Exploiting the Power of the Military Experience

December 1st, 2007 by xformed

Welcome, any Lizards who stop by to critique my work!

I had a brief moment of clarity (at least I’ll call it that) yesterday, while listening to the talk shows once more going over the General Kerr issue at the Republican debate this week.

Here it is: The Clintons (past administration, and the one to maybe come) realize something about the military experience, and are intent on using it for that very purpose. I submit this is wrong. Yes, it’s a social experiment they are after. Why? Because that has been the very power of the organization in history.

I have blogged a lot about the society changing work of Eleanor Roosevelt, not directly, but through the stories I have put here about Ben Garrison, and other African-American units that served our nation well in WWII, and then allowed the true integration of the Armed Services, ahead of the general population.

The Tuskegee Airmen are well known. Add to that the USS MASON (DE-529), Subchaser PC-1264, the 761st (“Black Panther”) Armored Battalion and the 555th (“Triple Nickel”) Parachute Battalion. These units, set up by President Roosevelt, showed these men could fight for the country just as well as another other able bodied man in the US.

One thing about race: Throughout history, there has never been any doubt about whether you are born that way, or it is something you chose. This is the big disconnect we are facing. The jury is still out on which it is for homosexuality. Political pressures and the MSM would have you believe there is no choice about it. The “scientific evidence” is sketchy and from small sample sizes, so, at best inconclusive. There are those who, having lived the “life style” will adamantly tell you it’s a “nurture” thing, and you don’t have to be that way, others will say those people, like Andy Cominsky, have been “brainwashed.” I’ll say, that the discussion on the reasons for being homosexual being debated now, have only become a topic of public debate and concern in the last few decades. That, in my book, smacks of someone trying to make something factual that is not.

Here’s one of my observations of the scientific community in recent times: On one hand, they will regale you with tales of the long suffering individual, driven by a revelation, suffering public and peer disdain for years, and then, the “discovery” comes that completely vindicates them, and they are elevated from the ranks of the dregs of the community, and placed on high pedestals! They become revered and followed. Later, some small voice comes forward and says “I don’t think that’s it.” The scientists attack that impetuous one, who would challenge…but, the cycle repeats. At some point, the theory of the youngster is found to be more correct (those two words chosen specifically), the elder is de-throned, at the worst, or provided a place of honor for having provided some insight, at best, and the history of science continues.

On the other hand….the “scientists,” almost without taking a breath, will launch into a discussion of how. let’s say Darwin, is 100% correct and there is no need to revisit the “theory” of evolution any more, IT IS SETTLED!

I see the current discussion on the condition of being gay as the second case, even while there is much to be looked at with true scientific discipline, untainted by any groups desire to elevate themselves to a special status, above the “all men are created equal” measurement.

Toss the entire “Global Warming Climate Change” issue in with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution model of “it’s that way because a POLITICIAN told me” category. Side note: Yeah, I waited all those months just so I could evacuate before the many Cat 5 hurricanes headed to the “plywood state” and they never came….

Now, back to the topic: Bill Clinton went for it first with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a political payback for a voting block that went his way in 1992. It was a realistic compromise to get elected, with nothing to do with National Defense. Since end of the draft in 1971, the military had been an all volunteer force. There were adequate numbers of people enlisting. The DADT had nothing to do with abandoning a previous organizational ban, so we could put more manpower into the fight. We weren’t in a fight, and the Clinton Administration was drawing down the military as fast as it could.

Using the totalitarian management structure of the military, Bill Clinton, as the Commander-in-Chief, had pretty much Carte Blanche to make it happen, including the power to place his leadership at the top of the military to make sure they went along. That is the prerogative of any president, and I’m not faulting him for using the system in place, but I would argue about his motivation to repay a political debt, not to strengthen the military.

Thus began the change, were, as an analog to the service of the minority units in WWII, and the later full integration into service life by President Truman, it became a lever to show the general populace a better way to handle our social interactions. In that case, once more, I’ll point out it was over a matter of a fact of true, scientifically understood heredity.

Now, along comes Hillary. If she is to attain the office of President, she will most likely declare openly gay people will be allowed to enter the service. Why? Once more, to illegitimately use the power of the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to return a political favor for getting the gay vote.

What does that say about her (and Bill’s) view of the Armed Services? Those organizations, setup in The Constitution, to “provide for the common defense” are nothing more that dating services. Join the service and get to shower with people, without having to ask their permission. In any other part of society, doing so would have one arrested for a sex crime. It’s all about consent.

The only reason it is important is to get to power by promising access to the homosexual community.

What about the years of training the military has gone through, trying to prevent “fraternization.” That became an issue with the massive infusion of women in the service, and the incredibly deep rooted human desire for sexual contact. Why didn’t the military want this, even among heterosexuals? It makes for difficult, and many times impossible, decision making moments, where the leadership needs to be scrupulously fair. Sometimes that “fairness” needs to be played out in terms of making sure who you send to a dangerous situation is being done for the right reasons, and not because you are in a relationship with someone in your unit.

