« | »

Senate Puts Open Homosexuality In Army

From a victorious New York Times:

Pfc Bradley Manning.

Senate Ends Military Ban on Gays Serving Openly

By CARL HULSE
December 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — Capping a 17-year political struggle, the Senate on Saturday cleared the way for repealing the Pentagon’s ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military.

By a vote of 63 to 33, with six Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate acted to cut off debate on a measure that would let President Obama declare an end to the Clinton-era policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which allows gay members of the armed forces to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. The vote indicated that there was easily enough support to push the measure to final passage.

The vote put Congress at the brink of a historic moment that some equated with the decision to end racial segregation in the military.

Only in the minds of the homosexual obsessed Solons of the New York Times.

It followed a review by the Pentagon that found little concern in the military about ending the ban and that was backed by Pentagon officials as a better alternative to a court-ordered end.

Which we certainly believe. Just like we believe ‘man-made global warming.’

Backers of the repeal said it was long past time to end what they saw as a discriminatory practice that cost valuable personnel and forced troops to lie to serve their country

Yes, we can’t wait to see recruitment shoot up and the US military become all the more effective. Which, of course is of paramount importance to the New York Times and the rest of the Democrat party.

“I don’t care who you love,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as the debate opened. “If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn’t have to hide who you are.”

Mr. Wyden showed up for the Senate vote despite saying on Friday that he would be unable to do so because he would be undergoing final tests before his scheduled surgery for prostate cancer on Monday

What heroism. In fact, we haven’t seen such heroism since this time last year when the House passed ‘healthcare reform.’ Let’s hope those who vote for this repeal face a similar fate come November 2012.

At least we know of five RINO Republicans who should be on the chopping block. Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (Ohio). The last, of course, is already on his way out the door.

Still, they should rename this the ‘Bradley Manning Act,’ as a memorial to his noble work.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, December 19th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

31 Responses to “Senate Puts Open Homosexuality In Army”

  1. rakkasan says:

    Gays see repeal as a civil rights milestone
    “It’s one step in a very long process of becoming an equal rights citizen,” said Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., who served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under the policy. He said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is abolished. “Even though this is really huge, I look at it as a chink in a very, very long chain,” he added.

    Me: I am glad it is repealed, because I am so sick and tired of hearing about it. Gays in the military, gays in the military, gays in the military. I thought that getting it out of the way would allow the gays to perhaps talk about our aging tanker fleet or whether or not we need an additional engine for the F-35. According to this article (the url was very long so I didn’t want to clutter up S+L) turns out I was wrong. It is going to go on and on and on about things I don’t even know about yet. But I am sure I will find out.

  2. bill says:

    Repealing a Clinton era law is a civil rights issue???

    These people are weirder than thought.

  3. beefeater says:

    Now if we just make weed legal the entire MOONBAT base can stay home next election.

  4. canary says:

    There won’t be an insurgence of gays joining the military. And just because they are allowing gays doesn’t mean Warren Aubrey will be allowed to reenlist. He had to have done something sexually obscene or disorderly to have been kicked out. Maybe painted some gay slogan on military property.

    It wasn’t broke and didn’t need fixing.

    If these same degenerates could be their energy into getting something worthwhile for our U.S. military and country, like technology to detect explosives that a killing and maiming people & children.

    It won’t be fuel that will burn and destroy the earth. It will be explosives. Imagine the billions & billions of dollars Obama & his global freaks are putting into green, when it’s not priority in the world being attacked by some lame Mohammad smoking heroin in a cave, who never performed a miracle, and couldn’t get out of a tomb.

  5. U NO HOO says:

    Well, now every soldier will have dependents that the military budget will have to support.

  6. robertj says:

    I served 21 years in the Navy and I served with people who were gay. This was in the mid 60’s on a base in the south. Everyone in the unit knew they were gay and it was no big deal. Their sexual orientation did not interfere with their military duties and if it did there were articles in the UCMJ to deal with it. Which, leaves me to wonder how can someone serve and be “openly” gay. It is a violation of the UCMJ to be “openly” heterosexual with another service member under some conditions.

    A section of the law deals with possible changes to the UCMJ before implementation. I think they should keep the don’t ask don’t tell policy in place without the discharge penalty. The UCMJ can still keep proper order and discipline in the military.

  7. tranquil.night says:

    Here come the lawsuits for every fairy that was told to keep their pants legs rolled down.

    For those of you that think this puts gay rights issues to rest for a while, did electing Barack Obama end the race business?

    Victory only fuels their efforts. With this hill taken, they set their sites for the next four. Nothing to do with discipline, fairness, or anything else than corrupting the principles that make our military the most capable force in the world. Simply another anti-American dictate dressed up with the suit of good-intentions and false morality.

  8. proreason says:

    On the outrage scale, this is way behind gay marriage, which seeks to undermine the basic pillar of free societies, the nuclear family.

    There are some concerns though. If will bother many straight troops. Why do we put the concerns of a tiny minority ahead of the vast majority, particulary when the vast majority are regularly risking their lives for us. What a bizarro world this is.

    Second, as tn says, now the gay games can really begin, and begin they will. The entire militiray is about to be inundated with lawsuits of every nature.

    Third, our troopss have always been the toughest sob’s on the planet. Why mess with that? Maybe it’s possible to make a case for women in non-combat roles, simply because they are 50% of the population, but queers? How can you rationally make a case for disrupting morale by making a statement for 2 or 3% of the population, particularly knowing that only a handful of the 2 or 3% (other than lesbians) would be interested in serving anyway. More PC run amok over American lives….this time the bravest lives in the country. What a tragic display of idiocy.

  9. Mr Michael says:

    Okay… somebody PLEASE help me out here:

    Pre-Clinton, the UCMJ was read to say that it was illegal to be a homosexual in the US Armed Forces… and the Military could investigate you, your lifestyle, your off-duty activities in search of proof that you were a homosexual, and once that was found they could kick you out of the Military.

    Then, during the Clinton era, the Congress passed “DADT”, allowing homosexuals to serve in the US Armed Forces IF they didn’t say anything about it… and the Military could not force you to admit it, or investigate you for it. This was seen, at the time, as a major victory for homosexuals.

    Now Congress has REPEALED the “DADT” laws… won’t the laws revert back to the ‘prosecute you for being homosexual’ position? What in the new Law makes it legal to commit homosexual acts? Did they just repeal the Clinton era Law, or did they write new provisions for homosexual activity into the UCMJ?!? I’ve only heard the law referred to as a repeal, but with what I know about the accuracy of the Press, I’m not going to just accept that.

    On the face of it, a repeal of “DADT” will not be ‘good’ for homosexuals… it certainly won’t make it easier for them to serve. Aren’t they now all going to be subject to investigation for their sexual behaviors?

    I’ll admit it: I’m confused.

    • U NO HOO says:

      Back when there was a draft, during Viet Nam, the joke was, the drill sergeant says if you want to stay out of the army because you are gay, well we’ll just step around the corner and you can prove it.

      MMM MMM MMM

      Boggles the mind. No one wanted to be drafted, now some are clamoring to get in. Oh wait, the military provides a government check.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:

      Mr. Michael, I hope I can clarify a little.

      DADT is a section of the military legal code that empowers command to separate people who have publicized a homosexual identity. It is not clear what will replace that section of the law, because what they passed in Congress is a provisional authorization for the President and the DOD to work together on the implementation of the repeal.

      There is Article 125 of the UCMJ which outlaws anal and oral sex of all kinds, but that’s probably going to be rewritten.

      They are probably going to to repeal the Clinton era law and move the discharges that would normally be honorable under DADT into less flattering chapters involving mental illness or even misconduct.

      I have written a few posts arguing that the repeal of DADT will likely prove a bad thing for gay men, though probably not lesbians. In the Pentagon survey only 15% of gays in the military wanted to tell other people in their unit about themselves in the event of a repeal, and I am sure that 15% has an over-sampling of lesbians. I don’t think they can be investigated aggressively, but with the law repealed it will likely be more common to ask people if they plan to come out as gay in order to organize housing and squads, etc. Also, quite frankly, it is very hard to be gay in a hostile environment like the Army or Marines, where the culture has entrenched animosity toward homosexuals. Most of the DADT discharges involved voluntary self-disclosure by junior personnel who decided it was too hard to be gay in the military environment. Now many of those cases will end up being people who cannot get out of the armed forces and get batted around from unit to unit, posing a suicide risk. Or those people will be chaptered out with unflattering records, possibly an other than honorable discharge.

  10. Anonymoose says:

    One thing I’ve seen in several work environments is there is a BIG difference in their behavior when they’re “out” and when they’re just doing their job. I’ve become convinced most of what they call “oppression” is just having to shut up and focus on their work.

    The military is a different place and I don’t think there will be as much of a change in the combat units as dissenting behavior of any kind will not be tolerated, but what about support and administration? Any civilian job I’ve been at where they’ve been out in the open it’s been them hiring and promoting their friends, stirring the pot with endless politics and drama, crying discrimination any time there is an issue about their performance, and putting the needs of the company or anyone else second to their own.

    After two decades of gnashing their teeth I wonder how many will now actually sign up, as opposed to going to whatever’s next on their list.

  11. Mithrandir says:

    Historic Historic! HISTORIC!

    Seems that EVERYTHING the Democrats do, is “HISTORIC.” Women on Supreme Court (or gay, or Hispanic) , Health Care, 1/2 black President, gays in the military, …but when Republicans put Clarance Thomas on the Supreme Court, it wasn’t historic, it triggered a lengthy Senate hearing.

    What does SERVING “OPENLY” mean anyway?

    Where is the demarcation between military discipline, and serving openly? Can gay men wear women’s dress blue or dress green uniforms if they want? Hold hands, kiss in public, have sex in the barracks (heteros can’t) wear feather boas with their combat cammies?
    Why not? That is serving “openly isn’t it?.” I can hear it now, “What’s the point of me serving openly if I can’t be who I really am? This is discrimination!”

    Just wait until someone tries to enforce military discipline upon a homosexual! The activists, lawyers, politicians will hammer that person! (perhaps also dragged in front of a committee set-up for show trials)
    Then watch and see every military officer learn from that: “Enforce discipline, and lose your job and retirements benefits.” then see discipline fall off, and ruin the armed forces.

    ~~How much time do you give it? 6 years? 2 or 3 officers get hammered and dismissed, the liberal media keeps it on the air for weeks as a warning to others, then that will be the death blow for the military. –Another institution FINALLY infiltrated, controlled, corrupted by the socialists bent on destroying America, bit by bit.

    “This will endanger our troops!”–The Hillary Clinton line for everything. How about Arabs recruiting against “The Great Satan” because of the acceptable gay policy. Won’t this harm our troops overseas? Where are the front page hysterical investigations and dramatics? Hmm, crickets from the media.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:

      I think serving openly means, in people’s minds, not having to fear for the loss of your job just because you are gay. The problem is that most people misunderstood how DADT worked and the press exaggerated its abuses. DADT removed 13,500 people from the military but the bulk of those were people who self-disclosed in order to get out of the military because they didn’t like it. Had there never been a DADT, it is possible that as many of 11 or 12,000 of those cases would have ended with people who didn’t want to serve being trapped inside the military, undermining missions and possibly hurting others or committing suicide. It was an effective way of routing people who weren’t likely to do well in the military, back to civilian life, thereby saving lives and money. The problem was that there were some horrendous abuses where long-standing servicemembers were fired because of gossip and backstabbing. I blame the military in large measure. Had they not allowed DADT to be abused, then they would have not provided the liberal press with its mill of poster boys for repeal.

    • Petronius says:

      Mithrandir : “What does serving ‘OPENLY’ mean anyway?”

      For reasons which I cannot fathom, if you are gay it is often very important that you be identifiably gay … that you look gay, behave gay, talk gay, dress gay, and BE gay.

      How that will play out in the military is experimental and problematic, and the results cannot be immediately predicted.

      After all, the military is the one place where our individuality is drilled out of us, extinguished, and subsumed into the whole, until everyone (except for insignia of rank or rating) becomes uniform. That’s why they call them, well, uniforms.

      On the other hand, the US Army is the most thoroughly PC and affirmative-actionized institution in the world. As Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. so memorably stated, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy [Fort Hood Massacre] was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

      Therefore, we might expect, for example, that the treatment and promotion of gays will become a factor in every officer’s OER, as it was in the case of MAJ Nidal Malik Hasan’s commanding officer, and as the Army policy currently operates on behalf of other minorities and women.

