Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Fighting back against sodomized military

COMMENT: Political promotion of a human perversion does not make it any the less offensive, and those who thought surely common sense would prevail are now making their voices heard. "No" needs to be said loud and clear!

Fighting back against sodomized military (OneNewsNow.com)
A national defense analyst and Pentagon advisor says the new Congress can take a number of actions to blunt the impact of the new law that allows homosexuals to openly display their lifestyle in the U.S. military.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Redefining the Season of Giving

In a time of lost jobs, lost wages, and difficult times, some Americans are still redefining the season of giving.

Unemployed Father Takes In Homeless Family For Christmas
Gregory Schauer, an unemployed man who, despite not having enough money to buy Christmas presents for his own kids, was able to give an amazing gift to people he didn't even know when he opened his home and took in a homeless woman and her three children for the holidays. "I can just barely cover all my bills," he explained, "but I know there are people who are worse off than I am right now." His generous and uplifting gesture reminds us that Christmas giving need not just be about putting the hippest new gadget or must-have toy under the tree - but about demonstrating the caring and selflessness that are the true heart of the Christmas spirit.
See also the Devotional on this at http://www.guildofchrist.com/

Thursday, December 23, 2010

WashPost: Marine Corps Commandant Has to Go

The following is a Commentary from Washington Post writer Richard Cohen, followed by my response to him.
Marine Corps commandant has to go
By Richard Cohen
Monday, December 20, 2010; 8:00 PM
I am a fan of the old World War II movies, the ones where the platoon was composed of typical Americans, Hollywood-style. There was a guy named Farmer and one called Preacher and another called Brooklyn (who was killed shortly after receiving a salami from home), no blacks and, of course, an officer who was good-looking and clearly a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant of the John Wayne variety. Now, of course, we would have to add a gay soldier. I fear for him. He'll need someone to watch his back.
>The repeal of the odious "don't ask, don't tell" law has been 17 years in the making. It could have been done much sooner had it not been for the political cowardice and/or ignorance of much of Congress and some of the military. The nation as a whole was way out in front of these institutions, having learned from their own kids and society in general that gays and lesbians were not drooling perverts but human beings with a different - not better and not worse - sexuality. Most of us know this now.
There's good reason to believe, however, that this lesson has not been universally learned. In the run-up to the vote in the Senate, Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, showed how he felt about the prospect of open homosexuals serving in the Marines. He was particularly concerned about combat situations where, he thought, gays might be "a distraction." "Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines' lives," Amos said. This was not the first time the general had expressed his doubts. Earlier, he had talked about what might happen when his Marines were "laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers. I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion. It's combat effectiveness."
It's easy to dismiss Amos, but his concerns fall within the realm of possibility. After all, being gay is a sexual matter and young people are nothing if not sexual. This is the way it is supposed to be. This is also the problem with having women in the armed services or, if you are a radical feminist, having men. Sooner or later, a certain amount of unacceptable harassment will occur, abuses will be committed and, more innocently, plain hooking up is going to happen. We know this.
But we know also that this can be managed - contained, limited. It takes education. It takes training. It takes leadership. This is what concerns me about Amos. His views are on the record. He sees gays as somewhat out of control, possibly holding hands in combat, sneaking into one another's bunks at night, being distracted just as the enemy is coming over the hill. Not only is this silly and based on an ignorant misconception of who most gays are, but it can be dealt with.
Amos, though, is the wrong man to deal with it. His subordinates know what he thinks of gays. They know he has not an iota of sympathy for what might be their difficulties or any tolerance for their lifestyle. If I were gay, I would not want to work for the man - or serve under him. He is one step short of being a bigot.
The racial desegregation of the military in 1948 also produced much blather about unit cohesion. It is true, of course, that race is not about behavior, but it is also true that race is obvious, spotted clear across a room - or a dance hall or a noncommissioned officers club - and can produce a violent reaction. (Remember, the South was still an apartheid nation back then.) The military managed because it was commanded to comply. The leadership came from President Truman. He liked to have his orders followed.
The Marines of today know that virtually the entire Republican Party stood up for bigotry. The Corps knows that some important senators - John McCain and Jon Kyl, to name two - furiously fought to retain the status quo, always in the sainted cause of unit cohesion. (Kyl said repeal could "cost lives.") Marines know, too, that in surveys, those on the front lines are least supportive of having gays among them and they are also aware that their brass fought to keep "don't ask, don't tell." The issue for me, as for Gen. Amos, is unit cohesion. That's why he has to go.

