Posted on 11/07/2010 12:15:43 AM PDT by Rastus
I don’t have to surrender because I am both an economic elitist and a globalist.
That is exactly what I meant.
It’s Gate’s job to take the stand on this. And it is Congress’ job to squash this kind of interference with the military.
The Constitution is exceptionally clear.
If some Federal Judge can upend DADT, where does it stop? Can they dictate what caliber bullets are used? Can they make them take Prius tanks into war? Can they affect the military code of justice? Can they declare or undeclare wars? Can they decide that the military system of ranks is somehow unequal and unfair?
There’s a reason why the military is kept separate in the Constitution. They exist to defend us and to defend the Constitution, and they cannot be made subject to the whims of judges, the whims of any one politician, or the whims of some popular mob.
This whole issue is a wedge designed to ferret out bigots among conservatives so they can point at them, twist the issue, frame the argument to their liking and ultimately to accomplish their silly, short-sighted, often-changing, and ultimately destructive goals.
I won’t fall for it.
And to hell with anyone who calls me a troll for taking a stand on it. I am standing with the Constitution. I will not compromise on the Constitution and will spill blood for it.
Exactly, this judges' decision does not take into account that it is Congress' job to regulate the military for VICTORY ON THE BATTLEFIELD. The survival of the nation is at stake. That's why the military discriminates against fat people, females, flat-footed people, those with diabetes, and those with physical and mental infirmities.
We do not have a wheel-chair brigade for a damn good reason.
Recently, the Center for Disease Control REFUSED to allow gays to donate blood. And this is to civilians. And it's for a good reason: gays are notoriously exposed to a huge variety of blood-borne germs that make their blood dangerous.
Yet this clown of a judge thinks that's OK for our troops. Not OK for civilians, but OK for the troops. And just where does this judge think that military units get their transfusion blood when the blood bank runs low?
In short, the Congress must make a military decision aimed at victory in war and it must not be muddied by any other concern about equal opportunity, social engineering, and the best guests at the liberal think-tank dinners.
If judges can tell Congress how to regulate the military in this, then they can tell them to choose F16s over F22s, AK47s over M16s, and pontoon boats over aircraft carriers. I'm sure they could use the commerce clause to justify all of the above.
Zackly.
DADT was a clever work-around. It was presented as an Executive Order, and it didn’t say gays cant serve. It just said, “I don’t wanna hear about it.” And this is perfectly acceptable in that once in the military you no longer have individual rights as civilians do. Why? Because we need to have discipline and cohesion to win battles and wars. No other reason.
Gays serve. I respect anyone who serves for their service, regardless. I have known drunks and wife-beaters and all kinds of people who were just wrong in their personal lives who served. Outside of their service, they still get judged for who they are and what they do. Inside the terms of their service, they are to be judged by their performance of their service.
So is the gay issue really the issue at hand? No. The Constitution is the issue at hand.
Were there gays serving in Washington’s army?
WHO CARES?
If we want to maintain this republic, we must maintain the rule of law. In this country, that’s the Constitution.
Gates in unelected and can’t be tossed except to toss this administration when the time comes.
Until then, Congress needs to be motivated, and other members of the military community - inside and outside the bureaucracy - to assert the proper jurisdictional rules.
Getting mad at gays in this case is stupid. It’s the trap the left has set for us. It’s easily avoided. The Founding Father’s left us very clear instructions. They fought for it with everything they had.
We deserve to honor that if we want to earn the legacy they left us...Not for the sake of tradition or patriotism, but simply because it’s right.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I was thinking that my good FRiend xzins was right and that I just misunderstood you, and then I read this:
Gays serve. I respect anyone who serves for their service, regardless. I have known drunks and wife-beaters and all kinds of people who were just wrong in their personal lives who served. Outside of their service, they still get judged for who they are and what they do. Inside the terms of their service, they are to be judged by their performance of their service.So is the gay issue really the issue at hand? No. The Constitution is the issue at hand.
Were there gays serving in Washington’s army?
WHO CARES?
I'll tell you who cares, CONSERVATIVES care about the demoralization of our military. CONSERVATIVES also care about the radical homosexual agenda that is being forced upon America and Jim Robinson has made it very clear that Free Republic WILL NOT be used to further that agenda.
If you want the military to be forced or shamed into recruiting at gay pride parades and have homosexuals driving what is or not acceptable as far as attitudes in the military then repeal it. You will have men and women discriminated against and forced out of the ranks because they don’t like open homosexuality in the ranks and that will be far more expensive than the small number of gays who can not or will not keep their private life private who are expelled currently. This is about using the military as a social re-education camp so that all those poor stupid kids from red states can be brought into line with liberal social orthodoxy. They already have the colleges are we now going to degrade military to the level of Berkley?
Because of the blood issue mentioned above, I do not want gays serving in the military, period. So, the truth be known, I supported the old policy and not DADT. Dadt is just a compromise that makes the military a restrictive place for gays to serve.
The blood issue is a battlefield issue. It makes them a detriment in combat.
I don’t want any detriments in combat.
I don’t want quarterbacks with torn acl’s on my football team, and I don’t want gays in my military.
