true, movements that lean towards Nationalism threaten that corporatism.

    2. Forget about “isn’t or being” dangerous !! Trump being the President is a BLESSING. I pray my Lord to make Trump as President for the second term also.
      Let’s stay UNITED and fight (well, not literally !) with the losers (the fucking Media Channels, femicunts, and leftists).

    3. That and Clooney criticized Trump for his stance on refugees, his own wife is a refugee, from Lebanon, but both live in highly secured compounds, despite both preaching to Western governments that they should keep their borders open.

    4. The same reason they don’t move to canada. A muslim infested hole. They preach open borders. But only for you. They are fine in their castles with tall walls and guards.

  7. A couple of years ago some random dude knocked a female capital police officer out of the way while running in the front door of the White House.
    Men have been doing the fighting since the beginning of time for a reason, because women can’t.

    1. Don’t distort history to promulgate a sexist agenda. What you really mean to say is that “men ONLY have been doing the fighting since the beginning of time…” and you would be wrong. Most ancient cultures either had female warrior classes who were an offshoot of society or incorporated women into the warrior/governing class. The Celts had women train side-by-side with men, rule the society, and allowed men AND women to engage in year-long “trial” marriages whereby both parties maintained control of their respective property. I have taken MANY physical fitness tests in my career, and have repeatedly seen young women best a man in at least one of the components. So I hate to rain on everyone’s parade (no I don’t), but women can.

      1. “The Celts had women train side-by-side with men…”
        This is so asinine I shouldn’t even be responding, but…
        And how did that work out for Boudicca?
        Even with 85K “Britons/Celts” vs 15K Romans?

        1. “And how did that work out for Boudicca?”
          Now you know why the Romans won. They discriminated against Boudicca.

        2. no, shes right dude- NYPD added a feed dozens of cats/post a selfie of you feeding the cats to the physical fitness portion of the exam- women always come in #1

        3. “NYPD added a feed dozens of cats/post a selfie of you feeding the cats to the physical fitness portion of the exam- women always come in #1”
          After that comment, I want a milk shake with my cheeseburger. LOL!

        4. You should see the female cops we have here in NYC. All fat, short, and mostly black. Like the “Robert Barone” character’s partner from “Everybody Loves Raymond”. It freaking ridiculous!

        5. “You got it! It was misogyny! That’s what did it!”
          I don’t see why she didn’t get mad and whip their asses…fuckin’ Romans!

        6. nothing more intimidating than a couple of chubby women getting out of the cruiser, hands on their hips, saying “what seems to be the problem?”

        7. Yup..I’m sure the bloods are quite scared of “Cagney and Lacey…and Shaquanda…”:

        8. I know cops. get a few drinks in em- they all say the same thing- whats wrong with the force? “runts and c*nts…”

        9. I think that was Lacey…
          But I have to say.
          In Magnum Force, she was great!
          Put the liberal, faggot mayor to shame!

        10. you’re right there Slim, now do people see what to much Game Of Thrones does to the female mind?

        11. I hate the mormon girl. No wonder why jorah end as a beta pussy. A house of cucks. I guess that’s why the father escape to the wall, to reclaim his balls.

        12. Boudicca was an outright disaster who basically got all of her people slaughtered. Yet in the media she’s a hero.

      2. “So I hate to rain on everyone’s parade (no I don’t)”
        Don’t you have more of a life than coming to a site intended for men and posting your comments?
        Don’t you think most men here realize a few women have distinguished themselves on the field of battle and as sovereigns of nations through-out history?
        There’s no parade for you to rain on.
        Is there a man here who goes to sites intended for women and posts asinine comments?
        If there is, stop raining on their parades. Okay?

      3. I saw that documentary about the celts- king arthur starring clive owen and keira knightley…good stuff

      4. Women “warriors” are as useless as a screen door on a submarine.
        If women are so physically capable of competing with men, why are there separate men and women categories in the olympics? Why are physical standards lower for women in the military? Because that’s the only way they could get in.
        Now, go away, men are talking.

      5. Yes an elite Olympic level athlete with all the funding she needs for special training and supplements will occasionally beat the fat slovenly man who hasn’t left the couch since Nixon left the whitehouse.
        As for women warriors, usually they were a home guard (to try to convince them to fight for their nation instead of spreading their legs for conquerors. It didn’t work). Or they were a pet project of the political class during times of peace and prosperity. Gee that seems familiar.

