Gay Patriot Header Image


Posted by V the K at 7:16 pm - July 29, 2017.
Filed under: Gays In Military,Transgender Issues

This is one perspective, and I know of no reason it should be considered illegitimate. I tend to agree that the reason for forcing the military to accept transgendered people is an emotional one. “It’s not fair!” is the tantrum-cry of a spoiled child, not a reason-based argument. To me, the question is whether the military will be better at its primary mission if transgendered people are in it. That should be the only question in consideration of what the rules ought to be.



Posted by V the K at 8:55 am - July 27, 2017.
Filed under: Gays In Military,Transgender Issues

And Speaking of Drama Queens

Posted by V the K at 8:43 pm - January 20, 2017.
Filed under: Gays In Military

A soldier who went through basic training with the LGBT Community’s newest most favorite traitor has an interesting account of what it was like to be in the same company as Private Manning, and wishes to set the record straight about the left-wing propaganda being circulated in order to gain sympathy for Manning. .

These are the facts: Chelsea Manning was timid and small, but she certainly wasn’t the only one. There were dozens of recruits – male and female – in the last cycle of Charlie 82d that autumn who were under 5’4” and couldn’t have weighed more than 140lbs. Some were physically uncoordinated and seemingly had never spent a day outdoors in their entire lives. Others were natural athletes with a killer instinct that always seemed to put them on top, no matter what the challenge. Some had nothing to prove, and some had everything to prove. It wasn’t size, or stature, or speed, or strength, or even the ability to finish all the events that decided how high a recruit could hold her head in the community. That is a fact.

What is not accurate is the false and felonious  image of the U.S. military on which the defense of her conduct has been, at its root, predicated: that somehow everyone in her formative years in the military was practically part of a tribe of 6’2”, overly-aggressive Alpha males pumping testosterone out their pores who ganged up on the smallest in the group and tore her apart out of hyper-machismo intolerance; that War is so brutish and nasty, that Warriors too must be. That is simply not accurate. Chelsea Manning wasn’t being picked on at the Shark Attack when the Drill Sergeants said she had to lift her own bag like everyone else, and she said she couldn’t. She wasn’t being picked on when those Soldiers tried to help motivate her to lift the Jerry Can over her head and even picked up their own and did the exercise again, with her, out of solidarity. And when she faked a choking fit in the middle of the Dining Facility, it wasn’t because someone else was tormenting her – she was tormenting herself.

A Good Answer to a Very Stupid Question

Posted by V the K at 1:03 pm - January 14, 2017.
Filed under: Gays In Military

A Dingbat Senator from New York thinks the most important thing the US Military has to do is cater to the feelings of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendereds. General Mattis has this crazy idea that the most important for the US Military is to be able to win wars and protect the country.

KRISTEN GILLIBRAND: Do you believe that allowing LGBT Americans to serve in the military or women in combat is undermining our lethality?

JAMES MATTIS: Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with.

 GILLIBRAND: So, the answer is no?

MATTIS: Senator, my concern is on the readiness of the force to fight and to make certain it’s at the top of its game so when we go up against an enemy, the criteria for everything we do in the military up until that point our young men and women across the line of departure is they will be at their most lethal stance. That’s my obligation, as I move into this job.

One hopes that when the adults are in charge, the military can once again focus on military matters and stop doing idiotic cupid stunts like this.

Army ROTC cadets are complaining on message boards that they were pressured to walk in high heels on Monday for an Arizona State University campus event designed to raise awareness of sexual violence against women.

The Army openly encouraged participating in April’s “Walk A Mile in Her Shoes” events in 2014, but now it appears as though ROTC candidates at ASU were faced with a volunteer event that became mandatory.

“Attendance is mandatory and if we miss it we get a negative counseling and a ‘does not support the battalion sharp/EO mission’ on our CDT OER for getting the branch we want. So I just spent $16 on a pair of high heels that I have to spray paint red later on only to throw them in the trash after about 300 of us embarrass the U.S. Army tomorrow,” one anonymous cadet wrote on the social media sharing website Imgr, IJReview reported Monday.

