Dec 23, 2010 Political
The lame duck session of Congress passed a bill to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy for military service that was enacted under Bill Clinton. Barack Obama signed the new law while flashing a big smile and telling us that no longer would homosexuals in the military be forced to live a lie.
They were never forced to live a lie. Military service is not compulsory so people do not have to join. It is also not a lie to just not say what your sexual orientation is. If it is considered a lie then the decision to lie was taken freely by the person who enlisted. Once again, that is not being forced.
There was nothing wrong with DADT. It allowed gay people to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves.
That was not good enough for the progressives because they said it was discrimination not to allow gay people to openly serve. Was it discrimination, sure but it was not unconstitutional as many claim.
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 14 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make the rules for governing and regulating the military. Since they made DADT the rule then it was not unconstitutional.
The military routinely discriminates. People who are overweight (and exceed the body fat standard) are put out of the service. It does not matter if they can pass all the physical fitness tests or not, they are out. Overweight people are not allowed to enlist (though the threshold is higher than for those already in).
Now that we have ended the discriminatory practice of DADT it is time to end the practice of discriminating against others who want to serve. If an overweight person wants to serve, then let him. Why discriminate? These folks just want to serve their country.
While we are at it we can end the discriminatory practice of forcing people who want to be in the Special Forces from having to pass more stringent physical tests and end the practice of discriminating against those with poor vision from flying fighter planes.
If the whole premise is to end a discriminatory practice then how do we still allow other discriminatory practices?
This will lead to problems. Those with deeply held religious views will be reprimanded or put out if they do not march lock step with the gay agenda. People who oppose this will not be able to refuse to share a room with a homosexual soldier. What happens when homosexuals want housing for them and their gay lover? Will the military be forced to sanction gay marriage (which I believe is an end goal). What happens when the gay soldier wants medical care for his gay partner? How will this play out when an unmarried straight soldier demands housing and medical care for his opposite sex partner? If that soldier does not get the same treatment as the gay soldier the discrimination begins anew.
The poll taken among soldiers was flawed in its design but one thing is clear, combat forces overwhelmingly disapproved of repealing DADT and allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. If they show their disgust with their feet, we will be in a world of hurting.
The only upside is that if they ever reinstate the draft, being a homosexual will not keep people from being drafted.
I wonder how many gays who fought for this (and have never served or had any intenting of serving) will whine when the draft board sends them a letter.
Yep, be careful what you ask for.
If this has a negative impact on the military Barack Obama will go down in history as the one person who destroyed the greatest military in the world. He will be even worse than Carter, as if anyone thought that remotely possible.
Then again, Obama has never liked the military and he and his progressive buddies will do whatever it takes to destroy it.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 18, 2010 Political
The elites want you to bathe in the oil while they eat lobster in Maine
Michelle Obama told people that there were plenty of clean beaches in the Gulf and that people should vacation there. She told them to take their kids with them, you know to enjoy the place.
But that did not apply to Michelle and her husband. Perhaps you have heard of him. He is the Socialist who is currently in charge of the country and who spends most of his time playing one sport or another or being on vacation. But his vacation is not in the Gulf, no, no, no. The Obamas are in Maine, the place Bill Clinton liked to vacation. They are hobnobbing, interrupting the real Americans who are trying to enjoy a vacation, and ignoring the Gulf, the very place Michelle told people to visit.
The Gulf, where one could potentially be contaminated, is for the peons among us and not the elitists who spend their time in places like Martha’s Vineyard.
I bet if it was called the GOLF Coast he would vacation there…
ABC News Jake Tapper
Elena Kagan is another Socialist who hates the military
She hates the military. There is no other way to look at her ban of recruiters on the Harvard Campus because of the policy against open homosexuality. One might think that she took a principled stance but she allowed the Saudi recruiters on campus to discuss and promote Sharia Law. Sharia Law calls for murdering homosexuals. Kagan is not so much in favor of homosexual rights as she is against the military. Here is the transcript from this video:
As Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan banned military recruiters from campus because US law said they couldn’t enlist homosexuals. Well, she invited the Saudi’s “recruiters” to promote their legal code — Shariah — which calls for homosexuals to be murdered and women to be treated like animals. If Kagan tolerates promoting the injustice of Shariah law on the campus of Harvard, what kind of injustice will she tolerate in America during a lifetime on the Supreme Court?
