The Changing Nature of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Prior to the presidency of Bill Clinton sodomy was a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), rightly described as conduct unbecoming of any member of the armed services, and punishable by dishonorable discharge.

When “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was passed in 1993, it was hailed by liberals and homosexuals as an end to discrimination against gays. However, there were restrictions: gay soldiers were not allowed to serve openly. Conservatives knew then that the policy was only just a first step toward the decriminalization of homosexual activity under the UCMJ, a classic example of the incremental approach toward the furthering of the liberal agenda, and that eventually, if liberals continued to have their way, all restrictions against gays serving in the military would be eliminated.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will no longer apply to gays, but will by default apply to all those who disagree with gays serving in the military. For those service men and women with properly formed consciences, vocalizing any opinion against gays serving in the military will mean the effective end of their careers.

When women were allowed to begin serving in combat units and aboard naval surface combatants the military spent a lot of time and money indoctrinating soldiers, sailors and marines all about the evils of sexual harassment, which resulted in many false accusations and unfair treatment of active duty personnel. I know because I witnessed such treatment first hand. The same treatment undoubtedly awaits straight service men and women who would vocalize opposition to gays serving in the military. They are the ones who will be discriminated against. Promotions will not be granted to those who don’t go along with the policy.

Mark my words: The military is going to shrink over the next decade or two due to lack of recruitment at a time that we can ill afford it. How many officers and key military leaders will resign remains to be seen, but there is going to be a huge leadership vacuum that will be filled only by those who are willing to lower their own moral standards – in other words, those who are unfit to lead. With so many global threats, present and future, this was the worst time to engage in this silly social engineering within our military. Barack Obama and his administration pushed this legislation to score cheap political points among gays because he’s concerned about losing their votes in 2012. Small wonder that he waited for the lame duck session to push this through, knowing that a conservative House majority would have put a stop to it. There are Republicans to blame too; Olympia Snow and Scott Brown among them.

In ten or twenty years I hope people will remember that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was the effective end of our all voluntary military. By allowing gays to serve openly the recruitment of those with moral stands will fall drastically, and without the draft we will lack the manpower to defend this nation and its interests. Until then I guess those who remain can have a gay ol’ time.

Coming Soon - The Marlboro Baby?

The United States Government has decided that roles such as the Marlboro Man or Joe Camel must now be portrayed by various sick or dead people, and that cigarette manufacturers must display the new leading men, women, and cadavers on each and every package of cigarettes. To audition, the dying or deceased must have smoking related illnesses or must have died from them. According to Federal health officials it is hoped that the new packages will shock people into quitting the habit or not starting in the first place. You can read about it here:

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteProductWarningLabels/default.htm

Oh the hypocrisy! Can you figure out where I am going to go with this one?

Several attempts have been made to require abortionists to provide information to those seeking abortions so that they are allowed to make a fully informed choice. Such information should, pro-life advocates assert, contain ultrasound images of the soon-to-be-aborted, and graphic images of aborted fetuses so that women will know that what they are about to destroy isn’t just a mass of cells as is commonly, not to mention falsely, claimed by abortion workers and supporters. In other words, pro-life advocates want women to make an informed choice. But as is usually the case with liberal causes, informed consent doesn't sit well with liberals and their favorite Marxist politicians. Graphic images of the aborted are deemed by them to be “extreme,” "fanatical," “cruel,” or just plain “disgusting.” The real reason is of course that if most women, especially young women, actually knew what they were about to do, they might just decide to choose life for their unborn children, and that wouldn’t sit too well with the abortion mills and their fanatic partners at NOW and NARAL.

Maybe what smokers need is a Joe (Camel) vs. Wade type of battle. They could argue things like, “It’s my body and I can do whatever I like with it.” Perhaps we need to designate a 100 foot area surrounding every tobacco shop so that the anti-(smoker's) choice groups will have to wave their signs from a safe distance. Matt Lauer can interview executives from R.J. Reynolds so that they can describe how they are harassed and live in fear. Phil Donahue can invite a smoker to smoke a cigarette on live T.V., and describe how it feels to do so from behind a curtain.

