Anti-War Vet Hypocritical on Uniform

If you were watching (not the "mainstream" media) closely last week, you might have seen or heard about the radical Leftist Kos forum on undermining the United States military that was called "The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?"

To summarize, near the end of this forum promoting American military impotence and defeatism, a soldier in uniform challenged the panel by trying to cite some of the progress being made in Iraq.

John Solz, one of the panelists who was a former captain not in uniform, got pretty bent out of shape (retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another panelist, did handle himself with more decorum). The main thing this former captain took issue with was the fact that the challenging soldier was in uniform; Solz believed this Sgt. David Aguina of the 733rd Maintenance Company was using his uniform for political purposes.

I've been out of the military for 12 years, so my memory of some of the regulations you didn't deal with on a daily basis is a little hazy, but I do recall something prohibiting the wear of the uniform for political purposes.

At the same time, I remembered when during the Vietnam war, John Kerry wore his uniform to Capitol Hill to badmouth and malign his country and his fellow soldiers even as they fought communists overseas.

Well, columnist Melanie Morgan now points out not only Kerry's misuse of the military uniform, but also the fact that Solz has a picture of himself in uniform on his advocacy website, VoteVets.org.

Morgan's column also says Solz was confronted by Lt Col Buzz Patterson because Solz was involved in political activism while in the reserves, a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

I guess if you're an anti-war veteran who's committed to to undermining his country's defense (like Solz and Kerry), it's okay to display your uniform. But if you're defending your fellow soldiers' successes and attempting to shore up the morale of our armed forces, that's an improper display of the uniform.

Military Too Important for Trendy Political Causes

As I suspected he might, my e-friend Todd Epp has a problem with my statement that homosexuals should not be serving in the military.

Homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy, regardless of the setting. But homosexuality is even more problematic in many military settings.

For instance, military people frequently are quartered together in the barracks or tents or even foxholes. The military doesn't quarter male and female troops together in these settings, however, because of the problems that come with sexual attraction across the sexes.

Now if you quarter two men or two women together in a room or tent, and one of them is a homosexual, then you're setting yourself up for a lot of problems and conflicts that you just don't need in a military environment. The military is there to fight the bad guys and protect our country; that effort is too precious to waste energy on worrying about some other guy coming on to you, flirting with you, making a move on you, and all that. You wouldn't subject a woman to that kind of environment, so why should you subject a man to it? The troops don't need the distraction and the command staff doesn't need the distraction.

Todd rolls out the tired old civil rights mantra about women and minorities. There's just one key difference: being a woman or a black person isn't immoral, but homosexual acts are. One is a physical or sexual characteristic, in line with the way God created them to be, while the other is a behavior that is immoral and unhealthy.

And from the looks of the photo and caption on Todd's post, we might agree on one thing: those defending our country have more important things to worry about than being subjected to politically correct social engineering schemes.

Hillary Says She Doesn't Want Socialized Medicine

As liberals almost always do, Hillary Clinton is trying to hide her intentions and claim she's been misrepresented.

This time, she's trying to tell us she's not for socialized medicine, despite having made the biggest push for socialized medicine in American history back in the early '90s.

From the Washington Post:

During a forum at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Las Vegas, Clinton was asked why as a candidate for president she is "still insisting" on bringing "socialized medicine" to the United States, when people are "pulling away" from similar systems in Canada and Great Britain. Worse, the questioner said, such systems hurt rather than help poor people.

"That was a string of misrepresentations about me and about the systems in other countries," Clinton started. "Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists here heard that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

If you have a system where the government owns or controls the industry, you have socialism.

Capitalizing on the ignorance of the average American, and the fact that the average American (like the frog) has been in the ever-warming pot for a long time already, then asked

"Do you think Medicare is socialized medicine?" Clinton asked her inquisitor, who did not identify himself.

Can you say "absolutely"? A program mandated by the government and regulated by the government and paid for by the government, even if individuals do have some small say in the whole process, is socialized medicine. You're smoking something--and it isn't medicinal--if you think Medicare is free market health care.

She then made the outrageous claim that health care in countries such as Canada, where you may have to wait 18 weeks for treatment, is better than we have here. They have a fully socialized health care system in Canada, Britain and other countries, yet Clinton thinks it's better than we have here. So she's told us through her admiration of socialized medicine in other countries, even though she denied it above, that this is what she wants.

Nothing has changed. The Clintons still think we're all stupid.

Poll: Media Seen as Biased, Inaccurate

Breitbart.com has an article on a new Pew Research Center poll showing most people see news media as biased and inaccurate.

Among their findings:

- This sentiment was higher among internet users, with 59% saying media is inaccurate and 64% saying they're biased

- Internet users tend to be younger and better educated than the average

The article also noted the change in opinions over the last 20 years:

Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America... a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight," Pew said in a report.

You can thank the rise of the new media (talk radio, internet news, blogs, and other conservative news outlets) for this. Twenty years ago, liberals had a near-total lock on the news with NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times as your only information source.

Now some of the truth is leaking through. Now average Americans can get news without being made to feel that embracing traditional values and loving America is only for provincial, knuckle-dragging rubes who never made it past the third grade...like the liberal media wants you to think.

Dems Want Homosexuals Serving Openly in Military

From CNS News:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the other Democratic presidential hopefuls have told homosexual activists that if elected president, they would scrap the law that bars homosexuals from openly serving in the military.

The question came up Thursday night at a Democratic forum in Los Angeles sponsored by Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, and Logo, the gay and lesbian cable network.

Even if Democrats manage to get the silly "don't ask, don't tell" policy repealed, there's this thing called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that they seem to have completely forgotten about. It's the law book of the military, and it's what has always made homosexual acts a military crime--and still does, despite Bill Clinton's silly "let's pretend it isn't happening" policy.

The defense of our nation is far too important to undermine by social engineering. Besides, the military has long had a tradition of striving for a higher moral standard, and that goal isn't furthered by allowing people to serve who have trouble with something as fundamental as correct and incorrect places to put their genitals.