Obama Administration Approves Exemption From DOD Policy for Political Reasons...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyrant
Having posted both in defense of civil unions for same sex couples and most recently in support of same sex marriages I non the less found the decision by the Obama administration as outlined below out of line for the reasons stated by two Republican lawmakers.
The issue is policy and until such time as the policy is changed exceptions should not be made.
Of course Obamaites will find a way to politicize this issue on grounds totally irrelevant to the issue of policy violation and maintaining the military's a political posture.
What we have come to expect from Obama and his supporters.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyrant
Having posted both in defense of civil unions for same sex couples and most recently in support of same sex marriages I non the less found the decision by the Obama administration as outlined below out of line for the reasons stated by two Republican lawmakers.
The issue is policy and until such time as the policy is changed exceptions should not be made.
Republican lawmakers are blasting the Pentagon's decision to allow troops to march in uniform at a San Diego gay-pride parade last week.
Two senior Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services committees said Tuesday that the Pentagon was out of line to grant the one-time exemption that allowed military uniforms in the parade.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said the Pentagon made a “dangerous exception” to its policy of not allowing military uniforms in parades. In a statement, the Armed Forces Readiness subcommittee chairman said that the decision was made to advance the Obama administration’s social agenda.
“I am calling on the DOD to halt these dangerous exceptions to policy for political purposes. This decision was an outrageous and blatantly political determination issued solely to advance this administration’s social agenda,” Forbes said in a statement Tuesday. {Emphasis Mine}
"Sadly, this is yet another violation in what has become a pattern of this administration’s assault on the longstanding history of the Department of Defense as a nonpolitical organization,” he said.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking for an explanation behind making the exemption in light of the military's "unambiguous regulations" to preserve its apolitical stance.
Skip
Both Inhofe and Forbes said that the Pentagon’s decision to allow the service members to participate in the parade in uniform was in clear violation of Defense Department rules on participation in political activities while in uniform.
Forbes pointed to a press release from San Diego LGBT Pride that said the inclusion of military uniforms was helping celebrate the “growing list of states with marriage equality.” {Read More}
Of course Obamaites will find a way to politicize this issue on grounds totally irrelevant to the issue of policy violation and maintaining the military's a political posture.
What we have come to expect from Obama and his supporters.
Via: Memeorandum
Seriously, Les. Who would bother commenting here with your foreordained statement that anything an "Obama supporter" had to say on this issue would automatically be politicizing it.
ReplyDeleteDid you have the same reaction to the USAF's "Christianization" of its military personnel.
Or is Christianization of the military a lesser sin than is politicization? It's difficult to know.
The issue is policy, policy, policy. Don't like it, then change it.
DeleteFor one as partisan as yourself, and you have freely stated such, I find your comment somewhat amusing.
Foreordained? Guess I must not be entitled to my own opinion on what is an opinion blog. Not unlike your own.
Hadn't been reading up on the Christianization thing. I'll get back to you after I have studied it. With my equitable and balance view.
My view Shaw is your mixing apples and oranges here. The Obama administration allowed the exemption for purely political reasons. To advance a social agenda. The policy is clear on this. It should not have been allowed. Based on said existing policy.
DeleteThe issue to which you refer is the method used in briefings and was extended to teaching ethics with respect to conflict situations. Bring predominately a Christian nation this does not surprise me.
With that being said I do believe it was appropriate to suspend the practice because proper ethical conduct in conflict (wartime) situations can be taught without the use of any religious references be they, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever.
How the individual relates the subject to his religious proclivities of course is all his.
I would say that the principles espoused in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Golden Rule while originating in Judeo-Christianity, have been so completely integrated into the structure of Western thought as to render their origin innocuous. While it's possible to teach ethics without them, I think it akin to reinventing the wheel to do so.
ReplyDeleteValid points viburnum.
DeleteI do believe it possible to teach without them. It does however require thinking differently, ie; without the God Christ connection, especially as related to the Old Testament which was quite violent and in many ways unethical by 21'st century standards.
The Golden Rule pretty much sums up proper ethical conduct at anytime and anywhere. In my view leaving he use of force open to use only in an act of self defense. A proper philosophy respecting human life (without focus on religion) renders the same conclusion. IMNHO.
