Tag Archives: Robert Gates

U.S. not ready for cold or hot war with Russia over Ukraine

Not only is Obama a disaster in domestic policy, he is an utter calamity in foreign policy and what is being done to the U.S. military.

We can only hope that America can restore itself when this man finally leaves office, although he still has almost 3 more years to inflict even more damage.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Who's behind the Boy Scouts' capitulation to homosexuals?

BOHICA
The news came two days ago that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), with 2.7 million members, is considering changing its longstanding policy against allowing openly homosexual members, according to a news release from the organization.
The Christian Post reports that a representative from BSA, who met with Frank Page, president and CEO of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, said that BSA is “wilting under pressure from some of their corporate sponsors.” In 2010, BSA sponsors included Bank of America, Intel, UPS, U.S. Bank, Verizon and Wells Fargo.
Mark M. Alexander, the executive editor and publisher of Patriot Post, is a Troop Scoutmaster. In a letter Alexander wrote to his son (see below) about the BSA’s policy change, he identifies two individuals on the BSA  national board who are most responsible:

Ernst & Young Chairman and Chief Executive Officer James Turley speaks during a session at the World Economic Forum in DavosJames Turley (l); Randall Stephenson (r)

Letter to an Eagle Scout

30 January 2013
(NOTE: This letter is a response from Mark Alexander to his son, a Cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy, concerning the Boy Scouts of America national board proposal to allow homosexual Scout leaders. Alexander is both a Troop Scoutmaster and member of his area Boy Scout Executive Council.)
I received your note about news of an upcoming proposal before the Boy Scouts of America national board, which meets Wednesday, February 6th.
According to the news release regarding that proposal, “The BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation.” You are correct, the removal of this restriction will permit local BSA Councils to accept homosexual members and, moreover, to invite homosexuals to serve in leadership positions at all levels of the organization.
I understand your profound disappointment in this great organization, after all you accomplished to obtain your Eagle rank. I share that disappointment as your former Scoutmaster, and many years in other leadership positions with the BSA.
A decade ago, when you first joined my Cub Scout Pack, I wrote the BSA’s National Executive Board about concerns regarding advertisers in the Cub and Boy Scouting magazines. The great Scouting stories were wrapped in ads for junk food and video games.
I was struck by the fact that on the one hand, we, as leaders, were charged with encouraging our boys to develop healthy habits for life — and on the other hand, the national organization was serving them a monthly dose of junk food and video game advertising.
The BSA responded that without those advertisers, it would be difficult to fund their glossy publications. I rebutted that this was a “Faustian bargain,” that it conveyed the wrong message in every respect. I heard nothing more from the BSA.
Fast forward to the BSA news this week. In light of all the reports and litigation over the abusive predation on boys by homosexual adults in leadership positions with churches and other organizations, the notion that the BSA is considering lifting its ban on homosexuals holding such positions is mind numbing, stupefying — in fact, shocking.
Now, clearly all homosexuals are not molesters of teens and pre-teens, but where same-sex molestation occurs, homosexuals are almost always the perpetrators. So, why would the national BSA board consider a motion to remove its national restriction on homosexual leaders, and invite avowed homosexuals to fill “select leadership” roles?
Well, for much the same reason the BSA advertised junk food and video games in its national Scouting magazines. The national BSA board includes wealthy corporate executives, who are more interested in dictating BSA policy that comports with their corporate bottom line than with the mission of Scouting. They are completely out of touch with rank and file Scouts and leaders across the nation.
Indeed, much of the pressure to put homosexuals in leadership roles is coming from two national board members: James Turley, CEO of Ernst & Young, and Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, who is slated to become president of the BSA national board in 2014.
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BSA’s ban on homosexuals in 2000, these BSA board members are endeavoring to force their social agenda on 3.6 million Scouts and adult leaders. They want Scouting to comply with their corporate policies, which have adopted the homosexual agenda under pressure, primarily from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the so-called “Human Rights” Campaign.
While homosexuals account for fewer than 3 percent of the population, they have some very loud advocacy organizations.
The BSA also excludes avowed atheists from leadership positions, but David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said, “If they are considering lifting the ban on gays, that’s a good thing. I would hope they remove the rest of the bigotry and admit atheists as well.”
Last summer, the BSA committee charged with conducting a two-year national study and survey on the restrictions against homosexuals, affirmed by “unanimous consensus,” upholding those restrictions. (Did they really need a two-year study to figure that out?) But now, a few corporate execs are attempting an end run around the local councils and all of us who are Scouting’s foot soldiers, and hope for a quick sweep of the board.
So what will be the consequences if the national board approves of this measure?
The national BSA restriction against homosexual members and leaders has provided a cover policy for the 290 BSA Councils across the nation, and the more than 115,000 religious and civic groups under which BSA Troops are chartered.
Abandoning this restriction will move the cultural battlefront to the front door of every council and troop across the nation — including their sponsors and chartering organizations. In short order, those of us who have devoted so many years to the BSA and other character-building organizations for young people, will be labeled “intolerant bigots” if we do not comport with the “gay agenda.” Fact is, there is nothing “gay” about being homosexual.
The BSA celebrated its centennial in 2010, but if this proposal is approved, Scouting, as we know it today, will be fractured in some areas of the nation, and will cease to exist.
Obviously, a few elitist corporate types on the BSA’s National Executive Board hail from some alternate universe. The mere suggestion of lifting the restrictions against homosexuals, particularly in leadership positions, is an insulting affront to the vast majority of Scouts, Scout leaders and parents, Scout Councils and chartering organizations.
The National Board should provide cover fire for their local affiliates, not spotlight them as targets for infiltration and annihilation. If the BSA Board is more devoted to its corporate sponsors than the organization’s mission, and fears it will collapse without those sponsors, then let it fall with honor rather than decline in disgrace.
Finally, in this era when few of our national leaders abide by their oaths of office, I know you will stand firm in the oath you took upon becoming a Scout, and repeated many times on the road to your Eagle rank: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
And what is the Scout Law? “A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent.”
Hold your ground young man!
Note: Permission granted for this letter to be forwarded to others. If you have an opinion on this matter, please contact the BSA national office at 972-580-240, or leave them a message here (https://www.scouting.org/ContactUs.aspx)
H/t FOTM’s Stephanie O.

