RubinReports: Reuters Airbrushes Knife Held by Jihad warrior "humanitarian" on Gaza flotilla Ship
Everyone take a baby aspirin before you read up on this shocker!!!! Not recommended for those with weak heart or affected by the disease of Islammunism. -- WARCHICK
WARCHICK is a military historian/conservative commentator. She is a frequent guest on multiple talk-radio shows and is author of the forthcoming "Forgotten Warrior" series. She coined the phrases "Political Castration"--nothing correct about it--and ISLAMMUNISM--the secret combination of Islam/Communism. She sounds the war cry on North Korea and its unholy alliance with terrorism. She has a degree in Education but stands firm against the NEA. WARCHICK has been an online favorite since 2002.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Monday, June 07, 2010
Not buying it
From the Korean Central News Agency, June 7, 2010...Apparently Kim and Mohammed are only sharing "football" secrets.
Workshop for FIFA Referees Held
Pyongyang, June 7 (KCNA) -- A workshop for FIFA referees was held from June 1 to 6 at Kim Il Sung Stadium in Pyongyang.
The workshop, divided into theoretical and practical courses, was attended by international and national referees of Korea, football coaches from different sports teams and teachers of juvenile sports schools in the country.
It deals with the match rules, referee's role and signals in match, warming-up exercise method, training of persevering in fast running, etc.
The courses were given by Mohamad Rodzali bin Yacob and Ahmad Khalidi Supian, lecturers of FIFA.
Workshop for FIFA Referees Held
Pyongyang, June 7 (KCNA) -- A workshop for FIFA referees was held from June 1 to 6 at Kim Il Sung Stadium in Pyongyang.
The workshop, divided into theoretical and practical courses, was attended by international and national referees of Korea, football coaches from different sports teams and teachers of juvenile sports schools in the country.
It deals with the match rules, referee's role and signals in match, warming-up exercise method, training of persevering in fast running, etc.
The courses were given by Mohamad Rodzali bin Yacob and Ahmad Khalidi Supian, lecturers of FIFA.
Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Two American War Films
Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Two American War Films
JACK MARINO---the man, the vision, the VICTORY!!! I'm so happy for him...please spread the word -- WARCHICK
JACK MARINO---the man, the vision, the VICTORY!!! I'm so happy for him...please spread the word -- WARCHICK
Sunday, June 06, 2010
THE CROSS WE BEAR; The Mosque We Won't
By: Resa LaRu Kirkland
On the West Side….
It first ended in 1918 (or so we thought), then began in 1934. It was replaced with a metal one in 1984, and became a subject of controversy in 2002. It was covered with a shroud while lawyers argued its offense factor until 2010, when courts ruled it could stay and lose the veil.
The majority wept with joy, secure in the thought that this friend would remain steady whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, courts, and shrouding—a simple white cross honoring American warriors of WWI—joyfully returned for another 76 years standing guard over the harsh and unforgiving world it was willing to purchase with its own eternal vigilance.
And two weeks later, in a display of spoiled, spineless, hippy fagatronics, the Politically Castrated minority took their ball and went home like the cowards they are. They decided if they couldn’t get their way through the law, they’d take it into their own impotent, pathetic, mob-clenched hands.
They stole the 76 year old cross, secure in the thought that their gutlessness would not be offended by the stoic appearance of this symbol of unselfish love one more day.
On the East Side….
It first ended in 1993 (or so we thought), then began in 1998 and 2000. It was replaced with the largest one in 2001, and became a subject of outrage. It was left as is until 2010, when a community board ruled it no offense factor and ordered that it must wear a veil.
The majority wept, horrified by the thought that this fiend would remain whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, boards, and shrouding—a massive, 13-story mosque honoring the satanic ideology that murdered Americans of 9/11 on the very sight of their slaughter—gleefully established for a beginning time and times, standing harsh and unforgiving over the world it was willing to purchase with its own psychotic bloodlust.
And two weeks later, in a display of courage born of ENOUGH, the freedom-motivated majority took their balls back from Political Castration and left their homes like the warriors they are. They decided if they could be abandoned by the law, they’d take a stand to remind the enemy exactly who that law served, and who it must obey.
