The First Gay President wants to make male Marines wear girly hats.

The First Gay President wants to make our Marines wear girly hats.

From the NYPOST:

Obama wants Marines to wear ‘girly’ hats
By Jeane MacIntoshOctober

A change to the Marine Corps’ uniform hats could take the hard-nosed Leathernecks from the Halls of Montezuma to the shops of Christopher Street.
Thanks to a plan by President Obama to create a “unisex” look for the Corps, officials are on the verge of swapping out the Marines’ iconic caps – known as “covers” — with a new version that some have derided as so “girly” that they would make the French blush.
“We don’t even have enough funding to buy bullets, and the DoD is pushing to spend $8 million on covers that look like women’s hats!” one senior Marine source fumed to The Post. “The Marines deserve better. It makes them look ridiculous.”
The thin new covers have a feminine line that some officials think would make them look just as good on female marines as on males — in keeping with the Obama directive.
“The Marine Corps is being ‘encouraged’ by DoD to standardize on a unisex/universal dress and service cap,” Marine brass noted in an internal memo obtained by The Post.


And don’t gimme that B as in B, S as in S, about the “Dan Daly” look. This new cover for men is creepy.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, Liberals, Pò sì jiù, You must be joking! and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. vandalia says:

    Yes, and there are internet stories that Pope Benedict issued secret instructions mandating that all abuse allegations against Catholic clergy be kept absolutely secret…

    This story has been entirely “debunked” by the Marines

    Do you also believe the Moon landings were faked?

  2. Juergensen says:

    This is part of the creeping sodomite agenda to turn boys into girls and girls into boys, to prep them for the eventual sodomite takeover of the West, when it will be illegal to be anything but a homosexual, with the exception of those heterosexuals necessary to reproduce babies to be served up to the homosexuals. Of course, once human reproduction outside the womb is perfected, even these heterosexuals will perish.

  3. John UK says:

    I don’t recommend telling the French Foreign Legion that their kepis look “girlie”

    Kind regards,

  4. S. Murphy says:

    Here’s the Marine Corps Times story:

    and a related story about wear-testing ‘unisex’ dress blues:

    The current women’s dress blues cover, by the way, looks like a marshmallow. I really won’t cry if they change it. The men’s is fine the way it is. The ideology that says there’s no such thing as men or women is a whole ‘nother thing, and there are activists and congresscritters pushing it.

    The real agenda is some kind of false ‘parity’ in the number of women who reach flag rank. In order to do that, female lieutenants need the opportunity to be infantry platoon commanders, and female captains need the opportunity to be infantry company commanders, and so forth – or so the thinking goes. If it was enough to simply allow those natural-born world crossfit champions among us the opportunity to show what they can do by letting them be grunts, it would be one thing; but when bureaucratic laziness meets political pressure to put bodies in boatspaces, under an ideological commitment to the notion that women are really men, some of the wrong bodies are going to be put in those infantry boatspaces, and the result is lieutenant Suzy Q’s opportunity to maybe grow up to command an infantry battalion, a Regiment, a MEU, a Division, and maybe even become CMC is going to cost male and female lance corporals their lives.

    So, no, the proposed uniform changes aren’t a plot by the Obama White House to emasculate male Marines, but the ‘genderless military’ ideology, alas, really exists.

  5. Austin Catholics says:

    How naive is the New York Post to think the White House is getting involved in details of Marine uniforms?

  6. Bosco says:

    @John UK,
    “I don’t recommend telling the French Foreign Legion that their kepis look “girlie””
    It’s all a cultural thing innit?
    Maybe you’d see no problem with Marines wearing kilts? Don’t tell the Scottish clansmen…etc.

  7. disco says:

    Do you think that if the new covers are adopted, perhaps Marines attached to the older more traditional form of headdress will be afforded the opportunity to fulfill their legitimate aspirations and be allowed to wear the older hat with the permission of their unit commander?

    Do you think that perhaps even in the future a more traditionally minded commander in chief might allow even lowly platoon commanders to grant their charges permission to wear the old cover, now called the extraordinary form of the USMC service cap?