        1. Ellen, this is where conservative man children come to jerk off to each other’s comments. They can’t get off with a women in the room. You need to leave because for men who can’t get laid, this is the only outlet their balls have.

        1. Oh my god you’re right! Without a man telling me what to do with my time I’d never make ANYBODY happy. Lol. I’ll think about dignifying those “arguments” with a response after I get done flying, maybe.

        2. I don´t identify as a man you shitperson.., are you assuming my gender? That´s a microaggression!!

      6. I saw a FIFA professional team of female soccer players against an amateur high school male soccer team.

  8. According to Ben Thompson, in his ground-breaking series Badass, Chandragupta Maurya (340-289 BCE), was protected by a “highly trained, hyperelite, well-armed personal bodyguard of more than five hundred Greek and Indian warrior women.”
    Eventually, he abdicated the throne to his son, went to the desert, and fasted until he died.
    Well, I am no ladies man. But, when two or more women get together and start jabbering, can any man understand what they find so funny or interesting?
    Listening or overhearing more than two women talk is enough to drive a man insane. What if you had to hear over five hundred women a day; jabbering about this, jabbering about that, laughing about shit that not even they quite understand. Even bragging about their sexual conquests the night before.
    Poor Chandragupta!
    The bitches did what powerful armies failed to do; they destabilized him.
    The people in Congress, who don’t want women in the Secret Service and the Capitol Police prove to me one thing. They are smarter than they look.
    And apparently they know all about our good friend, Chandragupta Maurya, and his demise.

    1. “Listening or overhearing more than two women talk is enough to drive a man insane.”
      Oh yeah! Especially if you’re on line to get your lunch and a two (or more) squawking hens are slowing up the line. This is the main reason I go to lunch at 11:30.

      1. Oh man that reminds me, you ever noticed when in a checkout line behind a female they, stand there with purse on shoulder and watch as everything is rung up, then when they’re told the total they start digging through the purse to find their wallet/checkbook whatever and it’s usually buried under all that shit in there. They could save everyone in line some time if they went ahead and dug it out before but they never do.

        1. Back before toll transponders I am in a backup at a toll for what must have been 15 minutes or an half hour…. a long time in any case. I am behind this woman where upon reaching the exact change toll starts looking for change.

      2. I heard two today while waiting in court before a hearing and wanted to splatter my brains all over the corridor. It was absolutely insane the amount of vapidness coming out of the harpies.

    2. Strange enough ! Chandragupta being “protected” by pussies !!?? Ha ha ha ! But no surprise, what else I can expect (about Indian history and emperors) from an English person’s write-up or the so called “ground-breaking series” !!!

      1. “ground-breaking series”
        Obviously, this is humor on my part.
        And Chandragupta was a great warrior and Emperor. Although he got off to a rough start.
        The point is he had hundreds of female bodyguards. It must have drove him crazy.
        Are you really in India?

        1. I am right here in the United States, Bro !! The time at my location is 8:17 PM (you can guess it’s CST).
          Anyway, there’s NEVER been a Indian Emperor who was “protected” by pussies !! It’ all either a myth, wild guessing or the historians “re-writing” in their own way !!

        2. I read Badass by Ben Thompson. That’s where I learned it from. Hmmmm….
          I am CST too. Louisiana. Our former Governor, Bobby Jindal, is of Indian heritage. Actually, his mom was pregnant with him when her and his dad moved to USA.

        3. I am from Kansas/Missouri. Previously worked in India (obvious !) and the United Kingdom. Nice to know that you are from Louisiana, I have few (former) colleges and seniors. Coming to my Profession, you knew IT !!

        4. According to http://www.historium.com and http://www.quora.com, after a brief search, it seems Chandragupta did have female bodyguards. And he is likely the only Emperor to have had them. Also, it is not likely to be hundreds of them. Ben Thompson’s sources, though valid, are in error.
          Female bodyguards at that time would have been on station where male bodyguards would not be appropriate; in the palace protecting the wife and children. Also, next to the Emperor in public. But a ring of male bodyguards would have surrounded them all.
          The females would have been armed with bows and arrows. And they would have been highly trained.
          Anyway, after a quick search of the subject, my interest is peeked. And the information I provided, sourced from Ben Thompson, is corrected.
          So a few female bodyguards, not hundreds.
          And I am glad you pointed this out.
          Good talking to you.