The purpose of the military is to WIN. That’s harder to do if you’ve got a group of guys running around infecting, potentially infecting, and ruining morale among the troops.
DADT didn’t ban gays. The DADT undid the ban on gays.
The Constitution is the issue at hand. This judge, Gates, Obama, and yes, this congress is complicit in the furthering of the gay agenda.
I am not.
I will repeat myself one more time for your benefit. The Constitution is the issue - not because gays can or can’t, should or shouldn’t serve. The Constitution is the issue because the Rule of Law is the issue.
I have no desire to further the gay agenda. I abhor the gay agenda.
But your refusal to see that the Constitution as taking primacy over your personal agenda is something I find personally disgusting.
I have said Gates is wrong. I have said the Judge is wrong. I have made it clear I oppose the homosexual agenda. What you seem to be missing is this is a Federal Judge using the fact that the homosexual agenda exists as the means to exert undue influence over the military in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
If you really want to win this argument you have to decide whether or not you side with the Constitution or not. You have to decide whether you agree to the Dem’s premise of special treatment for special groups - the premise that there are special groups. You have to decide whether or not you support rule of law or your own personal agenda.
Where do you want to stand?
Your position puts you in the cross-fire between the bigots on both sides.
You want to prevent the demoralization of our military, then you understand that the DOD needn’t dignify this by doing anything other than telling that judge to go read the Constitution and STFU. There was no jurisdiction there. You want to do more? Motivate those in Congress who actually do have the jurisdiction to fight for the side of what’s right.
Or you can continue to cast misplaced aspersions at me.
Your choice, bucko.
I am not.
Then why did you say "WHO CARES"?
I will repeat myself one more time for your benefit. The Constitution is the issue - not because gays can or can’t, should or shouldn’t serve. The Constitution is the issue because the Rule of Law is the issue.
The issue on THIS THREAD is Gates trying to allow homosexuals in the military.
But your refusal to see that the Constitution as taking primacy over your personal agenda is something I find personally disgusting.
Which is something that I have NEVER done. Moreover, my opposition to militant homosexualism IS NOT a "personal agenda," it is an integral part of conservatism.
I have said Gates is wrong. I have said the Judge is wrong. I have made it clear I oppose the homosexual agenda. What you seem to be missing is this is a Federal Judge using the fact that the homosexual agenda exists as the means to exert undue influence over the military in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
Yet you have applauded what Gates is doing.
WAW
Since Sep 17, 2010
Welcome to FR....
What was your previous screen name?
We have been around the block enough to recognize stealth support of the homosexual agenda by focusing the attention of the issue on some other topic, as you’re doing.
Nice Machiavellian move by Gates.
Since Obama and the Democrat Congress and that judge essentially spiked the Pentagon’s personnel review and study, Gates is calling Obama’s and the Democrat Congress’ bluff in the upcoming lame duck session.
He’s miffed, the Marine General had the guts to come out against it, the rest of the JCS are mouthing the right PC words, while the attitudes of the officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen are up for debate.
Now, will Obama and Nancy and Harry have the guts to ram repeal through?
The Briar Patch awaits, lol.
Stealth support my azz...
You refuse to hear me, that’s fine. I’ve been here a long time and will be here a lot longer...
If you don’t see how undermining the authority of the military to conduct its affairs by the judiciary not only weakens our military but also and I daresay more importantly undermines the Constitution and the Rule of Law, then I daresay you have forgotten what you are fighting for.
Either that or you are very easily confused.
Implying that the Constitution is secondary to the Creator. I think this is where this 'conflict' on the topic is premised...
Yes, the Constitution is being trampled upon by the leftist judges and politicians intent on limiting individual liberty and accumulating power...
HOWEVER, the Constitution is premised upon the Creator -specifically, what all individuals are endowed from Him.
One can not truly uphold and argue the merits of upholding the Constitution while at the same time dismissing its very premise as irrelevant, a secondary concern, or a bigoted position...
You've been here since September 17th, thats seven and a half weeks which is hardly a long time.
So, what are your other names? I presume that your statement about being he a lot longer means that you plan to continue to rejoin.
If you don’t see how undermining the authority of the military to conduct its affairs by the judiciary not only weakens our military but also and I daresay more importantly undermines the Constitution and the Rule of Law, then I daresay you have forgotten what you are fighting for.
The issue on this thread is the FACT that Gates wants to allow homosexuals in the military. All of your posts about the courts are fine, but it still has nothing to do with the FACT that Zero and Gates both want homosexuals serving openly in the military.
Either that or you are very easily confused.
You seem to have perfected the trollish habit of personally attacking anyone who stands up for conservative principles.
I don’t either.
The fact of the matter is that gays exist and currently they serve. Treating them special...Treating certain behaviors as special...is anathema to the way the military needs to treat them to impose discipline to maintain effectiveness.
DADT - fought against that when that debate came around the first time too...
But we lost that one.
We live in this world.
The next step in the fight it seems naturally would be to maintain the status quo of DADT until the next step can be taken. Because Gates gave us the preview of the next step. No ban, not just no DADT.
