"Corpseman" Obama

As others have quippped, maybe this is why we haven't heard much about his track record at Pomona College, Columbia and Harvard.

Anti-Catholic Obama

Harry Knox is part of Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships even though he continues to be outspoken with his criticism of Pope Benedict XVI. This week he stood by his comments about the Pope 'hurting people in the name of Jesus.' Back in March of 2009, Knox called the Catholic group, the Knights of Columbus, 'foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression' and cited the Pope as one of its discredited leaders.

Tolerance? Diversity? Open-mindedness? Respect for others' beliefs? Yet, Obama stands by Knox.

If you are so inclined, visit the St. Michael Society website and read the petition asking for Knox's resignation.

Anti-Life Obama

Barack Obama continues to push a culture of death. Now clinics on military posts are required to distribute Plan B, also called the morning after pill, at U.S. military hospitals both domestic and international. The morning after pill, an abortifacient, means that even military personnel who oppose abortion will be required to dispense it. Whereas President Bush blocked distribution of the drug, Obama has not. A spokesperson for NARAL calls it a 'tragedy' that military women have been denied the pill and she applauds 'experts' for 'standing up for' military women. A twisted perspective to say the least.

Obama is the president who supposedly is committed to reducing the need for abortion. If he were serious about this commitment, he would be promoting the many pregnancy resource centers around the country that support and counsel pregnant women to avoid abortion. Not only does Obama not promote these centers, his stance on abortion creates a climate that promotes threatening to de-fund them with the 'Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act.' (Note that my district's House representative Carolyn Maloney is among those leading the de-funding charge.)

Obama seems to always choose measures that destroy life rather than measures that will preserve it.

Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10

It is worth mentioning again that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is not a law. 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was an arrangement made in 1993 by then-President Clinton in order to satisfy his homosexual constituency. A law does exist, however, that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the U.S. Military. It is

Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—the homosexual exclusion law passed by both houses of Congress in 1993 with veto-proof, bi-partisan majorities. The flawed cornerstone principle of "don’t ask, don’t tell," to the effect that homosexual orientation is not a bar to military service, is conspicuously absent. Instead, the plain meaning of the law and legislative history affirmed the classic principle that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

It is also worth mentioning again Frank Gaffney's article which points out what Obama is trying to do. Obama wants the repeal of the aforementioned law, Section 654, Title 10, which is "a statutory prohibition on openly homosexual individuals serving in the U.S. military." There are 15 points in this prohibiton which state why homosexuals should not serve in the U.S. military. You will find the law here.

What Obama can't get by fiat, he will seek to get by arm-twisting and the small incremental changes that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are agreeing to. They seem more than willing to do the president's bidding. Here is Mullen going on about his personal views regarding homosexuality in the military. (Mullen, spouting PC 'rights' rhetoric, isn't questioned by the mainstream media as to the relevancy of his 'personal' views on a matter of national interest. Recall the outcry of criticism when a former chairman, Peter Pace, expressed his views on the same topic. )

Lest there's any doubt about the far-reaching negative effects of open homosexuality in the military, Richard Black describes the threat to over-all discipline and moral conduct that homosexuality can pose. (Interestingly, Fort Hood, TX was the site of one such disciplinary breakdown.) Colonel Beady describes here how advancing the cause of homosexuality in the military has the potential to destroy the military community which tends to hold traditional values regarding marriage and family.

The push to have gays openly serve in the military is not about equality, rights or fighting discrimination. It is about the will of a few forcing disordered social policy on our country regardless of the cost.

Gays in the Military--Bad News

On the matter of gays serving openly in the military, Blackfive has published a disappointing and mis-guided opinion. It may or may not be 'silly for gay service members to pretend they're something that they're not,' but that isn't the issue.

Although Americans are pressured to believe otherwise, repealing the mis-named 'Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy'(DADT)has nothing to do with the desire of gays to serve their country. They can do that now if they are truly dedicated to service and to a cause greater than themselves. Nor does DADT have anything to do with rights. As others have pointed out, no one has a constitutional or God-given right to serve in the military any more than any of us has a constitutional or God-given right to be admitted to Harvard.