Letter to Richard Cohen, Washington Post writer
Dear Sir,
You need to raise your sights. You obviously have the talent to do that.
Your cute sequencing of words and historical segments that otherwise have no real relation to the subject, as you built a scarecrow you can knock down, is journalistic talent, no doubt.
However, to change the paradigm a bit, were you a young Marine on the rifle range, qualifying to make expert use of your weapon, I would have to advise you that you have jerked the trigger -- rather than squeeze it -- and you are off target. In addition, you don't have good sight alignment, so your best shots went astray. Finally, you have taken much too fast a shot, and you have missed the target.
General Amos is not the target. He is the messenger speaking facts about what is. It is the "what is" you should be targeting.
However, I feel certain that -- if you read this -- along the way you are thinking not about the validity of what I've described to you, but you instead have been formulating stinging responses. That signifies a lack of critical thinking, and it shows in your subject article. You show you have the God-given talent, and your position with the Washington Post indicates you are probably capable of generating significant insights on the real problems here, not all of which are even in sight, yet. And again, that problem is not General Amos. But I think you knew that all along, even as you attempted to make him the poster boy and target for your easily knocked off commentary.
You can do better.

Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Seven Whose Vote Will Live in Infamy

by Ed Evans

The following are those Republicans who voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, needlessly weakening military unit integrity and subjecting heterosexuals to the type of acting out from which they have been protected in the past, and opening the door for open sexual access and contact that has been denied homosexuals in the past.

These are those who turned their backs on our military men and women, even though they are yet now engaged in a fight for their life -- and the continuance of our way of life.

For their own purposes these ignored the pleas and the facts presented by experienced military leaders of America's highest caliber. Their vote for political correctness and against common sense has encouraged the homosexual crowd to demand the head of those military leaders, such as the Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, who stood up for those now serving in uniform.

Those Republicans deserving of our derision are: Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mark Kirk of Illinois, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Each one ignored their responsibility those who have volunteered to go in harm's way for the rest of us -- and voted to repeal DADT! For many of us, this is no surprise. Their vote will stand in infamy throughout history.

However, so did Senator James Webb, a Democrat, but also once a Marine officer. He voted against the Marine Corps Commandant and against his Marines. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Amos, recently sent out a message to all Marines that there is no such thing as a "former Marine." By our training, our personal commitment, and the oath we took to protect and defend, we are Marines forever. However, as far as this Marine forever is concerned, James Webb by his actions has proved himself not just a former Marine, but an ex-Marine.

Allowing homosexuals to serve in the military was never the problem. They have always been there, so long as they lived up to their oath and kept their private lives private, as is required of heterosexuals. When either acts out, that's where there are problems. DADT encouraged homosexuals to keep their private lives private. When they did not and it became a problem, it was usually because of something they did. Now the restraints are off, and now military order and discipline, much different from how civilians live and work, will begin to disintegrate and people's lives will be ruined. This vote was not done for "equal treatment", this was done for shameful political reasons and against the well-being of everyone involved.

This is not a mere disagreement over politics. The trashing of DADT seriously affects the well-being of our Corps and every Marine now on active duty, and those in the future. Any Marine, of whatever stature, who would stab our fellow Marines in the back, selling out for political correctness and political party loyalty, stands with ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated President John Kennedy; and with the three ex-Marines who were arrested for selling military assault rifles to Los Angeles gang members. Such is the shame of ex-Marines.

Now for the kicker....

Having said all that, any military lawyers in the room?

You see, UCMJ Article 125 STILL reads, in part: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Now, the reason I ask is that I am as certain as hard rock candy that no one, but no one, in either the House or Senate is smart enough to have thought to nullify this rascal. It's still out there, with sharp fangs and no rattles.

NOW THE END BEGINS: Senate Votes to Overturn Military Gay Ban


WASHINGTON In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as don't ask, don't tell. Obama was expected to sign it next week.

If you look at the prophecies of Jeremiah 50, 51 and Isaiah 47, 48 and Rev 17, 18 they point to America as the only candidate that fits all of the scripture references to Mystery Babylon. And scripture tells us that the end will come in the time of the Sodomites.

President Barack Hussein Obama has now kept his election promise to allow the Sodomites access to the U.S. military. Remember, scripture says that the end will come in the "days of Sodom."