Yes, I know it’s absurd. But when you think about it, isn’t the double standard just as absurd? And if we don’t stand up for ourselves who knows? Perhaps they’ll soon be banning Happy Meals!

What next? NO COMPROMISE!

Many pundits are throwing in their two cents on what direction the Republican Party should take now that they have won mega wins in the House, state legislatures and gubernatorial seats across the nation, as well as depriving the Democrat party of a super majority in the Senate. Most of them, from liberal commentators to moderate Republicans opine that the two adversarial groups should meet somewhere in the middle. I for one do not agree.
Let me point out that the words “liberal commentators” means insanely fringe leftwing pundits, or just plain Marxists, and “moderate Republican” means Liberal. There is no such thing as a moderate. Moderates may actually be worse than either because they lack a fundamental moral foundation. They wait to see which way the wind is blowing before choosing sides, thus ensuring their own survival over our nation’s. These were the Joe Sestak’s, Blanche Lincoln’s, and Arlen Spector’s of the political landscape and we should be thanking our stars that they have been removed from it.

The Conservatives must press their advantage and make the most of this historic opportunity. Today’s Conservative Politician has many advantages over his predecessor of the Gingrich era, namely that mainstream news can no longer deceive so many. The once formidable print media, slanted almost exclusively to the far left, has been outflanked by conservative web sites and blogs. The ABC–CBS-NBC-CNN union of misinformation has been virtually destroyed by coverage at Fox News. I would include MSNBC, but their lineup of insane pundits like Olberrman, Maddow, Schultz and company has eliminated any and all credibility and made it the laughing stock de jure of networks. Liberals no longer have a monopoly on information. They do not get to decide on which stories to report and which to discard with the sole intention of misinforming the public to elicit a specific result or opinion. What’s more, web sites like You Tube have exposed the disingenuousness of the Liberal politician and have shown the American people that there are many who stand in solidarity against the corrupt-o-crats intent on transforming our country into yet another Marxist regime.

Liberalism is not something with which we may compromise. When we do so we allow Liberals to advance their agenda in incremental baby steps; we need to reverse course, not slow it down temporarily. A case in point would be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This policy allowed gays to serve in the military. It was a step toward allowing them to serve openly and not, as is commonly reported these days, a step designed to prevent them from serving. The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) was very clear on barring gays long before DADT. Another example would include “Hilary Care,” the attempt by the Democrats to foist socialized medicine upon the country in the 1990’s. Now we have Obamacare which is sure to put the private health insurance industry out of business in just a few more short years unless repealed.

Uncompromising conservatives are what Liberals fear the most. They know we can win if we but try. So the question is, what exactly should Republicans do? There should be no compromise. Compromise to us is a loss. If we want to win we must do everything in our power to stamp liberalism from our policies and liberals from government. Here are some recommendations:

1) Repeal Obamacare. There is no wiggle room here. It’s a bad piece of legislation that needs to be thrown to the ash heap.
2) Properly redistrict the voting precincts around the nation. Eliminate the gerrymandered districts that the Democrat party loves so much so that we can remove their ability to create safe and unfair districts for their party.
3) Cut spending. Across the board spending cuts need to be made. All entitlement programs should be eliminated, or phased out over time. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and too many welfare programs to mention. The role of the government is to secure our nation within and without, not to take care of people. That is the role of the people.
4) Lower taxes and reduce government bureaucracy. People are entitled to what they earn – nothing more and nothing less. Legal theft of a person’s money and goods, for any purpose whatsoever, is immoral and un-American.
5) Require voter identification for all Federal elections. We know that the Democrat Party does not like the idea specifically because it will remove or severely restrict the ability for people vote fraudulently. If it weren’t for rampant voter fraud by liberals, the 2000 election would not have come under scrutiny, Al Franken would not be a Minnesota Senator, and as of November 3, 2010, Minnesota would not be trying to figure out how it magically received 174,000 more votes than registered voters. Hennepin County, which includes the city of Minneapolis, originally reported 880,000 votes, even though only 706,000 are registered to vote there.
6) Require Union reforms and defund unions and all organizations hostile to conservative values. There is no reason to give them tax dollars, especially when they have hundreds of millions of dollars to donate to Democrat candidates. Universities that bar on-campus military recruiting should be defunded immediately.
7) Tackle immigration reform, i.e. combine agency databases to speed up the background check process. Deport all illegals, build the fence, and make the penalties for illegal immigration severe enough to discourage illegal immigrants and those who would hire them.
8) Tort reform!
9) Reform the public schools. Money is not the answer – discipline is. If students aren’t going to take advantage of their free education then they need to be expelled and left to succeed on their own. Eventually necessity will force them to come around.Make prison what it should be; punishment, not a reformatory.