Update (Feb. 5, 2013):

BSA’s corporate sponsors are deserting the Scouts: Intel, UPS and Merck declared they have stopping funding the BSA. The homosexual-rights group Scouting for All lists some of the corporations that have refused to fund the BSA’s national organization: IBM, Levi Strauss and Company, J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Portland General Gas and Electric, Hewlett Packard, Textron, Fleet Bank, CVS/Pharmacy Stores and Carrier Corp. (Source: WND)
To sign a petition asking BSA not to abandon its century-old policy of not allowing homosexuals, click here.

Update (May 20, 2015):

Boy Scouts of America (BSA) succumbed and changed its policy to allow OPENLY homosexual boys to join. The policy took effect on January 1, 2014.
Openly homosexual Scout leaders are next. Already, in May 2014, newly elected BSA President, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who led the Obama administration military to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, said that he would have allowed homosexual leaders for Boy Scouts of America. (Source)
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

When Celebrity-Worship Goes All Wrong

Here’s an example of the idiocy of our celebrity-worshipping culture:
Some idiot had the bright idea of asking an actress who only pretended to be an army wife to speak at an award presentation to former defense secretary Robert Gates. This is what happened:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS9dICPt-PY&feature=player_embedded]
ABCNews reports, Sept 23, 2011, that Kim Delaney, 49, the star of Lifetime’s “Army Wives” was kicked off stage at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center last Thursday night after delivering an inappropriate and at times incomprehensible speech at the Liberty Medal Award presentation to former defense secretary Robert Gates.
Delaney stumbled to the podium and twisted her hands as she talked about having “served in active military duty family for five years.” “I’ve seen soldiers come home with painful life altering injuries borne of their time and service,” she said, slurring at times. “I’ve attended numerous military funerals, including that of my best friend’s son.”
Except, she hasn’t.
“It’s all make believe. I do that as a job. It’s make believe,” she said nearly two minutes into her speech. “I have the luxury to do all of this on a television show.”
Delaney, 49, has had issues with substance abuse — in 2002, she was arrested for suspicion of drunk driving after she refused to take a breathalyzer test. She’s sought rehab for alcohol addiction twice.
I hope Delaney gets the help she needs — and stays away from award presentations for real military people.
H/t my best cyberbud Steve!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Why Sane Professionals Believe the Osama Kill Story