      But how can you promote a gay unless he is identifiably gay, and is permitted to BE gay?

      As you say, “Where is the demarcation between military discipline and serving openly?”

    • Mithrandir says:

      Rico: I think you are right. Men asking for discharge from the military is precarious (for women, it’s as easy as saying, “I want to go home now” and the paper work is done the same afternoon). Medical, dishonorable, failure to adjust etc is a hard sell, but being removed as “gay” is an easy and expedited exit.
      2. At one time, the military had a reporting hotline, (Narcline we called it) and that included reporting on gay soldiers which I thougt was terribly poor policy.
      3. I saw lesbians (worst kept secret on base) serving without problems, AND I saw flambouant drama-queens drummed out.

      Behavior is the key, if they are serving honorably, leave it alone. If they are dumb enough to challenge policy, then everyone gets what they deserve. What is the policy now? Who knows!

      This DADT reversal is a can of worms b/c the military is about (as Petronis clearly stated) sameness “You privates ain’t black or white–yer all green! –Get it! You ain’t left coast or right coast, your are all brothers!” –Now add a wild uncontrollable variable to the equation, and the military has to recalculate.

      Petronis is right, being “gay” is about symbols, behaviors, dress, tatoos, earrings, speech-code words, gestures, just like other identifyable groups. How can the military strip people of their identity for the sake of unity, without offending and trampling upon gay people’s right to identify themselves as gay, or “serve openly.”
      Interesting conundrum that will be impossible to iron out.

      (Sorry guys, I’m on vacation now, and have to to over-represent myself on here…)

  12. GetBackJack says:

    I withhold judgement for the moment; after all the British Navy ruled the world with rum, sodomy and the lash (to quote Winston Churchill)

  13. artboyusa says:

    There have been gay people in the military of every country in the world since as long as there have been gay people, which is forever. The problem isn’t gay people in the service, the problem is the service being transformed into a laboratory for a social experiment in the name of “equality” which is unnecessary in the first place. The pressure for this legislation doesn’t come from gays in the military who mainly, I expect, just want to get on with their lives and work, the same as anyone else. The pressure comes from progressives who are outside the military and who are removed from the consequences and complications of their actions, which is what progressives do. As long as their agenda is served, nothing else matters.

    • TerryAnne says:

      That’s exactly it! I had a huge debate going on my Facebook page this weekend with an atheist liberal friend of mine who’s been a commissioned officer in the AF for 2 years (compared to my 13 years enlisted). He thinks this is just dandy and that it gives him the right to tell the Christians and Muslims he serves with that they’re bigoted, etc. God forbid me trying to point out that his behavior is the problem. He believes in no religious anything in the military and that he will basically be going on a witch hunt to attack any Christian or Muslim who has a problem with gays. I killed the conversation before I could say anything further. He spent a full day twisting my words and calling me a bigot everytime I tried to put forth a scenario that shows how open gays in the military is a bad thing, and then he wanted to tell me that I need to get out…after I’ve been in 6 times longer?!?! Yes, I’m beyond angry now. I’m actually shaking I’m so mad.

      Anyway, he thinks this type of forced social experimenting is a good thing and that people like myself, who joined the military for patriotism and love of country, should get out and make way for those who think the new rules are rainbows, gumdrops and fairy tales. I tried to tell him that is not the purpose of the military, but he’s above listening to someone who knows more than him.

      This is going to be a huge mess and a huge waste of money…in the middle of a war. New training, new barracks, new everything. Every gay troop will now be the award winners and medal holders, regardless of how poor they perform.

      No one dared think this through and consider the repercussions, simply because they are such overinflated egos that they believe everyone will automatically accept it because they said it. No one has considered that gay men have a higher risk of catching AIDS and what that will do. Nor has anyone questioned the fact that gays have a higher incidence of mental problems and drug abuse. The gays don’t realize they’ve just become an object and that they are now a quota. For that reason, what in God’s name is going to be overlooked so the recruiter can get his gay totals in for the month?

      I’d get out, but I learned something from Ayn Rand: you give up, they win. You continue working and doing the job you love until you physically can’t take it any longer. The fact that this is close to my limit, but not over it, is the reason I should stay in. Plus, when the house comes crumbling down in a few years (when we lose the war and are taken over by radical Muslims), I can walk away.

