Can Gays And Lesbians Drop Their "In Your Face" Politics Long Enough For Military Service?

That is the question that needs to be asked and answered before any serious debate can take place on this issue. Without answering this question, lifting the gay ban in the military will be opening the door to major unrest and frivolous complaints from gay and lesbian activists who may serve in the military.

The reason I say "frivolous" is because I saw quite a few complaints from feminists in the military that turned out to be bogus "gotchas." The really sad part about this is that the truth didn't come out until several careers had already been ruined.

Remember "Tailhook 91" and the bogus charges that Paula Coughlin made in 1991? How many careers were ruined before the truth about what really happened and how Coughlin was a willing participant came out? How much damage was done before someone realized that Coughlin admitted to her fellow Tailhookers that they had made her "see God?" How long did it take before the public was made aware of the fact that Coughlin had fingered people who weren't even at Tailhook?

Therein lies the problem. What happens if some gay or lesbian goes into the military and has a radical political agenda? How long before some false charge of "homophobia" is made and a fabricated scandal ensues which destroys one or more careers? What are the safeguards against this?

TAILHOOK 91 is a prime example of how one person making false accusations can have a major negative impact on the military and its combat effectiveness.

Lt. Col. Oliver North notes the following:

But the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered community, which worked so hard to elect Mr. Obama, wasn’t feeling the love. The President wouldn’t let them out of the closet, they argued, and their patience was wearing thin. POTUS had to give them reason to stay in the fold. The payoff came in his State of the Union Address, when Mr. Obama went off on another frolic and diversion in declaring, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

No, it is because of how they act and how they are trying to force their agenda on America whether it be through secret classes (i.e. telling children not to inform their parents) to school children or by pulling a Coughlin on the U.S. Military.

More:

Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey informed the Senate Armed Services Committee he has “serious concerns” about repealing the law in the midst of war. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness,” Casey testified. A somewhat softer note was sounded by Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, who said, “This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation.” Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, testified that he endorsed a “study” of the issue because “only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, not someone else’s.” He also resisted a “freeze” on discharges for homosexual behavior, citing duty to “the families that support the force.” The straightest shooting of all was done by General James Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on February 24, he said, “Unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective.” Then he reloaded. After observing that proponents of repeal have failed to produce any evidence that openly homosexual individuals serving in uniform will improve combat readiness, Conway unequivocally stated: “At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Just going forward on someone's political whim is not the way to do it. It is true that gays are allowed to serve in militaries like Great Britain and Isreal, but it is also true that in both cases, gays are counseled to keep it low profile.

Are U.S. gays and lesbians willing to do the same thing? Given the militancy of the gay and lesbian political movement, my first inclination is to answer "no." Anyone who has been forced to take a required "diversity" class from an employer knows why.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Not So Fast
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Human Events
March 5, 2010

A Letter From The American Legion To Homeland Security

David K. Rehbein, National Commander of the American Legion is firing back at DHS for the slander against America's Military Veterans:

Secretary Janet Napolitano Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 April 13, 2009 Dear Secretary Napolitano, On behalf of the 2.6 million-member American Legion, I am stating my concern about your April 7 report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence and Recruitment.” First, I want to assure you that The American Legion has long shared your concern about white supremacist and anti-government groups. In 1923, when the Ku Klux Klan still yielded unspeakable influence in this country, The American Legion passed Resolution 407. It resolved, in part, “…we consider any individual, group of individuals or organizations, which creates, or fosters racial, religious or class strife among our people, or which takes into their own hands the enforcement of law, determination of guilt, or infliction of punishment, to be un-American, a menace to our liberties, and destructive to our fundamental law…” The best that I can say about your recent report is that it is incomplete. The report states, without any statistical evidence, “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.” The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam. Your report states that “Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.” Secretary Napolitano, this is more than a perception to those who have lost their job. Would you categorize union members as “Right Wing extremists”? In spite of this incomplete, and, I fear, politically-biased report, The American Legion and the Department of Homeland Security share many common and crucial interests, such as the Citizen Corps and disaster preparedness. Since you are a graduate of New Mexico Girls State, I trust that you are very familiar with The American Legion. I would be happy to meet with you at a time of mutual convenience to discuss issues such as border security and the war on terrorism. I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are. Sincerely, David K. Rehbein National Commander The American Legion

Love the reference to Osama Bin Laden as a reality check.

Virginia Supporters, Veterans, And Generals And Admirals For John McCain

These are some serious lists here. Check them out:

Virginia Leaders Stand With John McCain!

Veterans For John McCain

McCain Endorsed by Over 100 Admirals and Generals

These are honorable, well-educated and worldly-wise people who have seen more of life than just from sitting in front of some camera reading words that someone else wrote or from sitting in some lecture hall and regurgitating everything they read out of a textbook.

