Don’t ask how much it costs to repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’

The Daily Caller ^ | May 31, 2010 | Ilario Pantano

[American Cabalist]

Ilario Pantano, former USMC officer and current candidate for Congress in NC-07 leaves no doubt about where he stands on DADT. In fact, he doesn't just have an opinion based on his combat experience, he accuses standard-bearer Congressman Patrick Murphy of selling his military oath for hard Leftist special interest money - he names names AND amounts! He charges hard as a Marine ought!

After Jack Murtha, another Pennsylvania all-star, made an art form out of shoving our troops under the bus for his own career, I never thought I’d live to see what Congressman Patrick Murphy has just done: a neatly bundled vote wrapped in the flag with a camouflage bow on top. And a price tag.

From the four-star Commandant of the Marine Corps on down to squad leaders, real fighting men everywhere are screaming from the tops of their lungs that repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) now is a mistake. Even proponents like Secretary Gates have urged caution and delay, but Pelosi and her government-hijacking pirates found the perfect pocket patriot to lead their charge into this Memorial Day weekend.

While our nation mourns its soldiers and those of us who have survived are left to console the grieving families of our brothers, I am seeing red at what I believe is Murphy’s violation of a sacred trust. He spearheaded legislation to further a liberal agenda that is funding his campaign, at the expense of our military readiness. In uniform and in the Congress, you swear an oath to defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Where in that oath is the price ‘negotiable’?

[Tzimisce]

Cost = our diginity.

That expensive enough?

[eyedigress]

Just tell me how screwing a guy in the butt is normal? This Country is getting messed up fast.

[CitizenUSA]

OK. The homosexuals are selling this as a civil rights issue. If you want to see what they intend, simply look at the black civil rights movement.

No. I don’t equate perverts with blacks. What I’m saying is, look at the black civil rights movement and expect homosexuals to try to enact similar policies: affirmative action, hiring quotas, preferential government contracting, federal legislation banning discrimination against homosexuality, hate crime laws, diversity education, etc.

[Eagles6]

You nailed it.

[dalebert]

lol and dont forget the quota promotions..

[pnh102]

Of course this boils down to leftist notion that everything should be "fair."

Consider the 2 following scenarios... if you believe that being gay is something people are born with, that they have no choice in the matter, then you can add that to the list of other such in-born conditions that the military considers to render someone unfit to serve.

On the other hand, if you believe that being gay is simply a choice in conduct, then guess what? The military, as we know, already disallows all sorts of conduct, even if it is consensual.

With these 2 conditions in mind, I'd like to see the evidence provided by the advocates of this policy change that our military would be more effective at what it does with the policy change in place. If it could be show, credibly and irrefutably, that the military becomes more effective at its function with gays serving openly, then by all means study the policy change. Otherwise, reject it. The last thing we need is a military that is less effective.

[American Cabalist]

This article leaves no room for wishy-washy wiggling on the part of mythical Blue Dogs. Why do we even keep pretending that Blue Dogs exist? They won’t stand for anything, much less actually FIGHT for what’s right! They need to be fired for uselessness, and replaced with principled men and women who will FIGHT for conservative values.

Pantano leaves NO DOUBT what he’s fighting for.