In the locker room after my workout on Thursday, I overheard once ROTC giving another one grief for a uniform violation; he was wearing US Army shorts to work out in but had paired them with a non-Army T-shirt. It may seem like a trivial thing, but the business of an Army is to kill people and blow sh-t up, and in that high stakes environment, discipline is of the utmost importance.

But some dingbat decided forcing her troops to engage in SJW-inspired idiocy was more important. She’ll probably run for office later as a “veteran.”

“Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?”

So, here we are two days from Thanksgiving and by odd coincidence, that other Turkey is in the news. That other Turkey shot down a Russian military jet overnight, which may have been prompted by Russia attacking the oil shipments Turkey has been receiving from ISIS-held territory in Iraq. (That Turkey’s population has a certain amount of sympathy for the Islamist cause is not much of a secret.) Since other news sites are all over this, there’s probably no need to get into it here, unless there’s a gay angle.

Guess what, there’s totally a gay angle.  It has to do with the Turkish Army. Turks can still avoid military service by claiming to be gay, but the Government has always demanded proof.

Turkey makes it difficult for potential conscriptees to avoid the draft, generally making exceptions only for those who are sick, disabled or homosexual. To receive an exemption based on their sexuality, men must publicly declare they are gay — a declaration that ensures discrimination will follow them for the rest of their lives. It’s either that, or they must successfully hide their gay identity for a year.

As if that isn’t bad enough, until last week, to receive the exemption men also had to prove their homosexuality by undergoing nude examinations and submitting photos of themselves engaged in homosexual intercourse.
Yup. To avoid military service, you would have to submit selfie-porn to Government officials. However, the Turks have recently eased up on their standards for proof.

Last week, however, the military silently amended the most controversial provisions in the regulation. Doctors will now merely observe the behaviors homosexuals display and the verbal declarations they make.

Observing behaviors?


Obama Nominates Unqualified Gay Desk Jockey to Lead Depleted Army

Posted by V the K at 8:02 am - September 21, 2015.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Obama’s nominee to be Secretary of the Army has not served in combat, has not even served in the military. He has little or no executive experience, but has been a lifelong bureaucratic hack and Democrat Party Apparatchik. His one and only qualification for the office would seem to be his sexual orientation.

The youthful-looking Secretary-designee, Acting Undersecretary Eric Fanning comes by his youthful looks honestly: he’s young (46) and callow, a career midrange bureaucrat without significant executive experience (.pdf), or private-sector experience, although he’s been parked in Democratic lobbying firms during Republican administrations. He has never served in the military and has never displayed much respect for those who do and have. They are there to serve him. He has never held a job in the productive economy.

Why pick him, then? To Send A Message™, to count a valuable bean among people for whom the military exists to enable bean-counting. Fanning is fabulously gay, and his tasking is to increase the social engineering pressure on the Army to make it more friendly to GLBTQWERTY individuals, and more hostile to those who are not, whilst presiding over the readiness and end-strength declines he’s already been managing as Acting Undersecretary. He has said that his highest priorities are to forbid criticism of gay (etc) soldiers and to encourage transgender soldiers.

Can’t add anything to that brutal assessment, spot on, it is.

Protection of the United States is not a priority of the Obama Regime; appeasing domestic interest groups is. In addition to being led by an unqualified, incompetent party hack to make a political statement, the US Army has been gutted by the Obama Regime and is down to 450,000 troops. That is smaller than the Armies of Pakistan (550,000 troops), India (1,100,000 troops)  Chinese People’s Liberation Army Ground Forces (1,600,000 troops), North Korea (950,000 troops). It is the same size as the Russian Army. Iran’s Army is not much smaller, 350,000 troops. ISIS, (whom Obama dismissed as “the JV Team” not so long ago) has 200,000 troops and continues to grow.

About that, we have now learned that the Army was ordered to cook the books to show that the regime’s scheme of limited attacks against ISIS were more successful than they actually were. None of the people who were Outraged(TM) that George W. Bush allegedly lied about national intelligence seem to be the least bit upset when Obama does it to make it seem like his failing policies are actually working.