They stole to the site where the destroyer had struck, where he desired his display less than a decade after felling ours, ensuring that this gutless enemy would be offended by their infidel appearance every single day.
It’s a tale of two coasts, both in the same nation, playing out in the media at the same time.
What a difference a time zone makes, apparently. In the West, it took 76 years of standing strong for the universal symbol of humility and unselfishness to get the official OK. In the East, it took less than 10 years of scar tissue for the universal symbol of force and selfish evil to get the official OK.
For the sake of truth and right, the West saw the light. For the sake of Political Castration and appearance, the East abandoned it.
On Sunday, June 6, 2010, a new D Day is going down. Two of the greatest warriors I know, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are hosting a STOP THE MOSQUE rally in New York. All who understand what this mosque at this place in this nation at this time means—(the first thing Islam does when it conquers through jihad or more recently through Political Castration is to erect a massive mosque; this is a symbol of conquest to the Muslim world, and more ominous, a signal)—need to storm this beach, willing to risk gossip, harsh words, slander, stones, or worse, just as our grandfathers did on the 6th day of the 6th month 66 years ago. They risked more than their standing and hurt feelings when they placed their boots on the sands of Normandy to stop another beast in his froth against the free.
On the West coast, they stood for the cross. On the East coast, they will march against the mosque. Do not be distracted, do not be confused, do not be apathetic: this is our Normandy.
This mosque must not be. No amount of fancy words can distract from the truth of what is unfolding now, for it is truth to which we owe our obligation, not politeness. Our grandfathers knew it. June 6th is again D Day: Decision Day. Choose your side, for it has come to that, and you are free men. When faced with wickedness, choosing is inevitable, and the righteous fear it not.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
On the West Side….
It first ended in 1918 (or so we thought), then began in 1934. It was replaced with a metal one in 1984, and became a subject of controversy in 2002. It was covered with a shroud while lawyers argued its offense factor until 2010, when courts ruled it could stay and lose the veil.
The majority wept with joy, secure in the thought that this friend would remain steady whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, courts, and shrouding—a simple white cross honoring American warriors of WWI—joyfully returned for another 76 years standing guard over the harsh and unforgiving world it was willing to purchase with its own eternal vigilance.
And two weeks later, in a display of spoiled, spineless, hippy fagatronics, the Politically Castrated minority took their ball and went home like the cowards they are. They decided if they couldn’t get their way through the law, they’d take it into their own impotent, pathetic, mob-clenched hands.
They stole the 76 year old cross, secure in the thought that their gutlessness would not be offended by the stoic appearance of this symbol of unselfish love one more day.
On the East Side….
It first ended in 1993 (or so we thought), then began in 1998 and 2000. It was replaced with the largest one in 2001, and became a subject of outrage. It was left as is until 2010, when a community board ruled it no offense factor and ordered that it must wear a veil.
The majority wept, horrified by the thought that this fiend would remain whenever they looked up.
The item of all the controversy, offense, lawyers, boards, and shrouding—a massive, 13-story mosque honoring the satanic ideology that murdered Americans of 9/11 on the very sight of their slaughter—gleefully established for a beginning time and times, standing harsh and unforgiving over the world it was willing to purchase with its own psychotic bloodlust.
And two weeks later, in a display of courage born of ENOUGH, the freedom-motivated majority took their balls back from Political Castration and left their homes like the warriors they are. They decided if they could be abandoned by the law, they’d take a stand to remind the enemy exactly who that law served, and who it must obey.
They stole to the site where the destroyer had struck, where he desired his display less than a decade after felling ours, ensuring that this gutless enemy would be offended by their infidel appearance every single day.
It’s a tale of two coasts, both in the same nation, playing out in the media at the same time.
What a difference a time zone makes, apparently. In the West, it took 76 years of standing strong for the universal symbol of humility and unselfishness to get the official OK. In the East, it took less than 10 years of scar tissue for the universal symbol of force and selfish evil to get the official OK.
For the sake of truth and right, the West saw the light. For the sake of Political Castration and appearance, the East abandoned it.