It laughable, but also sad when people like Shaw who know absolutely nothing about the military, are duped by propaganda like the article she links to.
ReplyDeleteThere are thousands of ROTC programs all over the nation, and they do not all link back to some Office of Christianization at the Pentagon. This is obviously an isolated incident, Mikey Whiner Weinstein notwithstanding. And Shaw, around 90% of people entering the military are already "Christianized."
You seriously need to stick to what you know, because on this topic you don't know jack, and you've naively gobbled the propaganda.
Now, onto Les's topic. This decision is a disgrace, and it is playing politics with the military. It is unprecedented. So will they allow exceptions for religious parades, NRA parades? Of course not.
Thank you Silver, you got my point. Your response to Shaw was spot on and really better than my own in its directness and clarity.
DeleteLes, go back and read my comment.
ReplyDeleteI said nothing about your having the right to your opinion on this subject.
What I called into question was your pre-empting the discussion by writing: "...Obamaites will find a way to politicize this issue on grounds totally irrelevant to the issue of policy violation and maintaining the military's a political posture."
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.
Shaw asked - "Did you have the same reaction to the USAF's "Christianization" of its military personnel.
DeleteOr is Christianization of the military a lesser sin than is politicization? It's difficult to know.
I replied - "The issue to which you refer is the method used in briefings and was extended to teaching ethics with respect to conflict situations. Bring predominately a Christian nation this does not surprise me.
With that being said I do believe it was appropriate to suspend the practice because proper ethical conduct in conflict (wartime) situations can be taught without the use of any religious references be they, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever."
Perhaps it is you Shaw who doe not understand. Reading the entire exchange in full again it is apparent I answered your inquiry in full.
But as progressives usually do when they cannot refute something they change the issue to suit their terms. Happens all the time.
"...US troops have been punished for refusing to attend a Christian concert.US Army troops in Newport News reported that they were "locked down" in their barracks and ordered to clean them when they refused to be "preached at" by Christians. Reports of similar religious pressuring and indoctrination have been widespread in the US military for years, and the Christian orientation of this pressure against the troops is well known."
ReplyDeleteMikey Weinstein is the President and founder of the MRFF and author of the book, “With God On Our Side,” about the systematic indoctrination of fundamentalist Christianity within the U. S. military. He was described by Harper’s magazine as the “constitutional conscience of the U.S. military.” Mikey’s family has a long and distinguished U.S. military history spanning three consecutive generations of military academy graduates and over 130 years of combined active duty military service in every major combat engagement our country has been in from World War I to the current Global War on Terror and Mikey himself is a 1977 Honor Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy.
It's not isolated. My nephew and counsin can attest to that.
The men in my family have served in every branch of the military services. A cousin, a retired bird colonel, served in Operation Desert Storm. My newphew, an Army Ranger, will graduate in September from the DLIFLC in Monterey, CA. Of course, you know what that is, since you know everything to do with the military, and I don't.
Your pompous and grindingly egotistical slap downs of everything I write is getting tarsome, dude.
If directed at me I am now confused. My point is far removed from your responses.
DeleteHowever I read your original link and in rality replied by saying...
"With that being said I do believe it was appropriate to suspend the practice because proper ethical conduct in conflict (wartime) situations can be taught without the use of any religious references be they, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever."
Which is my position on the subject you interjected in my post.
As for the widespread nature, well, it is something the DOD and pentagon should look into and correct.
I stand by my position on policy and exemptions, regardless of the circumstances. The military should be, and remain remain an apolitical institution.
It seems as just maybe there is some work to do.
What more would you like Shaw? Complete and utter compliance to your way of thinking on all issues? Ya certainly won't find it here. Anymore than you offer at your sight. Which is btw as it should be.
This President just loves giving exemptions; exempting his union buddies from having to pay the Cadillac heath-care tax and now this. It pays to be connected, I guess (even with this supposedly new type of politician).
ReplyDelete"(even with this supposedly new type of politician)"
DeleteWill, this politician is just the new generation of the same ole gangster politician that Chicago has always produced.