Allowing homosexuals to serve in the military was never the problem. They have always been there, so long as they lived up to their oath and kept their private lives private, as is required of heterosexuals. When either acts out, that's where there are problems. DADT encouraged homosexuals to keep their private lives private. When they did not and it became a problem, it was usually because of something they did. Now the restraints are off, and now military order and discipline, much different from how civilians live and work, will begin to disintegrate and peoples lives will be ruined. This was not done for "equal treatment", this was done for shameful political reasons and against the well-being of everyone.

We will be in a quandary, will we not? I cannot at this moment recommend a decent young man or woman enter the Armed Forces of the United States of America under the conditions this will bring about. And yet, if those who really care about love of country, and obey the word of God, do not join the ranks to defend this nation, what will become of us? Do we begin to see Almighty God withdrawing His arm of protection from the nation that has come to use His name equally in vain and in blessing?

Monday, December 13, 2010

Is Mexico America's Next Front?

Check out this story:

Before Mexico indeed becomes another front, we need to clean out the cesspool. Even before we throw a battalion of diplomats into the battle, and in order to make it a peaceful transition, suggest we locate enough patriot hackers to mount a massive electronic survey online that asks the question, if you as a citizen of Mexico were given a choice, would you like to remain in Mexico under the current political regime, or would you like to remain in Mexico and be part of the United States of America?
Lots of publicity. I think the answer will be that Mexico should be part of the U.S. If not, no harm done, and all the Mexicans can be encouraged to go home since the majority do want to be part of the U.S. But if the vote goes the way I suspect, then it becomes a matter of negotiating with what passes for political power in Mexico -- telling the rest of South America that's been using Mexico as an open door to the U.S. to shut up and go home -- and pulling Mexico into the U.S. for the purpose of upgrading health, welfare and industry there. Actually, much of our industry is already there.

Dirty Dealings in the Senate

This is Harry Reid's doing, and he is an absolute disgrace to the orderly business of this nation and We the People. The people of Nevada need to apologize to the nation for his presence in the Senate. There seems to be substantial evidence that others in the wholesale seed business will benefit greatly by its passage, but it is still Harry Reid who is acting as the Devil's Advocate in this dirty business.

Dirty Dealings in the Senate: Reid attaches S510 Food Bill to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Act H.R. 3082 Act NOW it is in committee.


This food bill they are trying to pass will increase our food prices at least 50% and maybe more. It is not about food safety it is about control and power. They want our money. All of it.

This is what is being done with S.510, the so-called Food Safety Bill. Read the details and what you need to do: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/senate-to-take-up-fake-food

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Dems Attacking Free Speech; Your's, Mine, and Broadcast

Apparently the only thing liberal Democrats learned from the shellacking they took during the recent election is that they must control the news media and all public speech, and that's the direction they are now moving.

According to the Media Research Center http://www.mrcaction.org, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is moving rapidly to censor conservative speech while expanding their reach and control over the news media in America.

In a speech in New York last Thursday, FCC commissioner Michael Copps, lamented that American journalism is in "grave peril", and the federal government needs to become more involved to bolster "traditional media." (!!!) Remember, the members of the FCC are both unelected and unaccountable to the American public.

FCC Commissioner Copps then laid out a set of proposed changes to the station relicensing process that would take broadcast content OUT of the hands of the American People and put it IN the hands of government bureaucrats! Nothing like trashing the First Amendment.

This plan would require that all stations pass a "Public Value Test" if they want to continue to broadcast. Rather than ratings and the free market determining that "Public Value," it will be left to the central planners at the FCC in Washington, DC!

The full story is available through the Free Speech Alliance at http://www.mrcaction.org/517/petition.asp?Ref_ID=4661&CID=564&RID=24879570

In another sign that momentum is building on the Left to silence conservatives, during a recent interview, Howard Dean called for a return of the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine. He feels that this is necessary to silence the Fox News Channel, which he believes, "just makes stuff up and is a propaganda outlet."

Much like their plans for the FCC, a return to the Fairness Doctrine would result in Washington liberals deciding what is appropriate political speech. Though Howard Dean's goal is clearly to silence conservatives, he claims this is a necessary move to protect all of us clueless Americans, saying, "Americans don't know what's going on and therefore the media can have their way with them intellectually." This from the former DNC Chair, propagandist extraordinaire.

Regardless of what We the People said to them in the last election, the Left is determined to implement their agenda by controlling who says what to whom through the unelected, unaccountable FCC. Too bad the ACLU is a leftist hobby horse; this would be right up their alley. We the People need to make certain the Democrats are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the USS Titanic.

Sunday, December 5, 2010


This is no way to talk to or about America's volunteer military men and women.

Adm. Mike Mullen is no longer fit to be CJCS.