On Sunday, June 6, 2010, a new D Day is going down. Two of the greatest warriors I know, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are hosting a STOP THE MOSQUE rally in New York. All who understand what this mosque at this place in this nation at this time means—(the first thing Islam does when it conquers through jihad or more recently through Political Castration is to erect a massive mosque; this is a symbol of conquest to the Muslim world, and more ominous, a signal)—need to storm this beach, willing to risk gossip, harsh words, slander, stones, or worse, just as our grandfathers did on the 6th day of the 6th month 66 years ago. They risked more than their standing and hurt feelings when they placed their boots on the sands of Normandy to stop another beast in his froth against the free.
On the West coast, they stood for the cross. On the East coast, they will march against the mosque. Do not be distracted, do not be confused, do not be apathetic: this is our Normandy.
This mosque must not be. No amount of fancy words can distract from the truth of what is unfolding now, for it is truth to which we owe our obligation, not politeness. Our grandfathers knew it. June 6th is again D Day: Decision Day. Choose your side, for it has come to that, and you are free men. When faced with wickedness, choosing is inevitable, and the righteous fear it not.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
ISLAMMUNISM...Two Fronts, One Enemy
By: Resa LaRu Kirkland
“…we have seen in the past – over and over again – that evil seeks out evil, that they create secret combinations and make blood oaths against the good people of the earth. They bond together in their mutual treachery, and no malevolence is too much for them to consider. They will try to distract us from their wickedness by claiming it is all for God – as Islam does. Or it is our fault for being fat, spoiled Americans – as North Korea does daily. Or, even more vile, they will point to American sins and excess and claim that we are merely "reaping what we've sown." And being kind, forgiving and self-evaluating people, we hesitate just long enough for them to strike at us. – 2-front war, by Resa LaRu Kirkland, October, 2002
I wrote those words almost 8 years ago now, in a three piecer on the chilling alliance that has been clearly forming between Islam and Communism for the past 2 decades. Given what’s going on now, can we dispense with the frantic attempts to call it what it isn’t and settle on what we are dealing with here: Islammunism, the coming together of Islam and Communism?
North Korea, that unresolved boil on the butt of humanity left over from our first unfinished war against Communism 60 years and counting now, has drastically ratcheted up the posturing since Pres. Obama took office.
And now it’s official: they sank the battleship.
South Korea’s study of the explosion came up with oodles of evidence. That, coupled with North Korea’s hellish tendency to lie, cover up, and threaten, means the most heavily guarded border in the world is in for a long, hot summer, full of tension, cowardly hit-and-run attacks from the commie side, and possibly a pinch of plutonium.
And that’s just the hand North Korea wants us to see.
The one we don’t see is up to its commie elbow in Islam, happy to achieve with jihad what it never could with a cold war. I guess concentration camps, famine, or the Dear Leader’s status as a partial deity just aren’t enough to keep the Stalinist state busy.
Now they’ve set their sights on the sea.
Motives? Well, since you’ve apparently been in a coma for the past two decades, Islammunism is the foundational cause, but mammon is ALWAYS the way. And greasing the skids is manipulated celebrity the Hippy Press is only too happy to give to the enemies of freedom.
As with the missile and nuke tests NK is infamous for, I’ve wondered if the attack was this nauseous nation’s “sample of the goods” for the entire jihadi world to witness. Yep, the good old “show me the money” aspect simply cannot be ignored. After all, NK sold the same nuke tech to Iran and Libya that Pakistan sold to them that AQ Khan swiped from UNESCO…Da Money Honey motive is always in play, and mammon continues to win the day.
No doubt about it, this was a resounding provocation in the Far East by one hand of Islammunism. And over the weekend, a deliberate provocation in the Middle East by the other. Both provocateurs on the same side—evil oppression—and both targets on the same side—freedom.
But was it also a signal? Was it NK saying, “Your product is ready?” Was it them saying, “Go ahead and start something, we’ve got this side?”
It really doesn’t matter, since both have the same intent: create multiple fronts to confuse, divert, and weaken the only force on earth capable of stopping them.
