3.95 score from hupso.pl for:
policyfrontandcenter.org



HTML Content


Titlefront and center | greg jacob

Length: 29, Words: 5
Description pusty

Length: 0, Words: 0
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 2611
Text/HTML 39.46 %
Headings H1 5
H2 10
H3 0
H4 3
H5 0
H6 0
H1
military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer.
security clearances: clarity then confusion
reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violence
why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policy
question 21 update: not if, but when
H2
military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer.
security clearances: clarity then confusion
reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violence
why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policy
military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer.
security clearances: clarity then confusion
reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violence
why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policy
greg jacob
service women's action network
H3
H4
categories
archives
H5
H6
strong
the bottom line on the new question 21 is this: if an individual’s mental health counseling is related to a sexual assault they are to answer no to question 21.  
odni needs to clearly communicate that obtaining a security clearance no longer requires survivors to disclose counseling sought in response to a sexual assault; survivors of sexual assault should answer no to question 21.
b
i
the bottom line on the new question 21 is this: if an individual’s mental health counseling is related to a sexual assault they are to answer no to question 21.  
odni needs to clearly communicate that obtaining a security clearance no longer requires survivors to disclose counseling sought in response to a sexual assault; survivors of sexual assault should answer no to question 21.
em the bottom line on the new question 21 is this: if an individual’s mental health counseling is related to a sexual assault they are to answer no to question 21.  
odni needs to clearly communicate that obtaining a security clearance no longer requires survivors to disclose counseling sought in response to a sexual assault; survivors of sexual assault should answer no to question 21.
Bolds strong 2
b 0
i 2
em 2
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 25
Pliki CSS 9
Pliki javascript 16
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 101
Linki wewnętrzne 3
Linki zewnętrzne 98
Linki bez atrybutu Title 91
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

navigation menu #
- mailto:greg@servicewomen.org
(cont.) http://policyfrontandcenter.org/?page_id=7

Linki zewnętrzne

- http://policyfrontandcenter.org/
home http://policyfrontandcenter.org/
about http://policyfrontandcenter.org/greg-jacob/
service women’s action network http://policyfrontandcenter.org/service-womens-action-network/
contact http://policyfrontandcenter.org/contact/
- https://twitter.com/servicewomen
- https://www.facebook.com/servicewomen
military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer. http://policyfrontandcenter.org/military-legal-reform-let-commanders-command-and-lawyers-lawyer/
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/military-legal-reform-let-commanders-command-and-lawyers-lawyer/
security clearances: clarity then confusion http://policyfrontandcenter.org/security-clearances-clarity-then-confusion/
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/security-clearances-clarity-then-confusion/
reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violence http://policyfrontandcenter.org/reflections-on-u-s-commission-on-civil-rights-hearing-on-military-sexual-violence/
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/reflections-on-u-s-commission-on-civil-rights-hearing-on-military-sexual-violence/
why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policy http://policyfrontandcenter.org/why-service-women-are-suing-to-challenge-the-combat-exclusion-policy/
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/why-service-women-are-suing-to-challenge-the-combat-exclusion-policy/
military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer. http://policyfrontandcenter.org/military-legal-reform-let-commanders-command-and-lawyers-lawyer/
greg jacob http://policyfrontandcenter.org/author/admin/
featured content http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/featured-content/
legislation http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/legislation-2/
military law http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/military-law/
military sexual assault http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/military-sexual-assault/
0 comments http://policyfrontandcenter.org/military-legal-reform-let-commanders-command-and-lawyers-lawyer/#respond
- http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/senate-chamber.jpg
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/military-legal-reform-let-commanders-command-and-lawyers-lawyer/
security clearances: clarity then confusion http://policyfrontandcenter.org/security-clearances-clarity-then-confusion/
greg jacob http://policyfrontandcenter.org/author/admin/
featured content http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/featured-content/
military culture http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/military-culture/
question 21 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/question-21/
0 comments http://policyfrontandcenter.org/security-clearances-clarity-then-confusion/#respond
- http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/washington-navy-yard.jpg
pattern of misconduct http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57603195/aaron-alexis-alleged-navy-yard-shooting-gunman-showed-pattern-of-misconduct-in-military/
