It's been awhile since I've commented on the issue of DADT. To review, briefly, I was opposed to DADT, because I am opposed to homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces.
Progressive politics are frequently like what has been called Chinese water torture, a concept which pre-dated water boarding by at least a few centuries.
Progressives are ultimately successful in their politics because, frankly, they never stop pushing, and Conservatives typically cave.
Conservatives, ultimately, are unsuccessful politically with most conservative causes because, as a rule, we never START pushing.
Homosexuals in the military is a case in point.
When I enlisted in the Army back in 72, it was illegal to be a homosexual in the military. Period.
That is not to say that homosexuals were not serving... au contraire. But it IS to say that every homosexual in uniform lied to either get in, or stay in.
My reasons for opposing the homosexual agenda are the same as my reason for opposing any progressive agenda: they are frequently the agendas of rank hypocrites or ignorants or the Obama's of the world... those who never set foot in uniform who insist on telling us what's best for those who have, and are.
There is overwhelming opposition to this issue, both across the military... and across the conservative ranks of those politically involved. Those who support this mid-war, social engineering don't care, of course, because like so many things in politics, it's easy to force social engineering on others when it won't impact you... particularly when you think you're getting political points out of it like Obama and his handlers.
It's easy for, say, example, our local militant homosexual elected to office, Rep. Jim Moeller, to become giddy at the thought of the scam that ended DADT.
Like most of his political positions, what makes this so easy for him... or Obama, for that matter, is the fact that he, personally, will not have to deal with the consequences of this action. Like Obama, Moeller never felt strongly enough about his country to ever actually serve it in uniform. Like Obama, he wrongly sees this as a civil rights issue, addressing discrimination and what not; completely ignoring the fact that the military discriminates against a wide variety of people, every day... all without peep by Rep. Moeller or action by Obama.
Too fat? Too thin? Diabetic? Asthmatic? Single parent? High school drop out (without a GED, for the most part) illegal alien, colorblind? Missing a limb? Deaf? Blind? Mute? Child molester? Convicted felon? Sick, halt, lame? Alcoholic, Drug user? Gambling addiction?
You ain't getting in.
And the decision to keep you out is no more or less discriminatory than the ban against homosexuals in the military.
One need go no farther then the frequently and already decided fact that no one... no one... has ANY Constitutional right to serve.
Let me repeat that for the factually impaired.
No one has any right to serve. Thus, not being allowed to serve for any of these reasons... including your proclivity of having sexual relations with the same gender... is not discrimination.
Not allowing gay marriage isn't discrimination, either, because while homosexuals have not had the right to marry the same gender, neither do heterosexuals. Thus, the standard is the same: ALL of us can get married to anyone who will have us, all other requirements (Single, of age, mentally aware) having been met, we are ALL entitled to marry anyone we want... as long as they are of a different gender.
The politicization of this issue by Obama and others is only being done to further the progressive agenda. It has nothing to do with strengthening or increasing our military capabilities... it, instead, has to do with paying off his progressive debt. What Obama and his handlers are, apparently, too stupid to know is that this kind of thing will hurt his re-election chances.
I can't, for a certainty, say that when a GOP candidate becomes president, as is looking more and more likely given Obama's complete incompetence and ineptitude in most every area where presidents are rated by the voting public, when elected, that person will overturn this idiocy and return the military back to where it was on this issue pre-DADT.
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't. And when any rear area pogue like the president starts telling me or any other service member how they should live, or think or accept... particularly when he never served?
Then I'm much more inclined to tell him to drop dead.
I watched this debate. It was the only one I watched. The gay soldier asked a pro-leftist, progressive, pro-democrat question. Expecting any other response from a crowd of mostly conservatives who are heartily sick of being whipped with the progressive agenda merely goes to show how out of touch the idiot in the White House really is.
I don't care that this guy is in Iraq or wherever. I don't care that he's gay, although he should not be serving if he is... even if he can.
Because he has no RIGHT to serve. And the problems this is going to cause... along with the exodus of troops who will vote with their feet as a result, shows this crap is simply not worth it. And the hypocrisy these people show? The hypocrisy that will not cause them to bleed in the least, or any of their friends?
Well, that one is easy.
There's been no rush to the recruiter's office. Rep. Moeller wouldn't dream of actually ENLISTING. After all, that's for some other poor schlep to do. Not him.
And in that regard... he's EXACTLY like the president. And that can't be a good thing.
.
Obama rebukes GOP candidates for not speaking up for gay soldier
Accuses candidates of ‘smallness’ in ‘Big America’
President Barack Obama delivers his remarks at the Human Rights Campaign’s 15th annual national dinner in Washington, Saturday, Oct. 1, 2011. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
-
The Washington Times
Sunday, October 2, 2011
President
Obama has taken a swipe at the entire field of Republican presidential candidates, saying they are guilty of “smallness” for failing to stand up for a gay U.S. service member who was booed by a few audience members at a
GOP debate.
“We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s OK for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the President of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed,”
Mr. Obama told a cheering crowd of gay and lesbian advocates Saturday night at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner in Washington. “We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. You want to be Commander-in-Chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient.”
It was
Mr. Obama’s first public comment on the incident, which occurred at a
GOP debate in Orlando on Sept. 22. When a gay soldier serving in
Iraq asked a question of the candidates via
YouTube, a few audience members booed. The candidates did not say anything at the time; some of them said later they could not hear the audience reaction from the stage.
The president argued that the failure of the
GOP candidates to speak out about it since then is emblematic of the
Republican Party’s “smallness.”
“We don’t believe in a small America,”
Mr. Obama said. “We believe in a big America — a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America — that values the service of every patriot. We believe in an America where we’re all in it together, and we see the good in one another, and we live up to a creed that is as old as our founding: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. And that includes everybody.”
The notion of a “big America” extends to the passage of his $447 billion jobs bill, the president said.
More:
