General observations on just about anything.
If it passes I have a new name for it...
Published on May 31, 2010 By Nitro Cruiser In Politics

...but first some background.

Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.

What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items  and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.

Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.

If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide.  The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!

Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.

What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command.  The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.

For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well?  If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Remember, you heard the term coined here first.

UPDATE 05/24/2017

Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.


Comments (Page 7)
16 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Sep 24, 2010

Nitro Cruiser
I believe their goal is to co-opt what blacks went through during the desegregation of the military in the late 40's. The problem there is how can one compare a sexual preference with skin color? The military is there to fight not find a sole mate or discuss sex, race is obvious as is gender.

In the final analysis, I really do not have a position of gays in the military one way or the other.  it is not a right, and therefore is up to politicians.

But I strongly disagree and resent their efforts to make this into a second civil rights issue.  As you point out, anyone but a blind man (literally) can see skin color.  But no one except Jeanne Dixon can "see" a person's sexual orientation.  It is not a Civil Rights issue.  it is not even a rights issue.  It is one of fairness (but then what is fair?), and legalities.  Their efforts to make it Civil Rights II only serves to cheapen and denigrate the sacrifices that were made by people of all color to move America into a color blind society.

BTW is was progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson who segregated the military in the first place, setting it back almost 30 years.

That is not surprising.  They are the only ones that seem to see race before character.  Even today.

on Sep 28, 2010

I believe their goal is to co-opt what blacks went through during the desegregation of the military in the late 40's.

Yes it is. By co-opting (or what I call hijacking and exploiting) the civil rights movement, the activists make headway advancing their goal which is to make homosexuality accepted and respected throughout society as a social norm..that is equivalent if not better than heterosexuality.

The strategy is to blur the difference between homosexuality, changeable sexual behavior that a person chooses to act upon or not, and innate characteristics that can not ever be changed. People can't help being born of a particular race or sex and homosexuality does not fall into this category. That's why homosexual sophists have devised the "sexual orientation" theory. 

The truth is all human beings "sexual orientation" (with the exception of people born with genital deformities) is always heterosexual..that is they are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. 

 ..........................

 

 

 

on Sep 28, 2010

The military is there to fight not find a sole mate or discuss sex, race is obvious as is gender.

The problem there is how can one compare a sexual preference with skin color?

We are talking about a well-healed, powerful, politically protected movement that is hell-bent on redefining homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state of being completely independent of conduct.

For acceptance, equivalency and normalcy, homosexuals go after social groups (the Boy Scouts) and institutions working off just laws passed through truly discriminated against people.  Now they are going after the military where instead of the norm "I do not want to know what the person does in the privacy of his own bedroom" being continued; it will be the flaunting of abnormal behavior for everyone to see, a case of, "Look at me, I can do anything I want and you can't stop me."

It is not a Civil Rights issue. it is not even a rights issue.

WE know that, but since the 80's homosexuality has been presented as a normal way of life, equal to heterosexuality in academia, the media, Hollywood, and government, and so many don't even know they have been duped into believing it.

 

on Sep 28, 2010

WE know that, but since the 80's homosexuality has been presented as a normal way of life, equal to heterosexuality in academia, the media, Hollywood, and government, and so many don't even know they have been duped into believing it.

It can be as normal as a PB&J, but that still does not make it a rights issue.  Gays have the EXACT same rights as non-gays.  Period.  But having the same rights does not mean "doing whatever you want" which is their cause (and I will not debate them on that as I do not have a horse in that race).

on Sep 28, 2010

It can be as normal as a PB&J,

If we are ever to defeat the "gay rights" arguments and the goals of the agenda, then we must assert the plain truth about homosexuality...and that is homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval becasue it spreads disease and dysfunction.

It can be as normal as a PB&J, but that still does not make it a rights issue.

