Just been reading Hither and Thither by Dan Philips. One of the subjects he touches on a couple of times is the issue of the U.S. government wanting to force the acceptance of “homosexuals” back into the American military. So, without rambling on myself, I’ll let Dan explain it himself:
- Here's an interest study in MSM bias. Never seen anything quite like this though. Same paper, same day, two stories, two "takeaways." They even have almost the same pictures at the head! The news source is the Washington Times. The subject is forcing our military to accept open pursuers of a particular sexual perversion. One story says the military is OK with it, the other story says the military strongly resists it. Guess which one is from AP? Correct: the first. Guess which tells another story? Correct, the one by veteran national security reporter Rowan Scarborough.
- Depressing to read the political military heads and desk-jockies ready to throw the fighting men under the bus in the name of political correctness and social experimentation.
- Indeed, the indispensable Elaine Donnelly, of the Center for Military Readiness, agrees that the Pentagon let the troops down. She observes that the report identifies not one benefit to the military from forcing this issue; also, some 60% believe that it would have a negative impact; would have untold negative consequences on chaplains and those currently serving due to "Zero Tolerance" for recognizing homosexuality's immoral, aberrant nature. Just a rush-job to deliver on a bad political promise.
- Perhaps even more of a killer: "More than a third of Marines (38.1 percent) and nearly a fourth of all personnel (23.7) said they would either leave the military or think about doing so if the policy is reversed, and 40 percent of Marines and 27 percent of all the military said they would be less likely to recommend to a friend or family member that he or she join the military." That's what I've been telling you: each move towards forcing the military to embrace this perversion is a move towards a compulsory draft.
- Meanwhile, California's disgrace, Senatrix Barbara Boxer, had someone write an editorial for her pressing for this horrible idea, ignoring all the facts, and including this chestnut: "...American taxpayers have been forced to pay up to a half a billion dollars to replace the 13,000 service men and women discharged under this policy." Although, if the estimable Senatrix's point is that these individuals should be billed for the costs incurred by their knowing duplicity, I might be on-board.
I am totally with Dan on this one. With the return of “pursuers of a particular sexual perversion,” I can only imagine the infighting that will happen within the U.S. forces. Would you want to appear naked in front of another man who may want to have sex with you? In the same way I don’t use toilet facilities together with women, I will not want to do the same with these perverts around! This will mean the end of the U.S. military. When a military is weakened morally to this point, it will become a non-combatant military. Switch off the lights when you leave!