The result is the same too: “whatever you do, don’t make the bad guys mad, or they’ll do more. Why not alter the consequences their actions require? That’ll teach them to embrace love and rainbows and butterflies, the whole world will share a Coke and a smile, and society will transform into a hippy love-fest.”
That’s worked beautifully so far. Just wait until the “Ships of Chittim” add plutonium to the mix.
We’re on our own, and I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. I’m ready.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
THE COGENT RESPONSE TO GAYS IN THE MILITARY; FROM THE ONLY ONES WHOSE OPINION MATTER
By: Resa Laru Kirkland
I was intending to write an article on this subject myself, but was blown away by a letter I received from a warrior who is overseas, doing history’s work: fighting for freedom. His response is the epitome of logical sequencing and reasoned analysis, scientific in its conclusions and mathematical in its preciseness.
In other words, indisputable in its truth, the final nail in the coffin of iron-gripped Political Castration.
There is no way I could have done better. I am printing it here unabridged, and as per his request, giving no clues to his name or service. Shame, really, that he must fear retaliation for truth. Such a response is supposed to be reserved for the lie.
Welcome to Armageddon…with our permission born of sloth.
The logical place to begin this discussion is in describing the purpose of the military. Despite recent mission changes that reflect a greater focus on stability operations, ie., nation-building, the primary purpose of the military is to violently execute political goals that cannot otherwise be effected through diplomacy and other non-violent avenues of approach (sanctions, boycotts, etc.). We exist to destroy those who would threaten our political and economic existence. Any change to the military, whether it is in training, equipment, doctrine, or social norms, should be to enhance the lethality of our Armed Forces.
Soldiers are trained to fight as a team, not as individuals. If you look at something as simple as the construction of sectors of fires in a defense, you understand immediately that the primary goal of individual fighting positions is to protect your team members to the left and right of your position. It is not to defend your front. Your front is covered by your buddies to your left and right. In other words, trust and reliance on your team members are absolutely essential. Soldiers live together- at times in conditions that most civilians would find completely uncivilized- sleep together, eat together, shower together, and even defecate together in open slit trenches, in order to accomplish the mission. It is a very strange relationship they share because their lives are so open and inter-connected. During combat, the intensity and necessity of that relationship grows. You must believe that your team members have your survival and well-being as the second highest priority during battle. Notice that I said, "second highest priority". The top priority of any military action is to accomplish the mission.
When Congress or the military attempts to inject social engineering, specifically open homosexuality in the ranks, into this relationship, it is a disaster in the making. Now- instead of mission accomplishment being the top priority- it is individual rights and relationships that become the priority. I find it to be very ironic that Congress and the President are choosing to deal with this issue in the midst of a two front war on Global Terrorism. It is very revealing that the top military concern of the Democrats is allowing open homosexuality into the ranks rather than defeating the enemy in our wars.
If we take homosexuals at their word, they did not choose to be gay. They are, according to them, born gay and are biologically attracted to people of the same sex. If that is the case, what impact does sexual attraction have on military teams? It has a huge and devastating impact. This is even true with heterosexuals and is why the Army has rules against establishing relationships between heterosexuals within the same chain of command. I have served for 26 years. One of the things that I have noticed is when a female is thrown in the mix of a male-dominated world, the males naturally begin competing for her attention. It is not, necessarily, that they are trying to sleep with her, but the natural tendency for heterosexual males is to attract the attention of the opposite sex. It throws a wrench in the relationship between the males. This is why men who serve in Combat Arms branches do not prefer to have women fighting on the front lines. The presence of a female skews the male mentality. Men, by nature, choose to protect women at the expense of protecting their male counterparts. Again, this has deadly consequences when the bullets are flying. If gays are biologically wired to be gay, than they, too, must have this desire to protect the males to whom they are attracted. Instead of focusing on accomplishing the mission and protecting the men to their left and right, they would be more concerned with protecting their attraction.
And how does Congress propose to house gay Soldiers? Are they going to billet gay men with females? What would Congress say if the Army started housing heterosexual males with females in the barracks? Is it not the same thing if you house openly gay males with heterosexual males or other gay Soldiers? Why should they be given special treatment? (I am quite certain that most heterosexual males who were housed with females would consider it special treatment...in a good way.) If the plan is to provide gay barracks, then why are they allowed to live and sleep with their sexual counterparts and heterosexuals are not? We are also talking about a very small minority of Soldiers. If gays are housed separately, then they would enjoy more living space than heterosexual Soldiers. If you have one gay in your company, does he get his own tent or own room, even if he is a Private? Is that just?
Has the military surveyed Soldiers to see how they feel? I receive dozens of surveys from the military in my email every year. I have never been given a survey on this issue. Why? Why has the military refused to even ask those who would be the most affected by this policy? Why are generals more concerned with appeasing politicians than doing what is best for those who fight and die for this country? I am trying to be unemotional about this, but what is occurring on Capitol Hill and even within the ranks of the senior leadership of the military is a disgrace. Thank God the Marine Corps Chief of Staff spoke like a Soldier. But when an Army general echoed the same sentiment as the Marine, he was disciplined. Why? Who in the Army leadership thinks that a general, who is echoing the majority sentiment of Soldiers, should be disciplined for stating an opinion that defends what Soldiers believe?
The heart of the issue boils down to this: Congress and the President (and I fear some in the military leadership) are more concerned about the sexuality of Soldiers than the efficacy of the military in destroying our enemies. This focus is so far off track and incredible that it is difficult to find the appropriate words to describe. It is further proof that American culture is in decline. I would be just as opposed to any move to make heterosexuality the primary focus of the military rather than destroying the enemy.
I acknowledge that gays have served in the military since military forces were created in ancient times. I have no issue with someone who is gay and serves in the military. But I do not want to know about it and I do not want my squad, platoon, or company to know about it. It is a divisive issue that destroys team integrity. And it will most certainly do this if a homosexual Soldier decides it his "right" to flaunt his gayness. I was most disappointed to read an article a few weeks ago when an alliance of milbloggers came out in support of open homosexuality in the service. I understand why they might make this decision. It is, in my view, based on the fact that we all know gays who have served. But I think people who are not currently in the tent, shower, foxhole, latrine...the fight...forget the detrimental impact that openly gay Soldiers would have on the front lines.
It is truly a sad day in our history when the most talked about issue of our Armed Forces, in the midst of two wars, is about the sexual preference of Soldiers. I think it is a sign of just how self-centered and immature the "adults" who lead our country have become. We are more concerned about satiating our sexual desires than we are about ensuring the very survival of our civilization. Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that has worked. It allows gays to serve in the military. It prevents elevating a Soldier's sexual preference above mission accomplishment and what is best for the military. Today, a gay, male Soldier can receive the Medal of Honor, reach the rank of General, and serve in any military occupation to which he is qualified. There are no restrictions placed upon him, other than the fact that he cannot announce his homosexuality. And why should he? Are gays so insecure in their sexual preferences that they must demand that others accept what, statistically, is deviant behavior? What benefit does the military derive in allowing open homosexuality? How does it make the military better, more effective, and stronger? If the answer is that it allows gays to feel better about themselves, then that is the wrong answer. The military is not about making gay or straight Soldiers feel better about themselves. It is about defending our nation. It should be about making our service members feel better about our nation. (But the Cult of Diversity, to which the homosexual debate belongs, has seriously damaged even this aspect of the military culture. See Gen. Casey's remarks after the Ft. Hood jihadist killed 13 people.) If the answer is that allowing open homosexuality does not make the military better, then we should not even be having this discussion. It is the topic of self-centered, immature "adults" who choose to identify themselves by a sexual act rather than the character and qualities that make a person, gay or straight, a truly responsible and mature citizen of this nation.
Warchick:
So I said it. I apologize for the length, but as you can tell, this issue seriously concerns me. Trash it if you want. Again, I did not mean to offend anyone. My concern is the effectiveness of our forces. This debate has nothing to do with improving the military. In fact, it is detrimental to the military...in my view. I would appreciate anonymity on this. Isn't it sad that I have to fear retribution for simply stating an opposing view to the gay lobby?