Adding openly homosexual people to the already PCed military environment is just one more obstacle to good order and discipline, which is detracted from by raging hormones left unchecked.

Once more, the “here’s your orders, now get on with it” methodology has the near term possibility to just making it more palatable for the military to take on more of the social interaction phenomena, rather than being focused on combat readiness. Maybe they see it as an offshoot for the “busy gay ‘professional,’ who doesn’t have time to set up a full time relationship.” Yeah, that’s the ticket – Join the military and let everyone around you in the barracks know you’re “like that” and let the shy ones come to you.

One thing this plan doesn’t include, is respect for the people, who joined the military to serve the nation, and not as a dating service, who do not want those who are sexually attracted to them staring at them in the head facilities.

At least DADT offers the gay person the opportunity to serve and all they have to do is take their “relationships” off base. The same is actually expected off all the other service members already. The reason a DADT policy for heterosexuality isn’t necessary is because the vast majority of all humans aren’t homosexual and therefore it would be pretty ridiculous to tell them not to say what their sexual preferences are. They don’t do it now. It wasn’t part of their enlistment contract and it serves no organizational purpose.

The only purpose of the Armed services are to serve the people by defending them. If that’s what someone wants to do, then keep it zipped. It’s expected of everyone. The UCMJ has all the “rules” and it applies to all in uniform.

And, don’t forget that the Democrats all want to scream and yell about the “waste, fraud and abuse” of the DoD. How about we begin to add up all the costs for the course development, the manpower and facilities, the contractor fees, and the hows spent byt real troops sitting in classrooms getting lectured on being sensitive and not using certain words. Can someone explain how that helps the US military defend the nation better? I’d like to hold that “metric” up for the “you’re wasting our money crowd and see what they have to say.

Here it is: The Clintons (past administration, and the one to maybe come) realize something about the military experience, and are intent on using it for that very purpose. I submit this is wrong. Yes, it’s a social experiment they are after. Why? Because that has been the very power of the organization in history.

I have blogged a lot about the society changing work of Elanor Roosevelt, not directly, but through the stories I have put here about Ben Garrison, and other African-American units that served our nation well in WWII, and then allowed the true integration of the Armed Services, ahead of the general population.

The Tuskegee Airmen are well known. Add to that the USS MASON (DE-529), Subchaser PC-1264, the 761st (“Black Panther”) Armored Battalion and the 555th (“Triple Nickel”) Parachute Battalion. These units, set up by President Roosevelt, showed these men could fight for the country just as well as another other able bodied man in the US.

One thing about race: Throughout history, there has never been any doubt about whether you are born that way, or it is something you chose. This is the big disconnect we are facing. The jury is still out on which it is for homosexuality. Political pressures and the MSM would have you believe there is no choice about it. The “scientific evidence” is sketchy and from small sample sizes, so, at best inconclusive. There are those who, having lived the “life style” will adamantly tell you it’s a “nurture” thing, and you don’t have to be that way, others will say those people, like Andy Cominsky, have been “brainwashed.” I’ll say, that the discussion on the reasons for being homosexual being debated now, have only become a topic of public debate and concern in the last few decades. That, in my book, smacks of someone trying to make something factual that is not.

Here’s one of my observations of the scientific community in recent times: On one hand, they will regale you with tales of the long suffering individual, driven by a revelation, suffering public and peer disdain for years, and then, the “discovery” comes that completely vindicates them, and they are elevated from the ranks of the dregs of the community, and placed on high pedestals! They become revered and followed. Later, some small voice comes forward and says “I don’t think that’s it.” The scientists attack that impetuous one, who would challenged…but, the cycle repeats. At some point, the theory of the youngster is found to be more correct (those two words chosen superficially), the elder is de-throned, at the worst, or provided a place of honor for having provided some insight, at best, and the history of science continues.

On the other hand….the “scientists,” almost without taking a breath, will launch into a discussion of how. let’s say Darwin, is 100% correct and there is no need to revisit the “theory” of evolution any more, IT IS SETTLED!

I see the current discussion on the condition of being gay as the second case, even while there is much to be looked at with true scientific discipline, untainted by any groups desire to elevate themselves to a special status, above the “all men are created equal” measurement.

Toss the entire “Global Warming Climate Change” issue in with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution model of “it’s that way because a POLITICIAN told me” category. Side note: Yeah, I waited all those months just so I could evacuate before the many Cat 5 hurricanes headed to the “plywood state” and they never came….

