Posted on 12/18/2010 10:33:06 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
With the passage of the law to repeal the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation's armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.
Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.
Throughout the entirety of this debate I've had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I'm especially sure that President Obama wouldn't push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.
1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?
If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited "thing" for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don't engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don't, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?
2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?
Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn't go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the "sissy" out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.
3. Will base commanders be required to host "pride" events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation's cities each year?
There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any "pride" event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.
4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?
It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?
There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.
For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, "every other nation on the planet already does it," shut up!
None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.
I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.
In the hundreds of conversations I've had with those that serve in our nation's armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.
I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.
But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.
It was President Obama's doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.
I apologize for having offended your sensibilities. It was meant to be humorous, not meant to offend anyone but it seems it is not to everyone’s taste.
Once again, please accept my sincerest apologies.
You are right, but they help create the culture of workers demanding more, rather than workers being grateful for the job.
Plus I am just whiny about it lately because I can see the destructiveness they are launching with lawmakers.
So forget the unions. And I'll even throw out the manufacturing point I was trying to make.
But I stand by my claim that our superpower status is in jeopardy until we get some outstanding leadership -- and not just in the white house. This country needs to grow some balls and fight for what we once had: freedom, democracy, economic stability, charity, goodness, and peace through strength.
Have a great Sunday, FRiend, and Merry Christmas!
I’ll be back. Gotta turn off computer due to surges, big winter storm with snow and wind starting up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644899/posts
A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not?
The New York Times ^ | 18 Dec 2010 | MAUREEN DOWD
In this poem published in the New York Times, BO describes his Gay Sex with Frank Marshall Davis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18poems.html
POP, a Poem by Barack Obama
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me
Most of the people using the “gay escape clause” were in fact not homosexual.
Creating a homosexual Brown Shirt force but with more weaponry.
On a combat level this gets the officer fragged. It is one of the INTENTS of this agenda, to reduce the fighting effectiveness of warrior units. Since the “point of the spear” can only be effective with tried and true methods, this breaks down command structure immediately. A social experiment with our military that will fail.
We should all worry about what that failure will mean for our sons and daughters who are not of this persuasion, and indeed for the security of our nation. The other nations cited as doing this, are all LESSER military powers. One notes that the Russian military does not tolerate this at all, male or female.
It is absurd. Maybe, hopefully, some day Americans can be referred to as Americans, without the extra adjectives.
I got a number of questions that may arise:
1. Will any unmarried gay serviceperson be able to demand military benefits [ie: healthcare] for their partner?
2. If so, could unmarried heterosexual servicepersons then claim the same for their partner?
3. If a gay serviceperson got married - say in Massachusetts, will the military have to honor it as a marriage?
4. If a unmarried gay serviceperson gets a PCS {Permanant Change of Station] - will the partner get moving allowance to follow?
5. Same question as #4, but for married gay serviceperson.
6. Same question as #4, but for unmarried heterosexual serviceperson.
7. If an unmarried gay service person is together with the partner for ten years [then they split], could the partner claim 1/2 of the serviceperson’s pension when they retire after 20 [current law allows ex-spouses to claim this]?
8. Same question as #7, but for married gay serviceperson.
9. Same question as #7, but for unmarried heterosexual serviceperson.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
Homosexuals have been doing that on their own, without Obama, forever. Disney's animation studio was a closed gay shop as long ago as the 1950's -- do you think any talented heterosexual animators might have been denied a career, possibly? Theater's been closed to all but "gay-friendly" heterosexuals since ..... well, for a hell of a long time. The 60's, maybe. Maybe longer. How many heterosexual music men, how many Jimmy Cagneys, got shut out by the likes of Tommy Tune and Bob Fosse?
Gays are a faction. They'll behave selfishly and viciously toward others everywhere they can get away with it, because that's what factions do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644899/posts
A Gay Commander in Chief: Ready or Not?
The New York Times ^ | 18 Dec 2010 | MAUREEN DOWD
In this poem published in the New York Times, BO describes his Gay Sex with Frank Marshall Davis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/politics/18poems.html
POP, a Poem by Barack Obama
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me
If that were true, German car production should have ceased in the 1960's.
Labor's problem is slave labor and captive labor (no way out) undercutting wages. As long as the Chinese use prison slave-labor and people like Carlos Slim in Mexico can use political clout to hold down Mexican wages -- the old Spanish Empire wealth-building formula, with all the social problems described by Juan and Ulloa in the 18th century in their report to the King -- then labor-market poachers like Mexico and China will always be a problem for anyone who wants to live better than a Mexican campesino in his dirt-floor cinderblock casa.
(By the way, I wasn't kidding about the dirt floor. Business Week did a cover article on Mexican manufacturing and offshoring by e.g. Ford in 1994 or 1995. They found a Mexican welder living in a shack like that with his pregnant wife, two kids, and mother-in-law, and the guy was welding for Ford for $75/week. His "benefits" were taco lunch and car fare to work.)
We had a warrant Officer overseas who showed the signs of an alternative lifestyle who started giving another soldier in our section all kinds of “good duties” and good duty locations to boot because we were pretty sure he had the hots for him. We all had our suspicions but that is as far as it went. Those of us who wouldn’t “work late” with him on his special projects were deemed non-team players and given less coveted duties.
This will be a huge problem within the ranks and not just that but the flagrant abuse of the EO complaint system when an “alternative” soldier doesn’t get his/her way will abound as it does now with just a male and female scenario.
NOT Photoshopped !!!!
All I can say is you bring up a lot of really good points that I’m sure few in Congress closely considered in all of this.
Well played.
There is just so much material here for any comedian who had just a bits of balls.
Lol, never gets old. I was just reading old threads about him on theregulator.net. Wonder where he is now?
Yes, military courts will be overwhelmed. Those with thin skins will intimidate and win.
The price of running the military will go waaaaay up - quality : down.
BUT on the lighter brighter side, liberals everywhere get to feel superior and smug... and doesn't that make it all worth while?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.