10) Make prison what it should be; punishment, not a reformatory.

New Use For Gene Therapy

Scientists at the University of California San Diego and Harvard University determined that people who carry a variant of the DRD4 gene are more likely to be liberals as adults, depending on the number of friendships they had during high school. They published their study in a recent issue of The Journal of Politics.

It only goes to show what I've said all along: Liberals are genetically inferior. Liberalism IS a mental disorder!

Two types of treatment may be utilized as a cure. The more costly option is gene therapy, which would require years of testing and crippling government beauracracy, and the other is cranial-rectal extraction, which is relatively inexpenseive and, besides causing loss of liberal friendships, is generally free of side effects.

Hope and Change Unveiled

"Let's show Washington one more time, change doesn't come from the top," President Barack Obama told an audience at the University of Wisconsin.. "Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you!"
He went on to tell the mass of students, "In every instance, progress took time, in every instance, progress took sacrifice. Progress took faith."
He then gave three examples of what he meant: "You know, the slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs, they weren't sure when slavery would end, but they understood it was going to end.” [Never mind that it was Republican President Abe Lincoln who ended it!]
“When women were out there marching for the right to vote, they weren't sure when it was going to happen, but they kept on going. When workers were organizing for the right to organize and were being intimidated, they weren't sure when change was going to come, but they knew it was going to come." [Now we can’t pay the massive deficits that organized labor has caused.]

Of course, you may not have noticed that for those past accomplishments - the abolition of slavery, the establishment of women's suffrage and the recognition of organizing rights for laborers - people and government focused on very specific demands. Obama is promising “change” without providing any specificity; “Change for the sake of Change.” Perhaps that’s why he’s spending so much time pontificating to young and inexperienced college students who, generally speaking, after reading a chapter of the Communist Manifesto, spend whatever free time they have boozing and carousing.

For what, I must ask, does Obama clamor from behind the veil of “change?” Besides Socialized Medicine and government takeover of industry, perhaps the story of Johnathon Irish is a good example:

His new born child was snatched from he and his fiancé by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers, an organization that collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S. More specifically, Oath Keepers' members promise not to obey any order "to disarm the American people," conduct warrantless searches, "detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" work to impose martial law, invade or subjugate any state, blockade American cities, put Americans in detention camps or "make war against our own people."

Does that sound bad, or worthy of alarm? It does to me, but only because it’s ridiculous that our own military and police would think they needed to make such a pledge in the first place!
It was the administration of “Hope and Change” that seems to have made this a quasi-crime. Remember the federal Homeland Security Department document of April 2009 entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment?” If you don’t, I’ll refresh your memory. It contains the following definition:

Also targeted in the report are veterans, folks anticipating additional restrictions to their Second Amendment rights, and those concerned about the loss of U.S. sovereignty. This report implies that one harboring these sorts of views is a racist as well as a potential terrorism suspect.

Johnathon Irish told World Net Daily (Oct. 8 2010) that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency "became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers.'" Officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancé at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.
Is this what Obama has in mind?
November is right around the corner. "Let's show Washington one more time, change doesn't come from the top, Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you! Change happens because of you!"

Is It Really Wrong to Call Obama A Socialist?

