Alan West is awesome and I am thrilled to say is from Florida. A black Republican Congressman from Florida, which is saying something, for many reasons.
There are few things we disagree on but decreasing the size of our military I cannot agree on. Without a robust military we will become a second-rate nation like every European nation, which not coincidentally are overrun by Muslims intent on imposing Sharia law.
Of course, you will probably have your wish in part with the repeal of DADT. Guarantee the best and brightest will be running from coerced co-habitation with homosexuals.
The justifications for a Big Military are IDENTICAL to the ones for Big Education.
While I think government education should be completely eliminated (or pushed back to the town level)....I only would like to see the standing armies cut back, in headcount and in spending, 30%.
CNut, We CAN'T do defense on a local level. We SHOULD do education on a local level. BIG difference.
I would be interested in reading your post on the identical reasons for both.
I think Anne is correct about the end result of the repeal of DADT. However, it is not because a man is afraid to cohabitate with a homosexual. A real man has compassion for those in need of direction in their life. It is because of the instability of the individual so confused about the most fundamental aspect of his identity. There are men who are not confused about their sexuality but who are just as unfit for military service due to some other intrinsicly disordered ideation.
DADT means someone can serve without condoning homosexuality. It's repeal will require those who serve to accept it as "normal". This is impossible for any man with an ounce of natural reason let alone the Holy Spirit. It will also mean no more Catholic priests, since no real Catholic can call a disorder something normal nor ignore the sin of acting in any way intentionally toward that disorder. It will be the death of the military. Not in capacity to fight, but in the capacity for moral right.
I agree with part of your observations in that, the next thing that will come down the pike is disciplinary action towards any service member who speaks out, IN ANY WAY, against homosexual behavior (or for that matter even the repeal of DADT). This is what the homosexual agenda is about: first: acceptance, then: silencing dissent of any kind even if that means jail time for those who say homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle. It has already happened in this country (in Philadelphia specifically if I remember correctly).
I disagree though with the assertion that service members will not object to cohabitating and all that entails. One report I heard today said that as many as 40% of Marines will leave (when their enlistment is up of course) because of the repeal.
One thing that escapes most people is that decisions about sex have spiritual consequences. Whether that is looking at porn, frequenting "gentlemen's clubs," having sex with a prostitute, having sex outside of marriage - whether pre-marriage or while you are married to someone else, and homosexuality - ALL of these actions have spiritual consequences and they are all negative. On the other hand, abstinence until marriage and monogamy within marriage also have spiritual consequences - positive ones.
Those that have voted for this immorality do not understand what they have done.
8 comments:
Yeah, Lt. Col. West is Flarda 22's new rep and a Tea Party guy.
I think that Obama refers to those people as RAAAAACISTS!!!!!!!
Alan West is awesome and I am thrilled to say is from Florida. A black Republican Congressman from Florida, which is saying something, for many reasons.
He rocks.
Oh Captain! My Captain!
I hope this guy stays alive.
What are you talking about "warmongering"? Seriously? You sound like some guy whose favorite movie is Beaches or something like that. :0)
uh, not the Normandy beaches.
DU,
Anyone who's first and foremost recommendation is not that the military be drastically reduced in scope and size is, IMO, a de facto *warmonger*.
Then we can talk about changing tactics and whatnot.
CNut:
There are few things we disagree on but decreasing the size of our military I cannot agree on. Without a robust military we will become a second-rate nation like every European nation, which not coincidentally are overrun by Muslims intent on imposing Sharia law.
Of course, you will probably have your wish in part with the repeal of DADT. Guarantee the best and brightest will be running from coerced co-habitation with homosexuals.
Anne,
The justifications for a Big Military are IDENTICAL to the ones for Big Education.
While I think government education should be completely eliminated (or pushed back to the town level)....I only would like to see the standing armies cut back, in headcount and in spending, 30%.
Maybe I'll write a post on this...
CNut,
We CAN'T do defense on a local level. We SHOULD do education on a local level. BIG difference.
I would be interested in reading your post on the identical reasons for both.
I think Anne is correct about the end result of the repeal of DADT. However, it is not because a man is afraid to cohabitate with a homosexual. A real man has compassion for those in need of direction in their life. It is because of the instability of the individual so confused about the most fundamental aspect of his identity. There are men who are not confused about their sexuality but who are just as unfit for military service due to some other intrinsicly disordered ideation.
DADT means someone can serve without condoning homosexuality. It's repeal will require those who serve to accept it as "normal". This is impossible for any man with an ounce of natural reason let alone the Holy Spirit. It will also mean no more Catholic priests, since no real Catholic can call a disorder something normal nor ignore the sin of acting in any way intentionally toward that disorder. It will be the death of the military. Not in capacity to fight, but in the capacity for moral right.
DU:
I agree with part of your observations in that, the next thing that will come down the pike is disciplinary action towards any service member who speaks out, IN ANY WAY, against homosexual behavior (or for that matter even the repeal of DADT). This is what the homosexual agenda is about: first: acceptance, then: silencing dissent of any kind even if that means jail time for those who say homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle. It has already happened in this country (in Philadelphia specifically if I remember correctly).
I disagree though with the assertion that service members will not object to cohabitating and all that entails. One report I heard today said that as many as 40% of Marines will leave (when their enlistment is up of course) because of the repeal.
One thing that escapes most people is that decisions about sex have spiritual consequences. Whether that is looking at porn, frequenting "gentlemen's clubs," having sex with a prostitute, having sex outside of marriage - whether pre-marriage or while you are married to someone else, and homosexuality - ALL of these actions have spiritual consequences and they are all negative. On the other hand, abstinence until marriage and monogamy within marriage also have spiritual consequences - positive ones.
Those that have voted for this immorality do not understand what they have done.
Post a Comment