  8. DisturbedMary says:

    The thinking is that any show of gender compromises somebody’s rights. Neutering Marines is a big win for the world in its war on men and particulary fatherhood. But some in our Church also take offense at anything hard-wired male. They change words on the fly. “I will make you fishers of people “. Do they know they are useful idiots? Let’s pray brethren.

  9. markomalley says:

    Whew! I sure am relieved to hear that this is yet another isolated incident to be added to the ever-growing catalogue of isolated incidents plaguing this administration.

  10. msc says:

    I wouldn’t want to have tried to convince a highlander or a Roman legionary that he was wearing a skirt!
    Sorry, Father, but I don’t think the Dan Daly look is b.s. It seems quite relevant. But there is something aesthetically odd about the new proposal (if it is true): to me, kepis look much better. I certainly don’t think this can be seen as anything like an attempt to neuter the marines. Governments are regularly imposing new uniform requirements. Personally, I think uniforms went downhill after the Napoleonic wars.

  11. Michael_Thoma says:

    John @UK,

    BDUs and White hats in the field? Looks like a few easy targets!

  12. vandalia says:

    @Austin Catholics

    Apparently a super-hero worthy ability to micro-manage is a gift that politicans have.

    After all, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) tried to suppress Saint Joseph Abbey and make it illegal for Catholics in the state to be buried.


    On a more serious note, I strongly suggest that everyone spend a little extra time on the reading from Lauds this morning (Ephesians 4:29-32). Fraternal charity requires me to point out that many of the political conversations here and elsewhere have devolved to the point where I fear the actions of many individuals may have crossed the line over to grave matter (slander, calumny, idolatry, lying), and if the other requirements have been met, may be in a state of Mortal Sin.

  13. Bosco says:

    Thanks for sharing your charitable observations.

  14. Ed the Roman says:

    1. I doubt this story very much.
    2. When Daly wore that cover, it was blue and worn only with a high-collar blue tunic.
    3. Dan Daly was a sufficiently bad [insert Shaftian phrase] that he could wear tights and a tiara and get away with it.

  15. robtbrown says:

    Whether or not the Obama admin ordered a new unisex cover is largely irrelevant. When the Army made the change to allow women in Ranger School (“encouraged” by the Obama admin), the premise was established.

  16. James Joseph says:

    I am a former Marine Corps Sergeant.

    To put it bluntly, we hated with a capital H, President Clinton.

    I bet the Marine Corps cannot stand this new guy.

  17. Bob B. says:

    I heard that the covers, hats and caps of all the services would now be of “gay” multi-colors.

  18. BLB Oregon says:

    I wonder how long before English is saddled with a new unisex third-person singular pronoun. That old “he” and “she” is so confining and outdated! The use of “it” is not even fit for a dog any more. What are we to do?

  19. WaywardSailor says:

    Nothing “girly” about ol’ Dan, or his two Medals of Honor, or his Navy Cross, or his World War I era Marine cover!

  20. Sword40 says:

    Various people have been trying to abolish the Corps for decades. So far all have failed. But if you want to “tick” former Marines off, then start messing with the uniform. The Corps is the one branch of service Obama better not mess with. Too many of my family either are or have been members of the Corps.

    And leave the Frenchies out of the discussion. There is no comparison.

  21. SKAY says:

    I do not think that Chuck Hagel joined the Obama administration without knowing exactly what the agenda is and what is expected of him as Secretary of Defense. As Obama adviser Cass Sunstein once said–you just need to nudge people into the direction you want them to go. Obama does not have to give the direct order–it is a mindset. Little by little small steps are not noticed.
    The IRS -under this President certainly knows what is expected of them –they delivered before the recent election.
    Consequently they are no longer trusted. Another reason Obamacare is disliked by informed citizens.

    Glad to say the monks won Vandalia-they can sell their caskets. This is about the funeral business in Louisiana–Your analogy doesn’t exactly work — nice try. This about the funeral business trying to have a monopoly and state legislators that represent their interests.