From the time their children begin middle school, most parents come the conclusion that with whom their kids’ associate and their interests is a good indicator of what they’re own children are up to. As the saying goes, “Birds of a feather flock together.” But it isn’t just teenagers to whom this analogy is applicable; it’s pretty much apropos for everyone, and every institution.

Consider the two of the most recent rallies in Washington DC. Attendees picked up after themselves at one (the larger) rally, and left a pig sty behind them after the other:

1.) Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Tour featured Beck, Sarah Palin, Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King Jr.), and Marcus Luttrell, former U.S. Navy seal and recipient of the Navy Cross. The speakers came together with a very large crowd to discuss, guess what, restoring honor. Billed as a religious gathering, there was still plenty of politics injected into the speeches, all in support of Conservative ideals.
2.) The liberal “One Nation Working Together” which featured such speakers as Self-confessed Communist and former Obama appointee, Van Jones, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (Socialist), NAACP President, Ben Jealous (Socialist), Mariam Wright Edelman (Socialist) and others (virtually all socialists). This crowd came together, or rather, was bussed in, to show support to Barack Obama’s agenda, and to promote Socialist change.

Not only has he appointed many Marxists to his administration (Ron Bloom, David Bonior, Rosa Brooks, Carol Browner, Heather Higginbottom, Samantha Power, Hilda Solis, and Van Jones), any and all rallies conducted in his honor or to support him are always full of the most rabidly Marxist individuals and groups who, by the way, do not represent a fringe element at such gatherings, but rather, make up the core of those in attendance. Is it any wonder that so many people believe Barack Obama to be a Socialist? Birds of a feather… Below are more pictures of the "One Nation" rally.

Hey, how about that Amnesty idea?

Get this!

“(Fox News Oct. 1, 2010)- A coalition of Mexican mayors has asked the United States to stop deporting illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. to Mexican border cities, saying the deportations are contributing to Mexican border violence. The request was made at a recent San Diego conference in which the mayors of four Mexican border cities and one U.S. mayor, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, gathered to discuss cross-border issues. Ciudad Juarez Mayor Jose Reyes blamed U.S. deportation policy for contributing to his city’s violence, saying that of the 80,000 people deported to Juarez in the past three years, 28,000 had U.S. criminal records — including 7,000 convicted rapists and 2,000 convicted murderers. Those criminal deportees, he said, have contributed to the violence in Juarez, which has reported more than 2,200 murders this year. Reyes and the other Mexican mayors said that when the U.S. deports criminals back to Mexico, it should fly them to their hometowns, not just bus them to the border. But critics in America say the Mexican lawmakers are simply trying to pass the buck to the U.S. and its taxpayers. They say the Mexicans should take responsibility for their criminals, who are putting both Mexican and American lives in danger.”

So let me get this right (forget for a moment that we deport these people at the expense of the American tax payer, and that to transport them to their home towns would cost us even more); in the last three years, of the 80,000 illegal immigrants that have been deported to just one border town, 35% of them have committed crimes in our country, and over 11% have committed violent crimes here in the United States? 7,000 rapists? 2,000 murderers!?

I suppose these are the “jobs” our liberal friends say we need illegal immigrants to do since none of us selfish, lazy Americans will. What… are they working for the Mafia? All of them are, of course, criminals since they entered the country illegally. But inquiring minds want to know more, such as:

1.) How many of these illegals were convicted of crimes in Mexico before coming up here?
2.) Are the numbers and percentages similar of illegals deported to other border towns?
3.) How many are guilty of crimes for which they weren’t caught or prosecuted?

So how can anyone, especially the politicians who are charged with protecting the citizens within our borders, consider providing legal status beyond our current methods which require background checks? The only common sense conclusion is that we need better border protection and we need to justly punish those who break our laws. Besides the economic implications, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will mean giving amnesty to the 35% who commit crimes. Over 11% of those to whom we give amnesty will be rapists and murderers.

Do you understand that Democrats? President Obama, are you so desperate for votes that you’re willing to put the well being of your citizens, and their very lives, at such risk? Doesn’t sound like the kind of change we need to me.