The Lie that is “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”…

on

I have been laughing my ass off watching,listening and reading the stories surrounding the move to end DADT.

I find this whole thing total bullshit on so many levels. Sadly for all parties most concerned the pending change in policy is a grave disservice and little more than a distraction. The outcome of this misguided decision will further erode America and that should bother everyone no matter what you like in whatever orifice.

#1. DADT is common sense. Let’s face it there has always been patriotic folks that enjoy the company of the same sex. In a majority of cases this has not caused any issue. There have of course been some headline catching incidents and let’s be honest,countless hidden ones.DADT actually benefits both sides.

#2. I found it quite humorous that on a peak day of DADT crushing headlines the military version of C SPAN had coverage of an Army Colonel talking to a House committee about the outrageous happenings of sexual assault in the military. What exactly is the multiple that will be forthcoming with wide open homosexuality in the armed forces?

#3. The gay agenda cares very little about defense of the realm folks. With DADT removed mark my words you will see a serviceman/woman with say a Massachusetts home of record demanding recognition of marriage.

#4. It is sad that the US military is but a cross section of our society. It’s slice mimics more the lower socio economic angle but is polished with teamwork,dedication and professionalism. That being said it is crucial to confess some basic truths. The military has not fully achieved the inclusion of races and sexes. How then can we think they can accept something so alien as open homosexuality?

I can tell you from personal experience that the US military has race problems. Just like society at large the military has its niggers and its red necks. The majority of course truthfully don’t see black,white or brown,they see green. (that’s directly tied to my Army experience different branch different color.)As for women it is pretty well documented that the US military has issues when it comes to the sexes. Again this is primarily due to the US military being a reflection of the USA. We as a nation and as a force are not ready to see females being tortured,defiled and dragged through the streets of some backwards nation.

We don’t pride ourselves on the incidents of sexual misconduct within the services or amongst the civilian populations.Who is looking forward to the stories of gay based assaults of citizens? Does anyone doubt they are coming?

Tell ya what. If your position is that open and “accepted” homosexuality in the military is ok keep that to yourself

I promise I won’t ask and won’t tell..

Advertisements

35 Comments

  1. Elric66 says:

    #3. The gay agenda cares very little about defense of the realm folks. With DADT removed mark my words you will see a serviceman/woman with say a Massachusetts home of record demanding recognition of marriage.

    Yep. Im surprised not more people have brought this up.

  2. Alfie says:

    I guess I can be glad I’m a no volume blog thus avoiding the typical “homophobe” screams.

  3. Don’t worry Alfie, they will find you! Google will “sniff” you out if nothing else. I personally think that our military doesn’t need any more distractions. Moral is hitting Clinton era levels from what I am hearing,and all in the name of political correctness…

  4. Vishnu says:

    God forbid you use the “r” word.

  5. Alfie says:

    The r word???? If that’s recruiting I don’t see your point.

  6. Jared says:

    It’s a response to Patrick’s comment. The “r” word is “retarded” — a term Rham Emanual has ironically been attacked for using:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded.html

  7. And I used the “r”word where? Or implied it where?

  8. jonolan says:

    On this issue we disagree, Alfie.

    I find that I can’t place the supposed morale and discipline issues within the military over the Constitution which states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The right to bear arms does not mean the merely the right to carry them; it also means the right to carry in military service to this nation.

    That is why its original wording was changed.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    Our Founding Fathers removed the “but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” to prevented the government from using the religion of any of its people as a means to disband the US militia made up of the body of the people.

    Can you tell me where it says, “except for Sodomites?”

    Would there be issues? Yes! Should those issues matter? I suppose that depends on how you feel about the “it will cause…” arguments used by the Left against gun ownership or other parts of the Constitution.

  9. Alfie says:

    Jonolan I saw your post and was tempted to leave a comment.
    Militia articles,gun control and military service are not as interwoven as your purist view affords. A very early lesson anyone in the armed forces learns is “you’re there to defend democracy not practice it”. You can call it unfair but that doesn’t make it any less true or backed by long time precedents.
    The military is more than allowed to render judgments on what policies it should have and unless the Congress wants to pony up on what exactly that army it musters looks like I say the Constitution is mute on this point.
    All in all I am more than willing to agree to disagree. A pleasure as always. Alfie

  10. Jared says:

    You didn’t Patrick, and that’s the point.

    “Moral is hitting Clinton era levels from what I am hearing,and all in the name of political correctness…”

  11. Alfie says:

    Are you fucking kidding me? Wait a sec let me not go crazy yet. Are you calling Patrick a retard because due to speed it looks like he left the e off the end of moral(e)????

  12. Vishnu says:

    Calm down people. It’s tongue-in-cheek. I didn’t mean to criticize Patrick at all. I am criticizing the administration for becoming ensnared by its own overly charged attacks based on vague notions of political correctness which it wields like an axe on its opponents. Indeed Carter in effect called anyone opposing Obama a racist.

    Here, you expressed a very real expectation that you would be called homophobic for daring to challenge the repeal of DADT.

