“One, the people in the military enlisted or were commissioned with the idea that DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] would allow them to serve honorably among THEIR PEERS!”

It is unclear to me how ending DADT changes the idea that military personnel would be serving any less honorably. The emphasis on “THEIR PEERS” is also strange. Gays already serve, not opening, but thus are serving as part of the peer group. If the point is that gays are not in the peer group of the non-gay service personnel, is the only determining factor of peer group sexual orientation? Or should others, women, Catholics, Democrats, etc. be prohibited from serving as they may not be peers of some artificially conceived peer group?

“Two, having been on active duty, having open gays serve would allow the most disease-ridden group (HIV/STDs/Hep A/B/C) to interact with the most healthiest group in America.”

To enlist you must be free of contagious diseases that would likely endanger the health of other personnel.

A person, gay or straight, who tests positively for AIDS, HIV, and many other conditions (e.g. TB) is not permitted to enlist. If military personnel contract diseases such as HIV, they are allowed to serve out their enlistment, but are not allowed to re-enlist.

“What are you gonna do when a gay comes in clean and goes out with AIDS? Give him hundreds of thousands of dollars in free medical followed by 500,000 in insurance money?”

To my knowledge, not one has raised this issue with heterosexual people who come in “clean” and go out with an STD. Why is it different for gays and AIDS? What about a women who gets pregnant while in the military?

“Who is going to want to treat a battlefield would, sans gloves, when a [gay] gets wounded? Why risk getting AIDS?”

Battlefield conditions are the most horrible anyone faces, and supplies of all kinds can and usually run out. However, EMS personnel must deal with a somewhat similar issue. While far from a perfect analogy, it is insightful as to how the DOD might address the issue. Certainly, this is not an insurmountable situation, especially for the greatest military in the world.

If you were under attack and in danger of being overrun, would you care if those next to you helping to defend your position and save your life were gay or just U.S. military?

There has yet be to a significant reason presented to not allow gays to opening serve in the military. Implementation of this policy will require thought, but the time has long past for it to be done.

Are all heterosexual men sexual predators who will rape a woman given the opportunity?

Most people, I hope, would answer “No”.

Are all homosexual men sexual predators who will rape a man given the opportunity?

While people might be more unaware of homosexual men’s behavior, the answer is again “No”.

You could change the gender in all these questions and get the same answers.

Is the typical/average heterosexual man serving in the armed forces (granted at times under extreme stress) likely to rape a female member of the armed forces?

While rape in the military probably happens more than the military acknowledges, again the answer is “No”.

Is the typical/average homosexual man serving in the armed forces likely to rape a male member of the armed forces?

Short answer, “No”.

Is the typical/average heterosexual man serving in the armed forces likely to approach a female member of the armed forces hoping it leads to a relationship and perhaps consensual sex.

Yes.

So what is the problem with the typical/average homosexual man serving in the armed forces approaching a male member of the armed forces hoping it leads to a relationship and perhaps consensual sex?

First, bigotry against homosexual men.

Second, if the man approached is heterosexual, he will probably be extremely uncomfortable with the approach. Heterosexual men do not have a woman’s lifetime of experience in deflecting unwanted advances. Thus, the heterosexual man does not know how to respond. 

If a person in the military, male or female, straight or gay, forces/pushes a relationship with a male or female, straight or gay, beyond the point where the second person wishes it to go, the first person should be dealt with according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Do you have a written job description? Job descriptions are often quite long and try to cover everything your employer may desire of you.

You may be surprised at the brevity of the job description of the President of the United States (as taken from the U.S. Constitution, Article II).

Job Description -- President of the United States

• Faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States
• to the best of your Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
• be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia
• Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment
• with the Advice and Consent of the Senate:
• make Treaties,
• nominate Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States
• from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
• may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;
• receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;
• shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,
• Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Let’s say I was making $22,000 a year and spending $35,500 a year. 

At the end of the year I would owe $13,500. 

To solve the problem, I decide to cut my spending by $100.

Think that will solve my problems?

Basically, this is what President Obama going to propose in his SOTU address.

$3,550,000,000,000 – $3.55 trillion

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6% increase over 2009)

“Discretionary” spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1% increase over 2009)

Proposed freeze does not include Mandatory spending or the following “Discretionary” spending:

$663.7 billion - Department of Defense

$52.5 billion - Department of Veterans Affairs

$42.7 billion - Department of Homeland Security

$51.7 billion - Department of State and Other International Programs

Deficit is forecast $1.35 trillion

$10 billion – annual “savings” to be proposed by Obama

Senator-elect Brown should drive his truck to DC. He should lead a convoy of pickups starting in MA; along the way other pickups could join him. Pickups should converge on DC from all over and the convoy should circle the Capitol and White House.

Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.

Every year at this time, people ask astronomers if they know “What was the star of stars, the star which lead the Wise Men to Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus?” 

Long ago people though of everything that they saw in the night sky as a “star”. Thus, the planets, the “fixed” stars, meteors, comets, etc. all were “stars”. So what might have been “The Star”? 

Meteors or shooting stars are caused by pebble-sized bits of rock burning up as they race through the atmosphere some 50 miles above the Earth. Shooting stars happen so quickly that if you see one, by the time you tell your friends to look, the flash will be gone. Certainly a meteor did not send the Wise Men to Bethlehem. 

Comets have been described as dirty snowballs traveling through space. As they approach the Sun, comets give off gas and dust which forms the comet’s tail. Comets were well known at the time of Christ’s birth, but were considered omens of bad tidings and thus a comet would not send the Wise Men in search of a great king. 

For time to time a star may “explode” as a nova or supernova, and for a short time may even become visible in the daytime. But, our records show no “guest star” at the time of Christ's birth.

The fixed stars do not change from year to year, so they would not account for the search. 

The Wise Men followed the motions of the planets as these “wandering stars” moved against the background of fixed stars, for they believed that the motions of these wandering stars could foretell the future. With their knowledge of the motions of the heavens they could calculate that Jupiter and Saturn would be seen to pass each other three times and then be joined by Mars. 

Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.

But, what of Herod and his advisors, why did they not see this “star”? Most of the event would not be visible because it would happen during the day.  

But, the Wise Men with their superior knowledge of the motions of the planets knew that it was happening. They knew that this event would take place in Pisces, the Fish, a star group which for them was symbolic of the Hebrews. Thus some great event would take place in the land of the Hebrews and the Wise Men were off on their search.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.

Was this alignment of the planets really “The Star”? Astronomers do not know.

What we do know is that the star heralded Christ’s birth.

Merry Christmas

nt on the abuse scandal in Ireland: "Pope will write letter to Irish Catholics on abuse"

Below is the actual statement by the Pope (highlights added); a little more than writing a letter. But, why expect the media to be non-baised when covering the Catholic Church?

Today the Holy Father held a meeting with senior Irish Bishops and high-ranking members of the Roman Curia. He listened to their concerns and discussed with them the traumatic events that were presented in the Irish Commission of Investigation’s Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

After careful study of the Report, the Holy Father was deeply disturbed and distressedby its contents.  He wishes once more to express his profound regret at the actions of some members of the clergy who have betrayed their solemn promises to God, as well as the trust placed in them by the victims and their families, and by society at large.

The Holy Father shares the outrage, betrayal and shame felt by so many of the faithful in Ireland, and he is united with them in prayer at this difficult time in the life of the Church.

His Holiness asks Catholics in Ireland and throughout the world to join him in praying for the victims, their families and all those affected by these heinous crimes.

He assures all concerned that the Church will continue to follow this grave matter with the closest attention in order to understand better how these shameful events came to pass and how best to develop effective and secure strategies to prevent any recurrence.

The Holy See takes very seriously the central issues raised by the Report, including questions concerning the governance of local Church leaders with ultimate responsibility for the pastoral care of children.

The Holy Father intends to address a Pastoral Letter to the faithful of Ireland in which he will clearly indicate the initiatives that are to be taken in response to the situation.

Finally, His Holiness encourages all those who have dedicated their lives in generous service to children to persevere in their good works in imitation of Christ the Good Shepherd.

Civil Court: cases about contracts, damage to property, divorce, etc.

Criminal Court: murder, robbery, assault, etc.

But, that is not the whole of the American court system.

There is a third type of court with which most Americans never have contact, Military Court.

Also a Court of Impeachment.

American justice should give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et. al. a fair trail, but not in a criminal court. He is not an accused criminal; he is a solider who attacked the United States. As such, the proper place for him to meet justice is in a Military Court.

Although commonly referred to as the Nuremberg Trials, they were actually a series of Military Tribunals. We did not seek to bring the Nazis to the United States and try them in Criminal Court.

According to Fox News: “White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation…’The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn't believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,’ Axelrod said.”

But it is okay to change the status quo regarding everything else about healthcare?

Except in defense of a life, no one should be allowed to take a life. Healthcare should not include allowing anyone to electively take a life through abortion.