Now, back to the topic: Bill Clinton went for it first with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a political payback for a voting block that went his way in 1992. It was a realistic compromise to get elected, with nothing to do with National Defense. Since end of the draft in 1971, the military had been an all volunteer force. There were adequate numbers of people enlisting. The DADT had nothing to do with abandoning a previous organizational ban, so we could put more manpower into the fight. We weren’t in a fight, and the Clinton Administration was drawing down the military as fast as it could.

Using the totalitarian management structure of the military, Bill Clinton, as the Commander-in-Chief, had pretty much Carte Blanche to make it happen, including the power to place his leadership at the top of the military to make sure they went along. That is the prerogative of any president, and I’m not faulting him for using the system in place, but I would argue about his motivation to repay a political debt, not to strengthen the military.

Thus began the change, were, as an analog to the service of the minority units in WWII, and the later full integration into service life by President Truman, it became a lever to show the general populace a better way to handle our social interactions. In that case, once more, I’ll point out it was over a matter of a fact of true, scientifically understood heredity.

Now, along comes Hillary. If she is to attain the office of President, she will most likely declare openly gay people will be allowed to enter the service. Why? Once more, to illegitimately use the power of the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to return a political favor for getting the gay vote.

What does that say about her (and Bill’s) view of the Armed Services? Those organizations, setup in The Constitution, to “provide for the common defense” are nothing more that dating services. Join the service and get to shower with people, without having to ask their permission. In any other part of society, doing so would have one arrested for a sex crime. It’s all about consent.

The only reason it is important is to get to power by promising access to the homosexual community.

What about the years of training the military has gone through, trying to prevent “fraternization.” That became an issue with the massive infusion of women in the service, and the incredibly deep rooted human desire for sexual contact. Why didn’t the military want this, even among heterosexuals? It makes for difficult, and many times impossible, decision making moments, where the leadership needs to be scrupulously fair. Sometimes that “fairness” needs to be played out in terms of making sure who you send to a dangerous situation is being done for the right reasons, and not because you are in a relationship with someone in your unit.

Adding openly homosexual people to the already PCed military environment is just one more obstacle to good order and discipline, which is detracted from by raging hormones left unchecked.

Once more, the “here’s your orders, now get on with it” methodology has the near term possibility to just making it more palatable for the military to take on more of the social interaction phenomena, rather than being focused on combat readiness. Maybe they see it as an offshoot for the “busy gay ‘professional,’ who doesn’t have time to set up a full time relationship.” Yeah, that’s the ticket – Join the military and let everyone around you in the barracks know you’re “like that” and let the shy ones come to you.

One thing this plan doesn’t include, is respect for the people, who joined the military to serve the nation, and not as a dating service, who do not want those who are sexually attracted to them staring at them in the head facilities.

At least DADT offers the gay person the opportunity to serve and all they have to do is take their “relationships” off base. The same is actually expected off all the other service members already. The reason a DADT policy for heterosexuality isn’t necessary is because the vast majority of all humans aren’t homosexual and therefore it would be pretty ridiculous to tell them not to say what their sexual preferences are. They don’t do it now. It wasn’t part of their enlistment contract and it serves no organizational purpose.

The only purpose of the Armed services are to serve the people by defending them. If that’s what someone wants to do, then keep it zipped. It’s expected of everyone. The UCMJ has all the “rules” and it applies to all in uniform.

And, don’t forget that the Democrats all want to scream and yell about the “waste, fraud and abuse” of the DoD. How about we begin to add up all the costs for the course development, the manpower and facilities, the contractor fees, and the hows spent byt real troops sitting in classrooms getting lectured on being sensitive and not using certain words. Can someone explain how that helps the US military defend the nation better? I’d like to hold that “metric” up for the “you’re wasting our money crowd and see what they have to say.

Anyhow, a vote for Hillary is a vote to actually turn the US Armed Forces into a sexual experimentation labs of epic proportions and combat efficiency be damned. Not because a law says so, but because her character will allow her to do it, and the vote gives her the power. What sexual preference/proclivity/perversion will next gain the favor of Hillary and therefore be made “legal” in the military to gain some more votes?

I’d prefer the method they used when they started to vilify smokers in the late 80s: If any one person in a space objects to smoking, then no one can. How about we apply the same principle here for people who think they joined the military to fight for the country, and not to be ogled by gay people?

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pm and is filed under Military, Military History, Political, Stream of Consciousness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 responses about “Exploiting the Power of the Military Experience”

  1. Exploiting the Power of the Military Experience said:

    […] post by xformed This was written by . Posted on Saturday, December 1, 2007, at 11:16 am. Filed under […]

  2. Dating A Military Man said:

    Howdy Expert, I fell lucky that I located this post while browsing for dating a military man. I am with you on the topic of iting the Power of the Military Experience – – It’s not random, it’s CHAOS!. Ironically, I was just putting a lot of thought into this last Friday.

Copyright © 2016 - 2017 Chaotic Synaptic Activity. All Rights Reserved. Created by Blog Copyright.

Switch to our mobile site