Sunday, September 3, 2017

Why are not the liberals who establish a 50% quota for women for secret service agents and Bodyguards?

Kind social experiences in the military are conducted at an alarming rate,
but the protection of senior US politicians is left & # 8211; surprise,
surprise & # 8211; almost exclusively to men. Although the national
security of Western countries is gradually dismantled by an influx of
military recruits few women qualified persons responsible for directly keep
the evil liberals s way are almost universally male Secret Service agents
and other guards sex body male.
Hillary Clinton, for example, really, really didn t like the idea of ​​
having other members of the sorority protection during his presidential
race 2016:

Unless these very male in search of the secret service agents identify in
some way that women and incorporate a kind of women's quota for recruits.

At least we know that half of the Clinton political machine doesn t support
gender quotas for Secret Service agents.
Alas, senior politicians benefit from the security that the rest of us are
increasingly denied & # 8211; Armed guards physically and mentally
competent, who are almost always men. For all SJW about calling patriarchy
and gender bias, SJW senators and House members, or simply pandering SJWs
in Congress are quite happy to outsource their personal 24/7 security to
men, much, and even deliberately excluding women.
The two best examples of this hypocrisy are the respective uses of the US
Secret Service and police from United States Capitol. The last body is one
of the few law enforcement agencies directly under the control of a
legislature rather than the executive arm of government. However, the
overwhelming majority of frontline Secret Service agents and police from
the United States Capitol heavily armed, are men. No transgender political
or military-oriented women orchestrated by the Obama administration appears
to have made their way into the secret services or emergency response arm
of the Capitol Police.
When common sense returns briefly & # 8211, but for very selfish reasons
When their own asses are online, liberal politicians opt for men to protect
them.
Of course, it all makes perfect sense. Physically women and men
(unimpressive) are a clear responsibility in situations requiring the
protection of government institutions, people or simply be vulnerable, as
shown in the case of a Muslim terrorist who easily disarmed a woman soldier
in Paris busy Orly airport earlier this year.
But for us, the simple common people, our local police officers do not even
have to pass basic fitness tests so we can be protected by them, because
the company needs more women police officers ([ 1] [2]).
Similarly, potential female members of the US Marine Corps currently enjoy
white-knighting of a lifetime courtesy physical standards woefully relaxed,
allowing them to be withheld and paid to the kind of poor conditioning that
would see the male recruits thrown from the army. Even more alarming, this
adoration American and Western wider positive action gender is also that
China knows its unprecedented growth as a global military power.
The only time when all the madness of gender diversity is taking a
permanent vacation
Here is a photograph showing the police the response of United States
Capitol when a woman morotist obviously unstable tried to attack one of
their checkpoints, the checkpoints to protect 550 congressmen of death or
serious injury:

Where are all the women running at full speed and carrying heavy automatic
weapons and semi-automatic? Between early 2007 and early 2011, the
Democrats, whose leaders included the windbag ultra SJW and the House of
Representatives Nancy Pelosi, had all the time in the world to take a stand
for gender equality & # 8221; and mandate a quota of 50% for frontline
policing Capitol of the United States. They had control of Congress, let's
remember. Yet they did nothing.
If equal representation of women are not good enough for the agencies
responsible for the protection of politicians, equal representation (or
anything similar) for such vital institutions as the US military is too
unacceptable. The heavy division of labor in the secret services and the
police of the United States Capitol also mask the very high proportion of
men putting themselves literally on the liberal line, sex-obsessed
politicians experience.
clerical and other civilian uniformed roles give the appearance of a female
labor much when, in fact, very few women will ever face any prospect of
taking a bullet for their boss. Example: 90% of the Secret Service agents
are men, and agents through the exhibition of the Board of great diversity
(pardon the pun) in the particular hazards of their job role.
Only by increasing ridiculously financing their own protection may liberal
politicians pretend gender equality & # 8221; in the secret services and
the Capitol Police
Nancy Pelosi and patriarchy.
The Congress dominated by Republicans recently raised the prospect of an
increase in police funding of United States Capitol, but the Democrats have
done the same thing in the past. This is probably the only way that the
liberal politicians and SJW could make a kind of gender equality in the odd
secret service or the Capitol Police. Instead of a half-dozen agents or
uniformed officers standing with them, a particular person may be given a
dozen.
Whether they choose to ignore the issue altogether or thinking dishonest
ways to promote gender equality & # 8221; regarding their own protection,
politicians from left always to ensure themselves the kind of physical
security as the rest of us could only dream of.
We the public will have the perverse kind of experiences that put us in
danger more, whether the violence of gang banger or military adversary
abroad like China, while the Liberals can top sleep peacefully with the
knowledge that they will always be protected by public funds & # 8211; and
by men.
Read more: The Australian Army which establish a 70% female quota for new
recruits

No comments: