Gallup Poll: Romney Holds Whopping 28-Point Lead Over Obama Among Male Veterans

Source

It’s almost like the military isn’t fond of the Commander-in-Chief.

Via The Hill:

A new Gallup poll released on Memorial Day shows male veterans breaking strongly for Mitt Romney over President Obama.

The presumptive GOP nominee receives support from 58 percent of veteran registered voters surveyed to Obama’s 34 percent. Among non-veterans though, Obama holds a four point edge, with 48 percent to Romney’s 44.

Gallup says veterans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population.

The breakdown of the veteran vote also mirrors the gender gap seen among all voters and male voters are seen giving Romney a solid block of support. Romney has the backing of 60 percent of male veterans to Obama’s 32.

Keep reading…

Read More

Military puppy love

Read More

How feminism-indoctrinated women honor the troops

http://www.rooshv.com/you-did-this-to-me#comment-47813

@ Roosh and everyone

I’m a bit late to the commentary, but here goes. Please feel free to reprint and comment on this. American Women on average are horrible people. Not all of them, and certainly there are horrible outliers as well as wonderful outliers. There are good and bad men too.

However, men are much more likely to pay for thier own sins and shortcomings as well as women’s sins and shortcomings. Women on average don’t pay for thir shortcomings and sins as much as men and often men pay for them whether they want to or not.

I’m a 43 year old White Gentile man raise Christian & Catholic, and am an U.S. Army Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have real horror stories about American women as a result. Hold on to your seats and try not to cry as you read this long but necessarry post by me. these women were extreme outliers in a bad way, but they illustrate what is wrong with American Women and Western women and civilized East Asian Women too to one degree or way or another.

I had to console a friend of mine from another battalion because his friend committed suicide. He wanted to kill his dead friend’s wife and sobbed all night in Iraq. I warned him not to kill her on his return as he would be among the first for the police to look for even though his friend’s wife deserved it in my opinion.

His friend was on his third deployment to Iraq, and we were on our first. His friend made a Dear John telephone call to ask why she was taking (stealing) his money only to find out that she wanted to leave him and was impregnated by a neighbor civilian “friend”(disgusting as that sounds to say-with friends like that who needs enemies). He sobbed why.

She told him to kill himself so she could recieve $800,000 dollars in military life insurance. He walked into a portapotty, put an M-16 rifle to his head, and committed suicide. Members of his battalion were devastated as he was very popular and well loved. I knew him barely as an acquaintaince, but was a friend of a friend.

Then there were the threats of suicide including someone in my battalion who walked up to the battalion commander, a lieutenant colonel, pulled out his M-9 handgun unless he was allowed to go home because although he was without children and his wife was not impregnated by someone else, the same otherwise was happening to him. Many in the brigade threaten suicide.

My fellow battalion soldier went home and was chaptered out for mental illness during his second deployment.

Then in Afghanistan, a Sergeant and Non Commimision Officer in charge of one of my friends made plans to go home on Rest and Recuperation Leave(vacation or holiday) to visit his divorced wife’s home and his only child and beloved daughter for her 3rd birthday. His wife had hooked up with Mr.Thug Life while taking the Sergeant’s money for child support.

Mr. Thug Life was known to be physically and emotionally abusive to the daughter. The Sergeant returned a week before the girl’s 3rd birthday on emergency leave because Mr. Thug Life killed the daughter.

The Sergeant’s Company Commander, a Captain, and Non Commisioned Officer in charge of his company, a First Sergeant, told the Sergeeant he could stay home if he wanted to. the sergeant returned and his Company Commander and First Sergeant were bewildered and upset with him.

His response was that there was nothing for him at home except his only beloved child and daughter who hadn’t even made it to her third birthday lying dead six feet in the ground.

He would rather deal with war and be around his comarades. He stayed the rest of the deployment until it was time to go home. He was a happy man until his daughter’s death through and through.

Afterwards, even though he smiled and laughed you could still see the never ending extreme sadness and horror in him. His soldiers including my friend regarded him as a ticking time bomb for mental break down even though he never unecessarily lashed out.