        5. I should appreciate your interest and insight. Until I do my own in-depth research on the topic, I don’t have much problem accepting about females “guarding” the wife (and children), because, as far as my knowledge goes, the concept of “eunuchs” protecting the “wife & children” is either not present or very rare in the Indian royal families.
          Trust me (I am not blaming the common people from West !), for obvious reasons, the West and Western historians “altered” almost every important details/dates/facts about India, Indian Emperors, Culture and Traditions.
          The first website you mentioned is showing a “currently under construction” page. Coming to quora (and similar kind of websites); they are all (((can’t put in decent words))) websites !!
          And, nice talking to you too. Have a great and relaxing Holiday (the 4rth Sep)

        6. I visited both websites before posting this. Hmmmmmm….
          And I like getting my facts straight before I post anything on ROK. I am glad you pointed this out.
          My search on the web was quick. And in Badass, pages 37-42, is where I read the story of Chandragupta Maurya.
          When I first read the article this morning, first two people to come to mind where Qaddafi and Chandragupta. Roosh beat me to the draw on the first one.
          But just imagine having to listen to 500 women everyday run their mouths about this, that, and the other!
          That is my whole point in my post.
          I hope you have a great Labor Day too.
          See you around.

    3. Indian guru Osho did something similar. He thought if women were leaders, they could do no harm, so he let them lead his Oregon compound. One of the female leaders thought it’d be a good idea to poison her enemies, leading to Osho being kicked out of the USA and his reputation forever tarnished as a “domestic terrorist.”

    1. Because they fired a racist black tranny that they hired with full knowledge that it was black, racist, and a tranny? At best you should go back to whatever you did before they hired said black racist tranny.

  9. Elites likes Zuckerberg and Clinton will retreat to their secluded Islands when the supply of competent (white male) bodyguards becomes exhausted.

    1. And Hillary is protected by men armed with M-4 carbines; the very same firearm she would like for you to not have access to. Isn’t it great that she won the popular vote? (Or so the story goes)!

      1. What sense does this make? I mean yeah, it’s total common sense that trained professionals would carry M-4 carbines, but that we should at least question the idea of any given douche with cash and a clean record can go buy the same weapon.

  10. This are a couple of valid points in this article but it’s otherwise bullshit. I mean do you even know that female or transgender candidates have been applying to the secret service in drives but are being turned down. The liberal position is not: “I’m for equality, so I’m going to force some women and trannies to serve on my SS Team”. The position is to defend real people who have attempted to serve and been denied the chance. So if you have some report of female complaints they were discriminated against applying to SS, let’s see it. Otherwise this is all contrived.

      1. That’s even not how you use Capt Obvious, which gives me little faith you understand context when reading an article. When in Rome

    1. You argument would have worked for every male dominated industry that has had diversity force fed into it. There have never been anywhere near 50% female application rates for any military or police unit, therefore why should we lower expectations just to let in more women/minorities/trannies/whatever?
      I would also love to hear the rationale that makes you think women were applying in droves to the seals or rangers, requiring them to be put under pressure to lower standards to vagify them, but for some reason near zero applied to the secret service.
      Besides, didn’t wasn’t there a story last year about a fat black female as agent that got bowled over by a trespasser at the whitehouse?

        1. your delusional, a woman cant kick a mans ass. The odd exception being some roidhead and/or professional fighter and the male being some weak spaghetti armed 150lb nerd who never fought or lifted weights

        2. again, I’ll hear it from professionals and not some bitchy dudes on the internet.
          But honestly I’m not even disagreeing with you – of course the type of men who qualify for something like the seals are going to bigger and stronger than women. That’s a scientific fact. All I’m saying is the author of this article wrote the whole thing based on a contrived premise: that politicians intentionally and explicitly didn’t hire women to the Secret Service for their own protection. I don’t buy it (unless I missed his link to some evidence of that… possible, I don’t read so good). I think he’s just using this fake premise as an excuse to bitch about a larger topic.

