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)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1260920
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.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
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
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/unemployed-father-takes-i_n_800457.html
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/
Unemployed Father Takes In Homeless Family For Christmas
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/unemployed-father-takes-i_n_800457.html
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
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/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.
THIS STORY
>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.)
Marine Corps commandant has to go
By Richard Cohen
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/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.
THIS STORY
>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
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
www.nowtheendbegins.com/option8.html
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:
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2010/12/12/like-it-or-not-mexico-is-americas-next-afghanistan/
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.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/dirty-dealings-in-the-senate-reid-attaches-s510-food-bill-to-military-construction-and-veterans-aff/question-1385969/
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