statements made to police http://online.wsj.com/article/sb10001424127887324492604579083230232779914.html
alerts provided a month ago http://online.wsj.com/article/sb10001424127887324492604579083230232779914.html
standard form 86, questionnaire for national security positions (sf86) http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
finalized language to question 21 http://images.politico.com/global/2013/04/13/clearancedraftqnaire.html
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/security-clearances-clarity-then-confusion/
reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violence http://policyfrontandcenter.org/reflections-on-u-s-commission-on-civil-rights-hearing-on-military-sexual-violence/
greg jacob http://policyfrontandcenter.org/author/admin/
civil rights http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/civil-rights/
featured content http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/featured-content/
military law http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/military-law/
0 comments http://policyfrontandcenter.org/reflections-on-u-s-commission-on-civil-rights-hearing-on-military-sexual-violence/#respond
- http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/?attachment_id=113
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/reflections-on-u-s-commission-on-civil-rights-hearing-on-military-sexual-violence/
why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policy http://policyfrontandcenter.org/why-service-women-are-suing-to-challenge-the-combat-exclusion-policy/
greg jacob http://policyfrontandcenter.org/author/admin/
featured content http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/featured-content/
women in combat http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/women-in-combat/
0 comments http://policyfrontandcenter.org/why-service-women-are-suing-to-challenge-the-combat-exclusion-policy/#respond
- http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/blog-womenincombat-mjh-500x280-v03_0.jpg
ariela migdal http://www.aclu.org/blog/author/ariela-migdal
sued the secretary of defense http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta
major mary jennings hegar http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/women-warriors-are-battlefield-eliminate-outdated-unfair-military-combat
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/why-service-women-are-suing-to-challenge-the-combat-exclusion-policy/
question 21 update: not if, but when http://policyfrontandcenter.org/question-21-update-not-if-but-when/
greg jacob http://policyfrontandcenter.org/author/admin/
featured content http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/featured-content/
question 21 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/question-21/
uncategorized http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/uncategorized/
0 comments http://policyfrontandcenter.org/question-21-update-not-if-but-when/#respond
- http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/q21.jpg
service women’s action network http://servicewomen.org/
odni http://www.dni.gov/
earlier this year http://www.csmonitor.com/usa/military/2012/0403/question-21-does-it-punish-troops-who-are-victims-of-sexual-assault
james clapper http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/leadership/director-of-national-intelligence
read more http://policyfrontandcenter.org/question-21-update-not-if-but-when/
« older entries http://policyfrontandcenter.org/page/2/
twitter http://twitter.com/servicewomen
facebook http://www.facebook.com/servicewomen
civil rights http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/civil-rights/
featured content http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/featured-content/
health care http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/health-care/
legislation http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/legislation-2/
military culture http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/military-culture/
military law http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/military-law/
military sexual assault http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/military-sexual-assault/
question 21 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/question-21/
uncategorized http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/uncategorized/
va http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/va/
women in combat http://policyfrontandcenter.org/category/women-in-combat/
november 2013 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2013/11/
september 2013 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2013/09/
january 2013 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2013/01/
december 2012 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2012/12/
october 2012 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2012/10/
april 2012 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2012/04/
february 2012 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2012/02/
january 2012 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2012/01/
december 2011 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2011/12/
november 2011 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2011/11/
october 2011 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2011/10/
august 2011 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2011/08/
july 2011 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2011/07/
june 2011 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2011/06/
may 2011 http://policyfrontandcenter.org/2011/05/
elegant themes http://www.elegantthemes.com