    The point was really quite pedestrian. Emanuel’s comments aren’t even news worthy, yet he’s forced to defend them for fear that he’s perceived as some kind of insensitive bigot by his own party. Frankly, the fact that he felt obliged to “apologize” to the Special Olympic foundation and state his earnest intent to coerce Congress to remove the term “retarded” from all federal legislation is, in my opinion, extremely humorous.

    Apprently, my comment completely missed the mark. I’ve called no one a “retard” nor did I intend to.

  13. Okay,so Vishnu and Jared are the same person? My point was that the Military does not need any more problems that may affect morale. By example,my son is a “trigger puller.” He has lost three men because of inappropriate ROE’s and the guys are not happy about that. They hear about people in Congress and the Senate saying that the war is lost while they are dealing out death and destruction to the enemies of the United States.

    I have to agree with jonolan to a degree, because when you weaken any part of the Bill of Rights, you weaken the entire thing and that,IMO,is never a good thing to do. Having said that I am still opposed to gays serving in the military because of the potential that American lives would be lost.

  14. Elric66 says:

    Patrick,

    Opposing gays in the military doesnt diminish the Bill of Rights.

  15. Alfie says:

    Vishnu…OK I get your point now. The thing is people have much to loose in discussion when labels get tossed so easily.It is a classic shout down tactic.On your point I’d say Rahms word choice is newsworthy.I’d actually side with him that he clearly wasn’t making a dig at the Special Olympics folks.

  16. Alfie says:

    I guess I should state for the record I actually support DADT. I also stand firm that the Bill of Rights is not in effect here.
    Military service is a contract and DADT is simply a flawed but logical addendum to such a contract.
    To remove DADT opens up the military to turmoil it doesn’t need at any time let alone now. It just can’t be overstressed enough that serving in the military does not require ones sexuality to be on display. People may attack that on grounds of misogynistic training concepts or what have you and I say boo!

  17. Vishnu says:

    Alfie, I don’t disagree with either of your points, however, Emanuel’s comments were never directed at the Special Olympics. That was his outlet of choice (proxy) for the big “apology.” He was so obviously using common slang, not leveling a slight. That I don’t find newsworthy, but his efforts to avoid controversy were.

    But before completely dismissing my lame attempt at humor, the following was directed to me earlier today:

    “The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division is seeking up to 10 experienced attorneys for the position of Trial Attorney in the Voting Section in Washington, D.C. (…) The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness. . . mental retardation. . .”

    Sorry for the big departure.

    Jonolan, I don’t see where serving in the military is a right secured under the second amendment? The use of the term “militia” is significant. A militia is a group of armed citizens separate from the government. In the constitutional sense, I believe the concept of “militia” was perceived as the mechanism for ensuring that citizens were protected from their own government’s abuse of power. Military and paramilitary are not the same. That is why the language you have cited makes a distinction between the “right to bear arms” (militia) from “compulsion” to serve in the “military” (i.e. conscientious objection).

  18. hippieprof says:

    Hey Alfie….. about time I made it over here….

    No surprise, I disagree with you….

    No time for a long comment now – so I will just drop a teaser.

    Google “reaction formation” – a wiki article comes up first – it will do just fine. Drop on down to the section on sexual identity….

    😉

    — hp

  19. Alfie says:

    HP…Freud????? I’ll tentatively welcome your return but warn you against calling anyone a latent homosexual.

  20. jonolan says:

    Vishnu,

    It’s going a bit far afield from the core of this post so I’ll just suggest that you revisit the various Militia acts, especially the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 which set forth how the Federal government could raise a centrally controlled federal military in the first place.

    Precedence is, after all, the soul – however twisted – of the law. 😉

  21. Alfie says:

    Jonolan…would you like to post a link to your post? It’ll get caught by WordPress settings but I can quickly release if you do.I think that explains your position pretty well and is far from a disservice to anyone genuinely curious about your view and supporting points.

  22. Alfie says:

    I feel pretty safe in stating that at least three veterans have added a comment or two to this present thread. I have a question set for them and in posing the questions have supplied my answers. No pressure.

    Q. Have you served with homosexuals to your knowledge and/or suspicion?

    A. I have although I have to state for the record that all cases fall under the suspicion category. My dates of service had no DADT.

    Q. Did it impact your job?

    A. No

    Q. Do you think there could have been any incident that would have been an issue of some type?

    A. One of my hetero roomies sneaked a skank into the barracks one night. This unauthorized act resulted in me and my other roomie adjusting that soldiers attitude. This was all about our asses potentially getting reamed for a major garrison violation and particular pet peeve of the company commander.If it was a gay liason….the resulting actions would have been the same. My point? Actions happen and violating others space and rights is wrong. I don’t think the administrators of a repealed DADT would necessarily agree. In that setting would my answer be the same? That’s the point!

  23. hippieprof says:

    Alfie….

    haha – I am certainly no Freudian – just toying with you. I didn’t have time for a full response. I still don’t – but here is a bit more.

