President Obama's Preference for 'Who They Are' O.K. Gay Military Cadre

President Obama speaking on the federal military policy to not inflame heterosexual rights and protections/defense interests by keeping a neutral "'don't ask don't tell policy said that "people shouldn't need to lie about who they are". That statement seems to provide some insights into the President's way of thinking. That statement seems to provide some insights into the President's way of thinking. It seems to entail the premise that lying is o.k. but people should not need to do that... Sound fundamentalist Muslim thinking for infiltration purposes even Lenin would have agreed with. Democrats may believe in 2010 that America needs more lying politicians in order to force through the post-modernist agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407018.html?hpid=sec-nation

Sect. Gates will comply with Judge’s ruling to allow openly gay military. The Justice Depart. President Obama’s Justice Department has appealed the ruling asking for a stay. Obviously the President is confused as are the Democratic putchers of gay social decay.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gbhCI7HA7kv5yS3DDFzAMaleTW2A?docId=dc63b749ed6c4557a28f13f3d41e008c

Perhaps the President is a post-modernist naturally, or it may be a Hawaiian natural concept that falls a little short of acute legal reasoning. The difference between what people do and what people like to do is different from 'who they are'.

Behavioral psychologists such as B.F. Skinner might have believed that who and what people are have the same meaning. People are organisms that consume food and respond to stimuli. One might define a particular individual as 'one who picks grass and wildflowers by the ocean and sells them in the public market in the afternoon', yet of course that description could change from day top day. In western civilization the legally community tends to use specific and invariant definition of who in the form of names/pronouns, date and place of birth.
Besides being fuzzy legal reasoning, the Presidential concept of who individuals are serving in the military as packets of behavior sets attempts to predicate an equality of all behavior sets in public service and in the public area that will naturally cohere together amicably because they are abstract sets of who-behavior descriptions.

If cannibals immigrated to the United States some in the military might find it offensive if they declared themselves as such. If unrepentant Nazis or even Klu Klux Klansmen and women enlisted in the military and put notices on their lockers that they are haters of blacks, some would find that offensive. Would the President defend the right of Nazi’s, pedophiles, racists of all sorts and communists equally as he defends the rights of homosexuals to openly declare their same sex preference in the military? If who they are is an adequate rational for tolerance of conduct, it would be a bias to discriminate amidst anyone or anything that is a behavioral preference--and that is a ludicrous concept.

I wondered if down on the beach on Oahu someplace there are these people that use crack cocaine or crystal meth because 'that's who they are'. Is there some kind of Hawaiian easy living tolerance of who people are commonly defined by 'they hang out at the beach and use cocaine and are homosexuals and they have nice condos' etc? Well, the civilian sector easy living definitions of who people are may be right enough for a non-military environment. Civilians have a right to go about their own interests privately as 'who they are'. In the public sector that sort of tolerance stops and a more hardened boundary line is drawn such that all people may repress their special 'who they areness' quirks, behaviors, preferences and attributes in order that all may keep them.

In the military environment the behavior is necessarily more repressed. It cannot be a hang ten dudeness 'what it is, who they are man' social environment. In the civilian world one may hate people of a particular race, sex preference, religion, physical appearance, behavior conduct, political party affiliation and so forth and accordingly keep one's distance from those that are members of such groups. One may hate SUV drivers burning gas, or middle class people cold blooded as sin in disregarding the need for national free health care for the poor through a public health system of government payroll physicians (only for the poor and V.A.), one can hate spoilt broadcast network common taters with their idiots view of social reality from easy money winter comfort and summer fun and tune them out. In the military one must co-exist with all the aforementioned lunatics and repress outward expression or preference for those perversions so far as possible or practical and serve in the mean green machine, the wavy navy, the mirthful marines or acrobatic air force as a simple service member without concerns to distract from the mission. It is not an environment of 'who they are' as anything other than soldiers, sailors marines and airmen.

Of course the military is an agency of socialization, perhaps even the largest agency of socialization in the United States besides the pharmaceutical product development community. When the military integrated blacks into the predominantly white military social segregation ended as well. Homosexuality is a behavior preference rather than a natural human condition though. Few can discriminate homosexuals by sight or sound in most instance perhaps. The post-modernists of the Obama administration and Democratic Party seem to want to exploit the U.S. military as an agency of socialization to introduce homosexuality as a social norm in all aspects of American life including primary and secondary education.

Post-modernism developed as a moral or anti-moral conceit following upon the scientific insights of evolution. A perspective of meaninglessness in all things including language and speech followed evolutionary science. Traditional moral values were largely associated with obsolete scientific knowledge. Post-modernism is a religion of atheism. As Nietzsche wrote in his book 'Beyond Good and Evil' on the philosophical basis of an eternal recurrence of the existence of the Universe (and the big bounce recursion cosmologists would go along with that), post modernists find their own foundation for going beyond good and evil in evolution. Life is a simple evolution of inorganic molecules into organic complexity. That is reductionism reduced to its essential concept.

With the global population moved beyond 6.2 billion and on its way to 9 billion this century and with traditional economics royally missing the chance to transition to a new, more intellectually led kind of no-net-natural resource increase economic growth with full employment coincident with a no-net-loss of biota ecosystem globally, the post-modernists seem to believe that a population reduction or arrest through the promotion of non-reproductive homosexuality and the massification of humanity as commodities for management by perverted yet special elites without concern for concepts of good and evil is the better way to reign in the out of control traits of humanity. They are wrong and President Obama is wrong as well as appearing to have developed a casual preference for non-acute legal reasoning and bad economic conceptualizing.
The moral path for the nation is the only reasonable way to go. Education and intellectual explanations of the world’s limits to growth must gain voluntary compliance from the people of the United States. The military should remain a 'don't ask, don't tell environment, and homosexuals in the social civilian sector should get out of the public political spotlight and leave heterosexuals alone. The rights of all citizens to have an uncorrupted public sector with equal opportunity should not be a license to trample the rights of others. There are innumerable other, better methods of an honest nature whereby the homosexual perversion preferring U.S. citizens can secure their fundamental social rights. Homosexuality should be irrelevant regarding other citizens. Homosexuals have no economic rights that all other Americans shouldn't have as well, nor should they.