Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy

In Anthony's "America How Much Do You Know" Blog, he talks about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy.

The theory behind this policy is that if you join or are in the military and you are gay, you shouldn't tell  anyone and no one should ask. Over time I have learned that policies and rules are made as a reaction of something else being done; meaning someone did something and someone else (with power) made a rule. Reactions only lead to more reactions in politics. Needless to say the policy is being reviewed because a group of people disagreed.

The real question apparently seems to be "Is the military ready to allow them in?"  According Anthony the Pentagon Study found 71.9% of service members thought the repeal would have mixed or no effect' while 6.8% said positive and another 21.2% said negative. This research seems to promote the repeal. It seems it  really shouldn't matter. However Anthony also found in that same study that when troops were asked how it would affect them only 52% said there would be mixed or no effects on their units or tasks. Overwhelmingly 48% said they would treat gay soldiers differently.

Initially when I read this blog I wanted to go to the defense of repealing this action for the benefit of equality of the gay population. However research cannot be denied. 48% of anything is a lot! Almost half of the troops today say they would treat their fellow soldier differently! WOW! I can almost appreciate the fight against the repeal now. Before limiting yourself to the mere accomplishment of more rights for gay soldiers, you must open your eyes and get full perspective. If 48% of your co-workers say they would treat you differently because you're gay...and your job description may include operating heavy artillery....more than the safety of these soldiers might be at stake.
To my understanding the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy has been passed by the House and President Obama. Anthony says the next big question is "How long before the policy takes effect?" Defense Secretary Robert Gates is stressing the military needs time for training, preparation and necessary education before the policy takes effect. While I agree with Anthony and Gates that the military needs time, I must say that it doesn't matter how much time or preparation they take. I can only see one of two possible actions. 1) You treat the military as the work place. Understanding some subject matters are sensitive. Sexual orientation does not affect the job and doesn't need to be known to complete your job. Or 2) You wait for another Reaction....

When have you said too much?... When should you say more?...

Everything has changed in society today; The way we communicate, the way we access information, how we travel, how we eat. Thirty years ago we couldn't go to a computer and speak to our loved ones in another country. There was a time when we couldn't check a movie time, reserve dinner and get directions on the way, all on our phones. We live in a time of selective enlightenment. Thanks to time and technology we now have so many more options. Yet it seems the more options we get, the more we abuse the rights given to us.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There are so many cases in courts today that stem from someone giving their opinion. Unfortunately, we don't always share our opinions with tact and it results with greater consequence sometimes. For example,  Snyder v. Phelps.  The background of this case begins with a Baptist Church picketing the funeral of a dead Marine, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The signs openly said "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" or God Hates Fags." After court battles fought by the Marine's father, Albert Snyder, the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals overturned the decision of the lower courts, which awarded them $5 million dollar judgement for tort liability. The reasoning behind the judgement in this case is that the "Freedom of Speech" clause of the First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." To add insult to injury, the ruling not to grant Snyder legal recourse led to him having to pay the protesters $16, 510 for the cost of the appeals...So as it stands now, it seems Phelps is off the hook. However there is an exception to this rule when the person or group actively promotes and incites violence or panic. Hate speech, which is speech against a ‘protected class’ based on their race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or age” as governed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Thankfully this is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Let's be real! If this has gone this far and this long without what seems like to us the obvious judgement that should have taken place.... We live in a sick country! Supreme Court shouldn't have to deal with issues that can be resolved with a simple question shared among the common man. Whatever I am doing or about to do... "Would I want you to do that to me?"
When has too much been said, with disregard for respect of your neighbor? When will more be said as it regards you? Take the ruthless approach that Fred Phelps has taken and direct that energy towards issues that may have more weight! We can change the world!

"Hey! Try Thinking Before You Speak...or Act"

“Hey , try thinking before you speak…or act!” or “What in the world were you thinking when did that?” is what my parents  would always ask me when I did something that contradicted the morals our family stood for. In  Hanna’s Blog she gives an excellent example of real life consequences that take place when we “run off at the mouth.” She talks about how a former Arkansas School Board Member was making insulting and bias slurs against the gay population. 

