Patton Is Turning Over In His Grave
Jun 11, 2013 Political
Looks like the military is continuing to decay into a politically correct social establishment that is more concerned with what a soldier reads or eats than his ability to do his job. MSG Nathan Sommers, a member of the Army Band, is in trouble because he is conservative and is not a fan of the current Commander in Chief.
Sommers served Chick-fil-A at his promotion party (all of which he paid for with HIS own money) and he tweeted that it was in honor of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). The party happened around the time that liberals had their pink panties in a twist about the owner’s stance on gay marriage. Sommers could not attend the Chick-fil-A appreciation day so he had them cater his promotion party.
[note]Remember when the phrase “never leave your buddies behind” meant not leaving them on the battlefield?[/note]
He got in trouble for that.
He had anti Obama bumper stickers on his car (as well as anti Democrat in general) and he got in trouble for that. He was told he might be violating the Hatch Act (he was not).
He was caught reading a book by David Limbaugh (Rush’s brother) backstage before a performance. He was told the book was offensive and he was causing disruption within the unit.
Really? Were soldiers in the unit allowed to read Obama’s books? Are they allowed to read books by hate mongers like Al Franken? Are they allowed to read Rules for Radicals?
Even if the book was offensive the soldier had a right to read it.
His unit has been monitoring his tweets and is not happy he follows and has retweeted tweets by Mark Levin.
At what point do people realize this soldier is being harassed by his Chain of Command? At what point do we stop trampling on his rights because someone else might be offended?
There is no right not to be offended in the Constitution, period. While there are standards of conduct nothing I have read shows Sommers is a problem (he had one retweet where he used a word that he regretted using but that is an exception and not the rule).
I stand with you MSG Sommers. You have a 25 year record of exemplary service to this nation and have served more honorably than the guy in the WH.
Illegitimis non carborundum…
Stand tall brother.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: dadt, harassment, lies, nathan sommers, politically correct army
Military On The Sexual Assault Hot Seat
Jun 6, 2013 Political
The leaders of the Armed Forces are in hot water because of an increase in sexual assaults. They promise to combat sexual assault and admit they let the ball drop. In a grilling by members of Congress two Democrat female Senators had a field day and went all in over the issue. Senator Gillibrand implied some commanders were stupid by claiming “…not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape…” While I get the dramatics I think just about all can tell the two apart.
Senator McCaskill made the claim that looking at someone the wrong way can be sexual assault. I guess there could be looks that can be considered assault but can’t seem to think of one. What look conveys imminent harmful contact?
I am not making light of the issue of sexual assault whether it is in or out of the military. However, I do have a few problems with all of this.
The incidence of sexual assault has had an uptick over the past year or two. What is the root cause of this? It seems as if the uptick happened after gays were allowed to openly serve so it would be worth looking to see if the increase is same sex assault. Not that it matters BUT in order to solve a problem the root cause needs to be found and if the uptick is because of the repeal of DADT then it needs to be looked into to see why it happened.
I also have a problem with Congress wanting to take the discipline of sexual offenders out of the hands of commanders. If the issue is reporting and punishment then require commanders to report all claims of sexual impropriety to their higher commander and have that higher commander review the results of investigations. Commanders need to retain the ability to investigate and punish those who have done wrong. If any commander is not doing that job then relieve that commander. Do not use some blanket policy because of an increase particularly if that increase is due to the repeal of DADT. Find a solution for it that does not involve hampering all commanders.
My last issue is with these Democrat females and their indignation. Where were they when Bill Clinton was sexually molesting women? I realize that these two were not in office when that occurred (not in federal office anyway) but their body, the Senate, voted to let Bill off the hook.
How come there was not the same uproar from liberal woman about Bill Clinton’s alleged rapes and his confirmed affair back then? Why are these folks acting as if they have some moral authority when they still worship the ground Clinton walks on?
It seems to me that folks who apply their anger selectively over the same subject lose credibility.
Sexual assault is a crime. My solution is to investigate the accusation, prosecute those with merit; if they are guilty put them in jail and if they are not guilty put them back to work.
That seems like a good solution to me.
As far as Gillibrand and McCaskill, how do you ladies feel about Bill Clinton and what he did? What do you say about the accusations of rape?
Are you as mad at the Senate for the way they let him off as you are at the way the military handles sexual assault cases?
Your answers will tell us a lot about you…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Clinton, dadt, gillibrand, mccaskill, Military, sexual assault, slap on ass
Stop The Military From Discriminating
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.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[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. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: dadt, homosexuals, lies, openly gay military, progressives
Tea Baggers Protest In DC
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?
[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. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: barney frank, dadt, gays, homosexuals, Military, Obama, tea baggers
Obama Addresses Issue of Gays in the Military
Jul 9, 2008 Military, Political
When Bill Clinton was running for president he promised the gay community that he would change the service rules so that openly gay people could serve in the military. When he was elected he ran into a great deal of opposition and he struck a deal that is now termed “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, a policy that says the military may not ask if a person is gay and a person is not to tell. If caught engaging in homosexual behavior people would be discharged. This did not make the gay community happy because they felt betrayed by Clinton. I have no doubt many gay people have served honorably under this rule and this post is not to debate the pros or cons of gays openly serving.
Barack Obama was interviewed by the Military Times and he stated that he would allow openly gay people to serve in the military. He stated it was a matter of fairness. The military is not fair and there are many exclusions from service like failing a physical fitness test, poor vision, poor hearing, or being overweight. In any event, Obama is making a promise that he, like Bill Clinton, might not be able to keep. It is not a matter of just saying it and making it so, as Clinton found out. Perhaps the gay community should consider this before casting their votes. Obama is saying he will do it but history shows us that he probably will not be able to, at least not easily and with so many pressing issues he might not want to expend the effort. Here is what Obama said about the issue:
Obama also spoke of rocking the boat. In what seems certain to be one of his more controversial proposals for the military, Obama said he wants to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Equity and fairness are part of the reason for lifting the ban on acknowledged homosexuals serving in the military, Obama said, but there are practical reasons, too — like getting “all hands on deck” when the nation needs people in uniform. “If we can’t field enough Arab linguists, we shouldn’t be preventing an Arab linguist from serving his or her country because of what they do in private,” he said, referring to the 2006 discharge of about 60 linguists for violating the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on service by homosexuals.
“I want to make sure that we are doing it in a thoughtful and principled way. But I do believe that at a time when we are short-handed, that everybody who is willing to lay down their lives on behalf of the United States and can do so effectively, can perform critical functions, should have the opportunity to do so.” Military Times
A majority of people in the military oppose gays serving but it appears as if the number has been decreasing over the years. Still, if he wants to gain the trust of the troops he should not be using the military for social engineering. I am not sure the “all hands on deck” comment was the right one to use…
I wonder if all those interpreters who were discharged were male. The lesbian interpreters are better at hiding their homosexuality and ensuring they do not get caught.
The lesbian interpreters are cunning linguists.
Tags: dadt, homosexuality, Military, Obama, openly serve, policy