The Progressive Military: Interrupt a Lesbian PDA, Lose Your Career

Lesbians are the most specialist snowflakes of all. Their mating rituals must never be interrupted.

The Army is moving to discharge a decorated combat pilot who intervened to stop two lesbian officers from showing what he considered inappropriate affection on the dance floor during a full-dress formal ball at Fort Drum, New York, in 2012.

A warrant officer had approached Col. Downey and complained that their prolonged French kissing, buttocks grabbing and disrobing of Army jackets violated Army rules against inappropriate displays of public affection while in uniform on base, his attorney said.

He said the captain, who since has left the Army, complained that she and her girlfriend, whom she later married and then divorced, were victims of discrimination.

Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers

SF Gay Pride Bans Military; Celebrates Traitor

Posted by V the K at 1:18 pm - June 15, 2014.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Gays In Military

Traitor Bradley/Chelsea Manning is an Honorary Grand Martial of the San Francisco Gay Pride parade; but the National Guard is, as Elizabeth Warren would say, “Heap unwelcome.”

The board of the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee rejected a request from the Guard to set up an informational booth at Civic Center Plaza during Pride Weekend.

The military’s current ban on transgender service members serving openly, minority recruitment tactics, and sexual assault scandals were factors in the board’s decision, Pride Executive Director George Ridgely told LGBT news weekly Bay Area Reporter.

Maybe the Guard will be more welcome at the Folsom Street Fair.

Obama Guts the Military; Poor and Minorities Hardest Hit

Posted by V the K at 7:38 am - February 28, 2014.
Filed under: Gays In Military

President Obama’s aggressive reduction of American military power to pre-World War II levels (while environmental policies force them to buy biofuel at $59 per gallon) will have an adverse impact on minorities.

The Pentagon’s proposed defense cuts – shrinking the U.S. Army to its smallest size since before World War II – has Hispanic war veterans concerned about the thousands of current military personnel who are going to lose their jobs and worried about lost opportunities for the next generation of Latino youths.

That’s Obama for you, he lets gays into the military. Then, he destroys the military. But in the attitude of Democrats like Barack Obama and John Kerry only losers end up in the military anyway; and instead of learning the value of hard work, honor, and discipline, those people will be better off on the welfare, food stamp, and Obamacare programs those cuts to the military will help pay for. It’s not as though they can all get jobs in the booming Obama recovery. But maybe a few lucky ones with criminal records can get hired as Obamacare Navigators.

Update: Sensing Obama’s weakness, US Adversaries begin expanding aggressively.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning: Should we care?

All week, I’ve had a nagging feeling that the GP blog should say something on this…but what? And why? After all, it’s just celebrity nonsense.

But I will make this easy observation: If Manning likes men, and always felt herself to be a woman, then she was never actually a gay man whose struggle with homosexuality drove her actions. She was/is just a straight woman who broke her oath.

Bits on Morrissey, Reagan

Y’all know I love the economic issues, and sometimes avoid the “gay” issues (as unprofitable – heh). But hey, this is a gay blog, and courtesy of reader Peter Hughes, we have a couple of gay-themed tidbits.

First, the irrepressible, he-won’t-come-out-but-everyone-knows-anyway singer Morrissey enlightens us that if we had more gay men, we’d somehow have fewer wars:

If more men were homosexual, there would be no wars, because homosexual men would never kill other men, whereas heterosexual men love killing other men.

Where has Morrissey been hiding? Let’s set aside the famous gay male serial killers, let’s even set aside the ancient Greeks: The fact remains that some of the most aggressive (and best) men out there are gays who have made a career of the U.S. military.

And I say, good on them! Real men protect people from evil, and the roughness and aggression of the good men who protect all of us from terrorists, criminals, etc. may (if under good regulation) be a virtue. Sensitive, artistic men are also needed, but I don’t want a world where the type that Morrissey seems to prefer – the effete, self-indulgent eunuch who protects no one except himself and maybe a few cows – is dominant.