wordpress http://www.wordpress.org

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 10
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 3
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 8
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/policy-front-and-center-logo.png
http://policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/themes/trim/images/twitter.png
http://policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/themes/trim/images/rss.png
http://policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/themes/trim/images/facebook.png
http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/senate-chamber-300x225.jpg
http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/washington-navy-yard-300x168.jpg
http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/feature-picture-300x210.jpg
http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/427751_309893909075347_2038400373_n.jpg

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/blog-womenincombat-mjh-500x280-v03_0-300x168.jpg
http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/q21-300x192.jpg
http://www.policyfrontandcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/427751_309893909075347_2038400373_n.jpg

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

navigation menu home about service women’s action network contact military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer.today, debate on a raft of amendments continues on the 2014 national defense... read more security clearances: clarity then confusionlast week’s mass shootings at the washington dc navy yard has congress, the... read more reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violenceby rachel natelson, service women’s action network legal director last... read more why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policyby ariela migdal, aclu women’s rights project (cross posted) last week,... read more military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer.today, debate on a raft of amendments continues on the 2014 national defense... security clearances: clarity then confusionlast week’s mass shootings at the washington dc navy yard has congress, the... reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violenceby rachel natelson, service women’s action network legal director last... why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policyby ariela migdal, aclu women’s rights project (cross posted) last week,... wed20 military justice reform: let commanders command and lawyers lawyer. posted by greg jacob on nov 20, 2013 in featured content, legislation, military law, military sexual assault | 0 comments today, debate on a raft of amendments continues on the 2014 national defense authorization act including a critical amendment that would reform the archaic, biased, 18th century military justice system. it is called the military justice improvement act (mjia). this amendment introduced by senator kirsten gillibrand already has the bipartisan support of 52 members of the senate which under the majority rules of the senate would be enough for passage, but because the amendment was filibustered it has to overcome a 60 vote threshold to be adopted. a vote on the amendment is likely this afternoon and senators continue to announce their support for the amendment, so it is still on the path to 60 votes. the military justice improvement act gives the authority to prosecute offenders and select juries to military lawyers and it restricts the military commander’s ability to overturn or reduce the findings of a court martial. it is a bill that makes the military stronger by professionalizing the military justice system, leading it away from the command-centric model born in the 18th century and towards a modern, reliable, independent system where legal professionals and the established system of courts handle criminal cases. allowing prosecutors to make prosecutorial decisions is a common sense way to ensure an independent judicial system that reinforces the trust and confidence of victims, protects the constitutional rights of the accused, and gives commanders the time and resources to focus on their principle job of getting their troops ready for war. simply put the military justice improvement act lets commanders command and lawyers lawyer. read more mon23 security clearances: clarity then confusion posted by greg jacob on sep 23, 2013 in featured content, military culture, question 21 | 0 comments last week’s mass shootings at the washington dc navy yard has congress, the dod and intelligence community understandably concerned about how military contractor aaron alexis obtained and maintained his security clearance despite a navy discharge due to a “pattern of misconduct” including, multiple arrests on weapons-related charges, statements made to police his father that alexis had ptsd-related anger management problems, and alerts provided a month ago from the rhode island police department to the navy that alexis called them to report he had been hearing voices and unknown people were disrupting his sleep with a microwave machine. secretary of defense chuck hagel has since ordered a review of the security clearance process saying, “something went wrong” in alexis’ case. swan has been working with congress and the intelligence community on security clearances issues. we feel a review of the process is long overdue. and such a review must begin with a careful look at standard form 86, questionnaire for national security positions (sf86). for the past 18 months, swan has worked closely with senator jon tester and congresswoman chellie pingree on revising question 21 on the sf86 form. question 21 is related to mental health counseling. swan has been strongly