Archive for September, 2010

Dodging a Bullet

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

The nation dodged a bullet today that could have been fatal.  By a vote of 56 to 43, the Democrats failed to achieve cloture of Senator McCain’s filibuster of the Defense Authorization Bill that included the repeal of DADT.  Three Democrats joined all the Republicans.

Allowing homosexual activity in the American military would break it.  Evangelicals and other social conservatives make up a very disproportionate percentage of our all volunteer forces.  Forcing them out by making repudiation of their faith a condition of service would make an all voluntary service impossible.  Returning to a draft would be politically impossible.  The outcome would be a small European style military not capable of real fighting, and the end of America as the dominant world power.  This assessment is supported by over 1,000 retired flag and general officers.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick

The elites are committed to advancing the homosexual political agenda regardless of its impact on the military.  The Washington Times reported that Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, an Army officer in charge of personnel matters, last month told several hundred troops in Germany that “these people opposing this new policy (open homosexuality) will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out.  No matter how much training and education (indoctrination and brain washing) of those in opposition, you’re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.”  (Note: the General has denied saying this but the Times stands by its story)

Race and gender are morally neutral and immutable biological characteristics.  Homosexuality is habituated immoral conduct which  can be overcome, albeit with difficulty.  Strictly speaking there is no such thing a “gay people,” only people habituated to this conduct.  Comparison of prohibitions of such conduct to racial discrimination is a clever marketing strategy, but is without scientific foundation.

(James Webb, D-VA, voted for cloture, i.e., for repeal of DADT.  The mising Senator?  Lisa Murkowski, the Senator from Alaska who just lost her primary to a Tea Party guy and is running a write in spoiler campaign.  Interesting)

Building Mosques and Burning Korans

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Here are a few thoughts on the two big current flaps over Islam.

One Moslem guy with $10,000 in the bank wants to build a $100 million mosque near Ground Zero, a building no non-Moslem will be able to enter.  He says the reason is to “promote religious understanding.” It’s not meant to be a victory symbol or anything.  With a line like that, maybe he can raise the money by selling Mayor Bloomberg the Brooklyn Bridge.

I think this guy should have the same right to build his mosque as Christians do to build churches in New York City, which is to say, almost no right at all.  The Greek Orthodox St. Nicholas Church which was destroyed at Ground Zero nine years ago still can’t get a permit to rebuild.  The tiny Bronx Household of Faith has been fighting the city for 15 years for the right to rent vacant public school space on weekends.  The City says that allowing filthy Christians in their public buildings would violate the sacred Constitution that allows Moslems to build mosques on our graves.

Another guy, a pastor in Florida with thirty people in his congregation, wants to burn a Koran on 9/11 because Islam is “of the devil.”  Everyone from General Petraeus on down is saying he shouldn’t do it, because if a tiny church in some backwater burns a Koran, millions of Moslems all over the world will go nuts and kill Americans and local Christians.  Well, doesn’t that kind of prove the guy’s point?

And if he wanted to burn an American flag instead, wouldn’t all of the people condemning him be standing up for his free speech rights?  And what if some patriotic Americans went nuts over his threatening to burn the flag and threatened to kill a bunch of other people in protest?  Would anyone consider that an understandable response?

(The right answers:  Private parties should be able to build churches and mosques on private property with minimal restrictions.  Public property should be rented to religious and non-religious groups on equal terms.  The Moslem guy should not build the mosque there out of respect, but probably will because he means it as a symbol of triumph.  The pastor has a legal right to burn the Koran as a publicity stunt, but should be ignored.  Islam is of the devil, as are all non-Christian religions, but Christians don’t go picking gratuitous fights.  “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Romans 12:18.  The wisdom now is to try and split the radical and non-radical Moslems, not unite them.)