Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Cutting Law-abiding Servicemen While Reinstating Law-breaking Ones

The news that the Defense Department will reduce its combat readiness and uniformed services by tens of thousands over the next few years (the Army alone may cut its active duty force by 70,000 – 80,000 Soldiers) is old news.

And it’s old news that tens of thousands of Servicemen who have fought in the various wars of the U.S. over the past ten years will be separated (voluntarily and involuntarily) sooner than they had planned. The Defense Department is unapologetic about this. The Army Times reported that the Sergeant Major of the Army (the top enlisted Soldier in the nation) had essentially said that he only wants to keep the best Soldiers.

I found the decision to cut the Armed Forces cynical in light of what the anti-morality forces told us before they repealed morality (read: DADT) from the Armed Forces. They told us that we had to stop removing sodomites from the Armed Forces because we desperately needed their skills during two (actually more) wars. Looks like we were chumps.

But I find the decision to cut the Armed Services even more cynical now that I witness leftist activists working with the Department of Defense to give sodomites preferential treatment—including those who broke the law when same-sex relations were illegal.

Obama Only Supports Some of the Men and Women Who Wear the Uniform of the United States

Last year, the President of the United States accused Republican audiences of booing ‘gay’ soldiers. People disputed that accusation and others noted that even if it did occur, Republicans and conservatives shouldn’t apologize for it since we don’t accept the premises that the left sets:

Nevertheless, Republican candidates and pundits quickly said that they should have stood up for the sodomite soldier. The Army Times also covered Obama’s remarks on the incident:

“You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient,” Obama said during remarks at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization.

Flash forward to the present day when Obama and Biden welcomed anti-American entertainer PSY. PSY wished a slow and painful death on American Troops and their families.

The rampant hypocrisy doesn’t matter, though. Even had PSY not issued a non-apology apology on his anti-American ways, the fact is, no one cares when someone rages against non-sodomite Troops.

Therefore, while Obama claims that the commander-in-chief has an obligation to stand up for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States—“even when it’s not politically convenient”—he actually only believes in supporting sodomites and other certain individuals within the Armed Forces.


Susan G. Komen-ing the Boy Scouts

Donations to both the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Charity and Planned Parenthood reportedly increased in an approximately 72-hour period last year after Komen announced that it intended to reduce funding of Planned Parenthood. That announcement was quickly rescinded because the left quickly denounced Komen for considering reducing the amount of money it would give to Big Abortion (even as the planned decision had nothing to do with abortion).

And while many people have covered just how ugly this leftist attack was, no one noticed a critical part of this important leftist victory: they succeeded in getting conservatives to fund their cause.

While it is likely impossible to say for sure who was responsible for the reported increase in donations to Komen during the approximately 72 hours last year, it is reasonable to assume that conservatives would have been largely responsible for it.

And if that was indeed the case, the end result of the fiasco was that not only did the left haul Komen back to Big Abortion, but it gained access to all the money that conservatives had donated to Komen during that brief time.

In other words, by Komen momentarily appearing to have changed to a position that was seemingly suitable to conservatives, the left was able to get conservatives to fund one of its own groups.

The left will use this tactic (or a variation of it) successfully in the future. The Boy Scouts of America might be the next notable victim of a variation on this tactic.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Leftists Reveal That They Would Be Brutal in War against Americans, Unlike against Foreign Terrorists

After over a decade at war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world we have refused to defeat our primitive enemy despite our overwhelming military superiority, including nuclear weapons. In fact, our primitive enemy has defeated us with mere guns and other small arms.

Yet as the left continues with its jihad to confiscate our firearms, it persists in insisting that the Second Amendment is obsolete, and that our firearms wouldn’t allow us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical U.S. government which has nuclear weapons and other advanced weaponry.

So what leftists apparently are saying is that while they successfully ensured American defeat against Islamic, foreign terrorists (armed only with rudimentary weapons) by insisting that we fight a “humane” war (no nuclear weapons, restrictive rules of engagement, submission to our enemies’ culture, etc.), they expect that no such quarter will be given to us.

Leftists will wage total war against us if given the opportunity. This is telling and shows just how evil our leftist enemies are.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Leftist Subversion Tactic

Mike Adams wrote a column last month called, “A Queer Need for Rejection.” In it he wrote:

But homosexual politics is not about logic. It is about end results. Activists need to be subjected to ‘discrimination’ in order to advance their cause. So they join conservative Christian groups they do not like, engage in advocacy they know offends and disrupts the group, get kicked out of the group, and then claim to have been discriminated against. Finally, they lobby for stronger anti-discrimination rules that put them on a par with blacks and women. . . .
. . . After they join the group they don’t want to be in – and deny the stated principles of the group they never agreed with – the unable-to-coexist homosexual activist goes to the administration with a complaint. When the Christian group is expelled from campus under the anti-discrimination clause people ask ‘Why did the Christian group have to expel the homosexual?’ Stated another way, the question becomes ‘Why can’t Christians coexist with homosexuals?’
In the end, the homosexual activist has made the group whose very existence he refuses to tolerate look intolerant. Another public relations victory!

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Attacking the State Department and Rice

Partisan voices attacked the State Department and a black, female, U.S. government official by the name of Rice regarding a State Department incident involving a “death sentence” for State employees forced to work overseas.

A political party, its pundits, and its supporters then cheered these partisan voices.

Only this story didn’t happen in 2012 over the attack on the State Department installation in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the deaths of four Americans.

Instead, this story happened in 2007 over the announcement that the State Department would possibly require some of its employees to do their job in Baghdad, Iraq.

And the black, female, U.S. government official named “Rice” was then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and not U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice.

Furthermore, the partisan voices in 2007 were attacking a Republican administration.