Our Military Is Under Attack By The Left
Jan 16, 2009 Political
The United States Military is a uniformed service that requires skill and discipline and a willingness to put the team before the individual. I served for 24 years and had the opportunity to serve with some of the best people this country has to offer. Some of the people I served with were homosexuals who served under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy instituted by Bill Clinton. They were great soldiers and great patriots. DADT worked because it prevented the distractions and problems of open homosexuality.
Barack Hussein Obama has vowed to end DADT and to allow homosexuals to openly serve. This is the case despite the reality that most homosexuals will not serve and despite the fact that a Military Times survey found that 24% of current service members would leave if open homosexuality were allowed. Of those, 10% would definitely leave and 14% would consider not reenlisting. 10% would equal the number of active duty Marines and 24% is close to the number of active duty soldiers in the Army. Those are significant numbers that will not be made up by homosexuals joining.
Obama owes the homosexual activists. He stated he was against gay marriage but the reality is that earlier in his (short) career he supported it. The opposition was likely some of that “campaign rhetoric” he discussed on ABC. Obama and the gay activists see this as equal rights or getting rid of discrimination but that is not what it is. The military is selective by necessity. Overweight people are either discharged or denied favorable actions. People without certain physical characteristics cannot hold certain jobs and women are not allowed in the combat arms. These are all necessary to accomplish the primary mission of defending this country.
About 75% of military members identify themselves as conservative. This is no surprise because very few liberals are willing to fight for anything. They would rather have others protect them while they protest the manner in which that protection is provided. That is all well and good but why do they have a say in how the military is handled? The majority of troops oppose homosexuality but only 24% of those would leave because of it. But how will openly gay members affect the military as a whole?
Perhaps things would be fine. Other countries have openly gay service members and they seem to do OK. However, those countries are much more liberal than ours and they have a different value system. People claim that soldiers in the Israeli Army don’t mind but what would it matter if they did? All people are compelled to serve so they really have no choice as to whom they serve with. Allowing homosexuals to serve ensures that those who do not want to serve are not able to use homosexuality as an excuse.
The military in this country is an all volunteer force. Despite the claims by the left that George Bush was going to institute the draft, that never happened. In fact, the only people who pushed for the draft were Democrats. George Bush and military leaders know that our military is much better with the highly skilled, all volunteer force we currently have. Newsflash to moonbats: Charlie Rangel is reintroducing his initiative to have a draft.
I have always been opposed to the draft because I feel it violates the Constitution. It also fills the ranks with people who do not want to be there and that is not the best way to accomplish our mission. Our government must have figured a way around the Constitution because we have the mechanism for a draft.
Regardless of how I feel about it, if Obama forces the military to accept openly gay people then every physically able person between the ages of 18 and 22 should be required to serve for 2 years. We should start with 22 year olds and work back until we hit the 18s and then service would be mandatory for all persons when they reach 18 (and have graduated or are out of high school). This will ensure that the homosexual community is adequately represented in the military and that we do not deplete the ranks in order to appease a few. After the 2 year assignment each person would be in the reserves, subject to recall AT ANY TIME, for four more years. This would solve the problem of multiple combat tours that the liberals are always complaining about. It could also rid places like Berkeley of the recruiter stations the moonbats so vehemently oppose.
My plan would include everyone and there would be no waivers for college (unless the college is a military academy) and all able bodied persons would be required to serve no matter what. This includes the children of rich people and politicians and failure to serve would be a felony punishable by 2 years in jail and 4 years of probation and loss of any type of government aid.
The military is not the place to try social experiments and allowing openly gay people to serve is either an experiment or an attempt to dismantle the Armed Forces by getting people to leave them. Since Obama is a Socialist who has surrounded himself with like minded people as well as those who want to allow Mexico to retake part of our country, it would not surprise me that he would work to dismantle the biggest obstacle to that goal.
So, now is the time to see how committed the homosexuals are. Do they still want openly gay people to be allowed to serve if the condition for it is mandatory service for all?
One other thing, if queers are allowed to openly serve they are not allowed to adopt the motto; “Never leave your buddy’s behind.”
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: gay, homsexual, Military, Obama, queer, social engineering
The Dems Said Fox Was Dishonest?
Nov 29, 2007 Political
Not to long ago the Democratic candidates all decided to cancel a debate sponsored by Fox. They made their claim that Fox was biased to the right and that they would not conduct a fair and open debate. The Democrats were more comfortable with the 70% left leaning “unbiased” MSM so that is the route they went. Republicans have not canceled any debates based upon distrust of a network though it appears they should have.
CNN hosted last night’s debate and I wrote a post informing that the gay general who asked the question about gays in the military was affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and had endorsed her. Now it seems that this guy was not the only “undecided” voter who already supported a Democratic candidate. At least three other people who asked questions have endorsed a Democrat. Two of them for Edwards and one for Obama. The abortion girl Journey even posted a video about her response to the answers to her question while she was wearing her John Edwards T Shirt. The mom with the lead paint toy question is a union manager for a union that has endorsed Edwards and her video is displayed on the union’s website.
So somebody tell me again why the Democrats were worried about Fox but not concerned about CNN. Oh, because CNN seems to be in the tank for the left. There is no way that someone at CNN could not have known about these people. Perhaps they figured they would not get caught.
The Democrats canceled the Fox debate because they wanted fair. How fair is it that the gay general got more time to speak than Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter? For that matter, he got longer than any candidate for a single response. They were limited to 90 seconds and 30 seconds for a follow up. The gay general got 2 minutes to talk about his lifestyle.
Michelle Malkin has quite a bit of detail.
Tags: abortion, cnn, democratic candidate, Democrats, distrust, fox, gay, gays in the military, hillary clinton campaign, John Edwards, lead paint, michelle malkin, Obama, tancredo