Next, we hear that ABC is ready to produce a Reagan-hating mini-series:

The Hollywood Reporter relayed on Thursday that “Mere days after the Academy Awards, ABC Studios has bought rights to David France’s film,” How to Survive a Plague, a hard-left documentary on AIDS activism in the Reagan years, when the Left claimed Reagan wanted them all to die off…

Clearly, the Gay Left’s mythology of Reagan-as-gay-hater is going to be with us awhile. Fortunately, no amount of repetition of a myth can alter the truth.

New “Benefits” but with a Creepy Requirement

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:08 pm - February 11, 2013.
Filed under: Equality (Real or Faux?),Gays In Military

So already I’ve been approached by a couple people (at work, no less) asking me for reaction to the Secretary’s announcement today that he’s extending certain benefits to same-sex partnered service members.

While to some degree I appreciate the effort the Department has put into identifying bones to toss us (so to speak) that won’t run afoul of DOMA, there already was, since the repeal of DADT a year and a half ago a nice list of Member-Designated Benefits on the books. The new list isn’t all that expansive, save for dependent IDs and access to base facilities.

Still, it’s a gesture. And a gesture more welcoming than the middle-finger one President Obama gave the military with his most recent choice for the Secretary’s replacement.

That said, however, you should read the memo announcing the new policy. Here’s a little clip:

These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners…once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship.

Does that make you feel a little bit creepy? My first reaction was, ah, so I get to pronounce “the existence of [my and my partner’s] committed relationship” in written form, no doubt filed with my personnelist. (To make things easier, the letter goes on to explain: “A blank copy of the proposed declaration form is in Attachment 3.”)

How romantic. All over America these days, gays and lesbians are fighting for the God-given right to “sign a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship” so we can be equal. Or something.

Frankly, I much prefer the stuff that’s on the prior list. For example, I have designated my partner as the beneficiary of my Service Members Group Life Insurance policy. No need to explain why or whom he even is to me. I could just as easily have left it to the nice little old lady down the block who used to watch my dogs when I deployed. And it wasn’t the DoD’s damned business who she was or why I named her. Just seemed a little easier is all.

I’ve not much expounded on my beliefs about gay marriage here. I don’t really like to get into the debate. Now that it’s kind of being directed toward me finally, perhaps I will… Perhaps soon.

Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

Reinstatement of DADT unlikely if Romney wins (& GOP takes Senate)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:00 pm - June 22, 2012.
Filed under: DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell),Gays In Military

The Hill reports:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said he doesn’t plan to try and reinstate “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT), the former ban on gays serving openly in the military, if Republicans were to take the Senate and Mitt Romney won the White House in November.

McKeon and other Republicans were opposed to repealing DADT when the Democratic-controlled Congress passed it in 2010, but McKeon said Thursday that he didn’t see a reason to re-start the fight over it.

“We fought that fight, and I think right now it’s more important to get the things that our warfighters need,” McKeon said at a breakfast roundtable with defense reporters, in response to a question about whether he would try to reinstate it under a Republican-controlled Congress and White House.

Seems McKeon has realized that allowing gays to serve openly in the military hasn’t compromised military effectiveness or unit cohesion.

H/t:  Jennifer Rubin.

Homosexuality is not an excuse for betraying your country

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:40 pm - December 17, 2011.
Filed under: Gay Victimization,Gays In Military

According to AP, the soldier “accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive items to” WikiLeaks, is using his sexual orientation as a defense:

The young Army intelligence specialist accused of passing government secrets spent his 24th birthday in court Saturday as his lawyers argued his status as a gay soldier before the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” played an important role in his actions.

Lawyers for Pfc. Bradley Manning began laying out a defense to show that his struggles as a gay soldier in an environment hostile to homosexuality contributed to mental and emotional problems that should have barred him from having access to sensitive material.