The repeal of DADT has everything to do with social engineering. The soldier has traditionally been the embodiment of manliness and manly virtue. If as a society we are willing to so pervert what it means to be a soldier by normalizing homosexuality, then we are also willing to pervert what it means to be a man. And that's what gay activists seek to do. They wish to redefine biology, defy nature and nature's God, and re-create society in their own image. Gays in the military is another step, perhaps the final one, toward re-defining normalcy and defining traditional manhood out of existence.

With a distinctly feminized and unmanly president in the White House, it is no surprise that this administration is "bludgeoning the Pentagon" and Congress to, as Frank Gaffney writes,

go along with him on the repeal, not of Bill Clinton's DADT executive order, but of a statutory prohibition on openly homosexual individuals serving in the U.S. military. But is he really up to the job of arguing that the fifteen findings why such a ban is necessary that were solemnly and deliberately enacted with President Clinton's signature somehow no longer apply?

Gaffney goes on to say,

Instead, the current law is an appropriate and necessary reflection of the realities of human nature. Sexual proclivities, especially in circumstances of forced intimacy (like foxholes, barracks, submarines, etc.), do interfere with the "good order and discipline" required if the military is to be able to recruit, retain, prepare and employ effectively in combat the sort of armed forces we must have in a dangerous world. This case will be made by more than 1100 senior retired military officers (see FlagandGeneralOfficersfortheMilitary.org.) who will speak for colleagues still in uniform who cannot easily engage in the public debate.

Family Research Council explains some of the subtle ways that the Obama administration will impose its will.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, together with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is rolling out a "relaxed" standard on homosexuality in the military that would strip the law of its teeth while the President tries to overturn it.

They go on to explain that,

the top brass has said it will dramatically shift the process of "outing" homosexual servicemen. For starters, the military would no longer investigate a soldier's sexuality based on a "third party" account. In other words, only "flagrant violators" would be ousted--dramatically cutting down on the number of dismissals. Also, generals and admirals will be the final authorities on which soldiers are discharged after years of processing those decisions in the lower ranks. In effect, the President is saying that he may not be able to overturn the law without Congress, but he can stop enforcing it.

Besides re-defining traditional notions of manliness, FRC also points out the violence and harrassment that will accompany open homosexuality in the military.

It's interesting to note that after the Fort Hood terrorist shooting, media pundits on the conservative side denounced General Casey for his PC remarks about preserving diversity in the military. Here, now, is the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen, promoting an equally insidious and dangerous type of diversity and, so far, I see
no criticism of his politically correct cooperation.

All told, this is another piece of Obama's hope-and-change puzzle that needs to go down to a blazing defeat.

It's Hard For Obama

What is our president thinking? He treads softly with terrorists, apologizes to the world for America's contributions and bows to mayors. On the other hand, he turns aggressive when he scolds Supreme Court justices, and he gets tough on unborn babies by continuing to promote a health plan that will have all of us paying to abort them.

Today he commiserated with Senate Democrats about these being "tough times to hold public office." He couldn't say enough about all the hard work he and the Democrats have been doing. Who would have thought that a senator's life was full of "hard decisions," " hard work," " working hard," "doing the hard thing," " hard political decisions," problems that are "hard to solve" and that they have the "burden of working harder." The speech will likely give any sane person agita.

What is the president thinking? Nothing of particular substance. Obama is a clanging bell, a crashing gong and, under all that noise, a wimpy man.

Tim Tebow and His Super Bowl Ad

Yesterday, American Thinker published this short piece that I wrote on the upcoming Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad. With no TV, I listen to a lot of talk radio and thought it curious that such disparate talk-show hosts as Rush Limbaugh on the one hand and Mike Francesa on the other mentioned the Tebow ad. Part of Rush's showmanship is his claim to be the all-knowing, always-ahead-of-the-curve spokesman for relevant issues. I find he's always a little behind on the social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and his comments on the Tebow ad and so-called pro-choice women were just that, though he was accurate. As for Mike Francesa, he's almost always level-headed when he dips into subjects other than sports. (His interviews are always good, too!)