Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - G M

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 512
52
A better line of analysis:  Fatherless homes and a family environment that does not value education.

Why didn't Asians jump onto the "Great Society Gravy Train" the same way at the same time?

53
Politics & Religion / "Not one inch to the East"
« on: July 02, 2023, 06:02:33 PM »
The article does not resonate with me either. Russia is the victim?   US is the aggressor?  Not in my view.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between


55
Politics & Religion / Re: Western Civilization
« on: July 02, 2023, 05:14:26 PM »
OMG, ghetto culture is less healthy than WY culture!

Who knew?

Well, initially I was going to use stats from Wakanda, but I can't find a good source.

58
https://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2023/07/paris-beirut-of-europe.html

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/141/866/121/original/082f1b1fee2a8cbb.png



Exactly.


quote author=ccp link=topic=1080.msg160410#msg160410 date=1687522712]
the LEFT of course has totally changed the topic and those on the right have jumped  right in to the trap

ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS

CHANGED TO :

WE NEED TO FIX IMMIGRATION !!!!!   (meaning instead of coming in illegally simply change the laws so they come in legally just the same)

and of course the Redumblicans start chanting the same ..... line

we NEED TO FIX IMMIGRATION

ME -  no you don't just enforce the damn laws already on the books.
[/quote]

60
Politics & Religion / They aren't immigrants
« on: July 02, 2023, 01:02:35 PM »
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/141/866/121/original/082f1b1fee2a8cbb.png



Exactly.


quote author=ccp link=topic=1080.msg160410#msg160410 date=1687522712]
the LEFT of course has totally changed the topic and those on the right have jumped  right in to the trap

ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS

CHANGED TO :

WE NEED TO FIX IMMIGRATION !!!!!   (meaning instead of coming in illegally simply change the laws so they come in legally just the same)

and of course the Redumblicans start chanting the same ..... line

we NEED TO FIX IMMIGRATION

ME -  no you don't just enforce the damn laws already on the books.
[/quote]

63
"Can you explain why Asians score so much better? White supremacy?"

must be legacy of slavery and James Crow!    :wink:

Funny , I didn't recall in my history classes that Asians were part of the white supremacy cabal .

 :wink:

Of course never mentioned is why do Asians kick white supremacists' asses with better grades?

I thought whites have such an incredible advantage .

Using Rev Al's logic should I be asked are we (whites ) just too dumb?

Whites created a system that doesn't allow POC to succeed!

Also:

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/02/income-and-wealth-in-the-united-states-an-overview-of-recent-data


66


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/affirmative-action-was-hurting-black-students/?fbclid=IwAR2fuv6n49wZIFEtwnUNAxwd9nlZgFNCJzkqJRq_T5RkcvKjzA0xvAc_ip0

"But the only reason that Harvard excluded so many perfect-scoring Asian applicants was that they took up places that needed to be kept clear for much lower-scoring black students."

Can you explain why Asians score so much better? White supremacy?

https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/a-plethora-of-evidence-for-genetic

68
"Why won't he discuss Ray Epps and Jayden X? Has he not heard of them? How is that possible?"

Well as far as this article goes, neither of them have anything to do with it.

Concept for your consideration:

That it is possible to be wrong in one thing, and right in others.

So the essential question is, why won't he discuss them? We can reasonably assume he is aware of them.

He wants people like you to still believe that the American Republic still exists.

You are being strung along, as they fortify their position.

69
Dammit GM, please stop farting over every thread with this! 

We know your point.  Indeed in great part we share it-- WHICH IS WHY WE FIGHT NOW.

WE ALREADY KNOW that it may be as you predict, but at least we can look ourselves in the mirror knowing that we did what we could.

Should (y)our fears be realized, , , , well then , , , the Adventure continues , , , albeit in new ways.. 

AND it may be that we WIN.

Win or die. That's the only choice. No one is coming to save us, and anything but focus on that is wasting time and energy.

70
Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races
« on: July 02, 2023, 09:18:28 AM »
The PTB that ended the American Republic in 2020 via soft coup WILL NOT let themselves voluntarily be removed from power.


Good Morning Eeyore.

Yes, unlike the last time around, the GOP will have to have a ground game that includes mass mail balloting and ballot harvesting. 

Yes, the Dems will be playing cheater games.

But failure to fight means failure for sure.

In this you appear to be determined to sit on the sidelines, exerting yourself only to toss snark bombs of discouragement our way.

71
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: USA beats China!
« on: July 01, 2023, 10:07:54 PM »
https://whnt.com/news/u-s-a-beats-china-in-international-mathematical-olympiad-wins-first-place-for-the-first-time-in-21-years/amp/

There seems to be a pattern of some kind here…

https://ausimo.wordpress.com/meet-the-team/

Something about the Australian team reminds me of the US team that beat the Chinese team.