Then of course there was the soldier in my company who had a baby with his wife and she sent him streaming videos via internet of her having sex with other men while his baby son was in the house while I was in Iraq, and this man was 6 feet 5 inches and 250 pounds.

Then while I was in Afghanistan, there was a soldier whom returned home on leave to find the boyfriend, lover and sex partner of his wife in a house he was renting. There are other such stories which are not as horrible too.

The Army and Marine Corps. is a mess because of misandry and it is eating them alive. the Divorce rates are 75% and 70% respectively. The sucide rates are at all time highs and rising in the Army and Marine Corps. Over 70% of the sucides are because a man’s wife or girlfriend is leaving him while deployed to a war zone.

She is almost always taking the kids if there are any and quite often (most of the time) depleting (legally stealing) his bank accounts too. She often enough cheating on him.

---

This is your American woman. Western and Civilized East Asian women are either just as bad or not too far behind. Afghan Muslim Taliban laws are too good for some, but not all of them. Marriage 1.0 needs to be restored with improvements if our civilization is to be saved, and this may not be enough.

Taliban marriage laws are remarkably similar to Ancient Jewish laws and I call them Marriage 0.5. christianity adopted them and made them into Marriage 1.0. Even under Taliban or Jewish law a man is not allowed to kill his wife without sufficient reason and the government is usually the one to do it if they do it at all.

Marriage 0.0 is the Ancient Roman Republic. Enforced monagamy with a man only being able to have one wife and everyone ignoring a husbands whoring or adultry was accepted in practice but frowned upon. Wives commiting adultry was totally unacceptable.

There was also the matter of Pater Potentas, Father’s Power. A Husband and father had a right to kill his wife, children, slaves and freed slaves without reason. The government could not stop him. He could even do this in theory to an adult son with a family of his own and was elected to the Highest government office of Consul at least in theory. He could also kill his grandchildren or great grandchildren alonf with their wives, slaves and freed slaves.

There was a reason why Rome Conquered the Jewsd and not the other way around and although enforced monagamy and Pater Potentas weren’t the only reasons, they were crucial. By the Empire the Romans moved to Marriage 0.5 and their empire fell.

I would rather gor back to Marriage 1.0 with updates than Marriage 0.0 as I would hate to be a woman in those circimstances and as emotionally, morally appalled by it as a Christian Roman Catholic, but some American women are really asking for it.

Read More

No wonder liberals hate them so much

Via Gateway Pundit

Read More

The 19 Things Our Generals in Afghanistan Know Are True But Cannot Say in Public

Like Maetenloch says, many are plain common sense, but that doesn't stop politicians from avoiding the truth.

Source

---

As compiled by Thomas E. Ricks based on information he's received from insiders and Afghan veterans. Some of these I would quibble with but most seem seem straightforwardly obvious. After nearly a decade of fighting in Afghanistan we have a lot invested in the outcome, but I can't see a good ending when we're unable to speak honestly about the true situation and our long-term goals there.

• Pakistan is now an enemy of the United States.
• We don't know why we are here, what we are fighting for, or how to know if we are winning.
  
• The strategy is to fight, talk, and build. But we're withdrawing the fighters, the Taliban won't talk, and the builders are corrupt.
  
• Karzai's family is especially corrupt.
  
• We want President Karzai gone but we don't have a Pushtun successor handy.
  
• But the problem isn't corruption, it is which corrupt people are getting the dollars. We have to help corruption be more fair.
  
• Another thing we'll never stop here is the drug traffic, so the counternarcotics mission is probably a waste of time and resources that just alienates a swath of Afghans.
  
• Making this a NATO mission hurt, not helped. Most NATO countries are just going through the motions in Afghanistan as the price necessary to keep the US in Europe
  
• Yes, the exit deadline is killing us.
  

