The prior post on the don't ask don't tell' policy I wrote required some changes so I just made a new one instead of replacing the prior version that still exists...
Will President Obama's plan to end 'don't ask, don't tell' in the U.S. military lead to the establishment of gay NCO Clubs in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will own-gender sex oriented soldiers demand equal military housing as good as that of married hetero families while strait single soldiers get small shared rooms and barracks?
President Obama said that he would be strict with President Karzai such that corruption would be chastised. That’s a good policy that has coincided with the economic recovery program in the United States. President Obama and general McCrystal have created a jobs for Taliban program in Afghanistan that will erode the ‘jobless recovery phenomena’ in the United States through reverse osmosis.
I mean to examine this issue respectfully and with sensitivity in order that my internet account won't be deleted. On many web sites anything politically offensive will be deleted--and the homos find the abbreviation of the lengthier term to be offensive. The issue is serious for the United States and may cost the President control of Congress in November 2010. There are those that would censor free speech on the topic for technical reasons--the Roemer homosexual leadership of Hitler's Storm Troopers was equally vigorous in securing the deletion of opposition to Nazi rhetoric. I do not consider the President a Nazi nor perhaps his militant gay-rights advocates that write on occasion of their hate of heterosexuals. The Roman Republic and Empire experienced equal or worse challenges of depravities in the leadership policy of their day--narrow is the gate that leads to political salvation and few there are that stay on the straight and narrow.
President Obama could use some education on the difference between civil rights and civil wrongs so far as his State of the Union speech goes. His intention to seek the repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the military is simply wrong-headed. Never having served in the military he evidently has no concern about the value of peace and harmony amidst ranks. No heterosexual soldier needs to have his tranquility disturbed in any way by brothers in arms who are homos and proud of it. It is sufficient to be a soldier without raising the point that anyone has a cannibal-like sexual attitude in sexual appetites. The enemy is supposed to be over the horizon rather than in the next foxhole; soldiers need to be concerned with the conduct of the enemy rather than of themselves. They must be free from superfluous myopia and have the ability to discern adverse movement upon the horizon or even close in. Existentially, mortal threats need to be reduced rather than increased. Some do not comprehend why people are foes of sin rather than lovers of it.
The President spent about 20 minutes in a kind of coming-out State of the Union speech to let us know the he has much sympathy for own-gender-for-sex-preferring soldiers that must repress their love for fellow soldiers or at least their preference for sex with their own genre, from fellow soldiers. Yet that is the point of don't ask, don't tell' and don't make the homo issue a sort of ponderous, needless hell; for no one is to be concerned about homosexual activity while in the military. In theory soldiers should be as devoted as monks to their celibate duty of killing or capturing the enemy. Some fall short of the perfection of celibacy in service I suppose, yet they are not given commendations for that.
The majority of Americans are not homosexual; President Obama in defending civil rights of own-gender-for-sex preferers simultaneously inflicts civil wrong upon the strait majority that must shower sleep, breakfast and perhaps fight amongst all in uniform and should be free of infrastructure same-sex issues.
A U.S. military all gayed up will not be one with increasing social stability. One considers the situation of butch sergeants with young recruits and the potential problems fraternization could create.
President Obama may want next to liberate women for embedding with male soldiers completely to prevent their inferior status of female segregation from male soldiers and to reduce discretionary spending on segregated showers for men and women. Soldiers can be trusted to maintain military respect for their showering brothers and sisters of the opposite sex at all times.
The most irritating aspect of the Presidential coming-out policy is that no one really cares if a soldier is a pervert on his or her own time if they aren't breaking any federal, state or local laws. The military is sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution and obey their officers (even if the officers are secretly homosexuals eyeballing them with admiration and ideas), yet the military itself is supposed to be an ineffable arm of political power through other means designed to fell evil oppressors of human liberty. Individual citizen-soldiers have as much right to be free from the gleaming, bloodshot eyes of lecherous perverts in uniform gazing upon the ranks as a kind of Playgirl utopia as the aforementioned own-gender sex preferers have to co-mingle under their own flag with those of other-gender opinion.
Heterosexuals naturally find it offensive to allow homosexuals close in, while homosexuals consider it hate, sometimes, to keep them at arms length with words and fists or whatever else is necessary. That military isn't designed to be a home for lovers, but a phenomenal tool of victory over evil. Soldiers could be given extra rations of Saltpeter, or have some sort of chemical castration while they wear the uniform so no one need be concerned about horny soldiers of superior rank leveraging inferior ranking soldiers. The prospect of a butch non-commissioned officer cadre is not very appealing to parents of young potential recruits I would guess--President Obama seems to want to break something that presently is not wrong with the military.
The cost to the taxpayers to get a soldier to enlist for duty in Afghanistan or Iraq already is about $25,000 for a private E-1. If strait youth are required to serve with the gay and proud crowd it is possible their numbers will decrease and the costs for filling enlistment quotas will rise--or at least not drop in the post-war draw down. I will definitely not recommend that anyone enlist in the U.S. military. After the issue is concluded those thinking of signing on will have a better idea if the Navy will be a gay butch love boat or not. It would be better if the President spent time on learning about ecological economics from the Daly/Farley textbook so he actually would have a clue what zero-growth economics is.
Probably the negative PR value of making the U.S. military a reputedly homosexual, butch aggressor force will bring more Al Qa'eda Muslims to be inspired to join the offensive Many Americans will not like the concept of a butch military oppressor force reinforcing homosexual elite globalists running the U.S. Government into debt and wage slavery, if that's the way it is.
American issues of Christianity, cosmology, politics, ecosphere, philosophy, contemporary history etc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Imperfect Character is Universal
The question of why anything exists rather than nothing was a question that Plotinus considered in The Enneads. Why would The One order anyt...
-
Here and there pointillist continua build rowing the skiff clambering over the road staying in shadows until spring insouciant compact snow ...
-
Alaskan officials have cut down or banned King Salmon fishing in much of Alaska because so few of the large fish are returning. The Ancho...
-
Why do F-22 pilots lose consciousness and let their planes crash and burn? The air superiority fighters are designed to survive oppositio...
No comments:
Post a Comment