Gay groups should join us in denouncing this tactic.  It makes gay people out to be not just victims, but individuals lacking any kind of moral fiber, willing to betray their country when the going gets tough.  Tens of thousands of gay man and women served in the military in similarly “hostile” environments and did not break under pressure.  Indeed, many, if not most, of these individuals distinguished themselves in our nation’s armed forces.

We should not stand by when a man uses his homosexuality as an excuse for betraying his country.

Those who want to improve the image of gay people should join us in denouncing Mr. Manning and in faulting his defense team for using his sexuality to excuse his criminal acts.  What he did was wrong.  And just as there have long been bad apples among our number (a Mr. K. Philby comes to mind), so too have long been similarly rotten straight people (see A. Hiss).

Gay people (and those who presume to represent us) should not make excuses for the bad apples among us — particularly when they claim their sexuality made them rotten.  It speaks poorly of people like us if we accept this man’s defense.

And we at GayPatriot do not.

Rick Perry jumps the shark

Supporting the status quo on gays in the military, that is, after the repeal of the misguided Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), may not help a candidate win Republican votes in states like Iowa with a large concentration of social conservatives.  That said, saying, as Rick Perry does in his new ad, that “there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school” is more the mark of desperation than of sound political strategy.

Now, I’m all for kids openly celebrating Christmas and praying in schools (if they so choose  — and provided they do so on their own, that is, not in prayer organized by a teacher or school official). As should all people. Heck, the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment guarantees it. (And the “establishment” clause does not trump it.)

It’s a nice rhetorical trick to contrast the open service of gay people in the military and the open celebration of Christmas, but the juxtaposition just doesn’t work, save perhaps to remind voters of the candidate’s social conservative bona fides.  In doing so, Perry is really jumping the shark.  His campaign is sinking and he is making a desperate ploy to gain traction.

I doubt this tack will work.  Even among socially conservative Iowa Republicans (as among Republicans nationwide), jobs and the economy are the key issues: (more…)

Santorum’s bizarre response to question on gays in military

To explain why I found former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s response to the question on gays in the military so bizarre, let me fisk the entire comment and offer a conclusion at the end of the post.  First, the question from Stephen Hill, a serviceman deployed in Iraq:

In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I’m a gay soldier, and I didn’t want to lose my job.

My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

And the candidate’s response:

Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to —

I chose to break the former Senator’s comment here because up until this point, I agree with everything he is saying.  Our soldiers should not be engaging in sexual activity while on duty.  And the military shouldn’t give special privileges to any group.

To be sure, it’s bizarre that the Senator begins his response as he has, saying sexual activity has no place in the military.  (He’s right about that.)  Perhaps, he believes that if gay people serve, they would necessarily engage in sexual activity with their fellow soldiers.

and removing “don’t ask/don’t tell” I think tries to inject social policy into the military.

Well, he does quality his remarks with an “I think,” but his thought is at odds with the meaning of repeal.  Here he makes a huge leap from the first part of his response.   (more…)

Wonder how many gay lefty bloggers will report this?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:57 pm - September 23, 2011.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gays In Military

Some bloggers on the gay left are trying to make much of no more than three** audience members who booed a gay soldier asking a question in last night’s debate, with one blogger saying the Audience Boos Gay Army Soldier Asking Santorum About DADT. The audience didn’t boo him. At most, three disrespectful jerks did.

But, for some on the left if there is one nutbag in a conservative crowd, said nutbag defines the crowd.

Despite his unusual answer* last night, the inconsequential presidential candidate did the right thing today. The former Pennsylvania Senator condemned those who booed the soldier:

“Yeah, well, I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier,” said Santorum. “That soldier is serving our country, I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job. I hope he is safe, and I hope he returns safely, and does his mission well.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  V the K is “not sure that the soldier was being booed”:  “The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.”   Wonder which gay lefty bloggers reported that.  He also reminds us:

. . . multiple incidents of union violence, the display of socialist icons at Democratic party events, a pattern of cronies and campaign donors getting huge Government “loans” and subsidies … are all supposed to be aberrations that don’t typify the left at all.

