|
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, left, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Feb. 2, before a Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing related to the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.
AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta
|
President Obama's promise to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military has caused tension among those responsible for military discipline. Former Marine Commandant Gen. Carl E. Mundy and 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was tasked by Mr. Obama with implementing the change. But that task has proved difficult. On Jan. 15, The Washington Times reported, "Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military." There are good reasons why top officers, including current Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the change.
From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ) and department regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The uniform code prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.
Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton's proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank.
Full Text . . . .
Obama organizing in high school
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com
An Atlas reader, Chuck, has a student in the eleventh grade in an Ohio High School. Her government class passed out this propaganda recruiting paper so students could sign up as interns for Obama's Organizing for America (OFA is the former mybarackobama.com site.)
Obama is using our public school system to recruit for his Alinsky-inspired private army. Organizing for America is (and I quote) recruiting in our high schools to "build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda" ............of national socialism.
The Ohio High School is Perry Local in Massillon, Ohio.
This is incredible. And evil. Suffer the little children -- enlisted like SS youth. This is no accident. Obama is poisoning our public school system. He acts as if it's his own private breeding farm. Once again academic learning and achievement is hopelessly abandoned, and supplanted by radical leftist activism from the leftwing Alinsky indoctrinators in the perverse public school system.
Children must be advised to expose this ugly propaganda. Children must tell their parents how they are being used and manipulated. Parents, warn your kids. Better yet, home school.
Full Text . . . .
The spending 'freeze' that isn't
By Edward P. Lazear / Wall Street Journal
Since 2008, the ratio of outlays-to-GDP has risen by about 14%.
In last night's State of the Union address President Obama proposed a three-year "spending freeze" on what amounts to one-sixth of the federal budget. Our biggest entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, would be excluded. These changes are optical rather than substantive. Given the spending agenda that is already in place, we can expect to see large increases in the proportion of GDP that is spent by our government for years to come.
Since 2008, the ratio of federal spending-to-GDP has risen by about 14%. From 2008 to 2009 we saw the greatest annual increase in spending in the last 30 years. In the name of stimulating job growth, the share of federal spending is now 24% of the economy, up from 21% in the last year of the Bush administration.
My analysis of data from 1950 to the present shows that periods with high tax-to-GDP ratios exhibit much slower economic growth than lower tax ratio periods. The GDP growth in high tax years (defined as years during which the ratio of tax-to-GDP was above 18%, the 60-year average) was about 1.5 percentage points lower than the growth rate in low-tax years.
High taxes are clearly bad for the U.S. economy. For example, were we to tax above the 18% tax-to-GDP ratio over the next 25 years, GDP per capita in 2035 would be about 50% less than if we were to tax below the 18% ratio. A 50% per capita GDP differential is about as large as the difference between the U.S. and Greece today.
Full Text . . . .
David Plouffe rallies the troops: 'No Bed-Wetting'
Wall Street Journal
Even as President Obama makes a show of political modesty after losing Massachusetts, Congressional leaders are trying to rekindle the cinders left among the health-care ashes. Plan B still seems to be to dragoon enough panicking House Democrats into passing the Senate's Christmas Eve bill, and to that end the White House reactivated campaign manager David Plouffe over the weekend.
"No bed-wetting," Mr. Plouffe declared in a Washington Post op-ed. As a call to arms this leaves something to be desired, though it does suggest the political unreality that still prevails among Democratic leaders.
A new poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center on the public's priorities reveals the real reasons ObamaCare is in intensive care. Jobs and rehabilitating the economy understandably top the list, with 81% and 83% of voters rating these as a "top priority." Reducing health-care costs (57%) fell from 69% in 2008, and is now behind terrorism (80%), education (65%), deficit reduction (60%) and even Medicare (63%) and Social Security (66%).
Our guess is that this decline is because Democrats have tipped their hand in the last year about how they plan to reduce those costs via ObamaCare—namely through central planning and price controls that would limit access to care. Meanwhile, health insurance reform clocked in at 49%, which at least makes it far more popular than the Administration's cap-and-tax global-warming agenda. A mere 28% ranked climate change as a political priority.
Full Text . . . .
| 