Big Dog Salute to American Power
How is that universal health care in Massachusetts working out?
The Unites States contains 50 pitri dishes that allow for things to take place and be worked out. The states can try things and if they are good the country can adopt them and if they are bad the country can reject them. This is good in theory but the federal government and the individual states, by and large, continue doing the things that cause problems.
In any event, Massachusetts enacted a health care law much like the one the federal government imposed on the rest of us earlier this year. Despite the failings of the MA health care plan, the federal government pushed forward (against a majority of people in the country) and forced their plan on us. Opponents of the law warned that it will lead to rationing, it will lead to bureaucrats making medical decisions, will force businesses to drop their employees (dump them on the taxpayer), and will cost a lot more than government predictions. The model was there in MA but it was ignored because the law is not about health and it is not about care.
It is about control.
Here is what is now taking place in Massachusetts.
The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget. boston.com
The Massachusetts law was supposed to reduce costs. It was supposed to make health care more affordable. It was supposed to allow people to keep their current insurance. It was designed to make it affordable for employers so they could cover their employees.
Sounds just like what the liberals told us about Obamacare.
And it too will cost more than they said, will lead to rationing, will lead to death panels (denied care that leads to death is a death panel), and will force businesses to drop employees and dump them on the government plan. Just ask Massachusetts how it all worked out…
Everyone on the government plan is what the progressives have wanted all along but this is not what we were told.
Looks like it is November or never.
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 11, 2009 Political
The Tea Party protests are comprised of people from all walks of life and all political persuasions. These are people who are tired of out of control government and want real reform in how it is run. The moniker Tea Party is a reference to the celebrated Boston Tea Party:
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Wikipedia
The morons on the left attacked Tea Party protesters (the modern day ones) as a bunch of conservative racists and used disparaging words when referring to them. One such phrase, used by the likes of Jeanine Garafalo and Anderson Cooper, is Tea Baggers. Tea Bagger is a vulgar reference to a sex act commonly associated with homosexual men though heterosexuals can engage in the act. Lesbian women are the only group that cannot engage in this particular act.
The references to the Tea Party protesters contained a lot of sexual innuendo and the phrase Tea Bagger is almost always one of them.
In DC this weekend, there is a protest going on and the group contains actual tea baggers. DC is the site of a gay protest where homosexuals are looking for Obama to keep his word on rescinding the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy of gays serving in the military, homosexual marriage, and any number of other gay agenda items. Those topics and their validity are for another post at another time.
Barney Fwank, an openly gay member of Congress, thinks the Tea Baggers in DC are not being as effective as they could if they stayed home and protested their members of Congress in home districts. He has a point with regard to this weekend because most members of Congress are in their home districts for the Columbus Day holiday (which is about a week long for them). The Tea Baggers will be protesting but just who will they be protesting to?
The Tea Bagging crowd even has dissension in its ranks because some in the group agree with Fwank, they think they should be protesting their own officials at their home bases. Those who decided on a national protest are tired of working the home crowd and want to appeal to Obama directly. He did not let them down and appeared at a dinner and vowed to end DADT:
“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,’” Obama said Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. He offered no timetable or specifics and he acknowledged some may be growing impatient.
“I appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough,” Obama said. “Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.” My Way News
Many of the Tea Baggers are skeptical because the agenda has not moved quickly enough for them. They want an end to DADT NOW. It might happen and if it does every gay who fought for it should have to enlist in the military and back up what they wanted. If that were a requirement they would not be fighting for it.