At ease, soldier…you did right, and we must NEVER apologize for truth, for if you are offended by truth, it is because you are on the wrong side of it. Our obligation is supposed to be to the truth, NOT politeness. ’Nuff said.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
I was intending to write an article on this subject myself, but was blown away by a letter I received from a warrior who is overseas, doing history’s work: fighting for freedom. His response is the epitome of logical sequencing and reasoned analysis, scientific in its conclusions and mathematical in its preciseness.
In other words, indisputable in its truth, the final nail in the coffin of iron-gripped Political Castration.
There is no way I could have done better. I am printing it here unabridged, and as per his request, giving no clues to his name or service. Shame, really, that he must fear retaliation for truth. Such a response is supposed to be reserved for the lie.
Welcome to Armageddon…with our permission born of sloth.
The logical place to begin this discussion is in describing the purpose of the military. Despite recent mission changes that reflect a greater focus on stability operations, ie., nation-building, the primary purpose of the military is to violently execute political goals that cannot otherwise be effected through diplomacy and other non-violent avenues of approach (sanctions, boycotts, etc.). We exist to destroy those who would threaten our political and economic existence. Any change to the military, whether it is in training, equipment, doctrine, or social norms, should be to enhance the lethality of our Armed Forces.
Soldiers are trained to fight as a team, not as individuals. If you look at something as simple as the construction of sectors of fires in a defense, you understand immediately that the primary goal of individual fighting positions is to protect your team members to the left and right of your position. It is not to defend your front. Your front is covered by your buddies to your left and right. In other words, trust and reliance on your team members are absolutely essential. Soldiers live together- at times in conditions that most civilians would find completely uncivilized- sleep together, eat together, shower together, and even defecate together in open slit trenches, in order to accomplish the mission. It is a very strange relationship they share because their lives are so open and inter-connected. During combat, the intensity and necessity of that relationship grows. You must believe that your team members have your survival and well-being as the second highest priority during battle. Notice that I said, "second highest priority". The top priority of any military action is to accomplish the mission.
When Congress or the military attempts to inject social engineering, specifically open homosexuality in the ranks, into this relationship, it is a disaster in the making. Now- instead of mission accomplishment being the top priority- it is individual rights and relationships that become the priority. I find it to be very ironic that Congress and the President are choosing to deal with this issue in the midst of a two front war on Global Terrorism. It is very revealing that the top military concern of the Democrats is allowing open homosexuality into the ranks rather than defeating the enemy in our wars.
If we take homosexuals at their word, they did not choose to be gay. They are, according to them, born gay and are biologically attracted to people of the same sex. If that is the case, what impact does sexual attraction have on military teams? It has a huge and devastating impact. This is even true with heterosexuals and is why the Army has rules against establishing relationships between heterosexuals within the same chain of command. I have served for 26 years. One of the things that I have noticed is when a female is thrown in the mix of a male-dominated world, the males naturally begin competing for her attention. It is not, necessarily, that they are trying to sleep with her, but the natural tendency for heterosexual males is to attract the attention of the opposite sex. It throws a wrench in the relationship between the males. This is why men who serve in Combat Arms branches do not prefer to have women fighting on the front lines. The presence of a female skews the male mentality. Men, by nature, choose to protect women at the expense of protecting their male counterparts. Again, this has deadly consequences when the bullets are flying. If gays are biologically wired to be gay, than they, too, must have this desire to protect the males to whom they are attracted. Instead of focusing on accomplishing the mission and protecting the men to their left and right, they would be more concerned with protecting their attraction.
And how does Congress propose to house gay Soldiers? Are they going to billet gay men with females? What would Congress say if the Army started housing heterosexual males with females in the barracks? Is it not the same thing if you house openly gay males with heterosexual males or other gay Soldiers? Why should they be given special treatment? (I am quite certain that most heterosexual males who were housed with females would consider it special treatment...in a good way.) If the plan is to provide gay barracks, then why are they allowed to live and sleep with their sexual counterparts and heterosexuals are not? We are also talking about a very small minority of Soldiers. If gays are housed separately, then they would enjoy more living space than heterosexual Soldiers. If you have one gay in your company, does he get his own tent or own room, even if he is a Private? Is that just?
