Elisabeth Hasselbeck Supports Gays in the Military

Airhead faux-conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck of ABC’s anti-male hag-fest, “The View,” isn’t just about outing Federal Air Marshals to Islamic terrorists. She also supports allowing gays to be out in the open in the U.S. military, because–she claims–it’s all about their ability to “be free.” See the video below and see how many times she and fellow ditz Meghan McCain use the word “like” (hint: so many times, it could be a great drinking game). She’s for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which would be a big mistake.

Um, no, our military is about defending our country, not about gays’ ability to be free inside a military organization. It’s about keeping the rest of us free. There are many freedoms soldiers give up to serve. And not allowing free and open homosexuality in the military is about the cohesion of the unit. It’s the same issue with women in the military, especially in places like ships, where whole ships of military chicks need to be sent home at taxpayer expense because they end up pregnant. Straight men in the military don’t wanna be sleeping next to guys who wanna sleep with them. But the thought hasn’t occurred to Ms. Vacant. Nor thought, period.

What you do in your bed and behind closed doors is your business. But what you do in tight quarters on the taxpayer dole with everyone watching isn’t. It’s not just everyone’s biz, it’s a national security issue. Bret Stephens has a great column in today’s Wall Street Journal about gays in the military and responds to many argument the libs put forth. At the same time, he also discusses how it hasn’t hampered the Israeli Defense Forces to have openly gay soldiers. (But we’re not Israel, even if both are liberal western democracies.) It’s a pretty good analysis, even if I don’t agree with all of it.

via debbieschlussel.com

I'm wondering what stat leads "The View" to the idea that the military wants this? Shouldn't they at least reference this information for the rest of us who don't have an inside track of what is going on? They just made this up and expect us to all nod our head and agree. forget the politics here and just think about what kind of shoddy information is being distributed here. it isn't just an oops moment. They just spoke for all of the armed service men. the best analysis on sexuality to this day still remains in Freud's pen because he never had the presumption to control the experiment like Gloria Steinem's friends do. he merely wrote down the experience and that is why Freud is still useful today. it is why Freud is still talked about... even when he is wrong. These people on this TV show think their "VIEW" is their opinion. Your "VIEW" starts with what you see, not how you interpret what you saw. My personal take is that, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a disaster. I differ with Sarah Palin who pardon my French doesn't have any balls to say the reality that sexuality in the military doesn't mix. does anyone remember Abu Gharaib? the social left condemns Abu Gharaib, but was not that a homosexual act in the military? Nothing like that ever surfaced before and photography is one hundred years old. this is mass sexual hysteria. It isn't like Gay people are financially burdened as an segment group either. It is the straight men that really need the military for financial reasons... not that affirmative action should lead decisions, but still considering the amount of meat and potatoes guys out of work, this is unfair. just because there are gay men in the military already doing well for themselves doesn't mean they are not hurting people around them. Funny the way everyone is so keen on diversity and tolerance, but you can't respect difference until you understand what different is. I love gay people. I respect them as well. I want to see them do well, but I don't want to be naked in the same shower with them. women don't want men looking at them naked, but most ladies in the Blue States are trying to force gay men into the military. It is so wrong. The military is a team effort. being able to shoot a gun well is not as important as contribution to the team. No skill is as important as the team. the team gets demoralized by sexuality. In the end... it comes down to the majority of the military to decide. they are the ones to sacrifice their lives and they should be honest with what they want and what they are thinking about. Perhaps it is better to allow the military to do what was working before they became sexually confused. we used to win wars with the good old boys.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Elder of Ziyon: What a difference a caption makes

The same event, as seen by by Reuters and AP. Reuters: An undercover Israeli police officer (R) scuffles with a Palestinian youth suspected of throwing stones while trying to detain him during clashes in the Shuafat refugee camp in the West Bank near Jerusalem February 9, 2010. Clashes erupted between Palestinian stone-throwers and Israeli police that entered the refugee camp, a Reuters witness said on Tuesday. AP: A Palestinian rioter tries to grab a weapon from a plain-clothes Israeli police officer, right, during clashes in Shuafat refugee camp in east Jerusalem, Tuesday, Feb. 9, 2010. Palestinians scuffled with Israeli security forces, after an arrest operation triggered clashes in the camp the day before. In Reuters' version, the Israeli is the aggressor. In AP's, we learn that the Palestinian Arab is trying to grab a weapon - presumably to use it on the policeman. In Reuters' version,the Arab is a "youth." In AP's, he is a rioter. In Reuters' version, the fighting just spontaneously "erupted" on Monday. In AP's more accurate version, an arrest operation prompted Palestinian Arab violence. Reuters, not surprisingly, relied on an Arab stringer for its description of the events. Let's look at the stones being hurled, shall we?That concrete block, dropped on a person or through a windshield, could easily kill someone. And here is what a much smaller projectile looks like upon impact with a human head, luckily protected by a helmet: This is the kind of "non-violent resistance" that the man of peace, the moderate Mahmoud Abbas, is encouraging.

via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

The Vicious Babushka: Zionists Capture Michele Bachmann's Brain, Take it Out for a Test Drive

At a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Los Angeles last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann offered a candid view of her positions on Israel: Support for Israel is handed down by God and if the United States pulls back its support, America will cease to exist.

The Republican Jewish Coalition is the same organization that recently hired former Sen. Norm Coleman. Bachmann’s appearance on Feb.1 is part of a whirlwind of national events for Bachmann in February. Next up: she’s keynoting the Take Back Washington North Dakota event in Bismarck this Friday night.

Read more at Minnesota Independent.

via viciousbabushka.com

Israel Matzav: Taheri: Forget stopping the nukes and change the regime

I've been reading up on Mousavi. Essentially the guy is to the right of the present government. He wants to decentralize things. but in 1978 Mousavi's hero was Che Guevara and he still remains in the Leftist mythology. So while he is a reformer his loyalties are not to freedom. He claims to of been influenced by Gandi, but I see few signs of this beyond the fact that his people are getting beat up. As far as foreign policy Mousavi seems more hostile to outsiders then Mahmoud.

Amir Taheri argues that the world should take its collective eye off the nuclear clock and try to promote regime change in Iran. On the other hand, he makes it sound like regime change is inevitable anyway.

While it is difficult to predict the behaviour of a regime drunk on its own apocalyptic rhetoric, the “Chinese solution” is unlikely to work in Iran. Mr Khamenei and Mr Ahmadinejad are incapable of uniting the ruling establishment in the same way as Deng Xiaoping was in 1989. Nor could they rely on political machinery such as the Chinese Communist Party.

More importantly, they cannot be certain about the loyalty of the regular Army, which has suffered immensely under the Khomeinist regime, while the Revolutionary Guard could split into several factions. At the same time, the regime is also facing mounting opposition from the Shia clergy that could sap the basis of its claim to legitimacy. During the past few weeks, more than a dozen top ayatollahs, including some close to the regime, have publicly broken with it, warning against any bloody repression.

The history of Shia-ism is full of schism provoked by political disputes disguised as religious differences. Today Khomeinism faces the risk of becoming yet another isolated fanatical sect such as the Akhbaris, the Heydaris, the Nematis and scores of other long-forgotten factions.

The regime has already executed two pro-democracy activists and sentenced nine others to death. These actions, designed to terrorise the people, appear to have had no effect as all opposition groups are vowing to continue the struggle for an Iranian republic.

For the first time in 30 years, a substantial segment of Iranian society, perhaps even a majority, is prepared for a democratic experience. Today the mood in Iran is very much like the one that made possible the Constitutional Revolution of 1906, and the creation of the first democratic parliament in the Muslim world. Rather than chasing the illusion of stopping the nuclear clock in Iran, the outside world should take greater notice of the clock of regime change.

I have two problems with Taheri's scenario. First, while I'm happy to see regime change happen (could a new regime really be worse than the current one?), I'm not sure it can happen in time to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Second, while a democratic Iran might be more reasonable, I have seen no indication that it will abandon Ahmadinejad's dual quests for nuclear weapons and to destroy Israel. Many analysts have argued that no Iranian will give up the pursuit of nuclear power as a matter of national pride and many other analysts have argued - with no concrete basis - that a replacement regime would be less inclined to act as a nuclear threat. But we have heard very little about this from the revolution's leaders or from the Iranian people. In fact, if anything, Moussavi is even more gung ho on becoming a nuclear power than is Ahmadinejad, and I have heard no indications from the 'street' that they are disavowing his position.

From that perspective, I'm indifferent to whether there ought to be regime change. We have to stop them from going nuclear regardless.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

BINGO! give the man a prize. Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh is just as hostile to the international community.

The Muqata: Couple Stranded at Ben Gurion Airport? I Doubt it.

The JPost describes a couple that came to Israel for a visit...implying this was a pre-Aliya pilot trip. Things went south very quickly for them...or so it seems.

Let's read this article:

Miami couple marooned at Ben-Gurion; Wife miscarries in airport; husband claims debt result of mistaken identity.

read the rest via muqata.blogspot.com