advocating for a change to the form for sexual assault survivors and, earlier this year, was successful in getting the revision process started. prior to that success, applicants for a security clearance were required to disclose any mental health treatment or hospitalization within the past 7 years. this was problematic for sexual assault survivors who did not want to officially report their assaults but were then forced to either self-report the assault on the form or avoid seeking help and counseling related to the assault. exemptions to question 21 already existed for marital counseling, grief counseling and counseling related to combat trauma. swan requested  sexual assault be added to this list of exemptions. in february of this year james clapper, the director of the office of national intelligence (odni) agreed to change question 21 to enable sexual assault survivors to check no when answering the form. this was a huge victory for service members and advocates. because of the immediate need to provide relief for sexual assault survivors and the very long approval process required to change the form, swan and our congressional allies urged clapper to issue interim guidance. the interim guidance issued established an explicit exemption for sexual assault-related counseling and remains in effect until question 21 is officially revised. last month odni submitted the finalized language to question 21 for public comment (that has since expired). however, instead of adding a sexual assault exemption similar to the interim guidance, the final version of the question was completely rewritten. exemptions for martial, grief and combat-related counseling were removed, and instead of asking about treatment sought for mental health condition, the question now asks behavioral related questions. although the revised question 21 does allow survivors to answer no if their mental health care was related to sexual trauma, the confusion involved in the rewrite has resulted in sexual assault survivors telling swan they are now uncomfortable seeking treatment or confused about whether to report their treatment on the sf86. we have also spoken to combat vets who are leery about seeing their exemption for combat-related counseling go away. the bottom line on the new question 21 is this: if an individual’s mental health counseling is related to a sexual assault they are to answer no to question 21.   the intent behind the change is obvious, seeking out mental health care is in no way related to the individual’s ability to perform sensitive duties. on the contrary, failure to seek treatment actually increases the likelihood that the psychological health concern could escalate to a more serious condition, which could preclude an individual from holding a clearance. this perspective on mental health care is communicated by odni to the applicant in the form of a preamble to the new question 21. so why is this still an issue for swan? the problem is that individuals, including the population most affected by this change, are either confused or unaware of this substantive change to question 21. in fact, other than a few media reports, the only resources for information on question 21 and the new sf86 form is swan, and the offices of senator tester and congresswoman pingree. odni needs to clearly communicate that obtaining a security clearance no longer requires survivors to disclose counseling sought in response to a sexual assault; survivors of sexual assault should answer no to question 21. swan’s solution to the current confusion around question 21 is two-fold:  first, odni needs keep it simple and reinstate the previous exemptions by adopting the language of the interim guidance as the final version of the question; second, odni must engage in a proactive, extensive outreach effort to communicate the new question 21 language to the affected populations. swan stands ready to help in this effort. it’s not enough for odni to rewrite the question, declare victory and go home. after the events at the navy yard this week it is clear that the government needs to ask security clearance applicants about mental health issues, but we need to make sure they are asking the right people the right questions in the right way. and the new question 21 fails to do that. read more thu17 reflections on u.s. commission on civil rights hearing on military sexual violence posted by greg jacob on jan 17, 2013 in civil rights, featured content, military law | 0 comments by rachel natelson, service women’s action network legal director last week, swan joined a diverse group of advocates, scholars, and military leaders to address the ongoing problem of military sexual violence before the u.s. commission on civil rights.  an advisory body monitoring the development of national civil rights policy and assessing enforcement trends, the commission serves the public by providing opportunities for discussion of existing and emerging civil rights issues.  in addition to engaging in fact-finding and analysis on current laws, it also issues recommendations for updates or changes to the status quo. when it comes to quelling the epidemic of sexual violence in the military, the fairness and efficiency of the status quo seems at first glance to be a matter of surprising consensus.  if advocates for victims and for defendants could agree on little else at the hearing, they voiced a common concern over the types of charging decisions yielded by command discretion over criminal case disposition.  