    I am often confused by what I would call homophobia because I just don’t get where it comes from. I guess that is not entirely true – I was homophobic in my youth just as are many heterosexual males. After I actually met some gay people (one of whom was one of my best friends and surprised me when he came out of the closet) I realized that they are just people and they really pose no threat to me. They aren’t going to hit on me, they aren’t going to rape me, they aren’t going to engage in private sexual behavior in front of me any more often than a heterosexual would. Eventually the fear subsides. I guess homosexuality just doesn’t seem so alien to me anymore (as you describe it in #4) – but then again I am in a profession where is open and tolerated.

    The part about your post that really bothers me is number 2 – there is simply no scientific evidence that homosexuals are more prone to sexual assault and pedophilia. We have a family friend whose son was sodomized in the military. The assailant was in fact heterosexual. Forced sodomy is a crime of power and violence and is not a crime of sexuality. An assailant can have a heterosexual orientation and still rape another male as a crime of power.

    — hippieprof

  24. Alfie says:

    HP right off the bat your protest of my point #2 shows a misunderstanding of the point.
    I’m not saying every person that is openly gay would be on a rampage.
    The science is clear though that homosexuals are just as likely to experience domestic violence.It’s also pretty clear that regardless of orientation the military services are wide open to experience assaults post DADT abolition. That is what my #2 is about.

  25. hippieprof says:

    OK – then I am really missing your point. If the rates of domestic violence are the same in homo- and heterosexual populations – which would DADT matter at all?

    — hp

  26. Elric66 says:

    Q. Have you served with homosexuals to your knowledge and/or suspicion?

    A. Yes. One was an open flammer. Another was a suspicion.

    Q. Did it impact your job?

    A. Yes, for me and those who worked for him.

    Q. Do you think there could have been any incident that would have been an issue of some type?

    A. Surprisingly, the guy was never kicked out or assaulted.

  27. jonolan says:

    Q. Have you served with homosexuals to your knowledge and/or suspicion?

    A. I believe that I have. Like you, my time was prior to DADT so everything was only suspicion and suppostition.

    Q. Did it impact your job?

    A. No

    Q. Do you think there could have been any incident that would have been an issue of some type?

    A. There was never any incidents in those personnel. There could have been if others had been more obnoxious. There was a couple of racial incidents, but we handled that much like you handled your situation. 😉

  28. Alfie says:

    hp says

    If the rates of domestic violence are the same in homo- and heterosexual populations – which would DADT matter at all?

    Only that by its existence DADT still prohibits open homosexuality,remove it and you make incidents reportable. Again in a dynamic face to face setting this would be a far better and understandable conversation. I made note of how the Army Colonel was answering to a House committee about assaults etc. in the services. She was concerned as was the House panel about reportings,resulting actions etc. So in my defense my full thought is sound. We have problems all ready…what is next?
    Don’t mean to burden you but please review some of my comments in this thread especially the personal Q&A one. I’m not the “homophobe type”. I’m more the “I don’t care until it effects me -please don’t make it effect me type”.In a nutshell (freudian slip?) I am DADT.I’m not gonna ask so don’t tell me and let’s accomplish the mission.Taking that away for a sociology experiment ,or lets be real, VOTES is wrong. Call me crazy I don’t know.

  29. jonolan says:

    Whoa! Belay that!

    Here it is, Alfie: http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/asking-and-telling/

    Could you fix the original comment, please?

    Alfie says I think I shook this out right. Thanks.

  30. Vishnu says:

    Jonolan, perhaps I’ve missed something, but it seems to me that you’ve confused constitutional rights from statutory rights in your analysis. I still don’t see a constituional “right” to serve in the U.S. Military from the statutorily created militia.

  31. jonolan says:

    Vishnu,

    We all have the constitutional right to bear arms. That didn’t change with the mutation of the militia into a standing federal military.

    Let’s couch in different, less hot-button for us terms, but very hot-button terms for the Founding Fathers:

    What if Congress decided that Catholics couldn’t serve or Anglicans or Presbyterians?

    Again though, if they do repeal DADT, there will be some problems. I do not deny that. The military has a long and largely successful history of handling those problems within itself though.

  32. Vishnu says:

    I can’t speak to whether repeal of DADT is mistaken or not. I ride the fence onthat one and will defer heavily to the miltiary establishment itself.

    Looking at your example, caused me to wonder why you didn’t mention blacks who were in fact prohibited from service in the military following the constitutional convention?

  33. jonolan says:

    Vishnu,

    I thought of mentioning Blacks, both in the context of early America and their inclusion in WW1 and later integration in WW2, but decided to stick with a religious context since I could directly reference it in the Annals of Congress.

  34. Elric66 says:

    The military discriminates against fat people too.

  35. Alfie says:

    Yeah another semi related nugget that never gets any respect….Not too long ago the Marines were thinking about only having single people in the early enlisted levels. I know from my Army experience and my friends in the Navy that this isn’t a bad idea. Is it discrimination against married people? Or is it a force strength policy with good an bad points?

Comments are closed.