Let's see the Canadian team.

https://cms.math.ca/news-item/six-top-mathletes-selected-for-math-team-canada-2023/

Huh. What sort of pattern are we seeing here?


73
Politics & Religion / Re: Another win for us
« on: July 01, 2023, 09:35:34 PM »
The American Republic was overthrown by the one true branch of government via a "color revolution" soft coup in 2020.
The people responsible will never voluntarily give up power.


Which is precisely why giving up now will guarantee the end of our C'l Republic.

BTW, note this win for us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AAMi6CyI3U&t=24s

75
Why won't he discuss Ray Epps and Jayden X? Has he not heard of them? How is that possible?


Some quality legal analysis here from Deep State Andy!

============================================
Justice Barrett Helps Restore Constitutional Order
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
July 1, 2023 6:30 AM

The justice's concurrence in the student-loan case clarifies the major-questions doctrine and offers a significant rebuttal of Kagan’s dissent.

Among the most significant opinions issued in this week’s final Supreme Court rulings is Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence in the Court’s invalidation of Biden’s student-loan cancellation (Biden v. Nebraska). As a committed textualist, Justice Barrett rightly perceived the imperative of elaborating on the so-called major-questions doctrine, explaining what it does and does not permit in statutory interpretation.

The student-loan decision manifests that the Court’s conservative majority feels the tension between its avowed statutory textualism and its invocation of a doctrine that is claimed to endorse departures from text — or, at least, from the best interpretation of text. Justice Elena Kagan’s searing criticism of the major-questions doctrine as a “get-out-of-text-free card” clearly left a mark.

Justice Kagan, of course, is an administrative-state devotee who acknowledges that the Court has been forever (we hope) changed by the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia’s insistence that nothing in statutory interpretation takes precedence over the words Congress uses in its statutes — a sea change from the 20th-century era of judicial imperialism, when judges presumed a power freely to rewrite laws. Still, Kagan, the Court’s most formidable progressive, is a bureaucratic maximalist: If, read in a vacuum, the text of a statute can plausibly be construed as a delegation by Congress of enormous power to an administrative agency, then the textualist must vindicate that delegation, even if it defies history, common sense, and our Constitution’s vesting in Congress of all legislative power — i.e., the authority to enact major policy.

“But a vacuum is no home for a textualist,” Barrett counters.

Mindful of Kagan’s critique, the Court’s six-justice majority did two important things in the student-loan case.

First, Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion did not rely on the major-questions doctrine to reach the result. Instead, applying an ordinary textual analysis, Roberts concluded that, in the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003, Congress had not delegated to the secretary of education the power to massively cancel student-loan debt.

The HEROES Act, which was enacted in the post-9/11 War on Terror era, predominantly for the benefit of military personnel, authorized the Education Department to forgive the student loans of narrow categories of borrowers (e.g., those who’d been killed, become permanently disabled, or gone bankrupt). The act empowers the DOE to “waive or modify” loans as the “Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency” (emphasis added).

Based on this text, President Biden deemed the Covid-19 pandemic a national emergency. He thus directed the secretary to cancel nearly half a trillion dollars in student-loan debt for millions of students. Not students who had served in the military, but virtually any students whose “hardship” is that they don’t want to repay money they borrowed for education they received (education that places them in higher potential-earnings strata even if it is not, in many instances, as valuable as they’d hoped).

Had the Court opted to decide the case based on the major-questions doctrine, it could easily have concluded that, in enacting a wartime relief provision tailored to a particular category of Americans (e.g., military personnel) who bore the hellacious costs of wartime operations, Congress was obviously not conferring on the education secretary the power to wreak economic havoc based on a medical emergency nearly two decades later — one that, though real, was nothing like a war, and whose victims were nothing like wartime casualties. Indeed, contrary to the HEROES Act, there is no real causal link in Biden’s boondoggle between the disaster cited and harms addressed. Instead, college students are a voting bloc of importance to Democrats, so progressives were scheming long before Covid to reward them with debt forgiveness and deviously used the pandemic as a pretext to do so.

But Roberts did not base the Court’s ruling on the major-questions doctrine. He based it on straightforward statutory construction. The Biden administration’s interpretation of the words “modify” and “waive” was untenable; the ordinary meaning of the words enable modest adjustments, not a wholesale transformation, of financial arrangements. Biden’s agency was not merely “waiving” loans; he was rewriting the Education Act.