whether recounting instances of unmerited prosecutions or citing improper refusals to prosecute, advocates expressed the same frustration with the practical results of allowing commanders to decide whether or not to invoke the judicial process in criminal cases. read more thu06 why service women are suing to challenge the combat exclusion policy posted by greg jacob on dec 6, 2012 in featured content, women in combat | 0 comments by ariela migdal, aclu women’s rights project (cross posted) last week, four servicewomen who served our country in iraq and afghanistan, along with the service women’s action network, sued the secretary of defense in federal court to challenge the combat exclusion policy.  this policy prevents women from being assigned to most units that engage in direct ground combat. the policy has the effect of closing entire career fields to women, and closing about 238,000 individual positions to women across the armed services. the plaintiffs include two marines, an army soldier, and a combat pilot who has flown with the air force and the air national guard. each of them has been harmed and limited by the combat exclusion policy. the policy prevents women from even competing for many positions, no matter how qualified or capable they are. for example, major mary jennings hegar, a successful combat pilot who won a purple heart and a distinguished flying cross with valor after being shot down and injured while successfully rescuing injured soldiers in afghanistan, is barred from competing for air force combat and special ops positions that are closed to women. the combat exclusion policy is outdated and doesn’t match the reality of modern warfare. despite what the policy says on paper, women are already fighting alongside their male counterparts. because of the policy, though, women often are not officially part of the all-male units they go on missions with. commanders have to get around the policy by relying on legal fictions, using women troops in “temporary” teams that are “attached to” or “in direct support of” all-male ground combat units. this was the situation faced by plaintiffs captain zoe bedell and first lieutenant colleen farrell, two marines who led female engagement teams in afghanistan. in this program, teams of women marines went on missions with marine infantrymen and regularly encountered ground combat. the women lived in the same combat outposts as the men, managing without showers and toilets and carrying the same gear. yet their missions were sometimes interrupted or even cancelled when commanders became concerned that sending women into combat would violate the letter of the archaic combat exclusion policy. the gap between the policy, which was written in 1994, and the real practice in post-9/11 warfare, does a disservice to our servicewomen in combat, and it harms our military. women have been killed on the battlefield, and many more have been wounded in the course of their service. take plaintiff army staff sergeant jennifer hunt, who was awarded the purple heart, was wounded after serving in combat in afghanistan and iraq. while women have an equal opportunity of being hurt or killed, the policy limits their ability to receive equal, integrated training and to advance in the ranks. because their combat experience often is unofficial or outside of their official career field, it doesn’t count in the same way for promotions resulting in a “brass ceiling” that keeps our military leadership overwhelmingly male. the constitution forbids the government from imposing a blanket ban on women’s participation, especially where the rule is outdated and doesn’t accurately capture how war is being waged today. now, after a decade of armed service abroad, our servicewomen are demanding the opportunity to compete for official assignment to the combat jobs they’ve been doing for years. read more thu18 question 21 update: not if, but when posted by greg jacob on oct 18, 2012 in featured content, question 21, uncategorized | 0 comments the service women’s action network has been leading the charge in getting the office of the director of national intelligence (odni) to change standard form 86 (sf 86: the questionnaire for national security positions) so that service members and veterans who have suffered sexual trauma are exempt from disclosing whether they have sought mental health counseling.  the form was revised in 2010 to allow applicants to answer “no” to the question – even if they have received counseling – as long as the therapy was strictly martial, grief or family counseling, or related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment. swan has been meeting regularly with odni and the situation on the ground has been steadily moving towards a resolution. swan can now report that a new question 21 is no longer a matter of if, but when. specifically, odni has agreed to make a change to the question, but the process is lengthy and has already encountered some delays. to summarize, earlier this year swan partnered with members of congress to take the many voices of service members and veterans affected by question 21 to james clapper, the director of national intelligence, to persuade him change question 21 to provide protections for sexual trauma counseling. after several rounds of back and forth, director clapper agreed to a change. read more « older entries greg jacob greg jacob is the policy director at the service women’s action network (swan) and a former u.s. marine with 10 years of experience serving both as an enlisted infantry marine and an infantry officer. since joining swan in 2010, greg has successfully established swan as a leading voice in developing effective solutions…(cont.) service women's action network swan is a non-partisan non-profit civil rights organization founded and led by women veterans. swan’s vision is to transform military culture by securing equal opportunity and the freedom to serve in uniform without threat of harassment, discrimination, intimidation or assault. swan also seeks to reform veterans' services on a national scale to guarantee equal access to quality health care, benefits and resources for women veterans and their families. you can follow service women’s action network on twitter, or on facebook. categories civil rights featured content health care legislation military culture military law military sexual assault question 21 uncategorized va women in combat archives november 2013 september 2013 january 2013 december 2012 october 2012 april 2012 february 2012 january 2012 december 2011 november 2011 october 2011 august 2011 july 2011 june 2011 may 2011 designed by elegant themes | powered by wordpress


