Laird's fringe-left, non-serving DADT idiocy continues.

.
If there's a fringe-left nutter cause, and DADT is such a cause, expect the miscreant running the democratian's editorial page to stupidly expound on it.

He holds up as two examples, Grethe Cammermeyer and Margaret Witt, two officers kicked out because they were not only queer as 3 dollar bills, they couldn't keep it in the closet.

Here's just one of the problems... and certainly one that a non-serving moron like Laird did not, and will not, address.

Having served my country as an officer in the Armed Forces of the United States, I can tell you that one of the rules concerning being an officer is that you are not supposed to lie.

Here's the oath these two clowns took to become officers:

I, (state name), having been appointed a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Read it again, carefully... particularly this part:

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;

So, from this, we can absolutely note that from the moment they first became a member of the military... they lied. Knowing, as they did, that homosexuals were prohibited from serving in any capacity in the Armed Forces. Clearly, they DID take that oath with mental reservations and purposes of evasion.

The Lairds of the world don't care. The lying? That just means their ends are somehow justified, and who cares that they were dishonorable liars? To those like Laird, that's just a cost of doing business.

Honor and integrity are certainly among those more uncomfortable military concepts that a Laird has no knowledge of and wouldn't be caught dead mentioning in one of his self-serving screeds... and they're concepts obviously unknown to those whiners like Cammermeyer and Witt.

It never ceases to amaze me how little telling the truth means anything to people like Laird... and by "truth," I also mean that part of the truth that involves the uncomfortable aspects that tend to weaken a position if discussed as part of full disclosure.

There are victims here... and they aren't these two. They are, in fact, us; as these two lied to get in... and lied to stay in.

But there's no place for that kind of situational expedience, where scum like Laird would now have us turn a blind eye to the fact that these two joined under fraudulent conditions, that every day they served UNTIL the implementation of DADT was a lie to the Armed Forces and that they are both guilty of gross misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer... because they lied to get in and lied repeatedly thereafter... with each day they served.

Like Laird, those whining the loudest about this didn't serve. Further, like those scum shilling an unneeded and unwanted Bridge/Loot Rail project won't have to pay for that project... won't have to cough up the $1300 plus a year to go to work over that piece of crap, those like Laird who pound this drum won't have to live with it.

I don't take this position because these people are homosexual (Many reading this will think at this point, "Yeah... SURRRRRE you don't.") There's a symmetry in this position for me, because I apply a similar justification to, say, teachers and government employees in the realm of their pay and benefits. The monumental amount of whining these people make over their pay and benefits gives me cause to wonder: were they even aware of what they were going to get paid when they took the job? And if they were, what right do they have to bitch about it now?

That, of course, is the same standard I hold up for gays in the military, particularly officers and particularly those who enlisted under a lie... like Laird's two heroes.

Laird won't have to live with gay men and women, or shower with them, now emboldened by a system that will essentially beg homosexuals to attack those who don't see things "their way" by claiming bigotry, putting careers at risk much like a false rape allegation.

This policy and the horrific problems it causes will be implemented and they won't intrude or impact the cheerleaders fors gays like Laird one "Witt," so to speak.

But blood is going to be spilled over this. And when it is, we will NOT see any second thought words or columns from clueless idiots like Laird. No matter how bad it gets, the Lairds of the world will not admit they were wrong.

Many of the more ignorant like Laird equate this to integration of the Armed Forces, which was accomplished by Harry Truman's Executive Order... the same thing a gutless Obama COULD have done, but refused to do because he knew of the political costs ahead of time.

But here's the dirty little secret: unlike the integration order, had such an order manifestly reduced our combat capabilities... had it resulted in a less-safe, less effective fighting force.... it would have been repealed.

When the implementation of the pro-gay policies so loved by the left (who won't be putting THEIR asses on the line, BTW...) result in reduced combat capabilities, and the unnecessary spilling of blood and reduced mission capabilities, massively increased costs and reduced enlistment/retention rates and the like, it will make no difference to the idiots like Laird.

Everyone, including homosexual cheerleaders, need to remember:

There is no right, Constitutional or otherwise, to serve in the Armed Forces. If homosexuals found the conditions of service in the military so damned intolerable, they could have taken a pass... because, as we all know... no one made them enlist.

And how long is it going to take for these same cheerleaders to advocate for polygamists, molesters, those bound to wheel chairs, their fellow submorons and the rest unqualified to enlist?
To the cheerleaders, it's an academic exercise. To a grunt, it's a very real violation of HIS rights.

But these same people don't give a damn about THOSE rights. Only SOME rights need to be protected... just one example being the same whiners and snivelers who complain about guns... to them, the 2nd Amendment is really the 2nd Suggestion.

Because unless the enemy is standing in front of HIS desk, he won't give a damn as long as his agenda is implemented... like the rest of the clowns where he works.
.