Saving Private Elton

So Congress has passed a bill which ends the so-called "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy on gays in the military which was one of the most brilliant things ever done by the Clinton administration. What is so typical about this legislation as is true with most liberal/socialist legislation is that it attempts to end discrimination against one group by discriminating against another larger group. Liberals simply cannot look past our differences and find ways for us all to get along. Instead they must demonize one group for the edification of another. And of course, this is not really done for the good of either group, rather for the good of the politicians who can once again claim the holier than thou personna they so dearly love to use to mask their evil nature. Ask yourself a question; 'What was really wrong with this policy?'. If a gay person wanted to serve their country, they could. If they wanted to fight terrorism, they could. All they had to agree to was not to be 'openly gay' while in uniform or on base. Granted, this may cramp their style a little but the same is true if we do away with the policy. Many straight individuals could claim that openly gay members on base would 'cramp their style'. So what we had with the "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy was a pretty good compromise on a basically insolvable problem. What are the possible drawbacks to ending this policy? Let's look at a few facts.



1. Many religions view homosexuality as an abomination. They are commanded by their religion to disassociate themselves from this lifestyle. Regardless of whether you agree or not, this is their faith and their teachings. The numbers of people who fall into this category are far greater than the number of gays who want to serve.



2. Many individuals in combat units are type 'A', aggressive and intense personalities. Say what you will, but when the stuff goes down on the front lines, these are the guys you want watching your six. Many of these individuals see homosexuality as a weakness, a sin and they worry about unwanted advances. You would probably call them homophobic. Fine, I don't think they care what you call them (just don't say it to their face!). Again, however, in the case of front line combat units especially, they are much more prevalent than the number of gays who wish to be there.



3. Members of the opposite sex are not allowed to sleep together or shower together for obvious reasons. If this policy is lifted and now we will have openly gay members of the military, will they be getting separate sleeping and bathing facilities? If not, are heterosexuals now going to be able to sleep and bath with the opposite sex for whom they hold an attraction? Well? It's hardly fair to let one group sleep and bath with the ones to whom they hold an attraction and not let another now is it? You see this being fair thing is not always as easy at is seems.



4. A very good argument can be made to anyone who cares to hear the truth, that the members of the first two groups mentioned above make up a large portion of the individuals that make the U. S. military a formidable fighting force. In many cases throughout military history our soldiers have prevailed in situations where the odds were overwhelmingly against them. It is the unknown factor; some call it the 'fighting spirit'. Using the military for some kind of social experiment or simply to push an agenda that may in and of itself be intended to weaken our military is to risk diminishing this fighting spirit. This will most certainly cost American lives in some cases such as mentioned above.



So what do we see here? We have a situation where the religious beliefs and feelings of the many are being subjected to the feelings and beliefs of a few. We have a situation where potentially, individuals in the majority are going to be forced to sleep and bath with the minority who openly find them sexually attractive. This same 'privelege' will not however be extended to the majority. We have a situation in which on line fighting units may question the tenacity and focus of all of their members causing unneccessary stress in an already life and death situation. We have a situation in which American soldiers may be put to a greater risk because of a possible loss of fighting spirit. And what is all of this for? Ostensibly to soothe the feelings of one small group of people who rightly or wrongly believe they are being discriminated against in the military, in which there is no obligation for them to serve. We have a situation where liberals once again are going to punish the many for the sake of the few. Many can't understand why. Fundamentally it is because liberals don't think straight. They believe there exists a Utopian society that is there for the taking if we will only listen to their politically correct solutions to every problem that can possibly arise in the life of a human being. They believe that they alone understand this and if we all just let them run our lives we will all be one step closer to that Nirvana. Sadly, the truth is that not only do they typically not really help the few since they always further marginalize them, but indeed they hurt the many in the process. This of course takes us exponentially further away from the supposed Utopia; which of course does not exist on Earth.

Finally, all of this can be thought out and expressed by an old curmudgeon living in the middle of Texas, biding his time till the good Lord sees fit to bring him home. And yet, the smartest minds in politics can't figure this out? Or, can they? And...if they can, and yet they do it anyway, then why? Is it possible that their real intent is to harm the cohesiveness of American fighting forces? I know that you find this hard to believe, but ask yourself why would one do this if they knew it was a bad idea? Surely some are just going along to get votes, but the ones behind the scenes, the ones who really push the issue to the forefront; do you believe that they have the U. S. military's best interest at heart? Really?