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 2645

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.79% (206)
and - 3.52% (93)
for - 2.42% (64)
women - 1.36% (36)
question - 1.25% (33)
military - 1.1% (29)
are - 1.02% (27)
combat - 0.98% (26)
service - 0.91% (24)
sexual - 0.79% (21)
his - 0.79% (21)
act - 0.79% (21)
form - 0.76% (20)
has - 0.76% (20)
swan - 0.76% (20)
that - 0.72% (19)
this - 0.68% (18)
policy - 0.64% (17)
assault - 0.64% (17)
right - 0.6% (16)
with - 0.6% (16)
out - 0.57% (15)
was - 0.57% (15)
read - 0.57% (15)
command - 0.57% (15)
their - 0.53% (14)
counseling - 0.53% (14)
our - 0.53% (14)
related - 0.49% (13)
law - 0.49% (13)
rights - 0.49% (13)
health - 0.45% (12)
women’s - 0.45% (12)
clear - 0.45% (12)
two - 0.45% (12)
security - 0.42% (11)
more - 0.42% (11)
national - 0.42% (11)
change - 0.42% (11)
direct - 0.38% (10)
clearance - 0.38% (10)
been - 0.38% (10)
last - 0.38% (10)
odni - 0.38% (10)
civil - 0.34% (9)
from - 0.34% (9)
network - 0.34% (9)
action - 0.34% (9)
mental - 0.34% (9)
they - 0.34% (9)
justice - 0.3% (8)
posted - 0.3% (8)
dec - 0.3% (8)
amendment - 0.3% (8)
over - 0.3% (8)
week - 0.3% (8)
commanders - 0.3% (8)
director - 0.3% (8)
who - 0.3% (8)
survivors - 0.3% (8)
have - 0.3% (8)
congress - 0.3% (8)
war - 0.3% (8)
care - 0.3% (8)
exempt - 0.3% (8)
greg - 0.3% (8)
about - 0.26% (7)
2012 - 0.26% (7)
issue - 0.26% (7)
exemption - 0.26% (7)
long - 0.26% (7)
2011 - 0.26% (7)
let - 0.26% (7)
led - 0.26% (7)
jacob - 0.26% (7)
can - 0.26% (7)
exclusion - 0.26% (7)
part - 0.26% (7)
content - 0.23% (6)
after - 0.23% (6)
ready - 0.23% (6)
2013 - 0.23% (6)
but - 0.23% (6)
comment - 0.23% (6)
report - 0.23% (6)
were - 0.23% (6)
official - 0.23% (6)
way - 0.23% (6)
new - 0.23% (6)
year - 0.23% (6)
featured - 0.23% (6)
air - 0.23% (6)
even - 0.23% (6)
marine - 0.23% (6)
navy - 0.23% (6)
process - 0.23% (6)
count - 0.23% (6)
seek - 0.19% (5)
treatment - 0.19% (5)
not - 0.19% (5)
violence - 0.19% (5)
legal - 0.19% (5)
now - 0.19% (5)
does - 0.19% (5)
positions - 0.19% (5)
intelligence - 0.19% (5)
confusion - 0.19% (5)
u.s. - 0.19% (5)
answer - 0.19% (5)
how - 0.19% (5)
commission - 0.19% (5)
individual - 0.19% (5)
system - 0.19% (5)
veterans - 0.19% (5)
hearing - 0.19% (5)
cross - 0.19% (5)
content, - 0.19% (5)
need - 0.19% (5)
defense - 0.19% (5)
lawyers - 0.19% (5)
reform - 0.19% (5)
force - 0.19% (5)
comments - 0.19% (5)
male - 0.19% (5)
when - 0.19% (5)
members - 0.19% (5)
applicant - 0.15% (4)
21. - 0.15% (4)
issues - 0.15% (4)
being - 0.15% (4)
clapper - 0.15% (4)
exemptions - 0.15% (4)
already - 0.15% (4)
ground - 0.15% (4)
concern - 0.15% (4)
successful - 0.15% (4)
senator - 0.15% (4)
allow - 0.15% (4)
yard - 0.15% (4)
clearances - 0.15% (4)
whether - 0.15% (4)
lawyer. - 0.15% (4)
problem - 0.15% (4)
because - 0.15% (4)
get - 0.15% (4)
ask - 0.15% (4)
why - 0.15% (4)
week, - 0.15% (4)
guidance - 0.15% (4)
advocates - 0.15% (4)
make - 0.15% (4)
agree - 0.15% (4)
then - 0.15% (4)
challenge - 0.15% (4)
voice - 0.15% (4)
alexis - 0.15% (4)
afghanistan - 0.15% (4)
sf86 - 0.15% (4)
case - 0.15% (4)
same - 0.15% (4)
interim - 0.15% (4)
any - 0.15% (4)
equal - 0.15% (4)
continue - 0.15% (4)
office - 0.15% (4)
trauma - 0.15% (4)
culture - 0.11% (3)
some - 0.11% (3)
years - 0.11% (3)
provide - 0.11% (3)
final - 0.11% (3)
language - 0.11% (3)
infantry - 0.11% (3)
serve - 0.11% (3)
effect - 0.11% (3)
counseling. - 0.11% (3)
needs - 0.11% (3)
sought - 0.11% (3)
matter - 0.11% (3)
many - 0.11% (3)
ops - 0.11% (3)
doesn’t - 0.11% (3)
policy. - 0.11% (3)
armed - 0.11% (3)
closing - 0.11% (3)
missions - 0.11% (3)
units - 0.11% (3)
servicewomen - 0.11% (3)
teams - 0.11% (3)
marines - 0.11% (3)
first - 0.11% (3)
revised - 0.11% (3)
jan - 0.11% (3)
plaintiff - 0.11% (3)
events - 0.11% (3)
engage - 0.11% (3)
solution - 0.11% (3)
communicate - 0.11% (3)
affected - 0.11% (3)
could - 0.11% (3)
opportunity - 0.11% (3)
also - 0.11% (3)
oct - 0.11% (3)
charge - 0.11% (3)
agreed - 0.11% (3)
grief - 0.11% (3)
support - 0.11% (3)
month - 0.11% (3)
ability - 0.11% (3)
washington - 0.11% (3)
aclu - 0.11% (3)
congress, - 0.11% (3)
leading - 0.11% (3)
review - 0.11% (3)
since - 0.11% (3)
nov - 0.11% (3)
reflections - 0.11% (3)
them - 0.11% (3)
rachel - 0.11% (3)
mass - 0.11% (3)
natelson, - 0.11% (3)
established - 0.11% (3)
improvement - 0.11% (3)
criminal - 0.11% (3)
posted) - 0.11% (3)
(cross - 0.11% (3)
suing - 0.11% (3)
project - 0.11% (3)
ariela - 0.11% (3)
getting - 0.11% (3)
migdal, - 0.11% (3)
shootings - 0.11% (3)
court - 0.11% (3)
today, - 0.11% (3)
continues - 0.11% (3)
which - 0.11% (3)
reform: - 0.11% (3)
seeking - 0.11% (3)
officially - 0.11% (3)
debate - 0.11% (3)
raft - 0.11% (3)
amendments - 0.11% (3)
applicants - 0.11% (3)
resources - 0.11% (3)
2014 - 0.11% (3)
would - 0.11% (3)
including - 0.11% (3)
vote - 0.11% (3)
week’s - 0.11% (3)
clearances: - 0.11% (3)
clarity - 0.11% (3)
purple - 0.08% (2)
modern - 0.08% (2)
plaintiffs - 0.08% (2)
called - 0.08% (2)
army - 0.08% (2)
often - 0.08% (2)
pilot - 0.08% (2)