I totally agree with Hannah and the intention of her post. No one, no matter how important, popular or loyal should speak without thinking. Doing so can cause contradiction in opinion and job position, not to mention (for politicians) followers that question their decision to put you in office.  It is never acceptable; whether you are Clint McCance, Paul Paladino or the next American Soldier. Thinking before you act or speak is a basic principal that should not have to be discussed with adults. It’s among the simple things you learned in Kindergarten. Anybody who confuses what she was saying with the freedom of speech premise should read again and reconsider what was being said. Freedom of Speech is about protecting us from the government being able to control what we say and believe. That’s why we have clauses about the media or several cases that show our Supreme Court ruling in favor of an American burning a flag. Our soldiers fight for our continual freedom against other countries. 

While nothing is really free, it should be understood that there was a price. Our forefathers paid this in the war against the British. We gained “the freedom of speech right” when they won and decided to steer our country. However there is maintenance that is required. I am sure our forefathers did not risk their lives in their attempt to properly navigate America, for us to have insulting and degrading “freedom of speech” to our fellow Americans.

I was once taught that when debating, if the common goal between the two parties was not to educate as an end result, get out of it. Well I propose the same thing to America when it comes to “Freedom of Speech.” If the common goal behind your opinion is not to spark thought, draw ones attention to a problem, or overall enhance, Shut up!

What is our National Religion?

The US National Religion

The question is often asked “What is the US National Religion?” or “Do we have a national religion?” Some reply that we do not have one; while others say it’s Christianity. I plan to show that we do have a national religion and it does contradict our freedom.

Before getting too deep into this there are points to consider to understand this topic. One, we live in a country that defends the freedom of religion. Our Constitution clearly states that government cannot enforce religion on anyone. Two, Religious beliefs will vary the way you see regulations, laws and politics. Take the subject of abortion… Need I say more? And three, our country may contradict itself any and every time that it says we DO have freedom of religion.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, religion is an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices. That definition describes Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and most other known religions. Religions have characteristics and practices that define them. They  have congregants,  hiearchy,  traditions(ceremony and rituals), a code(practices), reward and punishment, a symbol  and they have a text or a scroll to reference…So does the United States Government; It has a following or congregants, you and I. The government has hierarchy, the house of reps, the President. It has traditions, like the star spangled banner being played before every game, it has  symbols like the American flag. There is a code of practices and a text to refer to, that would be the constitution. Did I mention it has ways to generate “Offerings?”

Who would have thought that America would protect your freedom of religion while indirectly forcing one down your throat. As long as you are in the US you will practice certain ways and abide by the law (code), (or you will deal with punishment). You will pay taxes (offering). You will take your hat off during the national anthem (traditions). You will respect and follow the proper chain of command (hierarchy). And when it comes to your rights you will refer to the constitution (text).

Yes, our constitution protects our right to worship anyway we want.  But does our country really understand the consequences of freedom of religion while living in the US. That is what it generally comes down to. Generally speaking Christians disagree with abortion, while another religion may believe it is the mother’s choice.  There is a long pipe line that this has to travel through, but you can get the big picture that if there is an election and abortion is the topic of matter votes began to get swayed. Generally speaking there is another can of worms that’s opened when dealing with issues, candidates and personal beliefs.

There is so much freedom our country gives, but there is a valuable amount of compromising that is required of you.