Obama is not moving quickly enough for them but they should cut him some slack. He has had to work on lowering sea levels (a messiah can do this), eliminating CO2 (so we can all die), wrecking the economy, fighting a losing battle for the Olympics, increasing unemployment, running up huge deficits, attempting to take over health care, going on a number of mini vacations with his Klingon wife, and selecting a dog. Along the way he had to make time for his I might do something in the future Nobel Appease Prize.
The Tea Baggers, like any other group that supports the left, expect payback NOW. They supported Obama and they want their piece of the pie right now. They see him paying back his supporters in the unions and in ACORN and they want theirs. This is why they sashayed into DC to protest.
They are entitled to that right as Americans but I wonder. Will Cooper, Garafalo and the other liberal morons report on this protest and if they do will they call the protesters Tea Baggers since it more aptly describes them.
Or is that vulgarity reserved exclusively for the people who protest out of control government?
Feb 29, 2008 Political
The Clintons were the darlings of the gay community when he was running for president because he promised to open the military to gays and to give them about anything they wanted. He quickly found out the military establishment did not like the idea and Clinton eventually forced “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) on the military. He was a gay friendly president but they were disillusioned because he did not go far enough in forcing their agenda on the rest of the country. Of course, now the issue is gay marriage and a small portion of the population, the gay part, wants to impose this on the majority. More than half the country opposes gay marriage but that does not stop the gays and their comrades in Congress from pushing the agenda.
Considering that the Clintons were the gay darlings, it is surprising that the gay community is backing Obama for president. Interesting, that is, until one explores Obama’s position on the gay lifestyle. Barack Obama will impose the will of the gay community on the rest of the country whether the country likes it or not. He claims to want equality but states he will keep is mind opened to those who still need to be convinced. What he is saying is that people who do not agree with the gay lifestyle are on the wrong side of the equation and need to be educated so we will accept it. Fat chance with that one Obamination.
I agree with him that this should be a state issue and that is why I think it should be introduced as a Constitutional Amendment. In that process each state gets to vote to ratify the amendment and that would mean that states have the right to decide. I know there are those who say to push it back to the states and let them handle it and normally I would agree. The only problem with that is the Congress would begin to penalize states that did not quite get convinced. You see, Congress has the power of the purse and they can use that power to coerce states to do the bidding of the government. Look at how they control states with regard to highway speed. Congress wants a certain speed but states may set their own limits so Congress threatens to withhold highway funds if states raise their speed limits. They use this method of extortion for a lot of things.
I can see a day, if Obama is successful, where a state will reject gay marriage and the feds will withhold some sort of funding until the state capitulates. Pretty soon states will fall in line in order to get the money that the federal government has extorted from the occupants of said state.
Obama is also in favor of eliminating DADT and the implication is he will allow gays to openly serve in the military. This was greatly opposed by the military when Clinton tried it and DADT was the compromise. Unless every gay signs a contract indicating that they will all serve if the military is open to gays then Obama better rethink this idea. There will already be people leaving the military if he gets elected and pulls our troops out of Iraq. If he opens it to gays he will need all of them to have any kind of military. Perhaps they can wear pink berets. The military is not a place for social engineering.
Unfortunately, Obama does not understand this. He thinks he does because some members of his family were in the military or worked for the military. Obama made that clear when he attacked a new ad from the Clinton campaign showing that Obama would be weak on national security. The ad shows a family sleeping and the announcers says that the family is safe but it is 3 am and the phone at the White House is ringing. Who do you trust to handle the emergency? Obama says he is best equipped because McCain and Clinton took the same decision that George Bush took and that it was the wrong one. He is entitled to that opinion but it does not mean he is correct. His mindless prattle about opposition is irrelevant because he was not there and did not face the prospect of sending troops to war. Sure, he can say he opposed it, but how do we really know.
In any respect, the article reads:
Obama did not serve in the military, but told his audience that he comes from a military heritage, as does McCain, a Navy pilot and Vietnam War prisoner of war whose father and grandfather were Navy officers.