The Court relied on the major-questions doctrine not to decide the case but to offer additional support for its decision. In particular, it used the doctrine to refute the Biden administration’s claim that it was Congress’s purpose, in the HEROES Act, to grant the education secretary sweeping discretion to address “unforeseen emergencies.” Relying on its decision last year in West Virginia v. EPA, and in light of the history and scope of the HEROES Act and the “economic and political significance” of a $430 billion loan cancellation, the Court concluded that it had great reason to doubt that Congress meant to confer such extraordinary authority on the Education Department.

All well and good. Nevertheless, the majority’s reasoning obviously invited Kagan to reassert her indictment of the major-questions doctrine. As expected, she zeroed in on the rule apparently derived from it that Congress must posit a “clear statement” of authority granted to an administrative agency. The majority’s claim to rely on routine statutory interpretation, she contends, is a smoke screen since, as she sees it, the words “modify,” “waiver,” and “national emergency” can plausibly be read to do exactly what the Biden administration has done. Ergo, Roberts is deciding the case based on the major-questions doctrine without saying so. She depicts the majority as textualists who recoil from text if they don’t like the policy outcome.

That brings us to the majority’s second gambit: Justice Barrett’s defense of the major-questions doctrine as applied textualism.

Barrett’s concurrence is a significant rebuttal to Kagan. Much as her mentor, Justice Scalia, rejected the label “strict constructionist,” Barrett emphasizes that a textualist is not a literalist. The major-questions doctrine, she explains, is not a license to flee from text. To the contrary, it stresses “the importance of context” (emphasis in original), providing “a tool for discerning — not departing from — the text’s most natural interpretation.”

Barrett’s contention is powerful because she takes Kagan’s critique as a serious challenge that calls for a serious answer. Canons of construction have been developed through centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Consequently, they are reasonably seen as a component of the judicial power that is vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution, as well as in the lower federal courts that Congress has established. But that’s not the end of the story. Some canons of construction can have the effect of nullifying congressional statutes — a constitutional problem.

For example, courts follow a canon of constitutional avoidance, which instructs that, if possible, judges should construe statutes in a manner that circumvents any question of constitutionality. This can crash into textualism, which admonishes that the best interpretation of a statute is the ordinary meaning of its text as understood at the time of enactment. That is, under the constitutional-avoidance canon, a judge will give a statute a less plausible meaning — though still one within the ballpark of what the text allows — if doing so is necessary to avoid a meaning that would call the statute’s constitutionality into question. That sounds sensible, but it is constitutionally fraught: By this avoidance doctrine, the Court elevates a judicial interest in dodging controversy over Congress’s undeniable Article I power to write the laws.

Barrett concedes that these canons, described as “strong-form,” can pose “a lot of trouble” for “the honest textualist” (as Scalia put it). Even though deeply rooted, they arguably exceed the judicial power. In light of that concern, Barrett rightly believes that courts should avoid the creation of new strong-form canons. Nevertheless, she concludes that the major-questions doctrine is essentially a rule of context-driven common sense — one that “is neither new nor a strong-form canon.” The doctrine doesn’t change the words that Congress has used, much less instruct courts to give the words an interpretation that is less plausible than their ordinary meaning. Indeed, it does the opposite: It derives the best interpretation of the words based on the circumstances of their enactment — based on their context.

Many things inform context, though those things can never rationalize slipping the tether of text. Statutory provisions are usually components of broader enactments that, literally and historically, can inform what the provisions mean (e.g., it should matter that the HEROES Act was obviously meant to benefit soldiers in wartime). Sometimes, a statute employs a term of art borrowed from other legal sources; such a term is understood to “bring the old soil with it.” Some laws are written into well-developed fields and are thus understood to be infused by that field’s assumptions (e.g., criminal statutes are presumed to require proof of criminal intent even if their terms are imprecise on this point). Similarly, Barrett says, the role of common sense in informing context “goes without saying.”

She gives us some examples. If a grocer tells his clerk to “go to the orchard and buy apples for the store,” that is plainly not as unqualified a directive as it sounds. If the clerk knows that the grocer keeps the shelves stocked with about 200 apples but takes the liberty of buying 1,000, then the clerk has overstepped — the purchase is so far beyond what the agent knew was customary that we must assume the principal would have said, “Get a thousand apples,” if that’s what the principal wanted.

Barrett also conjures up a hypothetical parent who hires a babysitter to watch her young children for the weekend. As she leaves, the mother hands the sitter a credit card and says, “Make sure the kids have fun.” Is it reasonable to believe that such an instruction authorized the sitter to “take the kids on a road trip to an amusement park where they spend two days on rollercoasters and one night in a hotel”? Of course not. A trip to the movies or an ice-cream parlor would make sense, sure. But “if a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”

Think of this hypothetical instruction as a statute. It’s not that Congress didn’t use the words, “Make sure the kids have fun.” It’s that the judicial task is to construe what those words meant. That is not sensibly done in isolation, as if the task were merely to look up fun in the dictionary. Context is vital. The dictionary meaning of the text’s words is significant, of course, but that must be taken in conjunction with the all-important circumstances in which the words were uttered.