* (more…)

A New Era in the US Military

Most of this summer I didn’t get to post too much because I had been quite busy preparing for another deployment. It’s from that forward location that I’m able to post for you today, this historic moment.

And it’s appropriate, I think.

I joined the military after Bill Clinton had signed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, so I never lived in a military where simply being homosexual was grounds for discharge. I lived my entire military career, up until today, as a closeted gay man in uniform. I followed the rules, kept it to myself (save a few other gay servicemembers and a handful over the years of closely trusted colleagues), and never ran afoul of the rules. I did my job, and I did it well.

I continue to do so, and I am not alone.

So it’s fitting, then, that I should spend this day—when gay “rights” groups back home will celebrate some sort of liberation of mine—simply doing what I’ve been doing for about 20 years: my job. While politically-minded activists will be slapping themselves on the back and praising the newly-granted privileges I and my fellow gay servicemembers now enjoy, we and tens of thousands of other deployed troops will spend today doing what we do: Our job.

While I appreciate your gladness on my behalf, please do take a moment today and keep in mind that there were some of us who were serving under DADT without regard for it.

While I am grateful that the era of homosexuality being the military’s business has ended, I am grateful more so for those who, like me, joined the military knowing the score and choosing this rewarding life anyway.

While I welcome those young men and women into the ranks of our military who heretofore had waited the policy out, I am much more proud of those who didn’t require their own terms be met in order to answer the call to serve in the first place.

It’s already Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 where I am, so I’m one of the first gay servicemembers in history who can legally come out. I won’t of course, but from now on, I’ll belay the gender-nonspecific pronouns and no longer demure when the stories turn to family. I just Skyped with my boyfriend back in the States and we talked about this whole thing. He’s proud of me, but I’m also proud of him (as all my colleagues are of their families back home). I’m in love with him, we’re quite a pair. And if I wanted to, I could take a picture of us into my office today and put it right on my desk.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from A Forward Operating Location)

Today In The Annals Of Democrat Party Governance

Today in 1993, President Clinton signed one of the most landmark anti-gay rights laws ever passed in the United States of America — the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Gay leftist revisionist history types like to blame Republicans in Congress for *making* Clinton sign a law.

FACT: Democrats controlled the US House under Bill Clinton until 1995

FACT: THE leading elected official advocating for outright ban of gays in military and then DADT was US Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)

FACT: Bill Clinton ran radio ads in his 1996 re-election campaign heralding his support of DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act

Facts are stubborn things.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

DADT Pre-Emptive Fire from the 9th Circuit

News this evening coming down that the 9th Circuit Court has, once again, decided it knows better how to defend America than do our own Armed Forces, elected officials, or duly appointed and confirmed leaders of the DoD.

Still looking online for something official from the court, but the short story is that they’ve decided that, since DADT repeal is chugging along just fine, it’s time to screw up the entire process.

It seems that the court has used the continuing success of an orderly process combined with a lawless Administration which refuses to do its job to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” with respect to DOMA as its basis for deciding to run the US military regardless of what’s best for National Defense.

With former SecDef Gates predicting certification (the needed step for implementation of the end of DADT) occurring within the month, and current Secretary Panetta stating in his confirmation process that he supports repeal and will work to implement it upon certification, I’m still puzzled why LCR continued their suit.

No, I’m not puzzled as to why they said they were continuing: Because they don’t trust, apparently, the military and/or the Administration to actually do what they said they’d do (let alone follow the law). Naturally, having witnessed the current Commander in Chief in action lo these two long years, I can understand why you’d want to see the cash first. But there have been zero indications that there would be any problems with the repeal coming to fruition. Even the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps told his troops to “get over it” and press on with our duties to implement the new policy.

It boggles the mind, then, why anybody who respects the military and our mission would insist on pressing forward with this case. Let’s review the facts:

The whole purpose of passing the law last December was because everybody (except, apparently the 9th Circuit Court and the glory hounds at LCR) realized that we needed an orderly transition from the DADT world to the non-DADT world. As that process continues, it’s not any less important that it take place orderly. Any disruption is unnecessary and needlessly dangerous. (more…)