Read More

Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer

Source

June 6, 1944

My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Our Document List

Read More

President Obama's Most Amazing Libyan Achievements have been in America

Proof that Democrats have no principles -- only tribal loyalties

By bombing Libya, President Obama accomplished some things once thought absolutely impossible in America:

a) War-mongering liberals. Liberals are now chest-thumping about military "progress" in Libya. Even liberal television and radio cite ingenious reasons why an optional, preemptive American intervention in an oil-producing Arab country, without prior congressional approval or majority public support -- and at a time of soaring deficits -- is well worth supporting, in a sort of "my president, right or wrong" fashion. Apparently liberal foreign policy is returning to the pre-Vietnam days of the hawkish "best and brightest."

b) Europe first. Many Americans have long complained about the opportunistic, utopian Europeans. Under the protective U.S. defense shield, they often privately urged us to deal with dangerous foreign dictators -- while staying above the fray to criticize America, at the same time seeking trade advantages and positive global PR. But now the wily Obama has out-waited even the French. He has managed to shame them into acting with a new possum-like U.S. strategy of playing dead until finally even Europe was exasperated -- almost as if the president were warning them, "We don't mind the Gadhafi bloodletting if you, who are much closer to it, don't mind." The British Guardian and French Le Monde will be too knee-deep in the Libyan war, busy chalking up Anglo-French "wins" and worrying about European oil concessions, to charge America with the usual imperialism, colonialism and militarism. We are almost back to the 1956 world of the Suez crisis.

c) Iraq was just a Libyan prequel. Conservatives have complained that past opposition -- especially in the cases of then-Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden -- to George W. Bush's antiterrorism policies and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was more partisan than principled. Obama ended that debate by showing that not only can he embrace -- or, on occasion, expand -- the Bush-Cheney tribunals, preventative detentions, renditions, Predator attacks, intercepts and wiretaps, and Guantanamo Bay, but now preemptively attack an Arab oil-exporting country without fear of Hollywood, congressional cutoffs, Moveon.org "General Betray Us"-type ads, Cindy Sheehan on the evening news, or "Checkpoint"-like novels. In short, Obama has ensured that the exasperated antiwar movement will never be quite the same.

d) Monster-in-recovery. The Gadhafi clan has been wooing Westerners through oil money and multicultural gobbledy-gook. In the last few years, the British released the Lockerbie bomber, a native of Libya; Saif Gadhafi, the would-be artist and scholar and the son of Col. Muammar Gadhafi, essentially bought a Ph.D. from the prestigious London School of Economics; the creepy Harvard-connected Monitor Group hired out cash-hungry "scholars" to write on-spec tributes to Gadhafi's achievements; and singers Mariah Carey, 50 Cent, Beyoncé and other entertainers earned a pile of petro-dollars for crooning before the Gadhafis. Then, suddenly, Obama spoiled the fun and profits by turning Gadhafi from a rehabilitated monster back into Ronald Reagan's old "Mad Dog of the Middle East."

e) Stuff happens. Many supporters of the Iraq war condemned Abu Ghraib as the poorly supervised, out-of-control prison it was. Lax American oversight resulted in the sexual humiliation of detained Iraqi insurgents. It was a deplorable episode in which, nonetheless, no one was killed, and yet it took an enormous toll on the credibility of administration officials. But while the media covered the Libyan bombing and the Middle East uprisings, a number of Afghan civilians allegedly were executed by a few rogue American soldiers. That was a far worse transgression than anything that happened at Abu Ghraib under Bush's tenure -- but apparently an incident that in the new media climate, can legitimately be ignored. Obama made "stuff happens" a legitimate defense for those doing their best to run a war from Washington.

f) War really is tiring. The media serially blamed a supposedly lazy Ronald Reagan for napping during military operations abroad. George W. Bush was criticized for cutting brush at his Texas ranch while soldiers fought and died in Iraq. Obama rendered all such presidential criticism as mere nitpicking when he started aerial bombardment in the midst of golfing, handicapping the NCAA basketball tournament and taking his family to Rio de Janeiro.

g) The road to Damascus? After Bush's interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, many war-weary Americans believed that we would never again get involved in a Middle East war. But now, with Obama's preemptive bombing of Libya, giddy American interventionists are again eyeing Iran, Syria -- and beyond!

