Obama’s Positions are Rather Queer
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…
Tags: Clinton, homosexuals, Military, Obama
Military Worried About Obama
Feb 26, 2008 Political
Many members of the military and defense circles are worried about Barack Obama as an unknown quantity. They are worried about his lack of experience and inability to see the dangers of a blanket pull out from Iraq. There is also concern that Obama will, as he has stated many times, cut the military budget. We went thorough this with Clinton and it is why our military was not as strong as it needed to be when we went to war. Obama would like to cut the military budget in order to fund social programs, unlike Clinton who cut the military to the bone so he could claim a balanced budget (which was not really balanced).
There are a few retired military officers who think Obama will do fine and Obama himself indicates that George Bush and John Kennedy had little foreign policy experience (but both of them served in the military. Is Obama saying now that Bush has been successful in his leadership and conduct of the war. It seems to me that as much as Obama has been calling all of Bush’s decisions a mistake he would not want to use the president as a benchmark for how a president Obama might do.
Hillary Clinton has about a dozen flag officers supporting her indicating that more military people feel she would be a better leader. However, John McCain has more military experience than both of them and would be a far better Commander in Chief despite that weasel General Wesley Clark’s assertion that Hillary was best qualified. This guy could not carry McCain’s uniform and has the audacity to say that Hillary Clinton, with no military experience and little experience in military matters would be better at leading the troops than John McCain. I have problems with McCain but he has vastly more experience in this area than either of the Democrats.
Face it, if there were a crisis Hillary would shed tears so people would feel sorry for the poor girl and Obama would look like a deer caught in the headlights. Besides, how many members of the military do they think will stick around if either bring them home too soon and allow the terrorists to claim victory. The Democrats screwed the troops in Vietnam and now they want to screw them again. A few years ago the liberals were crying that Bush was going to re-institute the draft (when the actual call for the draft was made by Democrats). If these people are worried about being drafted (and most liberals are) then they had better worry if either Democrat gets elected and pulls our troops out of Iraq. People would leave in droves and there would be a severe shortage of troops to defend this country. Since they cannot force people to serve without a draft, guess what??
Think that the troops will not leave? I know a man who refused to be promoted from Lieutenant to Captain during Bill Clinton’s presidency because he did not want Clinton’s signature on his promotion certificate. There are many people like him who will not serve for people who cut their budgets, bring them home in disgrace and hand them defeat.
The military is worried about Obama but they have reservations about Hillary as well. I am willing to bet most of her flag officer support consists of people looking for a job in her administration. I guess those stints as so called military experts on the news channels dried up when the war started going better and Iraq was not the Bush bash of the day.
I am glad to be retired from the military so I will never have to serve under either of these boobs. It was bad enough having the first Clinton in charge (and we know what he did).
I know either of them will screw our troops and our country. I only hope if they win and end up pulling the troops out of Iraq that when the enemy follows us here, their attacks kill and maim family members of those who allowed it to happen. I would rather see Obama’s family killed in a terrorist attack brought on by his stupidity than to see my family killed because of it.
He can martyr his own kids, not someone else’s…
Source:
The Washington Times
UPDATE:
Here is a video of Obama talking about cutting the military and our defenses. He will also not spend money on unsuccessful missile defense systems. I guess he did not see we shot down that satellite…
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
They Do Work Most Americans Won’t
Dec 14, 2007 Military
I feel it is necessary for me to say that I show sympathy for those who do the jobs most Americans will not do. Let us look at the facts, something I always try to do:
- They travel miles in the heat.
- They risk their lives crossing a border.
- They don’t get paid enough wages.
- They do jobs that others won’t do or are afraid to do.
- They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.
- They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day every day.
These are certainly tough considerations and to top it off there are many in this country who do not think these people are worth anything and that they are law breakers. I have heard them called murderers, rapists, criminals and all kinds of other names by members of our very own Congress. All these people want is freedom and they are willing to give their lives for it.
I am not talking about ILLEGALS who cross our borders because they are criminals. The people described above are the members of our military and they endure more hardship than anyone in this country and they certainly provide more for us than any ILLEGAL ever will.
This Christmas Season, take time to thank the members of our military and remember them in your prayers.