The next step in the fight is to get Congress to act and to put this little court back in its place - if they are to have any credibility at all on this issue.
Waiting for Obama and Holder to do it...Ha! Laughable.
Waiting to see the Supreme Court do it...Are you sure you want to see that outcome and establish that precedent? Just asking. You don’t know what you’re gonna get.
How long has DADT been operative? Since Clinton...So, going on 20 years now. Its not like gays just showed up in the military yesterday. (Hence the joke about Washington’s army...) The real question is what are we gonna do about it?
The health argument is a good one to make. It presents a clear and present danger.
The Constitutional argument should hold more weight...but I say should...because its been a long time since Congress has shown it the respect it deserves.
The gays shouldn’t serve because they’re gay argument...Much harder to be persuasive. Not that its incorrect, not because there aren’t very real issues with separate housing, logistics... not because there aren’t certain very real obstacles to making it happen, not because it’s inaccurate in any way...but much less persuasive because there’s a lot of room for emotion and nuance and other means for the Left to place their wedges.
It’s much more clear cut on a Constitutional basis.
And of course, we can elect congressmen and congresswomen and hold them accountable...
We can’t do that with federal judges. We can’t do that with the Sec of Def. And in 2 more years of this regime, precedents will have been made, institutional changes will have been made to accommodate this policy...and it will be much harder to undo later.
Better to look for the best conservative arguments now and place them in the hands of those who can make a difference...
I have not had another name. I have been lurking for several years now.
You seem to think gays just started joining the military yesterday.
Gays exist. Gays serve.
We lost on the DADT argument 20 years ago. This is the world we live in now.
So seriously, what is the best way to reverse this as soon as possible?
I contend it’s to smack that Federal Judge across the face with the Constitution and have her disbarred.
I also contend its in conservatives motivating their Congressmen elected representatives to act - since they have obviously abnegated their duties. We have recently shown we can hold them responsible. This is just one issue among many that contend for their attention. We need to make the best arguments possible and you can’t assume that your representative already agrees with you. You have to make that one best argument.
When you understand conservatism well enough to give me lectures on it, I’ll be the first one in line, I promise.
Rule of Law goes much further back than your temper tantrums.
Really? You live in a time warp?
WAW Since Sep 17, 2010
And you didn't pick up on the fact that we oppose the homosexual agenda?
You seem to think gays just started joining the military yesterday.
Gays exist. Gays serve.
Oh yes, the ever-present "they're going to do it anyway, let's just legalize it" libertarian talking point.
We are a nation built on the rule of law. Laws are passed and when they are broken we have police, courts and prisons to deal with it, we do not legalize a behavior just because people are breaking the law.
We lost on the DADT argument 20 years ago. This is the world we live in now.
Not if we fight it.
So seriously, what is the best way to reverse this as soon as possible?
I contend it’s to smack that Federal Judge across the face with the Constitution and have her disbarred.
How is this going to stop Zero from issuing an executive order based on the recommendation of Gates? How is this going to stop Congress from allowing homosexuals in the military?
As an aside, making a bad ruling IS NOT a reason to remove a judge from the bench through impeachment and it in no way is grounds to have someone disbarred.
I also contend its in conservatives motivating their Congressmen elected representatives to act - since they have obviously abnegated their duties. We have recently shown we can hold them responsible. This is just one issue among many that contend for their attention. We need to make the best arguments possible and you can’t assume that your representative already agrees with you. You have to make that one best argument.
NONE of which stops an executive order.
When you understand conservatism well enough to give me lectures on it, I’ll be the first one in line, I promise.
I've seen NOTHING from you that indicates that you have any notion of what genuine conservatism is.
Rule of Law goes much further back than your temper tantrums.
Oh? Earlier you said it was the "world we live in."
Is Gates gay or bi?
Then why did you say “WHO CARES”?
Levity.
It was an attempt to de-escalate with humor.
But there was another point to it. Gays didn’t just start signing up yesterday. And whether or not gays served in Washington’s army...Well, I’d rather not know about it.
To that extent, I agree with DADT.
I fought it when it came around the last time...And we lost.
So, there have got to be better arguments to be found. If right is right, then right will find the way. Finding and making the best arguments is the way I see - finding them and putting them in the hands of those who can actually affect change.
I think Gates is merely taking advantage of this situation. He found this issue thrust into his lap and he’s making his move for whatever is next. He has chosen to see how well he fits in with this administration.
He’s wrong on policy, but that’s not all he’s wrong about. I don’t think they trust him anymore than he trusts them.
This is your personal agenda if you don’t see the big picture. Much more integral to the principles of Conservatism is Rule of Law and the Rights of the Individual. The gays in the military issue is a much more ancillary issue. If you want to make the changes you seek you need to find the best arguments and make ‘em...and make ‘em heard by the people that count.
If you can’t convince me, then I promise you, you are not going to be convincing to General or a Senator. You will find your whining falls on deaf ears.
You have decided to make this personal and that also makes it part of your personal agenda.
You need to decide which side you’re on. I’ll give you my personal copy of Liberty and Tyranny if you think it will help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.