Homosexuals or Violence

     An editorial in The Washington Post from October 12, 2010 headlines “Politicians Help Fuel Climate of Hate Against Gays and Lesbians.” I don’t know about you, but that kind of title definitely catches the eye. In this editorial the author reaches every anti-republican, homosexual and gay rights activist and joins them all together. 
The story is replayed of how two 17- year-old boys and a 30 year old man were kidnapped and sexually tortured in the Bronx because they are gay. While this bit of information is heart wrenching and sickening at the same time, it doesn’t began to compare to the statement of Republican governor candidate, Carl Paladino, made in a speech he gave on Sunday.
     “That’s not how God created us… I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally and valid successful option—it isn’t.”—Carl Paladino(The Washington Post)


     While I have my own beliefs as to how life was intended to be when it comes to the subject of homosexuality, I do not have the right to imply or assume that “my children and your children would be better off ” if they weren’t homosexual. However the author does ask a challenging question. “Where do bullies get their ammunition, the hurtful slurs that eat away at the self esteem of those who are gay or lesbian?” “One source,” he says is politicians like Carl Paladino.


     I agree and disagree with the author here. I agree that it not only shows your bias as a republican candidate, it also shows your lack of maturity and respect for human life. If republican candidate Paladino was the father of one of the 17 yr olds  would he have the same beliefs ? Or would he be a bit more understanding(hypocritical)?  
While I also don’t believe that God created us to be attracted to the same sex, I do believe that the same God was grieved by what happened to those three gentlemen.
     I disagree that politicians are one of the greatest sources of fuel for these hate crimes. I believe the media is the mafia king in the light of these crimes. From cop television shows to newspaper articles like this one, the media helps the idea of these crimes develop for some and give ammunition for others. Why are we concerned with homosexuality being a way of life while violence has proven to take life? We are not talking about Hussein's or Bin Laden's beliefs vs America's beliefs! Those were harmful to the point of death. We are talking about a sexual preference. We all have our own opinions as to how things are supposed to be. What we DO NOT HAVE is the right to harm one based on their lifestyle choices (especially if it’s not a matter of life and death).

Troops or Democrats?

"What kind of commander in chief sends tens of thousands of troops to war announcing in advance a fixed date for beginning their withdrawal? One who doesn't have his heart in it. One who doesn't really want to win but is making some kind of political gesture. One who thinks he has to be seen as trying but is preparing the ground -- meaning, the political cover -- for failure."---Charles Krauthammer

Bloggers in the Opinion Article from The Washington Post Mr. Krauthammer argues that President Obama is heartless when it comes to "The War of Necessity". He also argues the President "is simply a foreign policy novice who didn't understand what this war was about until being given the authority and duty to conduct it -- and then decided it was all a mistake."
Referencing writings from Bob Woodward's new book, he lays a foundation that continually points fingers back to Obama and the Democrats. He leaves one to believe the agenda of the War of Afghanistan was all about the democrats and their position of power during the time of Obama ordering 30,000 troops....He believes it was all "hype"!
According to Bob Woodward Obama admits he cant lose the democratic party. While acknowledging the Democrats were the same party that supported John Kerry and Obama in boldly declaring the Afghan War was the right war, (in two separate presidential campaigns) , he also further defends his position that Obama is faint after assessing the war. The same party who said the war was necessary, is the same party who Obama knows he cannot take with him if he stays in this war.

Mr. Krauthammer does an excellent job of doing more than just "addressing the issue", he challenges you to question if Obama will even try to take the Democratic Party with him, if he has no "Exit Strategy"?

Votes or Religious Freedom?

Obama began a rolling ball of snow back on August 13th. The huge debate regarding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposed mosque and cultural center two blocks from the tragic 9/11 site continues to grow. Obama makes the statement. "Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country, and that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan." Initially a CNN Poll found that 68% of Americans disapproved of the mosque location (www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/15/obama.islamic.../index.html). Almost a month later new polls show only 44% disaprove. In addition,  the Quinnipiac University National Poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe that the Muslim group has the right to continue with building the Mosque.
While many polls focus on Obama and his reach for better relationships with muslims in other countries, you cant help but wonder if this is in exchange for American votes.

Bloggers check out this article.  http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Obamas-Mosque-Comments-Fuel-Controversy---100969249.html

http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2010/9/13/new-poll-shows-obama-ratings-down-as-mosque-controversy-ling.html