In short, Obama turned America upside down when he bombed Libya -- and in ways we could have scarcely imagined.

SOURCE

Read More

What The Heck Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

Source

-By Warner Todd Huston

Remember those hoary days of raucous protest when anti-war protesters sent thousands of people into the streets sometimes with only a days notice? Now consider this: have you seen any of these giant protests since 2008 presidential election?

Yeah, no one else has, either. Do you wonder why that is? Well, it’s because the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans. It was never about war at all. At this point this is an indisputable fact.

These days the anti-war movement cannot put more than a few dozen people in the street for its cause — which itself is little else but a proxy issue for the implementation of a worldwide socialist state.

Obviously it was never about “war.” It was just about Bush. After all, from the perspective of the issues and claims made against the Bush war policies by the anti-war left, Obama is not doing a whole lot differently in his foreign policy than did Bush.

The left wanted us to shut down Gitmo. Not only are we still there but Obama signed an Executive Order to close Gitmo then just simply ignored his own one-year deadline to do so. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We are still in Iraq despite Obama’s promises to be completely out six months after he became president. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We’ve actually increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

Obama has even wildly increased the number of predator drone attacks in a wide “death from the skies” policy. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

The so-called anti-war movement is filled with partisan hypocrites. There is no other conclusion that can be reached on the subject.

Lastly, where is the focus on the anti-war left that the Old Media constantly indulged during Bush’s years in office? The media was so exercised about the anti-war left that it was even claimed that the anti-war movement was the “third world power” it was so powerful. This was obvious, wild-eyed hyperbole, we know now and knew then. But the fact is that the media was desperate to help get rid of Bush and the Republicans and the so-called power of the anti-war left was merely a vehicle to do so. Now that Bush is gone and quite despite the fact that none of the issues, policies, or facts on the ground have changed in any of the wars we are involved in the media is completely quiet about the anti-war movement.

Simple hypocrisy. That is all it is.

Reason TV has a great video: What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?

Read More

What The Heck Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

Source

-By Warner Todd Huston

Remember those hoary days of raucous protest when anti-war protesters sent thousands of people into the streets sometimes with only a days notice? Now consider this: have you seen any of these giant protests since 2008 presidential election?

Yeah, no one else has, either. Do you wonder why that is? Well, it’s because the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans. It was never about war at all. At this point this is an indisputable fact.

These days the anti-war movement cannot put more than a few dozen people in the street for its cause — which itself is little else but a proxy issue for the implementation of a worldwide socialist state.

Obviously it was never about “war.” It was just about Bush. After all, from the perspective of the issues and claims made against the Bush war policies by the anti-war left, Obama is not doing a whole lot differently in his foreign policy than did Bush.

The left wanted us to shut down Gitmo. Not only are we still there but Obama signed an Executive Order to close Gitmo then just simply ignored his own one-year deadline to do so. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We are still in Iraq despite Obama’s promises to be completely out six months after he became president. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We’ve actually increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

Obama has even wildly increased the number of predator drone attacks in a wide “death from the skies” policy. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

The so-called anti-war movement is filled with partisan hypocrites. There is no other conclusion that can be reached on the subject.

Lastly, where is the focus on the anti-war left that the Old Media constantly indulged during Bush’s years in office? The media was so exercised about the anti-war left that it was even claimed that the anti-war movement was the “third world power” it was so powerful. This was obvious, wild-eyed hyperbole, we know now and knew then. But the fact is that the media was desperate to help get rid of Bush and the Republicans and the so-called power of the anti-war left was merely a vehicle to do so. Now that Bush is gone and quite despite the fact that none of the issues, policies, or facts on the ground have changed in any of the wars we are involved in the media is completely quiet about the anti-war movement.

Simple hypocrisy. That is all it is.

Reason TV has a great video: What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?