The administrative state’s turbochargers reject such limitations. If the word “waiver” can be understood in a literal, maximalist way to erase half a trillion dollars, then the secretary of education has that power, with no input from the branch of government vested with the Constitution’s power to tax, spend, and manage debt. In Justice Kagan’s construct, the only question is why the sitter only spent two days at the amusement park. After all, fun is fun, right?

But that’s not rational.

A court may not resort to the major-questions doctrine to rewrite or supplant text. The point of the doctrine is to bring rationality to text by accounting for context. That invariably includes recognizing the place of administrative agencies in our constitutional order. Barrett is not claiming that Congress may not delegate significant authority to bureaucrats. She is maintaining, however, that in our system, Congress is given the power to write laws: a power of such major consequence that the president must sign those enactments before they become law. By contrast, the agencies Congress has created are trusted only with the day-to-day administration of those laws, cabined by what the laws’ textual terms were understood to mean when enacted.

It is the task of the Court to interpret that meaning. When multiple interpretations are plausible, the best one is not necessarily found in the dictionary but in the circumstances that gave rise to the statute.

By Justice Kagan’s lights, the administrative state is a progressive overhaul of our constitutional framework, in which unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats stretch text to — and beyond — the breaking point on the theory that good governance is rule by experts.

The Court’s majority is bent on restoring constitutional order. As Justice Barrett demonstrates, the major-questions doctrine is not, pace Kagan, an artifice by which the Court departs from congressional text to impose its own policy preferences. It is a commonsense tool by which the Court gives contextually accurate meaning to the text Congress enacted.

77
"in case you have not noticed, we have had some rather big wins of late , , ,"

thank God we voted hard enough to get Trump in '16 and because of that 3 strict interpreters on the SCOTUS !   it pays to vote hard at a Federal level  :-D 8-) :wink:

We CAN do it again!

Trump wasn’t supposed to happen.

2020 is the template going forward.

As far as the wins, the article makes it clear that they won’t rest until the wins are overturned.

78
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education
« on: July 01, 2023, 07:48:11 AM »
My point exactly.

This is what happens to children raised the right way.  IQ develops.

 :roll:

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?

What's the average in the overall population? S. Korea was much poorer than many 3rd world countries in Africa and Latin America just a few generations ago. Are they just lucky then?

Nigeria will have a space program when China builds one there.



79
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education
« on: July 01, 2023, 07:32:25 AM »
Behavior/Culture/Parenting etc. have huge impact, for good or bad.  Witness the performance of Nigerians here in America.  If I have my data right, they outperform whites.

Not necessary to go for the racist model.

https://businessday.ng/news/article/us-closes-easy-admission-path-for-rich-nigerians-others-into-elite-universities/

The children of the Nigerian wealthy and powerful that are being sent to US schools are probably at the upper levels of IQ you'd find in that population, yes?

80
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Education
« on: July 01, 2023, 07:26:14 AM »
Behavior/Culture/Parenting etc. have huge impact, for good or bad.  Witness the performance of Nigerians here in America.  If I have my data right, they outperform whites.

Not necessary to go for the racist model.

https://www.takimag.com/article/mind-the-gap/

Group differences in IQ is very real, no matter how much you might want to deny it.

81
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/07/01/florida-issues-statewide-emergency-malaria-alert/

I wonder how that happened...

"CCP has weaponized Dengue and drones to dispense mosquitos. Panamanians here are now overrun with Malaria at levels they never saw until the invasion through Darien."

 :x

but we have Biden Myorkas and Harris and the Silicon shit hole.

so nothing is done of course

the border wide open
and not stating 10,000 per day will flood the US very soon
as title 42 ends May 11

yet all we hear about is Clarence Thomas
and racial themes and gay themes all day and night on MSM

 :x

82
Politics & Religion / Ray Epps, Jayden X and Andy McCarthy
« on: July 01, 2023, 07:00:11 AM »
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/jayden-x-who-planned-terriotest-attack-state-capitols/

He will explain why they are free as birds, anytime now!


Right?

83
You can only have a constitutional republic/first world standard of living when you have an educated population with an IQ that averages around 100 or more.

"If you don't have the freedom of association, then do any of the other freedoms even matter?"

Christopher Caldwell has a book that dives deep into the tensions between anti-discrimination laws and the freedom of association.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Entitlement:_America_Since_the_Sixties

84
As much as I despise Randi Weingarten, group IQ and behavior are real.


Randi Weingarten and Racial Disparities in Education
She wants racial preferences to hide the failure of union schools.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
June 30, 2023 7:28 pm ET




250

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(2 min)


image
American Federation of Teachers Chief Randi Weingarten PHOTO: JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES
Randi Weingarten isn’t known for self-awareness. Right on cue this week the teachers union chief denounced the Supreme Court’s ruling on racial preferences without so much as a bow to her own role in creating racial disparities.

“This decision ignores the original sin of this country—it’s a throwback to a cruel, racist past that admissions policies like this tried to repair,” the American Federation of Teachers chief said. Has she read the briefs by teachers unions in the case?

The briefs admit that colleges use racial preferences to increase enrollment of minority students who are often less academically qualified because they’ve been trapped in rotten public schools. “Our schools, from K-12 to higher education, still struggle to provide equitable opportunities for students of color,” the National Education Association lamented in its brief.

But why is that? Because the unions fight educational choice for minorities and protect bad teachers in low-income schools from accountability. Teachers usually receive tenure protection after two to three years. After that, school districts must spend inordinate time and money to remove them. Instead, they are typically rotated around poor, mostly minority schools in what’s known as the “dance of the lemons.”

Former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent John Deasy testified in a lawsuit brought by minority students last decade that it can take 10 years and $250,000 to $450,000 to fire a lousy teacher. Fewer than 0.002% of teachers in California were dismissed for unprofessional conduct or poor performance.

A single year with a grossly ineffective teacher can cost a classroom of students $1.4 million in lifetime earnings. Less experienced teachers are more likely to be assigned to schools in lower-income neighborhoods. Yet these schools can’t recruit higher-performing teachers by offering higher pay since labor contracts base salaries on experience.

The unions more than anyone else are responsible for racial differences in education. College racial preferences try to paper over those disparities while easing political pressure for education reform. Ms. Weingarten can’t admit this because she’d indict her life’s work.

87
Should we lose in the courts then that question will be presented.

The courts are corrupt. Filled with judges that are leftist activists in black robes.

88
Politics & Religion / When the music stops
« on: June 30, 2023, 08:27:40 PM »


https://greyenigma.wordpress.com/your-on-your-own/when-the-music-stops/

A post I made today on the DBMA Assn forum after posting GM's post there:

==========================================================================

France is France and America is America, but ask yourself how close are we to similar breakdown in social order?

This is "Cranky crowds of scurrilous scum" and "Packs of Jackals".   Would you be glad to have Chupacabra skills?

The guys you see firing off auto fire may be Algerian or Morrocan descent, and in America they might be Cartels/Gangbangers/ghetto thugs. The underlying reality is the same.

How ready are you to protect our land, women, and children?

We saw the many months of Antifa-BLM riots in 2020.  Might the same dynamic happen again as we approach 2024 with one party trying to put the likely opposing candidate in jail for life?  Due to tectonic plate shifts in the geopolitical order might there be disruption to food supply?  to electricity? to internet?  to your bank account?

How ready are you?  What are you doing to up your game?  How would you do if you and your family were caught in the sort of disorder we see above?

DBMA is about "Walking as Warriors for All Our Days".

We are here for you.

PG Crafty

90
Better to beat them in the courts before it comes to that and that means being able to articulate sound Natural Law Second and Ninth Amendment theory.

The courts are corrupt, as is the federal government.

Think you can disarm us?

One way to find out.

https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/image0000045.jpg




91
Better to beat them in the courts before it comes to that and that means being able to articulate sound Natural Law Second and Ninth Amendment theory.

The courts are corrupt, as is the federal government.

Think you can disarm us?

One way to find out.

92
Good to know what the arguments on the other side are so that one will not wind up like Hannity whiffing at Newsom.

Bottom line: Want them? Come and get them.

The would-be confiscators all have names and addresses.

The founders were very clear in their intent. It wasn't about deer and duck hunting.

97
Politics & Religion / Why isn't Foxweiser covering this?
« on: June 30, 2023, 10:22:48 AM »
Armchair Warlord
@ArmchairW
Imagine the reaction if this was a map of Moscow.

Meanwhile, looking at the FoxNews front page - even clicking through to the global section - I can't find a single story on the deadly, nationwide riots gripping France.

They're still talking about Wagner!



https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/141/707/105/original/61738b8ea0e5b6c9.png

98
Politics & Religion / Re: Western Civilization
« on: June 30, 2023, 10:07:47 AM »
Thought you might like that one.

Forgive me the tease, but I can't resist:

Shapiro is one intelligent and thoughtful Jew.  :wink:

Agreed.

100
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=852,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/141/715/910/original/58a7bba1ce04fc3c.jpg





The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Children to Join
Pentagon scrambles to retain the main pipeline for new service members as disillusioned families steer young people away
WALL STREET JOURNAL
By Ben KeslingFollow
June 30, 2023 12:01 am ET


Sky Nisperos’s grandfather came to the U.S. from Mexico, and became an American citizen by serving in the U.S. Navy. Her father, Ernest Nisperos, is an active-duty officer in the Air Force with two decades of service. For years, Sky planned to follow a similar path.

“I wanted to be a fighter pilot,” the 22-year-old said. “It was stuck in my head.”

Now, one of the most influential people in her life—her father—is telling her that a military career may not be the right thing.

The children of military families make up the majority of new recruits in the U.S. military. That pipeline is now under threat, which is bad news for the Pentagon’s already acute recruitment problems, as well as America’s military readiness. 

“Influencers are not telling them to go into the military,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview. “Moms and dads, uncles, coaches and pastors don’t see it as a good choice.”

After the patriotic boost to recruiting that followed 9/11, the U.S. military has endured 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan with no decisive victories, scandals over shoddy military housing and healthcare, poor pay for lower ranks that forces many military families to turn to food stamps, and rising rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide.

At the same time, the labor market is the tightest it has been in decades, meaning plenty of other options exist for young people right out of school.


U.S. recruiting shortfalls represent a long-term problem that, if not resolved, would compel the military to reduce its force size. With America embarking on a new era of great-power competition with China and Russia, that problem has become more serious.


China, which has around two million serving personnel, versus a little under 1.4 million in the U.S., has steadily expanded its military capabilities in recent decades, especially in the South China Sea. The most immediate threat is a possible conflict with China over Taiwan, which would require a rapid and sustained response from all parts of the U.S. armed forces.

“I’ve been studying the recruiting market for about 15 years, and we’ve never seen a condition quite like this,” said a senior Defense Department official.

Toughest year

The U.S. Army in 2022 had its toughest recruiting year since the advent of the all-volunteer military in 1973 and missed its goal by 25%. This year, it expects to end up about 15,000 short of its target of 65,000 recruits.

The Navy expects to fall short by as many as 10,000 of its goal of nearly 38,000 recruits this year, and the Air Force has said it is anticipating coming in at 3,000 below its goal of nearly 27,000. The Marine Corps met its target last year of sending 33,000 to boot camp, and expects to meet its goals this year, but its leaders described recruitment as challenging.


Only 9% of young people ages 16-21 said last year they would consider military service, down from 13% before the pandemic, according to Pentagon data. 

Pentagon officials see recruitment shortfalls as a crisis and pledge to hit their targets in the future to stave off making changes to the force structure.

Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said she expects within weeks to begin drafting a proposal for a recruiting overhaul so sweeping that Congress might need to pass legislation to enact all of it.

She declined to provide details but said a key element will be to coordinate with veterans’ groups. “Right now we are not in a comprehensive, structured way leveraging our relationships with veterans organizations,” Wormuth said.

The Army has stepped up and modernized its marketing, launched remedial courses to bring unqualified young people to a level where they can join and revised some benefits.


Army recruiters spoke with members of the National FFA Organization, formerly called Future Farmers of America, at an FFA convention in Indianapolis, Ind., in October. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Defense officials said they aren’t doing a good job of battling what they call misperceptions. They said many families want their children to go on to higher education after high school, considering the military a stumbling block instead of a steppingstone. Once a young person is on a path to a career, they aren’t as likely to put on a uniform, they said.

When the draft ended at the close of the Vietnam War, the military fostered recruitment with the promise of a good career with retirement benefits and healthcare, as well as education benefits to prepare soldiers for life after the military. That strategy worked, and the Army typically met its overall needs.

It did so by relying heavily on veterans and military families to develop the next generation of recruits, especially in the region known in the military as the “Southern Smile,” a curving region from the mid-Atlantic and down across the southern U.S.


Today, nearly 80% of all new Army recruits have a family member who has served in uniform, according to the service. That can be a good thing, said Col. Mark Crow, director of the Office of Economic and Manpower Analysis at West Point, because “people who know the most about it stick around.”

Depending too much on military families could create a “warrior caste,” Wormuth said. Her plans seek to draw in people who have no real connection to the military and to broaden the appeal of service.

THE NEW ERA OF GREAT POWER CONFLICT
The U.S. Is Not Yet Ready
How Beijing Boxed America Out of the South China Sea
Why Is America Still Flying the A-10 Warthog, a Cold War Relic?
The U.S. Military Relies on One Louisiana Factory. It Blew Up.

Sky Nisperos, who moved around the world as a military brat, said that as a teen she began to see the effect of her father’s nearly dozen deployments and tours away from his family. Ernest Nisperos said he remembers being asleep when one of his kids jabbed him in the ribs to wake him. He put Sky’s sister in a wrestling ankle lock before he realized he was back home.