        3. they dont hire women because men are better at it – thats pretty simple there is no need to discuss it and again: no women cant kick a mans ass except maybe if you take the strongest woman in the world and pair her off with the weakest man

        4. No I meant the women who graduated the rangers program could kick YOUR ass. I’m not generalizing. I’m not even trying to argue that women are capable of exactly the same physical feats as men at that level. Again, I just think the article is contrived, and the author has no direct credibility on the subject other than he’s out to price a biased viewpoint. (otherwise he wouldn’t be writing for this site)

        5. Hey Nad I bet you have political opinions? have you ever been a politician? If not you’re being a bitchy dude.
          I see turds like you, and your turd pie arguments too often. Only turds like you have fair, unbiased, educated opinions about everything. Everyone else is always approached as unqualified.

        6. Kinda. But in this case, no expertise needed – and I’m not an expert on this subject – to recognize a fringe site where every article is written based on pre-formed conclusions.

        7. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but isn’t the point of an article to express a “pre-formed” conclusion. Your lefty media is full of I’ll informed “pre-formed” conclusions.
          Edit: I just came to the pre-formed conclusion that you are either a woman, a fg…or worse… a straight fg!

        8. and again you are wrong the women who graduated the ranger program could maybe (and thats a big maybe, because most likely they got carried through the programm by their teamMATEs) carry a ruck for a longer distance than me but still that does not enable them to kick a mans ass. (especially not mine)

  11. Only send your women out when necessary.
    When they can outsmart a bigger, faster predator on the battlefield, then we will talk. Millions of years of training against beast 10x bigger than us made man what it is today.
    Come to me when these women start installing city drainage systems on Discovery Network. Until then a woman beating a man physically is an exception not a rule.
    Besides why would any sane woman want to fight anyways? A person’s first imperative is to create life.

        1. Do you not?
          Just curious myself, do you believe in pure creationism, like the Adam & Eve story?
          Personally, I would lean towards some type intelligent design with evolution being a part of it.

        2. I don’t believe strictly in either. But to go back as far as millions of years I can’t see it. “experts” can barely get us accurate information from 2000 years ago without conflicting opinions. Either way to know it or not isn’t really relevant to me it’s information I can’t do anything with.

        3. “Either way to know it or not isn’t really relevant to me it’s information I can’t do anything with.”
          Fair enough.

        4. I often like to grab monkey wrenches and randomly throw them about…Zecharia Sitchin
          I’m open to any theory..why?… cause no matter how educated, it’s still a theory

  12. Here we go again the liberal desire for ‘Diversity’ only goes as far as they can impose it upon the common people yet they will never chance it when their own skins are at risk, women are into ‘equality’ when ‘equality’ makes them look good and makes them feel good but if this puts them at risk they will always demand good strong men to protect them.

  13. Same reason congress doesn’t subject itself to obamacare and all its associated bullshit. Wake up and revolt, violently if necessary.

  14. Why is a country that supports the Second Amendment so against other countries owning nuclear arms?
    I thought a community of gun owners creates a gentleman society.

    1. If everyone were rational and honest yes. but any reasonable man knows that you should try to prevent insane lunatics or violent psychos from aquiring and using guns.
      Your point is an dumb one

    2. Guns vs nuclear weapons… flash light vs sun
      When Israhell is the 4th potent nuclear power house that’s trouble. All you hear about North Korea… truth is Israhell will nuke a few countries and get away with it before NK even farts and burps at the same time. I’m sure Israhell threatened Germany into building them nuclear submarines.
      Every time I hear a country that’s not a real threat named, I think of countries that are. What do you think would happen if the U.S stops giving Israhell all those billions per year?
      Hint: what would happen if the U.S decided to end welfare?.. those blackies would burn the U.S down.
      -Don’t make the black kids angry-

  15. My favorite hypocrisy is all the anti-gun lefties. Their security details are loaded with men carrying guns.
    Guns kill people? No. Guns PROTECT people. And these assh*oles know it.
    They also live behind big walls. Yet they say “walls don’t work.” Assh*oles.

    1. In communism, the elites still exist and are still wealthy (wealthier actually) , the only difference is that now they have made the proles and plebs more poor and powerless…ie dependant

  16. I recently read about an experiment that the marines conducted with a fully integrated unit. They found that the women under-performed the men in 70% of duties (including marksmanship) and were injured twice as much. The women were unable to perform standard tasks, such as a long distance pack-walk carrying 72lbs or more.
    This is topical since in the UK they are making a big deal about women being allowed into the RAF Regiment. Of course the RAF Regiment is not front line infantry. Observers were saying that the idea that women are not strong enough is old fashioned and gave the example of female medics in Afghanistan.
    First of all, there is nothing “old-fashioned” about stating that women are physically weaker than men. This is a fact. They can’t carry as much. They can’t carry a fallen comrade and they can’t throw a hand grenade as far (could be dangerous) and they can’t actually… fight.
    Secondly, no disrespect to Afghanistan vets here but its not exactly Stalingrad there. You can have women in the military carrying guns and even shooting them, provided the war is actually some distance away being fought largely by drones and they are not fighting pitched battles against an enemy of equal strength.
    Otherwise, why did we wait until after 6000 years of civilization before having female soldiers? Its because female soldiers are a luxury of modern society.

    1. 6000 just since written history.
      But fairly certain well defines male-female roles among hominids have been around since the australopithecus climbed down from the trees.
      And then the 60s happened…

      1. Yes written history and civilization essentially refer to the same timeline. I mentioned civilization because before that, there wasn’t really much of a concept of a professional military.

  17. Doing a study to determine how many females can be placed in an infantry rifle platoon before it ceases to be combat effective is like trying to figure out how much water you can put into vodka before it stops being vodka.

  18. Liberals should make sure at least 50 percent of police be women then all the leftists won’t blame white men for police brutality. That would destroy their argument because liberal white urban women are by far the most racially biased.

    1. “because liberal white urban women are by far the most racially biased.”
      Right you are! I can’t count how many of them I know who have little more than disdain for white men, except when they need your help to move or change a flat tire.

    2. Once the fatality stats even out between the sexes…..oh wait that will never happen, because as soon as they start in that direction the females will be screaming yet again about their special privileges…but should that happen and they match the men’s death stats then equality will have a semblance of being met. So let’s given them what they demanded…equality as they scream for it.

  19. If you are a satanic elite that wants to maintain dominance indefinitely, you need to weaken the population that is beneath you. You do so by making everyone else beneath you poor by redistributing wealth via taxation and reducing future earnings of men by giving their jobs away to females and reducing him to nothing but a sperm donor through creation of laws that puts all the favor of marriage and children into the hands of females. All of these laws and lies of “equality” are not to strengthen a generation, but to weaken a generation and all future generations thereafter. And ultimately, through the employment of a mountain of laws and legislation, the elite can have complete control over the flow of capital, goods, and services by proxy. Which destines you and all future generations to become nothing but working animals at best. If you fail, you live on subsidies provided by the other working animals. Isn’t life grand? After all, a village raises a child, just as Hillary said, right? All individual failures in society are paid for by you.
    No, the global elites do not employ those same policies for themselves. Anytime an elite needs a surgery performed, do you think any of them go visit a black female doctor? Of course not. You need to reduce your carbon footprint, but do they? Of course not, they get to fly around in jets and armored SUVs. You need to work 40+ hours a week as a debt slave, but do they? Of course not, that’s for you animals. You need to spend your entire youth sitting in a classroom for 8 hours + a day with other degenerate kids being indoctrinated on marxist policies while spending a year to learn curriculum that you could learn within a week if you were home-schooled, but do they? Well of course not, the elite’s kids get to go to private boarding institutions to be amongst their own with a customized curriculum, lots of free time off, and mentoring from the best and brightest educators in the world. Not you, you animal.

  20. We already saw how traitorous female Secret Service agents were right when President Trump took office after his oath. I don’t think more need be said.

  21. Great article, but no mention of the female secret service agent who got bowled over when some guy jumped the fence and ran into the white house?
    “Gonzalez then proceeded to run through the entrance hall to the cross hall of the White House, past the staircase that leads up to the first family’s residence. He was confronted by a female Secret Service agent, who he overpowered, and made it all the way to the East Room..” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fence-jumper-made-it-further-in-white-house-than-secret-service-let-on/

Comments are closed.