Dems Tack Homosexual Rights Bill to Military Funding

From KOTA, here's how liberals try to push through societal change and special rights for protected groups: just tack it onto something legitimate.

The Senate has attached hate crime legislation to a Pentagon spending bill in an effort to get it passed.

But opponents predict it will fail, either in negotiations with the House or by presidential veto.

South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham says the president won't go along with social legislation on the defense authorization bill.

Texas Republican John Cornyn (KOHR'-nihn) says tacking on the hate-crime measure "hijacks" a bill that includes a pay increase for troops in wartime.

Of course, liberals in their twisted "logic" think they have it covered:

Democrats argue that it's an appropriate add-on to legislation funding the war, because both initiatives are aimed at combating terrorist acts. Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy says "we want to fight terrorism here at home with all of our weapons."

This is an offense to our military folks, and an offense to everyone who's lost a loved one to real terrorism.

Sorry, Mr. Kennedy: blowing up a bus or flying a civilian airliner into a skyscraper is a little different than not wanting to hire a man in drag to work in your bookstore.

These people would rather play games with national defense than be up front about their agenda for societal change...or rather, societal rot.

Blade Runner: What Does It Mean to Be Human?

By John W. Whitehead

In our strange and potentially very dangerous world where science fiction and Charles Darwin often collide, a handful of scientists are racing to be the first to create life. According to a flood of recent reports, this artificial life could be as close as six months away. In fact, Pat Mooney, executive director for the science watchdog organization the ETC Group, states: “For the first time, God has competition.” (Full Article)

TerriPAC Closes Up Shop

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Quoting the now defunct political action committee's website, whether it be Derek Newton or Michael Schiavo that actually posted...

"I say TerriPAC "was" because I've decided to close TerriPAC."

Whomever is writing the material is making it sound as though it is merely time to move on and to do other things. The only hint there might be a "slight" problem is with comments like, "Traveling around the country, making political donations and keeping up with the required legal paperwork takes funds." (Full Article)

 

Gen. Pace: Homosexuality Incompatible with Military Service

From Fox News:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a stir at a Senate hearing Wednesday when he said he believes homosexual activity is immoral and should not be condoned by the military.

Pace, who retires next week, said he was seeking to clarify similar remarks he made in spring, which he said were misreported.

"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.

"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that was very simply that we should respect those who want to serve the nation, but not through the law of the land condone activity in my upbringing is counter to God's law."

He also points out something that practically never gets mentioned anymore:

Pace noted that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits homosexual activity as well as adultery. Harkin said, "Well, maybe we should change that."

So Senator Tom Harkin wants to put a stamp of approval on adultery, too?

This statement by General Pace echoes what I've often pointed out about Clinton's pathetic "don't ask, don't tell" policy: it did nothing to erase the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) still prohibits these activities. "Don't ask, don't tell" is merely a statement that "Hey, we're just going to ignore the law here and pretend it doesn't exist." This is a dangerous practice in a civilized society.

It almost seems axiomatic that if someone doesn't understand the correct thing to do with their genitals, do we want to trust them to do the correct thing with a gun/tank/ship/airplane?

Military service is a privilege, not a right. During my 10 years in the military, I saw countless people discharged (from basic training to the end of the line) for a multitude of infractions. Civilians might consider many of them frivolous, but when you consider that morale and readiness capabilities are at stake, not to mention the lives of other military people and the civilians they're protecting, you can't afford to let just anyone serve in the military.

Our national defense is too critical to subject it to politically correct social experiments.

Is it Patriotic to Loathe Your Country?

Every now and then, you get a comment to the blog that not only illustrates something about the original post, but affords the opportunity to highlight a deeper truth that may not have been explored in the original post. This morning we received such a comment.

This morning, Anonymous sent a comment about my post earlier this month on Rush Limbaugh's parody song "We Hate the USA." (There is a link to the song in the original post; I encourage you to listen for yourself.)

Here is what Anonymous said:

This song is not only retarded but also anti-American. How hypocritical can some people be, to challenge one's patriotism while at the same time produce a song like this and then attribute it to people who never had anything to do with creating it. Its complete bull****, mere propaganda. I am constantly amazed by how stupid people are who listen and agree with Rush Limbaugh. You people are the reason why America has the problems it does. You people are simple intellectual minions, who when they cannot grasp an issue they simple attack other people and their ideas. You people do no serve the interests of America, instead, you keep America from achieving its full potential...