I belong to an e-mail list comprised of U.S. and foreign professionals with an interest and expertise in military-strategic matters. Many are retired and active US military.
Of late, I seem to be the only one on the list who expresses skepticism about the much-celebrated killing of Osama bin Laden. Everyone else seems to implicitly accept the Obama administration’s version of events. Last evening, I defended my radical skepticism with two points:

  • I questioned Obama’s refusal to release the Osama death photos when both his and the Bush administrations released gruesome prisoner abuse photos from Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • My operating premise (a priori) with this administration is that “Obama lies,” of which we have ample evidence.

Thus far, only one member of the e-list, “X,” responded. I give X credit for not dismissing my radical skepticism by calling it “lunacy” and “toxic,” which was what a friend of mine did (he’s no longer a friend). Here’s X’s response to me. It is reasoned, temperate, and deserves a reading:

It is quite true that, during the election campaign, Obama promised an “open” administration, in a radical sense never before witnessed – “transparent” was used at times.  It is equally true that his administration has set records for being unwilling to release information about what it did, why it did it, etc.  To that extent, Eowyn has a point.  Nevertheless, it  is possible to overreact to this data;  it may be that O was naive and inexperienced and had no clue why government is not entirely open – but he has learned better.  He seems to be more of a pragmatist than I feared he might be.  I feared he might be too ideological to address any matter in a practical way.

When Z [another member of our e-mail list] was very young – and I only a few years older – Z went undercover in the Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Washington – the primary target of that organization (which was national).  It sent the staff of a regiment (30) to Seattle to organize and seed “the revolution” – and as I (and Y on this list) waited outside with a squad of students who also were US military veterans, listening on a CB radio to what Z was witnessing inside, we heard SDS meetings which, among other things,

  • planned a series of bombings (two before we got involved, one afterward – which we warned about and caused us to be taken seriously – no other bomb ever went off there because we warned of every one);
  • obtained money from Cuban agents who said it came from the Soviet Union;
  • listened to inspiring speeches (mainly on tape) by two people who became the sponsors of Barak Obama’s political career (Bill Ayres and his later wife Bernadine Dorn) – in which they claimed the path to success for the radical (communist) left was to (a) radicalize the population; (b) get the government to crack down with security measures to radicalize the population even more; and (c) to elect suitable officials who would corrupt the system from within. 

I feared O might be just such an agent – doubly because his first campaign began in their home – and their check was the first (for $5000).

My impression is O is not their creature, and he used them as much as vice versa, or more.  He is content to be the “first black President” and has no plans to rule forever.  He is a pragmatist enough to do things like keep Robert Gates as SECDEF – and to even stay in wars the hard left opposes – if it gives him a better shot at a second term – and some good comments by historians.  Never mind the hard left is entirely opposed to US National Interests – O is willing to give them some consideration – and I am not displeased at all by that.

I do not doubt the SEALS raided OBL’s home, or killed him.  I think there is evidence real evidence was obtained there.  I think the many officials involved have disclosed enough to make it clear something significant happened – and something unusual for real lefties to have authorized.  This is more like Mrs Clinton than Obama style – it is going along with the bureaucracy because it will sound good in the press and in history – never mind the hard core left will hate it. 

That O may have less than pure motives – or less than mature grasp of NI – I will stipulate.  That does not mean we ought not to be glad for what he authorized.  Or believe that, in general, we are being told the broad outline of the truth.  In such affairs there will always be things we are not told – and others that are garbled in the telling. 

-X

UPDATE: Right after I hit the “publish” button for this post, I received another response to my radical skepticism. This is from Z:

“OK, got it.  I don’t trust Obama either, but in this case the scrutiny is so intense I doubt he will lie.  Anyway, al Qaeda confirmed today.  Doesn’t prove it but one more brick in the wall. -Z”

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

3 Facts You Should Know About Obama's War


Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor — Iraq and Afghanistan. But he can’t blame Bush for the war he initiated more than a week ago against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. That’s Obama’s War, even if he obfuscates by calling it a “Kinetic Military Action” — an Orwellian euphemistic New Speak that no one in the MSM has the elemental courage to point out. A war by whatever name smells just as foul.
Obama couldn’t be bothered to consult Congress — the institution that alone has the Constitutional authority to declare wars. From his junket in South America, as Commander In Chief, he gave the “go” signal to our military to fly those F-15 jets and fire those Tomahawk cruise missiles on Libya. He rattled on at length about his March Madness basketball picks, but nothing about his kinetic war.
On Monday night, His Wordiness finally deigned to give the American people an accounting — a justification — for his war with a speech containing 3,362 words. To save you time (April 15th is only 17 days away!), Fellowship of the Minds cut through his verbiage. Here are THREE things you really need to know about Obama’s War:

Fact No. 1:

On March 28, 2011, Obama’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States HAS NO VITAL INTERESTS in Libya.

Fact No. 2:

On March 28, 2011, the Pentagon said that the cost to US taxpayers of Obama’s “kinetic military action” war in Libya was $600 MILLION for the first week:

  • U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles to the tune of $268.8 million.
  • U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.
  • A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.
  • Operation of the war craft, guzzling ever-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week.

Fact No. 3:

On March 29, 2011, at approxmately 7pm, west coast time:

  • The U.S. national debt is OVER 14 TRILLION DOLLARS: $14,262,703,284,888.
  • US gross domestic product is $14,639, 682,230,000 (which means our national debt is almost the equivalent of our GDP!)
  • Debt per citizen is $45,949.
  • Debt per taxpayer is $128,383.

Put simply:

  1. America is broke.
  2. Obama’s War serves no national interest.
  3. We can’t afford Obama’s war.

Got it?
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

A Soldier Reacts to DADT Repeal

Design by BKeyser


This morning, Obama signed into law the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. What most of us don’t know is that a special Defense Department working group appointed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended that the military should “expressly prohibit” heterosexuals from using separate showers, bathrooms and bunking facilities from homosexuals when the repeal of the law banning homosexuals from the military goes into effect.
Reacting to this pronouncement from Gates, blogger Deebow writes on BlackFive, December 19, 2010:

Just more of the same from people who think the military is just like Xerox or General Motors.  Just make some H.R. decision and there you have it, problem solved.  I am pretty certain that if I have to live in the same BEQ room with two other guys, who happen to be gay, I am nigh on to convinced that there are going to be, um…  issues.  It is one thing to come back to your room after finishing a REFORGER or yet another field problem and your room mate has his girlfriend in your shared BEQ room.  It becomes an entirely different matter when it is his boyfriend.
Because even though it is the military, there are things you still can’t make service members think or do.  The generals can implement all the policies they want and make everyone go to all the mandatory sensitivity training they demand, but service members are still free to think that two guys or two girls and what they might do together in a barracks room is wrong.
I think the “giant sucking sound” that America is about to hear comes from the members of our military who are going to be leaving, and taking all of their valuable combat experience with them, because of this ruling.  I think they will be taking SecDef Gates and the Generals up on their challenge and just find another job (maybe, but have you seen the unemployment rate?).
I think back to the best speech I have heard regarding lawyers, liberals and problems like this and the defense of the nation…
And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ’em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!”
Thanks Col. Jessup for your supportive words.  I have always said I don’t care what you do or with whom you do it, but don’t demand that I think that it is normal or OK.  And mark my words, there are going to be problems….  Huge problems….
So libturds, you might think that you have given us a kinder gentler military that is more fashion conscious and sensitive.  All you did today was weaken a country. 

H/t beloved fellow Anon.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0