  22. bookworm says:

    Just looking at these hat designs as an outside observer…. I really don’t see what’s so inherently “girly” about the new design. It has the same color, the same insignia, everything; it’s just a little narrower and taller. If anything I’d think making the hat more streamlined makes it LESS “girly”.

    I suspect that the problem here is not really with the hat design itself, but simply with the fact that Corps tradition is being messed with by an administration that has time and again demonstrated its, shall we say, lack of appreciation for military culture and tradition.

  23. Andy Lucy says:

    First, and most importantly, if you were EVER to inform a legionnaire that his kepi blanc is “féminin,” make sure you have gone to confession and received absolution BEFORE doing so, as you likely won’t have the opportunity to do so afterward. Juste dire …

    Second, it would not surprise me to see a move such as this, as the USMC wore a cover very similar to the one pictured in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. The Army has changed its duty uniform to a duty blue uniform, most reminiscent of that worn during the early 20th century.

  24. Theodore says:

    If it’s about changing uniforms I’d keep the BDUs in their current configuration but restore the dress uniforms to the pattern in place in 1945 for all branches of service. Not only was the look better but it is evocative of the last time we were clear winners.

  25. Andy Lucy says:

    Agree, Theodore… except the camo pattern of the ACUs is simply awful; I hate the UCP. Adopting the MARPAT design, while ego-bruising for the Army, would give them a pattern that does not stand out like a neon sign. There are also issues of economy in having one pattern for BDUs across branch lines. Personally, I have always been partial to the British 1984-style DPM and its later desert variant. I also REALLY like the idea of going back to the 1945-era duty and dress uniforms. I always liked the “pinks and greens” for the officers.

    And while we’re on the topic of BDUs… why does the Navy wear blue-shaded BDUs? What are they trying to hide from aboard ship? And is it a good idea to wear a camo pattern that blends in with the water? Especially if you want to be found, say if you went overboard?

  26. muckemdanno says:

    How tragic…that anyone is concerned with such a triviality.

    (P.S. – Why does America require the Navy to have its own Army anyway? What a bureaucratic waste!)

  27. frjim4321 says:

    I haven’t seen this story picked up by any legitimate news outlets.

    Hard to imagine President Obama caring much about what kind of hats marines wear.

  28. AA Cunningham says:

    “How tragic…that anyone is concerned with such a triviality.” muckemdanno

    Written by someone who no doubt never earned the title of Marine.

    “(P.S. – Why does America require the Navy to have its own Army anyway? What a bureaucratic waste!)” muckemdanno

    The Marine Corps provides the republic 25% of it’s defense on about 6% of the DoD budget. Claiming that that is a waste is indicative of your ignorance on the topic. If the entire federal government were run as frugally as the Marine Corps is, the country wouldn’t be $17 trillion in debt.

    I suggest you familiarize yourself with the National Security Act of 1947, for starters, for some much needed edification as to why the Marine Corps exists.

    “Hard to imagine President Obama caring much about what kind of hats(sic) marines(sic) wear.” frjim4321

    Soetoro cares about weakening the military forces of the United States and it’s called a cover, Jimmie, not a hat. Also, the word Marines is a formal title and requires capitalization.

  29. mightyduk says:

    I don’t think the hat is inherently feminine, however, it is the cover of female marines and now is associated as a feminine article of uniform, if it were forced on the male marines it would be extension be a feminisation.

  30. Ella says:

    I am a retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant and during the time I was a drill instructor, we were surveyed frequently in a manner designed to elicit the “proper” response. It didn’t work at that time (late 90’s). They wanted us to approve of unisex uniform changes and women in combat which are the wrong questions to ask anyone who is a “hat” and sees on a daily basis that women and men are very different on many levels especially physical. Watch one A-line or crucible rotation of men and women and you will see what I mean. Our lesbian (and strongly anti-male) CO wanted us to share her beliefs but she was unsuccessful in her attempts. (BTW, in no way would she ever be mistaken for a cross fit champion and, at my height, I towered over her.)

  31. vandalia says:

    Well, according to the law, the Marine Corps exists for only two purposes:

    1) To provide security aboard naval vessels and naval installations.
    2) To conduct amphibious operations “as may be ESSENTIAL in the prosecution of a NAVAL campaign.”