    • proreason says:

      TerryAnne. Don’t argue with idiots. It can only raise your blood pressure.

      When somebody’s basic assumptions about life differ radically from your own, you can’t possibly have a rational discussion about almost anything.

      It’s like discussing your favorite color with a person who has been blind for life.

      Unfortunately, this is the situation with much of the politics in this country. There isn’t any common basis to compromise from. Finding common ground with somebody who denies your faith, the value of our country, the merits of the nuclear family, etc., just isn’t going to happen. And if they enjoy destructive arguments, which many do, you can’t possibly end up in a happy place.

      Like Rush, I say you can’t possibly persuade them. We have to defeat them.

    • Coco Q. Rico says:

      Hi Terry Anne,

      I did very little time in the Army, but it was at the enlisted ranks and I saw enough to know this is going to be a huge nightmare to implement. I don’t think it will affect lesbians or straight men, but it will wreak havoc on gay men in the armed services because eventually they will lose their privacy AND their option to separate simultaneously. That could only work if you could make everyone in the military suddenly believe in the values of diversity, self-expression, and the rest of it, overnight. Gay men who are noticeably gay face major difficulties in such a masculine environment, and DADT functioned effectively by safely removing them from such a threatening situation.

      Your argument with the AF officer sounds like many of the arguments I’ve had as well. On GayPatriot, for instance, one guy chastised me for having a “dim view” of the military, and he said all fears were allayed by two “facts” — 1) legal adults sign their contracts knowing full well what military life is like, and (2) unit discipline will be overseen by commanders who will ensure that no abuses of gay men will occur.

      I don’t know if he’s an officer, but this sounds like a common attitude from commanders. They don’t generally have a lot of dealings with junior personnel and won’t notice if the gay guy in a squad is being put through mental torture. And the reality of recruiters and MEPS — for God’s sake, that is going to be a nightmare. I posted on my blog a list of things the gay community needs to prepare for, to ensure the safety of gay troops. I listed recruitment as a top worry, because it’s important that people know it’s very difficult to be openly gay in the military and with the repeal, they shouldn’t be sold a false dream and then get trapped in a situation that may end in suicide. An Air Force ex-officer wrote me to object, saying that I was forcing a heternormative standard on gays and blaming the victim. Many parallels ensued to women and people of color.

      Remember that during the DADT debate, the pro-repeal side relied heavily on the stories of officers, esp. Navy and Air Force, who had lost their office jobs because of gossip and intrigue. Those were tragic stories but the realities of enlisted troops got lost. And I fear that this trend will continue as thousands of gay Soldiers and Marines, especially men, sign contracts and end up in the military only to find it is a toxic environment for them. Commanders like your officer friend in the AF will not be very likely to help. They’ll say, “you signed a contract. Too bad.”

  14. Deserat says:

    DADT basically allowed homosexuals to serve *if* they were willing to not ‘flaunt’ their lifestyle. Most commanders had a lot of things to worry about and the DADT was one more thing on their plate to manage via UCMJ. The criteria for proof of homosexuality was quite strict – it had to be proof, no rumors, etc. And, the commander had to have good reason to start an investigation.

    The concept of uniformity and discipline are so very important to the institution of the military. You must be willing to obey a lawful order, even if it means death. You are trusting that the people in the chain of command above you are making decisions that are larger than yourself. If you are unwilling or unable to conform, you don’t have to belong. It is a volunteer organization.

    With that in mind, I believe that the repeal of DADT will be an implementation nightmare—-and I believe that most people don’t understand that because we have so few of our population who have served or are willing to serve. Being the institution it is, the military will suck it up and make it happen, but as to what this means in terms of morale, and mission capability remains to be seen.

    Lastly, I believe this is merely one stop in the agenda of this rich and highly political minority group. By repealing this, they will be looking to ‘normalize’ their lifestyle as well as receive all of the benefits that ‘normal’ society members are entitled to. I use ‘normal’ in the sense of desensitization and movement of the lines underneath the normal curve to include them (in a mathematical sense).