DrG,

The fact is that we are being forced to accept homosexuality as a social norm and fundamental right through "special rights" legislation. This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies, laws and ordinances that include "sexual orientation".   I cherish my First AMendment right to think and speak freely as well as freedom of conscience, but I cannot do so becasue the practical effect of including "sexual orientation" is to legitimize and protect homosexuality as a normal way of life.

 

 

on Sep 28, 2010

 

And here is the latest:

Judge: Reinstate Lesbian Fired from Military under DADT

By Kathleen Gilbert

TACOMA, Washington, September 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Gay rights proponents are celebrating after a district court judge ordered that a lesbian be reinstated to her position in the U.S. Air Force, years after she was dismissed for being a practicing homosexual.

 The case of Margaret Witt, a former U.S. Air Force flight nurse, appears to be the first in which a judge has ordered a service member dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy on homosexuality to return.

 "The evidence produced at trial overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the suspension and discharge of Margaret Witt did not significantly further the important government interest in advancing unit morale and cohesion," concluded U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton in a 15-page opinion issued Friday.

 It is unclear whether the Obama administration, which has vowed opposition to DADT and is pushing a repeal, will appeal the decision.

 Although Leighton had dismissed the suit in 2007, he was ordered to reconsider it after the U.S. Court of Appeals held that DADT could only be enforced in cases of clear negative impact on military readiness.

 Witt was dismissed from the military on a tip from her lover's jilted husband that she was a homosexual. Leighton refused to sustain her dismissal on grounds of adultery.

 Senate Democrats attempted to push through a repeal of the policy last week, but were blocked by a GOP filibuster.

 URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10092710.html


on Sep 29, 2010

I know most people that support gay rights will mockingly say that it'll lead to us accepting people having sex with goats.  They'll use that analogy for marriage as well that eventually we go down that slippery slope people will praying goats and dogs.  In reality there is truth behind that if we just look at NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association).  Doing the same thing that gay rights are doing.  Once the non-sense of gay rights goes through whether people like it or not it is going through they will be demanding their equal rights.  They'll say that they are being discriminated against.  They'll already trying to do that and trying to show that historically its alright to have sex with minors and that this has been the case in many other civilizations. 

I couldn't believe that group existed so I wikipedia it sometime ago.  I didn't want to go to their website and all of a sudden be on the FBI watched list If you go to their wikipedia page you can see that they're doing the same thing that homosexuals are doing.  I feel if eventually if this world last long enough they will be able to legitimize their case.

I think that group is disgusting.  It has been shown countless times that children being molested has a huge negative impact yet they'll counter that with will it's all consent, I say non-sense.  You should be castrated!

on Sep 29, 2010

I know most people that support gay rights will mockingly say that it'll lead to us accepting people having sex with goats. They'll use that analogy for marriage as well that eventually we go down that slippery slope people will praying goats and dogs.

I find that statement a bit confusing.  Are you saying that the supporters are using the goats and dog arguments?  Or the opponents are using it?

I couldn't believe that group existed so I wikipedia it sometime ago.

FoxNews (or faux news as the idiots like to call it), just did an expose that revealed even though facebook has a policy against NAMBLA, it is very highly integrated in that site and very easy to find both users and groups in there.  it is indeed a real group.

on Sep 29, 2010

I think that group is disgusting. It has been shown countless times that children being molested has a huge negative impact yet they'll counter that with will it's all consent, I say non-sense. You should be castrated!

TPP I find it odd, yet clever, at the approach some homosexual activists are taking. Before I go further, let me define my thoughts on pedophiles (my reasoning to come later). IMO there are two types, both equally reprehensible in my eyes. One type targets the opposite sex and the other the same sex as the victimizer. Many might disagree, but IMO the later type is a off-shoot of homosexuality, just as the first is off heterosexuality, some added deviant "quirk" (for lack of a better word).