    This of course raises two points: 1) When was the last time the Marine Corps conducted an amphibious campaign? (Yes, I know the answer.) 2) One can make a very persuasive case that any Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan – a land-locked country – are in fact illegal. A less persuasive, but still sound, argument can also be made that every Marine Corps “operation” since the Act was signed in 1947 was also illegal as they were not ESSENTIAL to a NAVAL campaign.

  32. Bob B. says:

    Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has asked the Navy and Marine Corps to look at
    moving to one cover for men and women.
    “The secretary believes that when you look at a group of sailors and
    Marines, you should see a group of sailors and Marines, indistinguishable by
    uniform,” said Cmdr. Tamra Lawrence, a spokeswoman for Mabus.

    It does remind me of the early ’70s when there was talk of everyone in all the services wearing “purple suits.”

  33. mightyduk says:

    vandalia ,

    you’re proof-texting:

    (c) The United States Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall include land combat and service forces and such aviation as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. It shall be the duty of the Marine Corps to develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations which pertain to the tactics, technique, and equipment employed by landing forces. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct: Provided, That such additional duties shall not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized. The Marine Corps shall be responsible, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.

  34. acardnal says:

    Pilot training of women now underway at Marine infantry school.

    Meanwhile, why not get rid of the women’s tees at golf courses, too, while we’re at it. They’re discriminatory. (sarc)

  35. vandalia says:

    But I thought the general consensus was that everything this President does is either immoral or illegal? So anything he directs must also be illegal, right?

    That is also the type of clause (such as the “Commerce Clause” in the Constitution, or the President’s powers as Commander in Chief) that authorizes nearly any possible action. Yet there is a certain group that holds such actions are impermissible if not specifically enumerated. Therefore, the Marine Corps should be restricted to its specifically enumerated missions.

  36. Tom Ryan says:

    Not even Sheriff Joe Arpaio would make someone wear a hat like that!

  37. AA Cunningham says:

    Is vandalia Italian for obtuse?

  38. The Cobbler says:

    “That is also the type of clause (such as the “Commerce Clause” in the Constitution, or the President’s powers as Commander in Chief) that authorizes nearly any possible action. Yet there is a certain group that holds such actions are impermissible if not specifically enumerated. Therefore, the Marine Corps should be restricted to its specifically enumerated missions.”
    The same logic does not necessarily hold for the powers granted the government and its military by the constitution in the first place and the delineation of the roles of the military branches (whether in the constitution or in other law). The former is based on the (astonishingly short and to the point) tenth amendment, which says powers the constitution niether delegates to the federal union nor prohibits from the states are reserved to the states and the people (and which some would contend merely explicates the intention behind the constitution and codifies the spirit with which it was written in the first place). As far as I can think of, unless there is an equivalent legal statement about the roles of the different military branches we need not make similar presumptions about how each one may be directed, so long as the fact of there being a US military and the way it is used as a whole is within the limits placed by the constitution. (Relatedly, as I understand it, no law stating that a branch of the military will follow other orders from the president would give the president authority to give them orders that go beyond what the constitution allows — but niether is such a law necessarily unconstitutional, if it was not meant to imply the president could make whatever order he wants but only that the branch in question must obey whatever valid order he gives. Granted I think we’re talking about assigning general categories of duty here, not specific orders, but I believe for these two things the same principle holds.)

    @AA Cunningham: If I haven’t got it confused with another word, I think it was Latin for “those people that sack our cities and with horrid foreign graffiti deface our lovely Roman graffiti-art,” but I am almost positive the meaning has changed over millenia. 8^)

  39. frjim4321 says:

    They can use whatever internal jargon they want but a hat is still a hat and a cap is still a cap.

    The actual point was that I doubt that Mr. Obama cares about it.

  40. mightyduk says:

    Fr Jim,

    Nobody is suggesting the “One” personally selected the new cover/hat/cap, we’re suggesting it’s his express desire to emasculate the US military, and he’s put in place personnel and policies that orient towards that end, this is merely the result of that policy.


Comments are closed.