Read More

Barney Frank: Straight Soldiers Must Shower With Gays, But Not Women With Men

Homosexual Barney Frank says that heterosexual men cannot refuse to take a shower with sodomites. Somehow that would be descrimination or something....

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.) says he agrees with the recommendation of a Department of Defense (DOD) working group that straight and gay military personnel of the same gender should be required to shower together when the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law goes into effect.

Frank, however, said Armed Forces personnel of opposite sexes should not shower together.

“What do you think happens in gyms all over America?" Frank said when asked by CNSNews.com about the working group's recommendation that straights be required to shower with gays. "What do you think happens in the House of Representatives? Of course people shower with homosexuals. What a silly issue. What do you think goes wrong with showering with homosexuals? Do you think the spray makes it catching? I mean people shower with homosexuals in college dormitories, in gyms where people play sports; in gyms elsewhere. It is a complete non-issue. ”

Then why are we even talking about it?!

CNSNews.com then asked Frank why he thinks it is a non-issue.

“To accept the principle that homosexuals can’t shower with other people is a degree of discrimination that goes far beyond this. We don’t get ourselves dry cleaned. We tend to take showers when we go to the gym; when we play sports,” he responded.

Nice try in moving away from the issue. The point is not that homosexuals can't shower with other people. They can shower amongst themselves. The problem is that, due to the homosexual atraction for people of the same gender, having showers with openly homosexuals makes people unease. That's like forcing a woman to have a shower with men.

Rep. Frank continued, “The notion that knowing that someone is gay or lesbian as opposed to knowing that they are gay or lesbian people that have to pretend who they are; that that somehow makes a difference is pretty silly,”

Frank was also asked if he thinks male and female military personnel should be able to shower together.

“No that would disrupt people,” he said.

hahaha! And having a shower with an open homosexuals won't "disrupt" men with NORMAL sexuality?

As previously reported by CNSNews.com, a special DOD working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in anticipation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, said in its November 30 report-- “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” --that permitting heterosexuals to use separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals of the same gender would “stigmatize” homosexuals and be “reminiscent of ‘separate but equal’ facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s.”

Nonsence! Do women feel "stigmatized" because they can't have showers with men? No. The principle that caused men and women to shower in diferente places is the same for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

The working group recommended that separate showers, bathrooms and rooming facilities for homosexuals and heterosexuals be "expressly prohibited" by the military.

“Do you think that gyms should have separate showers for gay and straight people?” Frank told CNSNews.com when asked about the recommendation. “Do you think that there ought to be separate showers in gyms? If not, then why are you in the military?”

Rep. Frank also said he agrees with the DOD working group’s recommendations. “I don’t have a problem with the recommendation. If people don’t want to shower with gay people, then they better not play sports, they better not belong to gyms, they better not go to colleges where not everybody has their own bathroom,” said Frank

If women don't want to shower with men, then don't play sport, don't go to gyms and don't go to colleges!

(Source)

Read More

BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'

By Ann Coulter

December 1, 2010


The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks' continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America's national security interests, and the Democrats' fanatical determination to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military.

The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.

We've heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.

I'll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning.

According to Bradley's online chats, he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

Isn't that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!"

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled "Lady Gaga." Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song "Telephone" while frantically downloading classified documents.

I'm not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute "telling" under "don't ask, don't tell."

Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army's "don't ask, don't tell" dragnet?

What constitutes being "openly" gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?

Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I've seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he's wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.

With any luck, Bradley's court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a "Wizard of Oz"-themed gazebo. "Are you going to Bradley's court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!"

Maybe there's a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they're right.

The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called "the "Magnificent Five": Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB.

The only one who wasn't gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.

The Magnificent Five's American compatriot Michael Straight was -- ironically -- bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there's David Brock.

So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as "the Homintern." (I would have called it the "Gay G.B.")

Bradley's friends told the Times they suspected "his desperation for acceptance -- or delusions of grandeur" may have prompted his document dump.

Let's check our "Gay Profile at a Glance" and ... let's see ... desperate for acceptance ... delusions of grandeur ... yep, they're both on the gay subset list!

Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans -- and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.

Couldn't they just work for JetBlue? America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an "awkward place" psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute.

Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?

Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.

Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!

For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let's talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in "an awkward place."

Any discussion of "don't ask, don't tell" should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Read More

British Muslims Burn National Symbol Of Remembrance

JoshuaPundit

Armistice Day is a very big deal in Britain, as you might expect. The UK suffered 658,700 dead in WWI and an additional 388,000 a mere twenty years later in WWII.

A revered national symbol of Armistice Day is the poppy, which is displayed and worn by Brits throughout the country and derives from the famous poem 'In Flanders Fields.'

A contingent of British Muslims had a special remembrance planned..protests where a large model of an Armistice Day poppy was burned in effigy,complete with signs saying that Britain's dead troops were burning in hell:






And yes, a lot of them are probably on the dole and getting welfare benefits.

How's that multiculturalism working out for you, cousins?

Read More

Gay rights: Don't ask, don't think

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=885392

Frank Turek

The central argument in favor of same-sex marriage or overturning "don't ask, don't tell" contains a fatal flaw. In fact, this is the flaw at the heart of the entire gay rights movement.

Joint Chief Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen dutifully proclaimed the flaw as truth the other day when speaking in favor of ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Lie about who they are?

Sorry Admiral, but as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness. As you know, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits numerous behaviors that are not criminal offenses in civilian life (including adultery, fraternization, and gambling with a subordinate), yet I never once saw anyone excused for their behavior by claiming that's who they are.

The military is essential to our survival as a nation. It's not a social experiment, and serving in it is not a right. People have to qualify and then make sacrifices. Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.

Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually.

More could be said, but I want to zero in on the fatal flaw in most gay-rights causes, and the one the Admiral repeated. It is the failure to distinguish between desires and behavior. Having certain sexual desires — whether you were "born" with them or acquired them sometime in life — does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn't allow the behavior you desire.

Take marriage as an example. Despite complaints by homosexual activists, every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We're all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone "equal protection of the laws" because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry.

"But what about homosexuals?" you ask. The question would better be stated "what about people with homosexual desires?" Put that way, you can see the flaw. If sexual desires alone are the criteria by which we change our marriage (or military) laws to give people "equal rights," then why not change them to include polygamy? After all, most men seem born with a desire for many women. How about those who desire their relatives? By the gay rights logic, such people don't have "equal rights" because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals don't have "equal rights" because existing marriage laws don't allow them to marry a man and a woman.

If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why are there no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious — because desires, even if you were "born" with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws. (See Born gay or a gay basher: No excuse.)

Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant. We enact all kinds of laws in the country and military that conflict with people's desires. In fact, that's why we need them! We wouldn't need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

In other words, there should be no legal class of "gay" or "straight," just a legal class called "person." And it doesn't matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country or military should prohibit, permit, or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.

The standard comparisons to race and interracial marriage don't work either. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You'll find many former homosexuals, but you'll never find a former African American. And your race has no effect on your military readiness, but your sexual behavior often can. Likewise, race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. Interracial couples can procreate and nurture the next generation (the overriding societal purpose of marriage), but homosexual couples cannot.

The truth is that our marriage and military laws do not discriminate against persons for "who they are" — they discriminate against the behaviors in which they engage. But so what? That's what most laws do. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment's freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islamic law on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage and military laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.

Now some may object to my comparison of homosexuality to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. I agree that the behaviors are not the same, but the point here is that the logic used to justify homosexuality is the same. "I was born with these desires" could also be used to justify polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even gay bashing — "Don't blame me. I just have the anti-gay gene!"

That's the logic reduced to the absurd. And that's why people who want to make a case for same-sex marriage or homosexual practice in the military should use different arguments. Claiming you "are" your sexual desires is a case of don't ask, don't think.

Frank Turek is the founder and president of CrossExamined.org and an award-winning author. He hosts a weekly TV program called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." This column is published with permission.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Read More

Leftists showing "respect" for the Troops

Read More