I mention this to parallel the way gay activists treat two entirely different groups or hurdles, the military and the church. One would fairly believe the activists have a huge beef with the church, as the church stands in the way of their goals. Yet, IMO gays have infiltrated the church for years (the reason for my conclusion above) as, some would say, a haven for homosexual pedophilia. An odd predicament in my view. Of course many will not break down pedophilia as I have, or insist that it is unrelated. Perhaps there is data out there that pertains to whether the victims are usually the same sex as the perpetrator or not, in the church related cases. If a man has sexual desire for a boy, does that not make him a homosexual? I feel this correlation is being buried, for the sake of political correctness, and to bolster support for the gay agenda.

Now with the military, it's a little different animal. Gays serve (one could use the term "infiltrate" here as well, but others generally know, with a few exceptions) now under the DADT and even prior to that. Of course there are no children in the military, so while pedophilia does occur (usually in ones own family or while stationed abroad) it isn't as exposed to military or civilian scrutiny (domestic cases are treated as crimes and the military is typically kept out of it). Because of the military structure, there is both a strength and a weakness that confront gay activists. The strength being plain old military discipline. One must conform to the rules. This makes it difficult to cause disruption from within. The weakness is that the military has an Achilles heal, outside political and involvement, some would say meddling. This is something the church doesn't have to contend with (yet anyway) in a large way. It would be bad form to protest the troops, but it is fine to protest the church, with a little help from the inside.

on Sep 29, 2010

If you go to their wikipedia page you can see that they're doing the same thing that homosexuals are doing. I feel if eventually if this world last long enough they will be able to legitimize their case.

Check this out from FOX News who reported that NAMBLA is networking on Facebook.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/28/pedophiles-find-home-social-networking-facebook/

 

on Oct 16, 2010

While Obama was campaigning for other Democrats, pandering to the homosexual crowd, he promised that DADT would be repealed on his watch.

If so we can expect stories just like this one from a group of former Brazilian soldiers......

Former Brazilian Soldiers Say they Were Forced to Have Sex with Homosexual Superior


By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

MARABÁ, Brazil, October 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of former Brazilian soldiers say that a lieutenant colonel sexually harassed and forced recruits to engage in sex acts with him in order to continue their military careers, according to the Brazilian television network R7.

 However, despite photographic and video evidence, formal complaints by six soldiers, and numerous witnesses interviewed by R7, the Brazilian military denies that evidence implicating the colonel exists.

 Following the initial complaints in 2009, Alberto Almeida was promoted from the rank of major to lieutenant colonel and put in charge of a local hospital, where he also engaged in sexual harassment and misbehavior, according to witnesses.

Soldiers who worked under Almeida say that the colonel attempted to kiss them on the mouth and touch their genitals, and repeatedly invited them to his home.  He is also accused of holding parties for young recruits at an isolated beach known as a hangout for couples, and inducing them to have sexual intercourse in exchange for career benefits.

 Video supplied to R7 shows one of the beach parties, where Almeida is shown in a bathing suit opening the flap of a tent where soldiers are sleeping together, and making sexual insinuations.  Fifteen recruits reportedly participated in the outing. Other photos show Almeida dressed as a woman and embracing young soldiers, one of whom is dressed as a fairy, in sexually suggestive ways.

 In addition to two male soldiers who say they suffered harassment under Almeida, R7 interviewed other witnesses who worked at the hospital, including a female soldier who was discharged from the military for insubordination following her own complaint against Almeida.

 “The whole world knows" about the behavior of Almeida, former Sergeant Rubenice Dias Martins told R7, "but no one has the courage to tell the truth, out of fear of being persecuted, and even of being sued."

 She is now seeking legal recourse against the military, and wants to be restored to her previous position.

 "I don't have anything to be ashamed of," said Dias Martins. "They are the ones who should be ashamed."

 

on Oct 16, 2010

If DADT passes, harassment charges will inevitably arise. I'm curious how it will be handled, since the parties involved will consist of a special, protected class of citizen and one that may not be. I don't envy anyone it that position.

on Oct 21, 2010

I've got another update today......

