Another Reason Gays Should not Serve
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.
“However, not all of the emergency collections had samples that made it back to the U.S. for retrospective testing,†according to a statement from Derek Twigg, the U.K. undersecretary of state for defence. “This 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.
Tags: AIDS, blood transfusions, gays, HIV, homosexuals, Military, serving
Hillary Panders to ILLEGALS
Jan 11, 2008 Link Fest, Political
Hillary Clinton is in Nevada and she is pandering to the ILLEGAL population. While touring a poor area she met with Hispanics who are down and out and not making very much money. Some guy yelled that his wife was ILLEGAL and Hillary replied that “no woman is illegal.”
Hillary was asked if she would give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS in two debates. The first one she flopped all over and gave two different answers. The second time she flat out stated “No!” Does this mean she will give licenses to women who are here illegally because she does not view them as ILLEGAL?
Is Hillary playing up the first woman to run ploy by trying to make people believe she is interested in women’s rights or that she views women differently than men? Did she discriminate by excluding men when she said that no woman was ILLEGAL?
Hillary Clinton will say anything to anyone to get elected. She knows that many women supported her in New Hampshire and that Hispanics are upset with the Republican Party because its members believe in the rule of law, something the Clinton crime family has had trouble with in the past. She breaks the law and has no problem pandering to others who do the same. She also knows that saying what she did makes more Hispanic women likely to vote for her.
Of course, she could have been giving them a veiled message that they could vote in the elections because she says they are not ILLEGAL.
Hillary is Satan.
Source:
Review Journal
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Ron Paul Wins Fox Debate
Jan 11, 2008 Political
At least this is what the people who voted by text messaging said. Last night Fox News had a Republican debate that featured all contenders except Duncan Hunter. The debate was pretty feisty at points with candidates attacking each other. Fred Thompson finally showed a bit of spark and he was, in my opinion, the clear winner of the debate and the focus group also believed Fred had won. Mitt Romney had a good night, McCain was solid and Huckabee was strong on domestic issues but weak on Foreign policy as was Ron Paul.
Ron Paul had some supporters in the crowd and he, in my opinion, performed OK for most of the night. There were a few times though, where he looked like an angry, out of control old man. I don’t think the message is that far off but the messenger needs to find a better delivery. He ranted for 90 seconds about rushing to fight with Iran before being told that the others had praised the restraint shown by the military. I think it was a very subtle moment where Brit Hume was able to take him down a notch. It made Ron Paul seem out of touch or as if he was not paying attention. Paul said he could not hear the moderator but I was reminded of Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s running mate, when I saw that exchange.
At the end of the debate Fox had text messaging voting set up so that people could dial in to vote for the winner. The results that were posted about 45 minutes post debate were Ron Paul ahead with 35%, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee tied at around 17 or 18%. I laughed when I saw those results because there is no way that Ron Paul won the debate and there is no way he is polling that high without the Ronulans voting over and over again.
The post debate text voting was exactly the same as the way Fox allows voting on American Idol which returns very soon. Perhaps Fox was tuning America back up so they could prepare to vote in that show. Whatever the case, Ron Paul was in the lead for one reason and one reason only, multiple text message votes by those who support Ron Paul and his revolution.
But believe me when I say, Ron Paul did not win the debate.
What was Fox thinking?
UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that one could only vote once. Another commenter pointed out that Paul supporters were more likely to be young and tech savvy. They are also the same people who will not show up on election day (not in the numbers that the less tech savvy will). Also, there were a number of posts in the Ronosphere telling everyone to be sure to vote. The fact that Ron Paul had more people willing to use a cell phone to vote does not mean he won the debate.
Tags: debate winner, fox news, ron paul, text message
Judges Pan Hillary Movie
Jan 10, 2008 Political
This, according to the AP:
The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Wednesday that a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement. Breitbart
Hillary: The Movie is a 90 minute story that details the public life of Hillary Clinton and it features many people who know her well and know what kind of person she is. It features those who know how corrupt she really is and it demonstrates that in a, well documentary format. But the judges, two of whom are conservatives, are not buying that claim. I guess you may not attack a liberal Democrat in a movie or you will get in trouble.