by: Keith D. Rodebush

Price of Naiveté Could Be Millions...of Lives

--------------------------------------------------

Americans have long been a very tolerant and altruistic people. No doubt this is in no small part because of the Christian foundation of this nations founding. I have long felt personally that Christians have too often misinterpreted the 'turn the other cheek' tale of the Bible. Perhaps that is another post someday but for now suffice it to say that it is my belief that God expects His children to stand up for what is right and good, and yes, even fight for it. Showing personal humility and suffering personally to show others the promise of God's love is wholly good. However, failing to stand up to evil and aggression which results in injury or death to others is wholly wicked.
How many times must history repeat itself before intellect will prevail over emotional naiveté? How many lives will be lost by future naiveté? There is of course no way to tell how many lives might have been saved had Chamberlain (England 1938) not been seduced by Hitler's false proclamations concerning Germany's expansionist dream. More recently, when Mohamar Qaddafi of Libya was engaging in terrorist activities and causing international strife, President Ronald Reagan launch attacks on him personally. His office, his house and even his tent were targeted. Some of his family was killed in these strikes. Qaddafi has been very quiet since those days. How many airplanes were saved from his terror? How many of his own people were saved from his extremist agenda possibly causing all out war against them? Yet this same president, when Marines were attacked in Lebanon, retreated forthwith, rubbing his bloody nose. This event was cited by Osama bin Laden as a reason that a war of terror on America would succeed. It showed, he inferred that America didn't have the stomach for a protracted war. How many lives did that cost us? All of the 9/11 lives lost, all of the embassy bombings, the war in Afghanistan; all lives lost because of naiveté when facing a threat. President Jimmy Carter was faced with a threat when Iran took Americans hostage after storming our embassy. We all know the history of his weak response and abject failure to adequately respond to naked aggression. We were afraid of the lives that may be lost in fighting Iran in 1979. Well, now Iran has nuclear ambitions and a fundamentalist, possibly insane, president who has promised to wipe Israel off the map. How many lives will be lost if nuclear weapons are used against Israel? All because of a weak response in the face of aggression.
Often times we assume that dealing with nations is different than dealing with individuals. However, the opposite is true. It is not hard to understand, after all nations are run by people, with all of the ego and fear and other flaws we all have.
This is even more so with dictatorships as they are run by one personality alone. So when the bully at school shows aggression and you do nothing what happens? Well, he continues to show more and more; until one day you've had enough and you lash out in anger and the fight is on. But what happens after that? The bully leaves you alone and moves on to the next weakling he can find. It is no different with nations. And if the weaklings all band together and threaten, and carry out the threat, to punish the bully for his behavior he will cease altogether.
We now live in a time when America is the biggest baddest toughest kid on the block; and yet we cower to small bullies who show aggression because of a very naive and ignorant belief that we are saving lives by not engaging them. The exact opposite is true. We are condemning future peoples to death by our own cowardice. Just as no greater love is shown by laying ones life down for another, so too no greater contempt is shown, than by forcing another to lay down their lives for your cowardice. America must stand against aggression in all possible cases, sooner rather than later. To do otherwise is to earn the contempt of future generations who must fight much larger and bloodier battles in our stead. May God have mercy on our souls, our grandchildren may not.

by: Keith D. Rodebush

More Will Die For Obama's Weakness

Heart felt thoughts and prayers to all of the affected soldiers and their families who were killed or wounded at Fort Hood by the terrorist, Malik Nidal Hasan. Our country already owes such a great debt to our soldiers and their families for all that they sacrifice for us. Further prayers go out to all of our soldiers around the world as it appears that their job is going to get ever harder under this administration.

Let us start by addressing a few facts:

1. Barack Obama has refused to even say 'War on Terror' since he's been elected.
2. Barack Hussein Obama has been to many countries since being elected in which he typically apologizes for America, giving the impression that the War on Terror is a result of America's actions, not those of a radical fascist group which has hijack a major religion for the purpose of bringing down western democracy.
3. This administration, and the last, have done absolutely nothing of substance to curtail the Iranian mullahs pursuit of nuclear weapons.
4. After the attack at Fort Hood, the president spent several minutes of his next press conference talking about frivolous issues before addressing the tragedy at Fort Hood where 13 of America's finest were slaughtered.
5. The shooter at Fort Hood shouted 'God is Great' in Arabic as all terrorists do just before killing westerners.
6. The shooter at Fort Hood used a FNH FiveseveN tactical pistol that is preferred by swat teams for it's capability of penetrating body armor.
7. The shooter at Fort Hood is known to have contacted terrorists web sites, spoke in favor of suicide bombers and considers the Taliban as 'brother Muslims'.
8. And yet, Barack Hussein Obama still refuses to call this man a terrorist. Nor will anyone else in this administration.
9. This man boy, now brings the major terrorists in our custody to New York City to stand trial in civilian court with all of the constitutional protections that involves, when military tribunals are already set up and ready to try them as they should be, for war crimes against civilians in a time of war. This is obviously being done for political reasons. Politics is more important than winning the war.
10. Finally, while our troops are fighting a tough battle to keep the Taliban from resurging in Afghanistan, this administration is lackadaisically deciding whether it is good policy to send them the support they need to complete their stated mission. While he dally's around, our boys are dying.
11. Nidal Hasan is listed by the George Washington University as being a participant in Barack Hussein Obama's transitional team. (page 29 "Thinking Anew - Security Priorities for the next Administration")

Any reasonable person can only come to the conclusion that this is a weak president that will be viewed as such by all the world. This will cause our enemies to be emboldened. They will fight harder. They will recruit more with the promise that we can be defeated. More Americans will die as a result. This is the fate that will befall us because we were so naive as to ignore the history of a rookie running for the highest office at a time of war. What have we done?

This country must come to grips with the fact that we are at WAR with a tenacious enemy that wants nothing more than to kill as many as they can in order to soften our resolve to track them down and kill them first. If we do not, then many many more Americans will die than need to. We kill our own. God have mercy on this nation.