He no longer respects our military men and women, and we no longer respect him.

Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work

Published December 02, 2010



Military members who have a problem with a change in policy to allow gays to serve openly may find themselves looking for a new job, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Thursday.

Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the military is based on meritocracy, "what you do, not who you are." He said if Congress changes the don't ask, don't tell policy then the U.S. military will comply.

And if some people have a problem with that, they may not want to join the service.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen speaks to reporters on gays in the military, Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010, at the Pentagon. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Where Are the Carriers? by Steve Cohen


Atlantic Ocean (Sept. 13, 2004) – Nimitz...

Image via Wikipedia

“When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it’s no accident that

the first question that comes to everyone’s lips is:

‘Where’s the nearest carrier?‘”

President Bill Clinton

March 12, 1993 aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt

At a dinner party on Manhattan’s upper east side recently, I asked my table-mates how many aircraft carriers they thought America had in service. It wasn’t an idle question. It was triggered by comments from two of the guests. Both had just returned from Iran, and one was a senior European Union staffer involved with security issues. Their report was seriously distressing, and the conversation turned to the possibility of U.S. (or Israeli) intervention.

The answers to my question – how many carriers — ranged from 22 to 100. The EU expert weighed in with 40. All were shocked to learn that the United States has a total of just 11 aircraft carriers. And even that number is misleading: two are in dry-dock, one for a four-year refueling; six are various stages of refurbishment, training and certification and can, in theory, be ready to “surge” in 30 to 90 days. But only three are actually deployed.

I knew the number because I had recently been aboard the USS Harry Truman, a nuclear super-carrier with some 70 jets and a crew of 5500. Following my embark, I was determined to investigate the value of these behemoths as objectively as a concerned citizen (without a security clearance) could. I interviewed dozens of defense experts and reviewed thousands of pages of studies and testimony. I was also sensitive to the fact that I had experienced a tailhook landing and catapult launch, which are often referred to as “the most fun you can have with your clothes on.” I appreciate why, and tried not to let that interfere with my assessment.

My questions started with the basics: Are carriers cold war relics as critics charge? Or are they, as supporters profess, cost-effective platforms essential to achieving critical foreign policy and security objectives? Are they too vulnerable to new Chinese anti-ship missiles as Defense Secretary Gates implies? Or is that vulnerability the latest feint by inter-and-intra-service rivals? And is 11 the “right” number to meet current and potential obligations?

The answers I found were not encouraging. And my dinner partners’ surprise quickly turned to concern.

Most experts fear that our carrier capability is stretched way too thin. And they are very concerned about what will happen in 2013 when the 50 year-old nuclear super-carrier Enterprise is retired. Its replacement, the USS Gerald Ford, is not scheduled to be commissioned until late 2015, and won’t join the operational fleet until several years after that.

Moreover, the carriers and their crews are being worked harder and longer. At today’s heightened operational tempo, deployments are more frequent, longer, and leave less time for essential maintenance. As retired Navy captain Dick Costello put it, “We’re driving them hard and putting them away wet.”

Contrary to critics’ rhetoric, aircraft carriers have played an expanded role since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The carrier’s traditional roles of deterrence, sea control, and showing-the-flag have taken advantage of their hard-to-miss presence. Carriers have been front-and-center in numerous conflicts where weapons were never fired. But since the end of the cold war, carriers have taken on the greater demands of kinetic power projection: carrier-based aircraft have flown most of the critical early sorties in almost every “hot” encounter of the last 20 years. Troops are never sent into harm’s way without first securing the airspace and without on-going close air support. Initial air operations are almost always the predominant responsibility of Navy-Marine air, while on-going sustainability is shared with the Air Force.

When special operations forces and CIA operatives went into Afghanistan after 9/11 – some of them memorably on camels – it was carrier-based aircraft that provided the essential cover. In fact, Navy Air was responsible for fully 75% of all strike sorties. This required four carriers on station.

In 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, five Navy carriers again provided essential air-superiority and ground support. More than half of all American sorties were conducted by carrier-based pilots, as Turkey and Saudi Arabia refused American requests to operate Air Force jets from land bases.

Retried Marine General Anthony Zinni explained another benefit of having carriers forward-deployed: the element of surprise. When, in 1999 President Bill Clinton ordered air strikes against Iraq, Zinni was able to draw on carriers undergoing “routine” operations in the area. The Iraqis had no advance notice of night-time strikes by carrier-based pilots and were unable to disperse valuable pieces of equipment. In subsequent strikes by land-based Air Force planes, the Iraqis had enough time to move their machinery.