Judge Denies Request for Stay on Ruling against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Peter J. Smith

UPDATE 7:30pm EST: A federal appeals court Wednesday evening stayed the ruling, permitting the U.S. government temporarily to continue banning open homosexuality in the military, according to Reuters.

RIVERSIDE, California, October 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal judge on Tuesday rejected the Obama Justice Department’s request for a stay on her court order against the nation’s ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Now the government is asking the appeals court in California to step in.

 Justice Department attorneys had requested an emergency stay from U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips in Riverside, who ruled in September that both 10 U.S.C. § 654, the 1993 law banning homosexuals from service in the armed forces, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Pentagon’s enforcement policy for the ban, violated the First Amendment and due process rights of homosexuals in the military.

Phillips issued a worldwide injunction on DADT last week, ordering the armed forces "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ Act."

The Associated Press reports that as a result of Phillips’s order, the Pentagon has now instructed recruiters to allow open homosexuals to sign up, while informing them that the legal situation with DADT could change at any moment.

In their motion to Phillips, the Justice Department argued that overturning DADT now would hurt the Pentagon’s efforts to study what effect repeal of DADT and the 1993 law would have on the military.

But Phillips denied the request Tuesday evening, saying she found the government’s arguments unconvincing and vague.

Tony Perkins, a former U.S. Marine and President of the Family Research Council, blasted Phillips for her refusal to stay her controversial ruling, saying it “should have been granted to avoid the confusion that is already occurring” over how the Pentagon is handling homosexual recruits.

"The courts have long recognized the constitutional role of Congress aided by military leaders in determining personnel policy,” said Perkins. “However, Judge Phillips clearly believes she knows better than all four service chiefs who have spoken out against overturning 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'”

Now the Justice Department is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to step in and issue an immediate injunction on Phillips’ ruling.

The attorneys explained in a 25-page brief that President Obama opposes the law and believes it should be repealed. However, they said that the president believes that Congress should overturn its own statute, and that numerous court precedents have found no constitutional difficulty with DADT and the 1993 law.

That process, they explained, demands that the Defense Department committee in charge of researching the effects on military readiness by abolishing DADT be allowed to complete its report, due December 1. 

“An abrupt, court-ordered end to the statute would pretermit the Working Group’s efforts to ensure that the military completesdevelopment of the necessary policies and regulations for a successful and orderly implementation of any repeal,” they stated.

The government’s attorneys also argued that Phillips’ decision should be reversed, because her worldwide injunction violates the principle of comity, as other district judges have ruled in favor of 10 U.S.C. § 654 and DADT. They said her ruling presumes to overrule those judges and U.S. law as it has developed in other U.S. circuit courts.

See previous coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

Judge Orders Military to Stop Enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101213.html

Federal Judge Deems Military 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Rule 'Unconstitutional'
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091002.html

 URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102004.html

on Oct 21, 2010

They may as well open the military to handicapped persons too. They might love their country and want to fight for it too. We can spend billions and make the military environment more handicapped friendly too. Special parking at the motor pool. A fleet of "Rascals" bringing up the rear of marching troops. Electric stairs chairs to get them up into tanks and fighter planes. Just open it up wide to every special group their is. Let's have the last part of the US government that isn't an embarassment to the world, join the rest. The Few, the Proud, the Partially Mobile. An Army of a Half. Navy, Full Speed Ahead (after the scooters recharge). Lame High... Airforce.

on Oct 21, 2010

I understand your point and it's not far fetched.

On Mash, remember they showed a guy who dressed like a woman?

Well, if DADT is officially repealed, that's what's logically follows next. They have a whole new group of special interests..."Transgenders" and transsexuals, transvestites, and what do they do for bathrooms? It's all so incredibly nuts and what's worse this is all rushed through before the report is released.

16 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last