“My sister and I would say, ‘It’s just drill sergeant-dad mode,’ especially for the month he came back,” Sky said.

Ernest Nisperos realized his deployments, which involved battle planning and top secret intelligence, were taking a toll. In 2019, after he returned from Afghanistan, he took the family to Disneyland. During the nightly fireworks extravaganza, he cowered in the fetal position while his family and “Toy Story” characters looked on.

Sky worried her father would end up like her grandfather, the military patriarch, who in the years since he retired from the Navy started to have what the family describes as flashbacks to his time in Ramadi, Iraq, in 2005, sometimes yelling that he needed to take cover from a nonexistent attack.

Her father decided he didn’t want that life for Sky and her two siblings.

‘What was it all for?’

Some on the left see the military as a redoubt of fringe conservatism. Oath Keepers, the militia group involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol whose leaders were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, and other extremists have touted their veteran credentials. Those on the right have expressed concerns about the military focusing on progressive issues, or in the terms of some Republican lawmakers, being too “woke.”

The sudden and unpopular conclusion to the war in Afghanistan in 2021 added to the disenchantment of some veterans, including Catalina Gasper, who served in the Navy. Gasper said she and her husband, who spent more than two decades in the Army, used to talk to their boys, now 7 and 10, about their future service, asking them if they wanted to be Navy SEALs.

In July 2019, on her last combat deployment to Afghanistan, she was stationed at a base in Kabul when the Taliban launched an attack. The blast battered Gasper’s body and she was transported back to the U.S. for treatment and recovery.

She was left with lingering damage from a traumatic brain injury. She is sensitive to loud sounds and bright lights. She has recurrent dizziness and forgets words. She also has bad knees and herniated discs in her back.

The U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, precipitating Kabul’s fall to the Taliban. “We’re left with the gut-wrenching feeling of, ‘What was it all for?’ ” she said.

She said she was a patriot but decided she would do everything she could to make sure her kids never enter the military. “I just don’t see how it’s sustainable if the machine keeps chewing up and spitting out” our young people, she said.

Katherine Kuzminski, head of the Military, Veterans and Society Program at Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan security think tank, said the pandemic exacerbated the military’s long-term recruiting problems. “You can’t underestimate the fact we didn’t have recruiters on college and high school campuses for two years,” she said. “Recruiters are the only military access point for many people” without family or friends in the military.


Potential Army recruits at the FFA convention used virtual reality headsets. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Wormuth, the Army secretary, said she is working with the Department of Education to streamline access to schools. Even with federal laws in place that guarantee military recruiters access to high school and college students, school administrators can limit the scope of visits and restrict recruiters’ movements and activities in schools.

Recruiters are competing with some of the lowest unemployment numbers in decades, and entry-level jobs in the service industry that can promise quick paychecks, no commitments and no wait times to start.

“To be honest with you it’s Wendy’s, it’s Carl’s Jr., it’s every single job that a young person can go up against because now they are offering the same incentives that we are offering, so that’s our competition right now,” said Sgt. Maj. Marco Irenze, of the Nevada Army National Guard.

Defense officials said the military pay scale was designed for single teenage men content to live in barracks and who joined to seek adventure, among other reasons. But the military has seen a shift from teens to people in their 20s, who come in later in life with greater expectations for benefits, pay and marketable skills and who pay more attention to the job market.


The lowest-ranking troops make less than $2,000 a month, although pay is bolstered by benefits including healthcare, food and housing, leaving them few out-of-pocket expenses.

Families or those who live off base can find expenses outstrip income. More than 20,000 active-duty troops are on SNAP benefits, otherwise known as food stamps, according to federal data. 

When service members move to a new base they often have to spend money out of pocket—even though the Army is supposed to cover all costs, according to Kathy Roth-Douquet, CEO of Blue Star Families, a military-family advocacy group that is currently asking Congress to mandate more funding for troops’ housing.

“If it’s too expensive to serve in the military, families won’t recommend service,” she said. “This hurts the main pipeline of recruitment.”

The promise of a pension down the line isn’t as attractive as it once was, said West Point’s Crow. Only 19% of active-duty troops stayed until retirement age in 2017, according to the Pentagon. To tackle that problem, the military started a system in 2018 that allows troops to invest in what is essentially a 401(k) program, so if they leave the military before full retirement they can still benefit.

Prep courses
The Department of Defense said 77% of American youth are disqualified from military service due to a lack of physical fitness, low test scores, criminal records including drug use or other problems. In 2013, about 71% of youth were ineligible.

The Army estimates that pandemic pressures on education including remote learning, illness, lack of internet access and social isolation lowered scores on the ASVAB, the military’s standardized test for potential recruits, by as much as 9%. Those who score below a certain level on the test and on physical readiness tests can’t join without improving their scores.