  15. retire05 says:

    Let’s face it; the repeal of DADT was a one-size fits all solution to a very complex problem. The problem of gays in the military.
    Now, let’s be realistic about gays in the military. Most gays are not suited to the military to begin with, but with DADT they could enlist, but if they found out as they aged and matured, that they were gay (most gays do not come out until they’re in the 20s as high school kids usually are concerned about fitting in due to peer pressure) they had an out. They could simply request an “honorable” discharge due to accepting that they were gay (coming out event).

    Soldiers, who discover their homosexuality now, after they enlist, have no out. They will be forced to remain in the military because their sexuality is no longer grounds for discharge and the only way out will be a law suit (enter tort lawyers) claiming discrimination and/or abuse. If they knew they were gay when they enlisted, and signed on the dotted line, they accepted the terms of enlistment which included DADT. Most soldiers have enlisted since DADT was enacted.

    And what about the heterosexual soldiers who feel intimidated by having to bunk and shower with gay men, who may, or may not, be sexually attracted to them? Isn’t that the reason that we separate the men from the women? To avoid sexual harrassment? What guarantee do heterosexuals now have that they are not going to be intimidated, as the military accepts that would happen in co-ed circumstances?

    We have heard that this will bring “eqality” to the military. Well, until women bunk and shower with their male counterparts, we will not have equality. And what about the Americans With Disabilities Act? Will the military (the progressives favorite segment of our society to socially engineer) now have to make concessions for those who are blind, deaf, wheel chair bound? Is it not illegal to discriminate against someone who is handicapped?

    Also, I have read that most military accept this will not harm readiness or proformance. If that is so, why does the military now have to have “sensitivity” training courses to enforce this new regulation? If they are already desensitized, there should be no need for courses teaching our military how to be sensitive to gays.

    This is going to be one bloody nightmare.

  16. Reality Bytes says:

    Reminds me of the One Legged Man Auditions for the Role of Tarzan bit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFoagC5yGY0

    I think I nailed this one (no pun intended).

    It’s a shame! I’ll never look at a Flame Thrower the same way again.

  17. canary says:

    RobertJ. Exactly what I’ve been trying to say, is that gays have had no problems for decades. No one complains. Fraternization in the military of a leader having sex with a subordinate is namely, where the trouble is. And gays who have been kicked out, have done something really wrong that couldn’t be ignored. Our of shame of what really got them kicked out, they blame it on their being gay.

    So, now a can of worms has been opened. I don’t know if lower ranking soldiers will fair better in complaining about gay soldiers who commit lewd acts or sexual harrasment towards them. They still might get sent to a hell hole. I guess if you complain you can now say Lt. Bull Dike has it out for me because she is gay and I refused her advances. Lt. Bull Dike is sexually discriminating against me, because I’m a stereo-typed minority hetro.

    Minnesota Rush posted this link on Sweetness & Light of disgusting behavior by Obama presenting SSgt Sal Giunta with the highest Medal of Honer. We got lost on Obama’s failure to salute.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/claythe1?feature=mhum

    And I checked videos and the handling of presenting the Soldier the Congressional medal of Honor was as it says but worse. Camera on Obama as Staff Sgt. Sal Guinta stood awkwardly alone and off camera.
    Obama’s tongue twisted when pronouncing the hero’s title and name.

    So, any footage of celebrations & party’s in D.C. or over in Afghanistan?

  18. JohnMG says:

    OK. So we now have a policy that is yet to unfold, and the ramifications of which we’ve yet to imagine. But what rankles me is how it came about and why.

    Is there anyone not convinced that this, as well as passage of the school nutrition act and the new restrictions on food and planting, etc, ad nausea, especially by the margins of votes, is an accident?

    Did not the electorate emphatically express a desire for less government, and a less intrusive government? And didn’t Obama seem to cave too easily in making a deal for extending the current tax rates. If you think this is unrelated, I’ve got a bridge to sell. Anyone interested?

    The usual suspects sold us out on this DADT crap. Look at the six Republicans who voted ‘yea’,, then look no further. In exchange for a tax deal we would have gotten anyway, we got………what? And the lame ducks aren’t done yet.

    Yep. We sure showed Obama, didn’t we? Suckers!!

    • Liberals Demise says:

      The sole role of our military is to kill, maim and break things. PERIOD!!
      Politics should butt (pun intended) out of our military because it is not suppose to be open for ‘Social Engineering’.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »