November 28, 2007

Homosexuals in the Military

Homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the U.S. Military.

The very first Amendment to the United States Constitution, was intended to grant citizens the rights of free expression, especially as it pertains to their spirituality. By forbidding Congress to establish an official religion, it specifically baptizes the new nation as a secular nation. The founding fathers believed that the republic was best served when all mankind was free to pursue spirituality as they see fit.

There is no more important spiritual expression then the choice of a life partner. Our partners act as a balance, and keep us true to ourselves. They are moments of the divine alight in the body of another. They guide us, inspire us, comfort us, and kick us in the ass when it becomes necessary.

The idea that this fulfilling spiritual relationship cannot exist between homosexuals is absurd to many. Still many others believe that it is a sinful and unnatural relationship. What ever your position, you must accept that your conviction is a spiritual one. It is a matter of what you believe about human spirituality.

This should not be used as a basis to refuse homosexuals entrance into the military. As a Soldier, I believe it is the right of any citizen, some might say the duty, but at least the right, to serve their nation. The ideal of our “Sacred Honor” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence should be held high over a primarily Christian condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle.

Undoubtedly, there are practical issues surrounding the inclusion of gays in the military. All of them must be overcome. Those in the military incapable of discretionary thinking should be phased out anyway. This is about right and wrong, and defending the Sacred Honor of standing up for something. They have the right to serve and the military must accommodate them.

November 26, 2007

Conservatives Criticize "Cutest Couple"

Recently a teenage homosexual couple was voted the superlative of “Cutest Couple” in the yearbook of IllinoisWaukegan High School. There names Lupe Silva and Brandy Johnson quickly were plastered across the headlines of conservative news organizations. Some saw it as one more attempt for secular progressives to undermine the soul of the country. Others assumed it was mere rebellion against the town parents.

What does it say about a person who assumes either of these things? Is it so impossible that these girls are actually experiencing the same type of love as their peers? Why do the likes of Bill O’Reilly insist on this elitist, “more holy then thou”, condescension?

The United States of America, to the dismay of many crazies, is a secular nation. It was made so by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to establish an official religion of the new country. The purpose of this law was to allow people to grow in the spiritual path that seemed most likely to them to result in enlightenment.

The Christian, podium pounding, enemies to the evolution of spiritual consciousness must let go. This majority has no right to rule. This is not their country, this is our country, and we want it back!

November 4, 2007

Cowardice in the State Department

I must say that over the past 5 years, a lot of people have accused their respective opponents of not supporting the troops. Someone wants a huge expenditure authorized for the war. Their opponent refuses to agree because he wants to know that there is an end in sight. Inevitably, the first guy will accuse the second guy of “not supporting the troops.”

Another popular slander is made of anyone that says the war is unjust, a waste of lives and treasure, or cannot be won. . Their opponents will say they are undermining the troops and even giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I don’t really take much offence to this type of thing; I see it as politicians doing what they feel is best. Even if they are wrong, they are trying.

I was recently offended by a member of the Department of State (DOS). I saw him on CNN complaining to some spokesman of DOS. “An assignment to Iraq can be tantamount to a death sentence and you know that.” WELL SWEET JESUS CONNECTICUT CHRIST! If you will forgive me a moment of vulgar expression, It would seem that a department of the United States Government has decided that it is dangerous in Iraq. He then went on to complain about how DOS is putting their families welfare in danger…Blah Blah Blah.

I can handle my service being used as a political pawn. What I can’t handle are members of the Department of State, by the way the branch of government responsible for representing America to the world, acting like cowards. That’s right I said it, and you should to. This country has never needed diplomats more in Iraq. With all there CNN interviews saying ‘there needs to be a diplomatic solution’ they cower and whine on national television. I’m offended and every diplomat should feel shame for the dishonor their brother has brought

NOTE: In accordance with Article 88 of the UCMJ, this literature is not intended as contempt for any elected official or duly appointed officer of the U.S. Government.