Said Obama: “My grandfather enlisted after Pearl Harbor and marched in Patton’s Army. My mother was born at Fort Leavenworth, and my grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line.After his service, America stood by my grandfather. He went to college on the GI Bill, and bought his first home with help from the Federal Housing Authority. Then he moved his family west to Hawaii, where I was born. Today, he is buried in the Punchbowl Cemetery, where 776 victims of Pearl Harbor are laid to rest.” CBS
The difference here is that McCain ACTUALLY served in the military. Obama had family that served or worked with the military but Obama did not. Having family in the military gives him about as much experience to be Commander in Chief as Hillary’s eight years as First Lady does. My grandfather was an excellent carpenter but that does not qualify me to be a building inspector.
Obama is weak on the military and he is going out on a limb by pandering to the gay community in order to get its votes. The closer this guy gets to the nomination the farther left he goes. He is basically trying to turn our country into a haven for lewd and criminal behavior where there are no consequences for actions. Here is a guy who claims to be a Christian but he is in favor of murdering unborn children and allowing gay people to tarnish the religious institution of marriage. How much clearer can it get that this guy is out to destroy the American family structure? Of course, right about now I bet Hillary wishes Obama’s mommy had considered abortion…
From what I see, she did. She had a partial birth abortion where they threw away the baby and kept the afterbirth…
Jan 11, 2008 General
I know there are many arguments about whether or not homosexuals should serve in the military. There are many homosexuals who are patriots and who would love to serve their country. Having that desire does not mean they should be able to serve or that they have a right to serve. I have my own views about why they should not serve, openly or otherwise, and many have taken me to task for my views. So be it. However, this story from Stars and Stripes shows how harmful allowing homosexuals to serve can be and this episode shows the dangers involved:
Eighteen British military members and six contractors are having their blood checked for infections and diseases after receiving emergency war-zone transfusions that might not have been properly screened by U.S. officials, British authorities said Thursday.
The transfusions were performed at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan at various times since 2001, according to the British Ministry of Defence.
While U.S. and U.K. policy is to use certified blood products in combat zones, donors are used in emergency situations or when there are supply shortages, according to an MOD release. Policy also dictates that these emergency samples be retrospectively tested to ensure they are clean.
â€œHowever, not all of the emergency collections had samples that made it back to the U.S. for retrospective testing,â€ according to a statement from Derek Twigg, the U.K. undersecretary of state for defence. â€œThis is the key reason for offering testing to the recipients of these U.S. emergency blood collections.â€
Why is this of concern? The blood is retrospectively tested. In other words it is tested after the transfusions. Unfortunately, some injuries require blood quickly and prior to proper screening in order to save a life. The homosexual male population accounts for the majority of HIV cases in the US and Western Europe:
In North America and Western Europe HIV infection and AIDS cases have been concentrated among men who have sex with men and among users of intravenous drugs. In some US cities up to half of homosexual and bisexual men are infected (440) (see Table 1, p. 4). In the population as a whole, however, infection is uncommon–0.12 percent among US military recruits in 1988, for example (442). BNET
Additionally, the US accounts for 60% of the world’s reported cases. This might just be because we have a better reporting system but no matter the reason, the fact is allowing homosexual men to serve would increase the likeliness that emergency transfusions would result in the transmission of the AIDS virus. The reason that the military tests low is because the test is required for entrance into the service which would exclude carriers prior to entry. This means that about 50% of gay men would be excluded from entering. It also means that those who make it through pose a risk to their fellow soldiers because the gays are most likely to get infected. We can exclude IV drug users because they would not make it in and it is unlikely, with drug testing, that those who took up that vice would remain in the service.
This will cause people to make all kinds of excuses and try to rationalize why gays should be permitted to serve. No matter what the argument, allowing them to serve poses a danger to others.
Imagine surviving a terrible injury only to be diagnosed with AIDS. Don’t ask, don’t tell could be a death sentence.