Has the military surveyed Soldiers to see how they feel? I receive dozens of surveys from the military in my email every year. I have never been given a survey on this issue. Why? Why has the military refused to even ask those who would be the most affected by this policy? Why are generals more concerned with appeasing politicians than doing what is best for those who fight and die for this country? I am trying to be unemotional about this, but what is occurring on Capitol Hill and even within the ranks of the senior leadership of the military is a disgrace. Thank God the Marine Corps Chief of Staff spoke like a Soldier. But when an Army general echoed the same sentiment as the Marine, he was disciplined. Why? Who in the Army leadership thinks that a general, who is echoing the majority sentiment of Soldiers, should be disciplined for stating an opinion that defends what Soldiers believe?
The heart of the issue boils down to this: Congress and the President (and I fear some in the military leadership) are more concerned about the sexuality of Soldiers than the efficacy of the military in destroying our enemies. This focus is so far off track and incredible that it is difficult to find the appropriate words to describe. It is further proof that American culture is in decline. I would be just as opposed to any move to make heterosexuality the primary focus of the military rather than destroying the enemy.
I acknowledge that gays have served in the military since military forces were created in ancient times. I have no issue with someone who is gay and serves in the military. But I do not want to know about it and I do not want my squad, platoon, or company to know about it. It is a divisive issue that destroys team integrity. And it will most certainly do this if a homosexual Soldier decides it his "right" to flaunt his gayness. I was most disappointed to read an article a few weeks ago when an alliance of milbloggers came out in support of open homosexuality in the service. I understand why they might make this decision. It is, in my view, based on the fact that we all know gays who have served. But I think people who are not currently in the tent, shower, foxhole, latrine...the fight...forget the detrimental impact that openly gay Soldiers would have on the front lines.
It is truly a sad day in our history when the most talked about issue of our Armed Forces, in the midst of two wars, is about the sexual preference of Soldiers. I think it is a sign of just how self-centered and immature the "adults" who lead our country have become. We are more concerned about satiating our sexual desires than we are about ensuring the very survival of our civilization. Don't ask, don't tell is a policy that has worked. It allows gays to serve in the military. It prevents elevating a Soldier's sexual preference above mission accomplishment and what is best for the military. Today, a gay, male Soldier can receive the Medal of Honor, reach the rank of General, and serve in any military occupation to which he is qualified. There are no restrictions placed upon him, other than the fact that he cannot announce his homosexuality. And why should he? Are gays so insecure in their sexual preferences that they must demand that others accept what, statistically, is deviant behavior? What benefit does the military derive in allowing open homosexuality? How does it make the military better, more effective, and stronger? If the answer is that it allows gays to feel better about themselves, then that is the wrong answer. The military is not about making gay or straight Soldiers feel better about themselves. It is about defending our nation. It should be about making our service members feel better about our nation. (But the Cult of Diversity, to which the homosexual debate belongs, has seriously damaged even this aspect of the military culture. See Gen. Casey's remarks after the Ft. Hood jihadist killed 13 people.) If the answer is that allowing open homosexuality does not make the military better, then we should not even be having this discussion. It is the topic of self-centered, immature "adults" who choose to identify themselves by a sexual act rather than the character and qualities that make a person, gay or straight, a truly responsible and mature citizen of this nation.
Warchick:
So I said it. I apologize for the length, but as you can tell, this issue seriously concerns me. Trash it if you want. Again, I did not mean to offend anyone. My concern is the effectiveness of our forces. This debate has nothing to do with improving the military. In fact, it is detrimental to the military...in my view. I would appreciate anonymity on this. Isn't it sad that I have to fear retribution for simply stating an opposing view to the gay lobby?
At ease, soldier…you did right, and we must NEVER apologize for truth, for if you are offended by truth, it is because you are on the wrong side of it. Our obligation is supposed to be to the truth, NOT politeness. ’Nuff said.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
YouTube - Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World
Coming to your TV whenever we want...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)