McCain Calls Pentagon Study on Gays Flawed

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank (especially Barney) and the rest of the left-wing, liberal-progressive, Marxist-socialists in the House and Senate have high hopes of repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" act. They will support any effort to weaken our national security and self-defense efforts. They have been further emboldened by a recent "Pentagon Study", stating that 70% of those serving in our military believe that repealing the Act would have little noticeable impact upon the performance of our troops.

Senator John McCain, (R)AZ suggests that the study is flawed, and those of us who have served in the military can understand such a suggestion. McCain's statement was directly challenged by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

For those of you who haven't had the honor of serving in our military, understand this - the Chairman of the JCS is appointed by the president (with Senate confirmation) as a 4-star general or admiral, and serves at the pleasure of the president. One does not advance into the ranks of general officers - not even a 1-star) without some serious political connections. The Defense Secretary is also a presidential appointee who serves at the pleasure of the president.

My point is simple - unless one wishes to end their military career, or forfeit a cabinet position which pays almost $200,000 (plus perks) annually - they will support the agenda of he to whom they are indebted for their prestigious and prosperous position. As the Chairman of the JCS, Admiral Mullen is compensated at the rate of $216,734.40 (O-10 over 38 yrs service = $18,061.20 per month x12 [PLUS allowances and perks]). Granted, both these men were appointed by President George W. Bush, but they still serve at the pleasure of the current president, and technically, both Mullen and the Pentagon work for Gates... and Gates works for Obama. And Obama is the Head Lefty. Would a Pentagon Study dare be released if the results were other than supportive of the president' desires? If you believe it would, you'll be deeply disappointed on December 25th... while you're waiting up for the fat guy in the red suit to come down the chimney!

Lenin, and Stalin, and Marx - OH MY!

(This is just a quickie... honest!) It sounds almost like morning roll-call on Capitol Hill, doesn't it? When it comes to the art of misdirection and creating illusion, David Copperfield has nothing on the D.C. gang. Let's look at a few things that are going on right now:

1. Commanding General of U.S. Forces Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal, the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense, are all in agreement that we need more troops in Afghanistan if we hope to "win" the conflict there, and NATO Defense Ministers, meeting in Slovakia, expressed "broad Support" for McChrystal's request. Under the guise of "due diligence", the Procrastinator In Chief remains indecisive, as more young Americans sacrifice their lives in an undermanned, underfunded combat zone each day. Obama's failure to support McChrystal's request in a timely manner is the definition of the term "negligent homicide". Make sure you pay attention to the hoopla, though.

2. Are TARP, Cap and Trade, "Gay Rights", government bailouts, health care, stimulus packages, Cash for Clunkers, the threat of increased taxes (which only impacts those of us who actually earn an income and PAY TAXES), immigration controls, and the blatant appointment of communist/Marxist/socialist revolutionaries to positions of unlawful power within government agencies as "czars" necessary to our survival as a nation? Or could it be that they are being used by Obama as was the Roman Circus - entertainment, free bread and wine - all meant to distract us from the real issues... Obama's destruction of our Constitution and the dismantling of the USA! But keep your eyes on the hoopla and ignore the smoke and mirrors...

I could go on but I said this would be a quickie... and so it ends.

It's Been An Interesting Week...

"May you live in interesting times." That statement has been described as both an old Chinese blessing and an old Chinese curse. We may be wondering if anyone w0uld really want to live in uninteresting times, or we may be wondering if that utterance carries a more ominous, hidden meaning. There has been significant discussion over that short phrase, including attribution to that little corn inspector, Confucius.

In the first case the clear implication is that 'uninteresting times', of peace and tranquility, are more life-enhancing. The "hidden threat" theory implies that the wish is actually one of "May you experience much upheaval and trouble in your life."

While purporting to be a blessing, this is in fact a curse. It is widely reported as being of ancient Chinese origin, but is likely to be of recent and western origin, although it seems to be intended to sound Chinese, in the 'Confucious he say' mould.

The earliest citation that has yet come to light is U-Turn, a short story by Duncan Munro (one of the pen names of Eric Frank Russell), 1950:

"For centuries the Chinese used an ancient curse: 'May you live in interesting times!' It isn't a curse any more. It's a blessing."

It could be that Russell coined the phrase himself... or he may have heard it elsewhere. Nevertheless, we do live interesting times. Case in point:

1. Congress appears on the verge of some major law making, as the House yesterday passed legislation that would make it a crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation. Are we about to criminalize people's thoughts - and verbal expression of those thoughts - on one hand, while simultaneously creating a specially protected class within our "classless society"? What happened to "Equal Protection Under The Law"? I can't wait to hear the outcome of the first court challenge if this actually becomes law!

2. Barack Obama, speaking on the eve of a major gay-rights march, told gay supporters on Saturday he would fight for their causes and renewed a pledge to end restrictions on their service in the U.S. military. Obama, who was referring to the policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, was seeking to shore up his support among gays and lesbians who backed him strongly during last year's presidential campaign. These first two items sound more like payback for political support, than decisions that are morally, ethically, or legally correct.
Many gay activists are frustrated Obama has not moved more quickly to carry out promises, such as overturning the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from forcing states to recognize gay marriage (the laws governing marriage fall under the purview of "States Rights" inasmuch as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution does not specifically give that right to the federal government).

3. Obama had the class to admit that he didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but not enough class to refuse it... and the $1.4 million that goes along with it, for doing absolutely nothing!. On top of that, we get to pay for his round-trip flight to Norway to accept it!
He got it for his campaign promises! They should rename it the Nobel Appeasement Prize!

4. The White House is still pushing hard for amnesty for as many as 20,000,000 illegal immigrants (I can still call them "illegal", right? It won't be a "hate crime" until it becomes law... supposedly). Even with the threat that as many as 50,000 doctors will quit medicine, the socialists continue to push. With 50,000 fewer doctors, from whom does our Congress expect the 20,000,000 extra patients to get their medical care?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to never be offended, unhappy or just plain pissed off. The Constitution only guarantees opportunities... and then, only for those who are motivated enough to take advantage of those opportunities. Opportunity is the only thing one is entitled to for simply taking up space on this planet. Seeing that opportunity and taking advantage of it is up to the individual. It is not the responsibility of society to force feed it to them!

GAY MARRIAGE & PEREZ HILTON

Okay - I'm going to make this a simple as I can.

"Marriage" is a religious concept. The only reason the government is involved in marriage is for record keeping purposes. There is no law requiring anybody to get married.

Most religions have some prohibitions against homosexual conduct, either biblical or doctrinal. Some have more severe restrictions and prescribed corrective actions than others - Islam, for example, prescribes death for homosexual practices.

Two thousand years of history supports a cross-cultural belief that "marriage" is a contract between members of the opposite sex.

Perez Hilton is a whiny little fag who, knowing Miss California's religious background, posed a question designed to put her in a morally uncomfortable position. Her choices at that time were to (a) lie, and maintain her chances of winning the competition, or (b) tell the truth as she saw it, and lose the competition. Inasmuch as she was asked for her opinion, she chose the latter. Then the immoral little weasel punished her for answering his question honestly by giving her a ZERO score! As William Shakespeare so profoundly stated:

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

My biggest question is, "Why was a well-known homosexual (in circles that recognize homosexuals as "special") asked to be a judge of anything involving women?" Hilton would have sooner been the judge at a Mr. Universe contest. Oh no! On second thought, that contest is among MEN, one of which Hilton obviously is not! I guess he should judge only fashion shows ... with male models.

I could be wrong about this... but not in this lifetime on this planet!