Lt. Col. Dan Hayes, a Green Beret who once taught Special Forces captains, some of the highest-performing soldiers in the Army, took charge of the Future Soldier Prep Course in Fort Jackson, S.C. The course takes Army recruits who can’t perform academically or physically and gets them up to standards that allow them to join the service. Other programs help new soldiers raise scores.

“We’re looking at the problems in society and recruiting and realizing we have to meet people half way,” said Hayes.

The Army is adapting marketing techniques from the private sector. One early lesson: The Cold War-era slogan, “Be All You Can Be,” performed better than a recent one, “Army of One,” which didn’t reflect the teamwork the service thinks appeals to current teenagers. The slogan also emphasizes that the military offers career development and a broader sense of purpose, some of its strongest selling points.

Maj. Gen. Deborah Kotulich, the director of the Army’s recruiting and retention task force, a unit convened to address recent shortfalls, said potential recruits should know the Army has more than 150 different job fields available. 

Maj. General Alex Fink is just as likely to wear a business suit as camouflage fatigues at the Army Enterprise Marketing Office based in Chicago. The Army put Fink, a reservist with a marketing background, in Chicago so he can be in the heart of one of the nation’s advertising and marketing hubs.

“It hadn’t evolved for the last 15 or 20 years,” he said in an interview. “We really couldn’t measure the effectiveness of marketing.”

Fink’s office is now gathering data on every potential recruit. If an Army ad runs on Facebook and a link gets clicked, the service can follow that anonymous user digitally.

“We don’t know your name, but we can start serving you ads,” he said.

And if that user eventually fills out an Army questionnaire, the service has a name to go with that data and can know what kinds of ads work best. “Literally we can track this all the way until a kid signs a contract,” he said.

Restructuring units
Deeper problems soldiers report include moldy barracks, harassment, lack of adequate child care and not enough support for mental health issues such as suicide.

“Parents have concerns about, hey, if my kid joins the military are they going to have good places to live?” Wormuth said. “If my kid joins the military are they going to be sexually harassed, or are they going to be more prone to suicidal ideations?”

She said the Army has encouraged recruiters to be forthright about addressing what might have once been taboo issues in order to dispel those concerns. The service says it has worked to encourage troops to report abuse and harassment and cracked down on such behavior, and has also expanded parental-leave benefits.

Department of Defense officials have said they will have to address the total combat power of the military if the recruiting crisis continues, but that they aren’t ready to yet talk about whether strength will ultimately be affected.


Readiness shortfalls can be masked when units aren’t headed into war, but a full-scale response, such as what would be needed in the Pacific, could expose undermanned units that can’t be deployed or aren’t effective, and ships and aircraft that aren’t combat ready due to a lack of personnel to maintain them.

The military faces decisions on either cutting the size of units or reconfiguring them, or making choices that could hurt the quality of the current forces.

Working to retain existing soldiers is an option. But retention can mean low performers aren’t let go, said Gil Barndollar, a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at Catholic University of America. “If you’re not cutting your bottom 10% after their initial contracts it’s going to have a long-term effect on high performers,” he said.

Last year, the Army’s top officer, Gen. James McConville, told reporters the service was prepared to eliminate redundancies in the Army’s key fighting units, which are called brigade combat teams. The Army would maintain the number of the units by reducing the personnel in each of them, a restructuring that was prompted by the recruiting crunch, according to one defense official.


Potential recruits at the FFA convention tried a fitness challenge. PHOTO: KAITI SULLIVAN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, said the Army might end up making cuts that leave too few soldiers in platoons and other units. During peacetime and training this may go unnoticed, but if those units have to deploy, the Army would have to take troops from other units to fill in gaps.

Undermanned units aren’t ready to respond quickly, Cancian said, and units with fill-in soldiers don’t have the same effectiveness as a unit whose members trained together for months or years. “What you’re going to see in the Army are hollow units,” he said.

Wormuth, the Army secretary, has said units will get cuts but hasn’t made public her plan. She has for months hinted at broader force reductions.

“If you look at us over the course of the last 50 years of history, the Army is a little bit like an accordion. We tend to expand in times of war,” Wormuth said. “Frankly that’s how the Founding Fathers thought about the military, they didn’t want a large standing militia.”

Still, she said, the Army is “very, very focused” on turning around the recruiting numbers.

Changes may come too late for those about to graduate from high school or college. Sky Nisperos, who once dreamed of becoming an Air Force pilot, graduated from the University of Oklahoma in May. Her plan now, she said, is to become a graphic designer.

Michael R. Gordon contributed to this article.

Design by Andrew Levinson.

Write to Ben Kesling at ben.kesling@wsj.com

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 512