Carriers are also playing a growing, non-traditional role: disaster relief and delivering humanitarian aid. Following the 2004 Asian tsunami, the USS Abraham Lincoln led relief efforts. Not only did the carrier’s flight deck provide the main staging area for distribution of desperately needed supplies, its medical facilities were literally life-saving for thousands. Moreover, as former Ambassador Douglas Paal noted, its quick response and presence provided Secretary of State Clinton with a formidable platform from which to engage the Indonesian government.

Does the Navy believe 11 carriers are enough to meet the challenges demanded of them by successive presidential administrations? As recently as June of 2000 – before the attacks of 9/11 or our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq – the Navy told Congress that it needed 15 carrier battle groups. Unfortunately, with only 11 carriers, large areas of the globe are suffering from a “presence deficit.” According to Vice Admiral Barry McCullough, these include the Black sea, the Baltic region, Indian Ocean, and areas off the African coast. In addition, South America, the Caribbean, and the Balkans have not seen a carrier in several years.

The most formidable carrier critic is outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. “I’m not going to cut any aircraft carriers,” Gates told Fred Kaplan in his recent Foreign Affairs interview. “But the reality is, if Chinese highly accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles can keep our aircraft carriers behind the second island chain in the Pacific, you’ve got to think differently about how you’re going to use aircraft carriers.”

Gates may not have cut the number of carrier groups outright, but he has significantly delayed the start date for building new carriers from every four years to every five. And there is some talk about not refueling the Abraham Lincoln when its reactor core must be replaced in 2014, halfway through the carrier’s 50-year lifespan.

Is this Chinese missile threat sufficient to diminish carrier capabilities? Not according to former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral James L. Holloway III. “The Chinese lack some of the key hardware and software to constitute the ‘system of systems’ required to achieve the kill chain of detection, tracking, guidance and pinpoint accuracy needed.” Holloway also notes that a carrier can move 12 miles between the time a missile is launched and when it arrives at the target. And its flight deck and hull are heavily armored. “The Enterprise experienced a serious fire a number of years ago when nine major caliber bombs (750 – 1,000 pounds) exploded on its flight deck. It was back in operation after four hours.”

Perhaps most tellingly, no nation is pursuing aircraft carriers more assiduously than China. They have purchased three old carriers from the Soviet Union and a fourth from Australia. In addition, they have constituted an air wing that is practicing landings on a carrier-shaped strip, and are reported to be building a new carrier in secret.

The one thing critics and supporters agree upon is that carriers are very expensive. The USS Gerald Ford will cost about $11 billion by the time it enters the fleet. And that doesn’t include the cost of its air wing or its strike group of cruisers, subs, and support ships. (Just as a point of reference, the “cash for clunkers” program cost us $3 billion, and the overall stimulus and bank-bailout have totaled $1.5 trillion. That is 1500 billions.)

Our current spending on carriers and aircraft is a grave concern to former Navy Secretary John Lehman. He notes that we have only 10 airwings and no attrition aircraft. Moreover, he is critical of Secretary Gates’ position that while we may have no back-up aircraft for the carriers, we have plenty of Air Force planes. Lehman notes that, “In any potential conflict with an increasingly truculent and aggressive China, Air Force reserves are largely irrelevant. We have very few land bases in the Pacific.”

As I conducted my investigation, I kept hearing that the Navy has no congressional champion, as it did first with Georgia Congressman Carl Vinson and later with Virginia Senator John Warner. Moreover, the public seems not to know or care what the Navy does. In a recent Gallup poll, the Navy was ranked dead last among the braches of the military services in terms of both prestige and importance.

So, without a champion or broad public support, is there little wonder why our carrier resources continue to erode? I came away from my investigation convinced that the modern super-carrier is our most flexible and proven defense platform. But I was also very troubled by the realization that our initial incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq required four and five carrier battle groups respectively. And that we didn’t have enough ships to support those operations simultaneously.

What my dinner partners worried about was: what would happen if two-or-more conflicts erupt concurrently? We went around the table citing current concerns: Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon; North Korea recently sunk a South Korean warship; a Japanese tanker was attacked just last month in the Straits of Hormuz; Venezuela has threatened Colombia; and China is showing increased belligerence towards Taiwan. And all those were cited before appetizers were finished. We’ll just have to hope that no President, faced with a crisis, will ask, “Where are the carriers?” and hear that they’ve been retired in favor of the next politically popular clunkers program.