Big Dog Salute to my friend Raven.
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, nuke’s, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Instead of Questions, Hillary Plants Questioner
Nov 28, 2007 Military, Political
The CNN/YouTube debate for the Republicans was held earlier this evening and I think it was a lively event. The problem with the event is that CNN allowed an activist who is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual steering committee two minutes of talk time. It is absolutely true that CNN allowed a person affiliated with the campaign of a Democrat running for President to ask questions of the Republicans at the Republican debate. Not only was this gay retired Army general’s question one of the YouTube submissions selected but he was allowed to be in the audience and ask follow up questions. Before the LGBT community or the Democrats get their panties in a wad I want to make it clear that this person had a right to ask his question and he had a right to be at the event. However, CNN should have disclosed that this man was on a Hillary Clinton steering committee so that the public would know that he was not a Republican and that he was not unbiased.
I thought it was strange early on when someone asked a question and Anderson Cooper disclosed that the guy was in the audience and asked him if his question was answered. He gave a short answer and sat down. The only other person allowed to do that was the gay general. Now, it might be because he was the only other person to ask a question who attended the event. But it sure appears as if CNN had the first guy there so the second would not seem unusual. It also seemed strange to me that this guy asked why the candidates felt gays should not serve openly in the military and they gave their answers but when Cooper asked if he had been answered he said no and then went on a rant about his gayness and time in the service. It almost seems like it was set up that way.
As I stated, I have no problem with the question or the guy being there. I just feel that his affiliation should have been disclosed. This event makes it look like instead of planting the questions the Clinton campaign is now planting the people who ask them as well because the campaign had to know he was going to be there. CNN had to know who this guy was and it is no secret that he is connected to the Clinton campaign. The Gay general, Keith Kerr, is listed on her website as part of the steering committee and that they support her for president:
Members of LGBT AMERICANS FOR HILLARY [Keith Kerr is listed] have endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in their individual capacity. The names of past or present affiliations are included to assist in identifying the individuals listed and do not indicate any endorsement by that group or organization. HillaryClinton.com
There were well over 4000 questions submitted for the debate so it is unlikely that this guy was selected at random. His question was selected and he was present to show Republicans as people who hate gay people. I thought all the answers were pretty good. They told why they were opposed to gay people in the military. They did not say anything hateful but just that they felt it was not a good thing. The only one who tripped up on it is Romney who flipped from a previous position where he said he could not wait for the day when gays could serve openly in the military. This part of the debate is sure to rile up the gay brigade and have them out in hater mode tomorrow discussing how terrible the Republicans are. Don’t buy it, the answers were fine. People do not have to agree with that lifestyle and that does not make them hateful people. It just means they do not agree.
I wonder why it is that no Republican was at the Democratic YouTube debate to be selected for follow up. Can you imagine how Hillary would be in full conspiracy mode with the VRWC and black helicopters if a person on a Republican steering committee who had endorsed a Republican candidate was there and asked a question in an attempt to make the Democrats look bad? They would go nuts and Hillary, in particular, would be carping about the Republican attack machine. After all those years of being someone’s bitch in private tonight, this guy was Hillary’s bitch in public.
It does seem amazing that the Democrats did not have this happen to them but the Republicans did. Not too amazing because CNN (and they have some explaining to do) is the Clinton News Network but the Republicans allowed a Democratic operative, and a gay one at that, to come to their debate and ask a follow up question.
Who says Republicans are not inclusive?
Want to bet Hillary denies, claims ignorance or blames it on someone else? How about she says it is a coincidence?
UPDATE: Anderson Cooper says they did not know. I guess that means the gay general is unethical. But then again we knew that because if he served for 43 years he answered the “have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior” question and he had to put NO.
Big Dog salute to Webloggin and Stop the ACLU.
Others:
Liberty Pundit
Right Voices
Sister Toldjah
Michelle Malkin
Right Angles
Assorted Babble
TownHall Blog
Tags: anderson cooper, army general, clinton campaign, cnn, Democrats, gayness, Hillary Clinton, lesbian gay, lgbt community, Military, President, republican debate, Republicans, trans gender, youtube