While Anonymous seems to completely miss the point (whether intentionally, or he simply didn't get it?), he (or she) does afford an opportunity to point out a greater truth about this song.

Actually, if this song were serious, Anonymous would be right and it would be anti-American. Instead, this song points out the anti-American sentiment of so many on the Left by repeating the anti-American trash-talk we hear so often. These are the kind of sentiments we see on TV news and read in the papers every day--said by Americans.

Let's be clear about something. There are a lot of people out there who love America, but are simply ignorant (through a lack of study, or because they've allowed themselves to be brainwashed by others) regarding the ideals which are at the very heart of what America is about.

But there are also those who know better, and loathe our country anyway. There are those who are familiar with the ideals upon which the United States was founded (freedom, limited government, personal responsibility, acknowledgment of God's sovereignty, etc.), and simply reject them in favor of a philosophy centered upon human reason and moral autonomy.

And if this latter philosophy describes the type of country the majority of U.S. citizens wants to live in, then there are legal, constitutional methods for creating that kind of nation (i.e. the constitutional process for amending the constitution itself). But that is another subject for another day; the subject at hand is either love or hate for the USA.

I consider it appropriate to challenge someones patriotism when they (1) constantly malign the ideals of this country, (2) constantly try to rewrite the history of this country, (3) constantly portray the founders of this country in a despicable light, (4) treat the Constitution as if it was some irrelevant piece of toilet paper, (5) blame America first for every problem in the world, (6) constantly give aid and comfort to America's enemies by blaming America for standing against their evil, (7) demanding America prostrate itself before its enemies, (8) constantly praise the socialistic tendencies of other countries--which run counter to American ideals of freedom and self-reliance, (9) defend those who love to burn and desecrate our flag, (10), work against defending the integrity of our borders, (11) demand that we embrace every characteristic of every foreigner who comes here, instead of requiring them to assimilate to our way of life, (12) act as if the only way America can be a good place is if it abandons it's most cherished ideals.

I'm sorry, but when someone so clearly and apparently loathes America, I can't help but question their patriotism. If Leftists talked about their wives (or husbands) the way they talk about the United States, I'd wonder why they weren't divorced (and I'm sure they would be, if their spouse heard them talking like that).

If you constantly berated your girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband, talking about what an illegitimate background and upbringing they had, claimed his/her father was just a self-centered filthy-rich racist, talking about how all the people who hate your sweetie are right and how your sweetie is always wrong, talking about how your sweetie is always at the heart of every problem going on around you, talking about how your sweetie needs to realign her thinking and forget about everything she ever held dear, if you showed contempt or casual disregard for all her previous hard work and sacrifices, if you demanded she leave her door unlocked and let people come and go in her house as they pleased, if you were only concerned about what she could give you or do for you, if you expected her to wait on you hand and foot while you did nothing for yourself, if you demanded she be like all the other girls, if you flirted with all the other girls and didn't show any loyalty toward her, if you ignored her love letters, if you burned or urinated on her picture (or if you defended the "freedom of speech" of those who did this to her picture)...if you treated your "sweetheart" like this, would it be reasonable to question your love for her? I think the answer is painfully obvious.

America has most of the problems she does because we departed from American ideals under FDR and embraced socialism and big government; we made things worse when we rejected God in the '50s and '60s. America's fullest potential lies with protecting maximum freedom and maximum opportunity, with a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence," not in providing maximum handouts and maximum sexual license.

If you believe America's maximum potential can be achieved through socialism, you should go live in one of the socialist countries around the world for a few years and see if you really like it (I lived in one for three years; it's pretty sickening). That is, one of the countries that STILL embraces socialism, since the Soviet Union and many of its satellites have since left socialism behind, realizing what a dead-end street it is.

But as for me (and many remaining old-fashioned patriots), I love America. I am passionately in love with her (I think my wife is okay with me having this one mistress). I love where she comes from. I celebrate her birth and the circumstances surrounding that miraculous event. I love her father(s). I love her tradition of faith. Despite her failings and the fact that she has sometimes failed to live up to her own ideals, I know she still holds allegiance to those greater ideals and is working to see them come to fruition. I love how she stands up for the rights of others, and comes to the aid of her friends. I love her purple mountain majesty and her amber waves of grain; indeed, I think she is the most beautiful "lady" in all the world.

I know her faults, but I also know her great virtue, and am willing to stand up for her and defend her before all detractors. And I will oppose those who would lead her astray from her virtues and ideals. And I pray God's blessing and protection upon her.

This is how I define patriotism. This is how I show my love for the USA.