-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
As Philip Klein notes here at The American Spectator, the Senate today fell three votes short of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This is a crushing defeat for the media and the gay lobby, both of which have implemented a full-court press for openly gay military service.
Unfortunately, this issue is not yet dead. The advocates of openly gay service rightly sense that this may be their best chance in years to force open homosexuality within the ranks. And so, they are pressing for a second stand-alone vote before Congress adjourns for Christmas.
Conservative GOP senators, led by John McCain, have a political and moral obligation to stop them, and to keep this vote from ever happening.
Sure, the media and the gay lobby believe that open homosexuality within the ranks is a moral imperative; and that only bigoted “homophobes” stand in the way of this urgent “progressive” measure. The fact is, however, that gay men and women can and do serve now in the U.S. military, and without incidence or disruption, provided they keep their sexuality out of the workplace.
But that’s not good enough for the apostles of “progress.” No, they want explicit legal recognition and social approval for homosexuality. Thus their demand that DADT be repealed.
Repeal was subsumed within the larger-scale defense authorization bill. This meant that Senators who favored openly gay service sometimes voted differently than you might have expected had you only considered their views on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Scott Brown (Massachusetts), for instance, have said that they support repealing DADT. However, they voted against commencing debate on the defense authorization bill. GOP Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) had been expected to vote the same way, but at the last minute, apparently, changed her vote. Collins’ decision is especially interesting because she had been singled out for special opprobrium by the Left for her supposed obstinacy in the face of “progress.”
But what was Collins obstinate about, exactly? She wasn’t obstinate about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a law she clearly indicates she is willing to repeal. No, Collins was obstinate about the Senate’s right to have a full, free, and open debate about the defense authorization bill — and she is absolutely right about that.
The Senate, after all, considers itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” Surely, it is reasonable, then, to expect that the Senate will take the time to carefully consider defense policy — as opposed to ramming through legislation to meet a far-left political imperative. Certainly, that’s not asking too much.
So where does this leave us? Practically speaking, it is impossible to see how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be repealed in the new Congress, which will have more than 60 new House Republicans and six new GOP Senators. The vast majority of these new Republican legislators, after all, will not vote to require openly gay service.
The media and the gay lobby know this, of course. Which is why they’re pulling out all the stops to ram through a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” now, in this the waning days of the current Congress.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut), in fact, observed on his Twitter page that:
Senator Reid told me he will bring our free-standing #DADT repeal up for a vote before [the] end of [the] session… We are working with our colleagues and are confident that there are at least 60 Senators who support repeal.
Lieberman’s intense politicking on behalf of openly gay service has been deeply disappointing and annoying. However, he is, I fear, right: The votes in the Senate are now there to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Which is why Republican Senators, led by John McCain, should move heaven and earth to ensure that this vote never happens.
It would be a complete miscarriage of justice to ram through a vote when Congress hasn’t come close to doing its due diligence on this issue. And ramming through a vote now when most military service members — and especially most of the Soldiers and Marines now doing the fighting and dying on our behalf — don’t support repeal would be particularly egregious and wrong.
And I’m sorry, but listening to cosseted Pentagon Generals and Admirals is a wholly inadequate substitute for taking the time to listen to the concerns of our frontline troops and non-commissioned officers.
Senator Collins has it right: The Senate is supposed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body. Let the Senate do its job. Let the Senate deliberate. Let it seriously consider the full ramifications of openly gay service before foisting such a radical change on the entire U.S. military.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/09/dadt-is-not-yet-dead
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
CalMark| 12.9.10 @ 7:57PM
Another thought:
Has anyone considered that the percentage "against" openly gay military service might be much higher than reported within the military? Military personnel might be legitimately afraid of reprisal by ambitious, politically-correct superiors. And it can get very ugly--I've saw it all too often.
"Anonymous" surveys in the military never are. There's always some "tag" to trace the survey back at least to your unit, if not to you. I speak from experience, as someone who routinely dodged them because no issues this important ever came up.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 9:08PM
Will keep writing it:
gays in the Services were good enough for Barry Goldwater, so IMO gays in the Services are good enough for you. Unlike you, Goldwater was irreproachable.
CalMark| 12.9.10 @ 10:34PM
As the Irish would say (and they say so many things so well): What a nasty little man you are.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 11:52PM
Praise from Caesar, and back.
CalMark| 12.10.10 @ 12:17AM
See previous quote. I stand by it.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to be insulted by the likes of you.
John| 12.9.10 @ 8:02PM
Glad it's getting repealed, you need to quit it and come out the closet.
CalMark| 12.9.10 @ 8:12PM
Incoherence alert!
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 8:58PM
If gays in the Services are good enough for Barry Goldwater, gays in the Services enough for you.
MarkJ| 12.10.10 @ 12:39AM
Barry Goldwater is a) no longer a senator and b) dead. Find somebody else to shill for your cause.
C Bowen| 12.9.10 @ 8:09PM
It will pass sooner or later, all the more reason to cut funding for the military--it's dominated by leftists.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 9:05PM
If gays are willing to fight for you, they should be allowed maximum liberty; after all, gays are not asking to wear mink like Liberace, or act as interior decorators in barracks. Gays in the Services are tough, they don't wear womens' apparel or giggle in high-pitched voices (at least not male Servicemen).
To my way of thinking, gays in the Services were good enough for Barry Goldwater, so gays in the Services are good enough for you.
Unlike you, Goldwater was irreproachable.
Anthony| 12.9.10 @ 9:25PM
I don't understand why this guy keeps repeating the Goldwater thing, I know the guy ran for president a long time ago, but so what? I don't know if Mr. brooks served in the military, but those of us who have know that in the tight, close contact of a barracks, homosexuals would not be welcomed. Showering with and dressing in front of someone who is physically attracted to other males would destroy unit cohesiveness. If the argument is that homosexuals showering with other males is not a problem, then why are the male and female showers kept seperate? This move by the left is for the sole purpose of destroying the US military and if it passes has a strong chance of success.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 10:02PM
Then you will have to reinstate conscription, as you can't merely enlist knuckledraggers, educated recruits are needed, and gays are educated.
PJ| 12.9.10 @ 11:09PM
"Gays in the Services are tough, they don't wear womens' apparel or giggle in high-pitched voices"
... and those are the *women* ... LOL.
"Goldwater was irreproachable."
BTW, you can only use Goldwater as a reference if you support his position opposing the civil rights bill of 1964 and ending Social Security.
Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 11:56PM
'64? Goldwater could hardly be a Republican in '64 and not oppose the Civil Rights bill.
David C| 12.10.10 @ 12:16PM
Lincoln was a Republican too. Alan, what was his position on these issues?
You do stir folks up Alan.
Whitney| 12.10.10 @ 12:29AM
You walked the fine line of being polite but still insulting. I expect more respectful and constructive commentary from the Spectator.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I'd like to point out that gay or straight your sexuality is very much a part of who you are. I agree that sex has no place in the battlefield, but it's not just about sex. It's about forcing someone to hide who they are...to lie! Someone who is willing to die to protect the freedoms that you and I share? That is not right to me.
Thank you for your thoughtful assessment of the political situation, but please be more considerate of your treatment of this subject in the future.
CalMark| 12.10.10 @ 3:28AM
Open homosexuals have no place in the military. Period.
If gays are so eager to serve, and can hide it, fine. If that's a "lie" and hurts someone's sensitive conscience, they probably shouldn't be serving.
This isn't about "sensitivity." And enough with the "personal identity" politics. It's about military readiness. And sorry pal, it IS about sex.
That's also why women have no place in front-line units. You have attractions, affairs, drama. It affects people's performance, like a mini-mutiny during military operations by a guy who didn't feel like working--foul mood after his girlfriend, co-worker, dumped him so she could sleep with other guys. (He escaped court-martial by complaining that a non-profane chewing out hurt his feelings.)
Even if DADT gets repealed, the vast majority of servicemen will be straight. It's about them and their readiness.
It harms military cohesion when people are concerned that someone sleeping 2 feet away from them, or showering with them, or having to work in dangerous, extremely close quarters with them, may find them attractive. Whether it's tru or not. That's why men and women don't shower or sleep together.
"Good leadership" (AKA thought police and indoctrination) won't fix it. Nor will pretending it doesn't exist. It's nature, and it won't go away. Anti-DADT types are bad at dealing with that reality.
But reality is not something you can change, no matter how much you brainwash people.
Finally, this post is "robust debate." Don't come here and complain that it hurts your feelings--no one is forcing you to read or post here.
Pelligrino| 12.10.10 @ 9:31AM
CalMark, thank you. You've said it well in this post and others above. I appreciate you trying (in vain?) to help the Lost. And that is what evil is and the consequences of it: One who engages in evil is ensnared, in mind, body, spirit. Rational, upright, wise thinking is not possible.
Meanwhile, just to have a republic that permits us the luxuries of writing, posting, thinking out loud, conversing openly with our neighbors (couldn't do that in ALL of the Warsaw Pact and USSR for most of my lifetime AND you surely cannot today in China, N. Korea, Tehran....)
