Doesn't Belong

12/06-

I was just reading some of Lori Heine's blog post on David Horowitz' NewsReal Blog (h/t Bubba), and I've been following the public debate over DADT between the military brass, the Pentagon, and Congress.  Plus, I've read the sources that I've come to trust most regarding anything to do with the US Armed Forces: the very astute preachings over at BLACKFIVE, where I subscribe more toward Grim's sentiments, than Uncle Jimbo's.  That's unusual, because I'm almost always in agreement with the Uncle.

On the other hand, I do seem to always agree with Miss Coulter, who helps to remind us that there are reasonable limits to the concept of "tolerance."  Miss Ann submits:

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!"

Lori Heine would have you subscribe to the notion that gays in the military are only dangerous in that "well, they have guns."  Combat soldiers have guns, dipshit...not your Army translators.  If they'd have all been armed at Ft. Hood, I'll bet Maj. Hassan (terrorist, muslim) would have either A) not killed as many real soldiers or B) never hatched such a scheme in the first place.

And the point Ann Coulter makes is that a soldier's duty exists regardless of his/her frame of mind.  A person's fitness to serve takes into account (or certainly should) the general state of that person's mind, and anyone whose sexuality is that screwed up so as to prefer that which is unnatural, ought to at least raise some skepticism on the fitness report, much like any Army Major who spends his free time hanging with sharia-loving disciples of that reknowned pedophile Mohammed.

Let me remind you, homosexuality is a perversion, and no less of one than beastiality, necrophilia, or pedophilia.  If you and I are repulsed at that behavior, it's safe to assume that most soldiers (and sailors and airmen) are similarly disgusted.  If you aren't repulsed, fine.  But don't go around making up labels like "homophobia" to make me feel guilty for my intolerance.  And don't ascribe terms like that to a soldier's level of tolerance or lack thereof.

12/09-

I'd delayed publishing this to let it stew a bit...

This morning, I read another essay by Ann Coulter on the subject.  Just as I had been thinking (that's the way it goes--I'm busy thinking it, and she says it), there's no reason we shouldn't just dedicate a special branch of the military just for those pillow-biters who "want to serve their country."  I put the quotation marks around the previous phrase because I don't believe for a minute that they're serving anything other than their own whimsy.

I was unaware that today's military employs "sensitivity training facillitators" or why such should ever, ever be necessary.  It's the Marine Corps, you dipshits, fuck a bunch of sensitivity.

Again, Miss Coulter:

Why can't the Army and Marines have their own rules? Why does everything have to be the same? Whatever happened to "diversity"?

Maybe we could have an all-gay service! They'd be allowed to wear camouflage neckerchiefs (a la Paul Lynde) and camo capri pants. To avoid any sexual harassment claims, they'd have to have their own barrack, which we could outfit with a dance club, a cosmo bar and a counseling center called "The Awkward Place." Their band would mostly play show tunes, and soldiers captured by the enemy would be taught to reveal only their name, rank and seasonal color analysis ("I am Private First Class Jeffrey Smith and I'm a 'winter.'")

They wouldn't be allowed in combat, however, for the same reason women aren't –- it takes them too long to get ready.

If you were a soldier, you'd strive to be the best soldier in the best outfit, and there would be no place for weakness in your squad.  A little bit of cowardice or distraction puts everyone at risk, and you'd be right (as it should be within your rights) to employ some considered discrimination.  A soldier's life is too big a price to pay for social engineering.

"We're not just going to shoot the bastards...

...we're going to cut out their living guts. And use them to grease the treads of our tanks." -General George Patton

In an update to the previous, but which deserves its own space, allow me to present The Warrior Song.

Y'all no doubt recall how supportive I am of the Warrior Legacy Foundation.



It's a video-heavy kinda day at the Livermush Command Center! Happy Veterans' Day!

Hoo-ahh, indeed!

Thanks to my friends at Blackfive.

A feller you'd like to know

I was immediately convinced post-9/11, that winning a war in Afghanistan was a necessity. And that fighting and winning in Iraq would undoubtedly be necessary, eventually, too. And I also, very quickly, considered the same might hold true for Pakistan and Iran and Yemen and Somalia, because there are people in those places who've been taught the value of blaming and hating us for decades, specifically those young men from the Madrassas. I knew then, and have not changed my thinking since, that our war against terrorism will be an unflinching battle that will take decades, itself. And if we mistakenly elect so-called leaders who vacillate on that point, the real fighting will take that much longer to bear fruit.

And I know how unpopular that notion is: a war on many fronts that lasts longer than a Pocket Fisherman infomercial, and longer than a season of American Idol, and a Presidential term, and a new car, and the birth-to-adulthood generation of your children. But, like it or not, I accepted the truth of the matter. There is a religious war. It was (un)declared on my country and my culture and everyone else who refuses to acknowledge and accept Islam. And, any Muslims who have not yet distanced themselves from their radical brethren aren't just peaceful bystanders. They're along for the ride, and will happily stake a land-claim on your vacated country after you've been routed on your own trail of tears to an infidel's reservation.

I didn't know Uncle Jimbo back then, and have only enjoyed the benefit of his work since launching my own blog (and the ensuing search for like-minded people). He just reposted this video. I like it so well, I'm posting it also.



Here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say you're a Dakota Sioux American Indian, and people who practice the Religion Of Peace, Christianity, have started murdering other tribes over their unwillingness to conform or assimilate to Christianity. Would you not want to be forewarned of that impending danger? How loudly or authoritatively would you, Miss Dakota Sioux American Indian lady, need to be shaken from your stupor, to pull you away from the Oprah channel long enough to read the smoke signals? Would you suggest that there's plenty of time for someone else to do something to stop those Christians' schemes? Would you just pretend it's just a matter of extending them more tolerance and understanding?

Consider yourself warned.