There is a great deal of invaluable experience in those names at the above links.

Scams Targetting Military Families, Anti-Illegal Activists Band Together And Global Warming Not So Hot

Okay, what kind of a sick bastard does something like this? How low can a human being go?

From Stars & Stripes:

According to 1st Lt. David Cowan, in early December his 84-year-old grandmother received a phone call from a man calling himself J.D. Taylor. The man claimed that Cowan was on his way home on leave from Iraq for the holidays, but had gotten hung up and lost his wallet and military identification card. Cowan’s grandmother, he said, was “asked by this person to wire $800, allegedly on my behalf so that I could get back home and surprise my family for Christmas.” The claim was a scam. Luckily for Cowan and his family, his grandmother knew to be suspicious of strangers asking for money, even if they’d somehow managed to reach the relatives of a soldier whose name they knew. ... In recent years, the FBI has tracked a growing number of scams targeting military families or making false claims to prey on the public’s feelings of good will for troops. ... Investigators say Cowan handled the situation correctly. Law enforcement authorities advise people to never provide any personal or financial information over the phone or send money to a stranger on a relative’s behalf.

I wish I could get my hands on people pulling scams like this.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Scams Targeting Troops And Their Families
Joseph Giordono
Stars and Stripes
December 27, 2007

---

Here in the Washington D.C. area, grass-roots organizations are moving to make state and local governments enforce immigration laws and cooperate with Federal authorities. It is a pity that this is what it takes to get our elected leaders to listen to us. Members of Congress and the President should have been doing this stuff years ago.

From the Gazette.net:

Anti-illegal immigrant activists from around the metropolitan area held their first meeting Wednesday night to begin work on forming a regional coalition aimed at pressuring local and state governments to cut their support of illegal immigrants next year. Representatives from a dozen grassroots groups in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., attended the meeting. The focus in Maryland will be on driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and day-laborer centers, said Brad Botwin of Derwood, director of the grass-roots group Help Save Maryland. He expects to draw on lessons learned by groups such as Help Save Herndon in convincing local officials to enact tighter illegal-immigrant laws. "Clearly, our friends from Virginia are light years ahead of us in Maryland," said Botwin, who coordinated the meeting. " ... We want to see what they can do to help us, and vice versa." Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group that hosted the meeting at its Washington headquarters, recently filed a public information request with Montgomery County to obtain all information relating to its three day-laborer centers, as well as information on all funding and grants for Casa of Maryland, the immigrant advocacy group that runs the centers.

All major metropolitan areas should have a meeting of the minds such as this one. It would send a strong message to our elected officials that we, the people, are fed up with the illegal immigrant problem and want real solutions, not amnesty which would only create more problems for us.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Activists Opposed To Illegal Immigrant Services Band
Sebastian Montes
Gazette.net of Maryland
December 26, 2007

---

And here is some more information about Global Warming that Old Media will never tell you about.

(BTW, Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and a member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

From the American Spectator:

Scientists have known for years that temperature records can be contaminated by so-called "urban warming," which results from the fact that long-term temperature histories tend to have originated at points of commerce. The bricks, buildings, and pavement of cities retain the heat of the day and impede the flow of ventilating winds.

That's also known as the "urban heat island effect," a phenomenon that has been shown to greatly skew temperature data around major cities like New York.

Michaels goes on:

Adjusting data for this effect, or using only rural stations, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states with confidence that less than 10% of the observed warming in long-term climate histories is due to urbanization. That's a wonderful hypothesis, and Ross and I decided to test it. We noted that other types of bias must still be affecting historical climate records. What about the quality of a national network and the competence of the observers? Other factors include movement or closing of weather stations and modification of local land surfaces, such as replacing a forest with a cornfield. Many of these are socioeconomic, so we built a computer model that included both regional climatic factors, such as latitude, as well as socioeconomic indicators like GDP and applied it to the IPCC's temperature history. ... The adjusted IPCC data now looks a lot like the satellite data. The biggest change was that the high (very warm) end of the distribution in the IPCC data was knocked off by the unbiasing process. Where was the press? A Google search reveals that with the exception of a few blog citations, the only major story ran in Canada's Financial Post. There are several reasons why the press provides so little coverage to science indicating that global warming isn't the end of the world. One has to do with bias in the scientific literature itself. Theoretically, assuming unbiased climate research, every new finding should have an equal probability of indicating that things are going to be more or less warm, or worse-than-we-thought vs. not-so-bad.

Too bad Old Media isn't listening to real scientists like Patrick J. Michales but would instead give attention to charlatans like Al Gore.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Not So Hot
Patrick J. Michaels
American Spectator
December 27, 2007