To preserve these things, stalwarts like CalMark (and thankfully many others who I've read here in the past couple of months) will need to remain in the trenches.
Because all of that evil on other parts of our planet (just 6-8 hour plane rides away) will be here in no time if you lose vigilance, if you lose a strong, morally correct military to defend our present watered-down USA freedoms.
Don't we now already hear: "Well, repeal of DADT didn't happen this Congress; we just have to re-strategize for later" coming from liberal, evil mouths? Yes.
(Sorry, this kind of thinking is EVIL. No nice way to put it. It is.)
And I've seen too many places on this planet where evil gets the upper hand.
No, no. Not here. I got grandkids who are supposed to have it better than I did. Why is this not so important anymore?
Note: CalMark you are correct. Those surveys of active duty military and even sometimes the DOD civilians who work with them? They are usually a well-known joke. Just make-work for some gumshoes who justify their government job existence. Poorly worded questions. Often designed to obtain the "right" conclusions. AND ALWAYS (90% of the time) traceable right back to the 'anonymous' source. No anonymity whatsoever. I watched a battalion commander and brigade commander do this when they wanted to learn who those "rascals" were who were making them look bad. You knew within 3-4 minutes exactly who filled out that anonymous form.
No, no. No real honesty in those surveys. No candor. A troop who has already filled about about 5 or 6 stops taking them seriously. After all: You never see any good occur when you fill out and go to the trouble of writing well-thought-out comments.
Candor is usually not desired. Certainly not when a military person is in an official or semi-official presentation to a multiple star flag officer, a member of Congress, a senior DOD official, etc. No body speaks up to really address issues. Practically never.
greghawk| 12.10.10 @ 3:31AM
talk to a proctologist about the results of male homosexual practice.
wholesale handbagboots | 12.11.10 @ 1:01AM
Thanks for sharing your article. I really enjoyed it.
DVD drive Burner | 11.8.11 @ 4:17AM
How to Burn an AVCHD File to DVD
AVCHD is a new high definition standard created by Sony, and used in many of their HD Camcorders. The resulting AVCHD disc is then able to be played in many consumer Blu-Ray players, the Sony Playstation 3, as well as the camcorders themselves. These are capable of producing 1080p and 720p video.
Instructions
1
If you have not done so already, plug in your camcorder to your PC. If an autoplay box does not appear, locate the camcorder's files on your PC. Two folders are needed in order to properly burn an AVCHD onto DVD, and they are BDMV and Certificate. Once they are located, copy and paste these two files onto your desktop. This could take anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes.
2
Once they are transferred to your desktop, go to the following web address and download the software:
http://www.imgburn.com/index.php?act=download
Once downloaded, install the software by double-clicking the downloaded file and follow on-screen instructions.
3
Right click the AVCHD folder that you just transferred to your desktop and click on "Properties." On the General tab, locate the size of the file in order to specify how big of a DVD is needed to burn the files. Sizes up to 4.3GB will fit onto single layer DVD's. If the size exceeds 4.3 GB, a dual-layer DVD is needed. Once you figure out which DVD is needed, insert it into your PC's DVD-RW drive.
4
Imgburn Software
Open the ImgBurn program that was just installed. Click the option that reads "Write files/folders to disc." The next screen is where you need to click some options. The image provided locates the options that need to be checked and unchecked. Make sure the "Auto" box is checked and the "Verify" box unchecked. After this is done, add the 2 folders (BDMV and Certificate) into the large open space. This can be done by either clicking on the magnifying glass and adding them, or by simply dragging and dropping them into the program.
5
Once the files are loaded into the program, the settings will verify you want to change to UDF 2.5 burning mode. Click "Yes" when prompted. Next, simply click on the large icon located near the bottom. You will be greeted by a few pop-ups verifying your disc burning session and allowing you to name the disc. Click "OK" and your burning will start.
6
Once the burning is complete, remove the disc and insert into appropriate Blu-Ray players or Sony Playstation 3. If all went well, you will be enjoying your home movies in amazing quality, also allowing you to start a library of HD home movies, instead of storing them on a hard drive
Tips & Warnings
Memorex and Verbatim DVD's have the best success rate. Verbatim Dual Layer DVD's are the best to use when needed. Be patient, burning might take a couple tries.
Depending on your PC's DVD drive and Blank disc, you may go through a few DVD's until one works perfectly. AVCHD does not work on all Blu-Ray players, so check with the manufacturer first. Do not pirate copyrighted material.
more info:
http://www.drives-storage.com.au