policy, - 0.08% (2)
competing - 0.08% (2)
18th - 0.08% (2)
century - 0.08% (2)
outdated - 0.08% (2)
heart - 0.08% (2)
week,... - 0.08% (2)
major - 0.08% (2)
special - 0.08% (2)
successfully - 0.08% (2)
are. - 0.08% (2)
each - 0.08% (2)
injured - 0.08% (2)
while - 0.08% (2)
(odni) - 0.08% (2)
all-male - 0.08% (2)
defense... - 0.08% (2)
if, - 0.08% (2)
uncategorized - 0.08% (2)
(sf - 0.08% (2)
confusionlast - 0.08% (2)
2010 - 0.08% (2)
– - 0.08% (2)
vision - 0.08% (2)
constitution - 0.08% (2)
lawyer.today, - 0.08% (2)
services - 0.08% (2)
legislation - 0.08% (2)
november - 0.08% (2)
january - 0.08% (2)
december - 0.08% (2)
october - 0.08% (2)
rule - 0.08% (2)
field, - 0.08% (2)
situation - 0.08% (2)
archaic - 0.08% (2)
policyby - 0.08% (2)
last... - 0.08% (2)
regularly - 0.08% (2)
encountered - 0.08% (2)
men, - 0.08% (2)
without - 0.08% (2)
real - 0.08% (2)
the... - 0.08% (2)
killed - 0.08% (2)
wounded - 0.08% (2)
take - 0.08% (2)
serving - 0.08% (2)
violenceby - 0.08% (2)
receive - 0.08% (2)
experience - 0.08% (2)
written - 0.08% (2)
sued - 0.08% (2)
career - 0.08% (2)
went - 0.08% (2)
tester - 0.08% (2)
past - 0.08% (2)
questionnaire - 0.08% (2)
standard - 0.08% (2)
rewrite - 0.08% (2)
must - 0.08% (2)
confused - 0.08% (2)
issues. - 0.08% (2)
individual’s - 0.08% (2)
pingree - 0.08% (2)
secretary - 0.08% (2)
people - 0.08% (2)
voices - 0.08% (2)
had - 0.08% (2)
police - 0.08% (2)
due - 0.08% (2)
population - 0.08% (2)
most - 0.08% (2)
congresswoman - 0.08% (2)
condition, - 0.08% (2)
media - 0.08% (2)
years. - 0.08% (2)
james - 0.08% (2)
victory - 0.08% (2)
february - 0.08% (2)
list - 0.08% (2)
counseling, - 0.08% (2)
assault. - 0.08% (2)
help - 0.08% (2)
either - 0.08% (2)
disclose - 0.08% (2)
form. - 0.08% (2)
required - 0.08% (2)
public - 0.08% (2)
instead - 0.08% (2)
earlier - 0.08% (2)
version - 0.08% (2)
martial, - 0.08% (2)
combat-related - 0.08% (2)
asking - 0.08% (2)
despite - 0.08% (2)
concerned - 0.08% (2)
combat. - 0.08% (2)
gives - 0.08% (2)
status - 0.08% (2)
quo - 0.08% (2)
independent - 0.08% (2)
towards - 0.08% (2)
away - 0.08% (2)
victims - 0.08% (2)
decisions - 0.08% (2)
prosecute - 0.08% (2)
still - 0.08% (2)
leaders - 0.08% (2)
iraq - 0.08% (2)
afghanistan, - 0.08% (2)
along - 0.08% (2)
clapper, - 0.08% (2)
prevents - 0.08% (2)
enough - 0.08% (2)
under - 0.08% (2)
senate - 0.08% (2)
where - 0.08% (2)
cases. - 0.08% (2)
community - 0.08% (2)
question, - 0.08% (2)
longer - 0.08% (2)
swan’s - 0.08% (2)
sep - 0.08% (2)
current - 0.08% (2)
around - 0.08% (2)
keep - 0.08% (2)
lets - 0.08% (2)
effort - 0.08% (2)
troops - 0.08% (2)
allowing - 0.08% (2)
job - 0.08% (2)
government - 0.08% (2)
time - 0.08% (2)
sure - 0.08% (2)
judicial - 0.08% (2)
questions - 0.08% (2)
way. - 0.08% (2)
common - 0.08% (2)
home - 0.08% (2)
question 21 - 0.87% (23)
of the - 0.68% (18)
sexual assault - 0.49% (13)
on the - 0.49% (13)
to the - 0.49% (13)
and the - 0.42% (11)
in the - 0.38% (10)
action network - 0.34% (9)
civil rights - 0.34% (9)
mental health - 0.34% (9)
read more - 0.34% (9)
security clearance - 0.34% (9)
at the - 0.34% (9)
military justice - 0.3% (8)
women’s action - 0.3% (8)
the policy - 0.3% (8)
service women’s - 0.3% (8)
the question - 0.26% (7)
the combat - 0.26% (7)
greg jacob - 0.26% (7)
the military - 0.26% (7)
combat exclusion - 0.26% (7)
related to - 0.26% (7)
has been - 0.23% (6)
and an - 0.23% (6)
military sexual - 0.23% (6)
the form - 0.23% (6)
the new - 0.19% (5)
featured content, - 0.19% (5)
new question - 0.19% (5)
sexual violence - 0.19% (5)
health care - 0.19% (5)
jacob on - 0.19% (5)
women are - 0.19% (5)
0 comments - 0.19% (5)
for sexual - 0.19% (5)
to question - 0.19% (5)
assault survivors - 0.19% (5)
by greg - 0.19% (5)
that a - 0.19% (5)
they are - 0.15% (4)
interim guidance - 0.15% (4)
security clearances - 0.15% (4)
of national - 0.15% (4)
and lawyers - 0.15% (4)
swan has - 0.15% (4)
challenge the - 0.15% (4)
command and - 0.15% (4)
in combat - 0.15% (4)
navy yard - 0.15% (4)
commanders command - 0.15% (4)
to challenge - 0.15% (4)
women in - 0.15% (4)
the same - 0.15% (4)
on civil - 0.15% (4)
commission on - 0.15% (4)
u.s. commission - 0.15% (4)
military law - 0.15% (4)
last week, - 0.15% (4)
health counseling - 0.11% (3)
this was - 0.11% (3)
director of - 0.11% (3)
to combat - 0.11% (3)
in afghanistan - 0.11% (3)
the service - 0.11% (3)
service members - 0.11% (3)
national intelligence - 0.11% (3)
exclusion policy. - 0.11% (3)
to make - 0.11% (3)
a change - 0.11% (3)
the director - 0.11% (3)
the right - 0.11% (3)
the office - 0.11% (3)
agreed to - 0.11% (3)
ground combat - 0.11% (3)
to answer - 0.11% (3)
members and - 0.11% (3)
to women - 0.11% (3)
to change - 0.11% (3)
rachel natelson, - 0.11% (3)
the interim - 0.11% (3)
a sexual - 0.11% (3)
with the - 0.11% (3)
by ariela - 0.11% (3)
the final - 0.11% (3)
legal director - 0.11% (3)
survivors to - 0.11% (3)
answer no - 0.11% (3)
change to - 0.11% (3)
military culture - 0.11% (3)
project (cross - 0.11% (3)
ability to - 0.11% (3)
congress, the - 0.11% (3)
justice improvement - 0.11% (3)
dc navy - 0.11% (3)
the washington - 0.11% (3)
shootings at - 0.11% (3)
week’s mass - 0.11% (3)
has congress, - 0.11% (3)
the 2014 - 0.11% (3)
security clearances: - 0.11% (3)
clarity then - 0.11% (3)
improvement act - 0.11% (3)
national defense - 0.11% (3)
washington dc - 0.11% (3)
why service - 0.11% (3)
mass shootings - 0.11% (3)
on u.s. - 0.11% (3)
yard has - 0.11% (3)
hearing on - 0.11% (3)
women’s rights - 0.11% (3)
justice reform: - 0.11% (3)
let commanders - 0.11% (3)
network legal - 0.11% (3)
suing to - 0.11% (3)
natelson, service - 0.11% (3)
continues on - 0.11% (3)
a raft - 0.11% (3)
migdal, aclu - 0.11% (3)
debate on - 0.11% (3)
2013 in - 0.11% (3)
of amendments - 0.11% (3)