John Kerry fought hard and had Stolen Honor removed from some television stations. It was a documentary that showed how he was a phony war hero and how he disgraced his service and his fellow sailors during his service in Vietnam (he was there you know) and during his protests when he returned. Some Fox channels showed the documentary but there was a lot of controversy. After all, one cannot dis a Democrat.
However, when the target is a Republican, all bets are off. Micheal Moore was allowed to show Fahrenheit 911 all over without worrying about campaign finance issues. I am not sure if Moore spent his own money on the show but was it required to have political disclaimers? Moore had at least 50 errors in the film and most were outright lies and distortion of the truth. To top it off, it was aired and released and given away for free just before the election in order to help defeat George Bush. That was the stated goal of Moore and yet, he was not taken to task like those who are defending the Hillary movie.
I believe that the DVDs are not regulated by the campaign laws. I am more than willing to buy one. I would suggest that the people who made it consider showing it for free on the web. They can show it and then sell the DVD.
This is a biased world where Democrats are a protected species and anything goes when it comes to Republicans. But then again, we have always had a soft spot for the handicapped…
Maybe the judges were afraid the movie would make Hillary cry…
Hillary is Satan.
Tags: bias, campaign finance, Democrats, Hillary, movie
MD Judge: OK to Violate Constitution
Jan 10, 2008 Political
Last November, Maryland’s Governor called a special session of the legislature in order to tackle a budget deficit that the same legislature was responsible for giving us. Governor O’Malley asked them to raise every tax imaginable and they obliged him by raising even more than he could have imagined. The Governor claimed that the increases would not affect nearly 90% of the residents but in the end each and every person will pay more money. The increase in the sales tax will particularly hurt the poor and middle income residents.
During that session the Maryland Legislature took an action that violated the State Constitution. The Maryland Constitution states that one chamber needs the permission of the other before taking a recess of greater than three days. The Senate took off longer than three days without permission which is a violation. To make matters worse, a clerk falsified documents to make it appear as if everything had been done appropriately. I am absolutely certain that the clerk did not take it upon herself to do this and was given instructions to do so by one of the Democratic leaders. However, since the State’s Attorney General refuses to have it investigated, we may never know for sure. All actions give the impression of impropriety and perception is often the truth for people who, according to the talk shows, believe something fishy took place.
The Republican Party of Maryland filed suit to have the tax increases, the largest in state history, nullified. The contention is that if they were done in violation of the Constitution then they are not valid. Unfortunately, a judge decided that while the Democratic leadership “erred” nullifying the tax increases would be “too drastic” a remedy. What Judge Thomas Stansfield is saying is that even though the law makers broke the law it is OK and what they accomplished by breaking the law is satisfactory. Making them pay for their abuse would be “too drastic.”
How many times has a murderer been released because his Constitutional rights were violated? Has any judge ever stated that releasing a guy who was not read his rights or was denied a lawyer would be too drastic? We have a Constitution for a reason and if we are not going to follow it then we should just flush the damned thing down the toilet. Lawmakers, many of whom are lawyers, should be held accountable for breaking the law. I am quite sure if I were before this chowder headed judge for drinking and driving he would not say that while I “erred” fining me or putting me in jail would be “too drastic.” He would say that I violated the law and that I had to pay for that violation.
Why is it the people who are supposed to uphold our laws, the ones we give power to make those laws, are not held to that exact standard?
We need to get rid of this judge and we need to get to the bottom of the crime involving falsifying the records. Perhaps if the Republican lawmakers threaten the clerk with a few years in jail she might be able to shed some light on the matter.
Is it any wonder that Martin O’Malley, the dim witted, jackass Governor of Maryland has a lower approval rating than President Bush? Considering that Maryland is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, that is saying something.
The next election is three years from now and those idiots think people will forget but there are many of us who will keep reminding the public. We need to vote all these jackasses out of office and replace them with people of honor. Additionally, Thomas Stansfield is a Republican Judge who will need to run for reelection. The people need to boot him to the street.
Your (dis) honor, if it is against the Constitution it is illegal. Anything that results from the illegality should be nullified. I know I never went to law school but if I did I would have at least paid attention.
Tags: crimes, Democrats, Maryland, taxes, unconstitutional