posted) last - 0.11% (3)
reform: let - 0.11% (3)
policy. the - 0.08% (2)
pilot who - 0.08% (2)
women from - 0.08% (2)
director last... - 0.08% (2)
policy prevents - 0.08% (2)
ground combat. - 0.08% (2)
the air - 0.08% (2)
combat pilot - 0.08% (2)
in direct - 0.08% (2)
secretary of - 0.08% (2)
prevents women - 0.08% (2)
violenceby rachel - 0.08% (2)
purple heart - 0.08% (2)
women have - 0.08% (2)
that are - 0.08% (2)
form 86 - 0.08% (2)
and resources - 0.08% (2)
lawyers lawyer.today, - 0.08% (2)
james clapper, - 0.08% (2)
earlier this - 0.08% (2)
a matter - 0.08% (2)
no longer - 0.08% (2)
the situation - 0.08% (2)
in 2010 - 0.08% (2)
health counseling. - 0.08% (2)
they have - 0.08% (2)
and veterans - 0.08% (2)
national defense... - 0.08% (2)
outdated and - 0.08% (2)
if, but - 0.08% (2)
armed service - 0.08% (2)
the constitution - 0.08% (2)
equal opportunity - 0.08% (2)
of their - 0.08% (2)
have been - 0.08% (2)
confusionlast week’s - 0.08% (2)
combat. the - 0.08% (2)
missions with - 0.08% (2)
two marines - 0.08% (2)
the policy, - 0.08% (2)
because of - 0.08% (2)
2012 in - 0.08% (2)
the past - 0.08% (2)
and for - 0.08% (2)
counseling and - 0.08% (2)
instead of - 0.08% (2)
and it - 0.08% (2)
exemption for - 0.08% (2)
survivors and - 0.08% (2)
to provide - 0.08% (2)
change question - 0.08% (2)
intelligence community - 0.08% (2)
that alexis - 0.08% (2)
clapper, the - 0.08% (2)
of this - 0.08% (2)
from the - 0.08% (2)
counseling related - 0.08% (2)
of defense - 0.08% (2)
for the - 0.08% (2)
and counseling - 0.08% (2)
has since - 0.08% (2)
treatment or - 0.08% (2)
review of - 0.08% (2)
required to - 0.08% (2)
a security - 0.08% (2)
in getting - 0.08% (2)
the process - 0.08% (2)
standard form - 0.08% (2)
for national - 0.08% (2)
security positions - 0.08% (2)
is related - 0.08% (2)
version of - 0.08% (2)
martial, grief - 0.08% (2)
matter of - 0.08% (2)
needs to - 0.08% (2)
the status - 0.08% (2)
policyby ariela - 0.08% (2)
and congresswoman - 0.08% (2)
comments by - 0.08% (2)
need to - 0.08% (2)
but we - 0.08% (2)
the government - 0.08% (2)
the question, - 0.08% (2)
in this - 0.08% (2)
language to - 0.08% (2)
of sexual - 0.08% (2)
18th century - 0.08% (2)
sf86 form - 0.08% (2)
60 vote - 0.08% (2)
is called - 0.08% (2)
odni to - 0.08% (2)
care is - 0.08% (2)
that the - 0.08% (2)
out mental - 0.08% (2)
has the - 0.08% (2)
members of - 0.08% (2)
the senate - 0.08% (2)
combat-related counseling - 0.08% (2)
to report - 0.08% (2)
enough for - 0.08% (2)
because the - 0.08% (2)
intelligence (odni) - 0.08% (2)
women’s action network - 0.3% (8)
the combat exclusion - 0.23% (6)
sexual assault survivors - 0.19% (5)
greg jacob on - 0.19% (5)
to question 21 - 0.19% (5)
| 0 comments - 0.19% (5)
question 21 is - 0.19% (5)
by greg jacob - 0.19% (5)
new question 21 - 0.19% (5)
the new question - 0.15% (4)
for sexual assault - 0.15% (4)
challenge the combat - 0.15% (4)
commanders command and - 0.15% (4)
commission on civil - 0.15% (4)
command and lawyers - 0.15% (4)
on civil rights - 0.15% (4)
the military justice - 0.15% (4)
military sexual violence - 0.15% (4)
in featured content, - 0.15% (4)
mass shootings at - 0.11% (3)
let commanders command - 0.11% (3)
the washington dc - 0.11% (3)
today, debate on - 0.11% (3)
rights project (cross - 0.11% (3)
military justice reform: - 0.11% (3)
service members and - 0.11% (3)
navy yard has - 0.11% (3)
of national intelligence - 0.11% (3)
mental health care - 0.11% (3)
on u.s. commission - 0.11% (3)
hearing on military - 0.11% (3)
legal director last - 0.11% (3)
posted) last week, - 0.11% (3)
the service women’s - 0.11% (3)
combat exclusion policy. - 0.11% (3)
the director of - 0.11% (3)
swan has been - 0.11% (3)
migdal, aclu women’s - 0.11% (3)
military justice improvement - 0.11% (3)
reflections on u.s. - 0.11% (3)
reform: let commanders - 0.11% (3)
rights hearing on - 0.11% (3)
washington dc navy - 0.11% (3)
shootings at the - 0.11% (3)
rachel natelson, service - 0.11% (3)
are suing to - 0.11% (3)
clearances: clarity then - 0.11% (3)
service women are - 0.11% (3)
suing to challenge - 0.11% (3)
continues on the - 0.11% (3)
aclu women’s rights - 0.11% (3)
project (cross posted) - 0.11% (3)
yard has congress, - 0.11% (3)
raft of amendments - 0.11% (3)
week’s mass shootings - 0.11% (3)
why service women - 0.11% (3)
a raft of - 0.11% (3)
amendments continues on - 0.11% (3)
dc navy yard - 0.11% (3)
the 2014 national - 0.11% (3)
debate on a - 0.11% (3)
at the washington - 0.11% (3)
the office of - 0.08% (2)
change to the - 0.08% (2)
and lawyers lawyer.today, - 0.08% (2)
0 comments by - 0.08% (2)
confusionlast week’s mass - 0.08% (2)
for national security - 0.08% (2)
national intelligence (odni) - 0.08% (2)
2012 in featured - 0.08% (2)
in the same - 0.08% (2)
2014 national defense... - 0.08% (2)
prevents women from - 0.08% (2)
ground combat. the - 0.08% (2)
combat pilot who - 0.08% (2)
outdated and doesn’t - 0.08% (2)
because of the - 0.08% (2)
exclusion policyby ariela - 0.08% (2)
to answer no - 0.08% (2)
military sexual violenceby - 0.08% (2)
national security positions - 0.08% (2)
posted) last week,... - 0.08% (2)
has congress, the... - 0.08% (2)
military sexual assault - 0.08% (2)
clarity then confusionlast - 0.08% (2)
of the senate - 0.08% (2)
lawyer.today, debate on - 0.08% (2)
a review of - 0.08% (2)
the process is - 0.08% (2)
a change to - 0.08% (2)
no to question - 0.08% (2)
in getting the - 0.08% (2)
a security clearance - 0.08% (2)
counseling related to - 0.08% (2)
policyby ariela migdal, - 0.08% (2)
clapper, the director - 0.08% (2)
change question 21 - 0.08% (2)
final version of - 0.08% (2)
legal director last... - 0.08% (2)
to a sexual - 0.08% (2)
members and veterans - 0.08% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.