Christofascist Batshitery: Call the FBI About the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") tracks and documents the activities of Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay organizations, many of which portray themselves as supporting "family values" and protecting "real Americans" from foreign and/or degenerate vermin. These tracked organizations disseminate hate and lies and falsehoods about other citizens and simply put are not nice organizations and their members are not nice or decent people.  For these reasons, SPLC gives these organizations the designation of being "hate groups."   It's a most apt designation but it incenses the self-anointed who deem that they have the right to ride roughshod over the rights  of others as they seek to inflict their hate and fear based agendas on all.  The Christofascist in particular go berserk when SPLC calls them out for what they are.  At World Net Daily, a/k/a Wingnut Daily, Matt Barber of Liberty University (a blight on Virginia's reputation) lets loose with a barrage of rants that the godly need to start blowing up the FBI's phone lines with complaints about SPLC.  Here's a sampling of Barber's spittle flecked rant:

The magnitude of this Obama administration’s “progressive” radicalism becomes more evident with each passing day. In recent months, there has been a drastic spike in acts of both anti-Christian and anti-conservative discrimination and intimidation on military bases across the country. This mounting harassment is not being carried out at the hands of regular enlisted folk but, rather, at the hands of high-ranking officials who, in their official capacity, are targeting Christian and conservative organizations and individuals in an effort to silence them.

It has long been suspected that the Obama administration is using propaganda circulated by the roundly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, a left-wing extremist group that, in recent years, has adopted two primary goals: 1) raising truckloads of money and 2) smearing as “domestic hate groups” dozens of mainstream Christian ministries like the Family Research Council, or FRC, and the American Family Association, or AFA.

I recently learned that on its official website, the FBI lists as one of its primary “hate crimes resources,” the Southern Poverty Law Center.

If this troubles you as much as it does me, please contact the FBI at (202) 324-3000 and respectfully voice your concern. Then call or email your local FBI office. (Click here to find that location.) It’s critical that freedom-loving Americans light-up the FBI’s phone lines and demand that all facets of government completely disassociate from the SPLC and disavow any further use of its anti-Christian propaganda.  The Southern Poverty Law Center must be held accountable for its inflammatory and potentially deadly anti-Christian bigotry.

In my view, Barber belongs in a mental ward.  The fact that he is a dean at Liberty University's law school speaks volumes about the batshitery being promoted by that feigned institution of higher learning.  

It has long been suspected that the Obama administration is using propaganda circulated by the roundly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, a left-wing extremist group that, in recent years, has adopted two primary goals: 1) raising truckloads of money and 2) smearing as “domestic hate groups” dozens of mainstream Christian ministries like the Family Research Council, or FRC, and the American Family Association, or AFA.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/obama-fbi-partners-with-leftist-extremist-group/#9JLOorp0efwXXTWE.99

Will Obama Federalize National Guard Units Disobeying Federal Directives?

As this blog has noted, while the majority of state National Guard units have followed the Pentagon directive to extend spousal benefits to legally married same sex couples.  Four states, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Louisiana, however, have flipped the middle finger to the Pentagon and the Department of Defense even though the vast majority of their National Guard funding comes from Washington and the federal government, not state revenues.  The question thus becomes what will the federal government/Barack Obama do.  Some suggest that based on historical precedent, Obama should federalize the National Guard units in these rogue states.  The Washington Blade looks at this approach.  Here are excerpts:

As National Guard units in several states refuse to process spousal benefit applications for troops in same-sex marriages, one advocate says there’s a unique — yet unlikely — solution: President Obama could federalize the state units.

Ret. Lt. Col. Chris Rowzee, spokesperson on National Guard affairs for the American Military Partner Association, raised the possibility of federalizing the National Guard units to ensure states offer spousal benefits to gay troops.

At least four states — Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Louisiana — are refusing to give troops in same-sex marriages military IDs for their partners by denying these couples’ applications at state-run facilities. That hampers the couples’ ability to receive health, pension and housing benefits afforded to other service members.

Chris Jenks, a former Army judge advocate general and law professor at Southern Methodist University, said federalizing elements of the National Guard and withholding funds are both viable options for Obama.

“Ultimately, if the governors of the four states persist in their order to their state National Guards to not provide benefits to same-sex married guard members, the governors run a risk that the president will federalize those state national guards,” Jenks said. “One hopes it wouldn’t come to that.
“This would be an extreme example, but they could … federalize the troops, and in that case, the state governor would have zero say over what the guard unit then does,” Rowzee said.
In the 1950s, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard when the governor of that state was using it to enforce racial discrimination at Little Rock Central High School. In 1963, President Kennedy took similar action in Alabama to desegregate the University of Alabama.

Legal experts who spoke with the Blade agreed the decision to refuse to process these applications violates federal law.

“Do I honestly believe that the governor of Texas will be forever able to defy a DOD directive? No, and I think he knows that,” Rowzee said. “I think he’s using this issue to try to gain political points, and the problem is it harms people in the meantime. It harms our military families.”

 If Obama doesn't want to take the step of federalizing the National Guard in these rogue states, then I hope the Pentagon will cease all funding to these units.  That's right, 100% of the federal funds.  Let state National Guard members see their paychecks stop and all equipment provision come to an end and I suspect some overnight epiphanies will come about.

No Mid-October Paycheck for U. S. Troops if Government Shuts Down

We hear constant bullshit from Republicans about "supporting our troops" and "supporting our brave service members in uniform."  As the saying goes, talk is cheap and GOP actions tell a far different story.  Not only do Republicans love to send our military out on fool's errands like the Iraq War and the disaster in Afghanistan - many were ready to add Syria to the list - but now in their drive to wound Barack Obama politically, they are ready to have members of the military go without pay.  With a son-in-law in the military, this crap REALLY pisses me off.  One can only hope that members of the military will wise up in 2014 and vote Democrat and send the bums packing.  Here are highlights from the Navy Times:

With one week to go before a potential partial government shutdown, a key Republican lawmaker is warning troops to be financially prepared for the possibility of not getting a mid-October paycheck.

Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, warns that the troops’ morale and readiness will suffer even though the Defense Department does not shut down when its funding stops.

“All military personnel will continue to serve and accrue pay, but will not actually be paid until appropriations are available,” Young said. The mid-month payday would be the first in jeopardy.

Additionally, he said most travel and permanent change of station moves “would be delayed or canceled” and benefits for line-of-duty deaths also would be suspended.

Military hospitals and clinics will remain open but would scale back on operations, “impacting routine medical and dental procedures,” Young said. He did not specifically mention any impact on Tricare health insurance benefits, but in past government shutdowns, payments to medical providers were delayed but treatment was still available.

A bill to keep the government running is not unusual, but this measure, H.J. Res. 59, is different. It includes a section defunding the 2010 Affordable Care Act health care reform. The White House has warned that President Obama would veto the bill if this provision is included.

There is a second, equally controversial rider on the bill, the Full Faith and Credit Act, which details a priority list for paying bills if the government exceeds its $16.7 trillion debt limit. Creditors would be paid first, with military and federal civilian paychecks, disabled veterans’ checks, Medicare payments to doctors, school lunch programs and other government debts ranking lower.

The GOP House members are basically telling servicemembers "thank you for your service, now go f*ck yourselves."  Again, I truly hope members of the military make a point of voting and sending the GOP a very strong message.  They can start by voting a straight Democrat ticket in the 2013 Virginia elections.

Thousands of Lost Jobs: The Cost of Sequestration

Barack Obama appeared today at Newport News Shipbuilding and made a strong case locally for demanding that the Congressional Republicans stop playing games with the lives of thousands  - if not millions nationwide - of American families.  Also in the cross hairs of the GOP saboteurs is the nation's military.  Yes, the GOP blathers about "supporting our troops" even as they have sent our service members to their deaths and serious injury in needless wars that were paid for on the equivalent of a credit card.  Now, defense spending will be cut in a meat cleaver manner as opposed to a surgeon's scalpel.  How anyone in the military or the defense industry still believes a word coming out of the GOP noise machine is dumbfounding.  The Virginian Pilot looks at the local impact of the GOP effort to destroy the economy and leave thousands of Americans unemployed.   Here are highlights:

Thousands of blue-collar jobs will be lost if federal lawmakers don't strike a deal by the end if the week to avoid sweeping budget cuts, President Barack Obama told a crowd of about 3,000 shipyard workers this afternoon.

Standing in front of a massive propeller in a cavernous facility used to build submarines, Obama called on Congress to compromise or risk harming the economy in Hampton Roads.

"The main reason I'm here is to call attention to the important work that you’re doing on behalf of the nation’s defense, and to let the American people know that this work, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs, are currently in jeopardy because of politics in Washington," Obama said.

"These cuts are wrong. They're not smart, they're not fair. They're a self-inflicted wound that doesn't have to happen," Obama added at a shipbuilding site in Virginia.

The White House has warned the $85 billion in cuts could affect everything from commercial flights to classrooms to meat inspections. The cuts would slash domestic and defense spending, leading to forced unpaid days off for hundreds of thousands of workers.

At Newport News Shipbuilding, Virginia's largest industrial employer, Obama renewed his effort to warn of the dire consequences the cuts could have on military readiness and local economies. He spoke in front of a massive submarine propeller, with workmen and the few female employees watching up from the cavernous assembly floor and down along railings from three open levels above.

"The threat of these cuts has already forced the Navy to cancel the deployment and delay the repair of certain aircraft carriers," Obama said.

Mike Petters , president and CEO of factory parent company Huntington Ingalls, said in an interview that the company will probably "throttle back" plans to hire between 10,000 and 15,000 workers over the next five years because of the budget uncertainty. He said his biggest headache in running the business is the continuing resolution.

Echoing Obama's warnings about the military repercussion were the five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who traveled to Capitol Hill to say the cuts could impart a serious blow to military readiness. Their appearance marked the fourth time in the last three weeks that top Pentagon leaders have testified before Congress about the cuts.

Yes, you read that right - 10-15,000 workers at Newport News Shipbuilding alone.  Not surprisingly, GOP extremist Congressman Scott Rigell opted to accompany Obama since he likely knows that if sequestration happens and is rightfully blamed on the GOP, he may well not be re-elected in 2014. 

Pentagon to Remove Ban on Women in Combat

In recognition of the roles that women have already been playing in the fool's errand armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan launched by Chimperator George W. Bush and Emperor Palpatine Cheney, the Pentagon is poised to remove the ban in women in combat positions.  The ban is a recognition of reality and will remove the barrier that has barred women from full recognition for their valor and kept many from advancing up the ranks of the military.  One can just imagine the shrieks of Phyllis Schlafly and Christofascists who want women kept as subordinate chattel in the home - bare foot and pregnant if you will.  Obviously, I do not believe that all women should be required to go into combat positions, but those who want them should not be held back.  The Washington Post looks at the policy change:

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta plans to announce Thursday a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women’s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military, defense officials said.

Panetta made the decision “upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official said Wednesday, an assertion that stunned female veteran activists who said they assumed that the brass was still uneasy about opening the most physically arduous positions to women. The Army and the Marines, which make up the bulk of the military’s ground combat force, will present plans to open most jobs to women by May 15.

“The onus is going to be on them to justify why a woman can’t serve in a particular role,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plan before the official announcement.

The decision comes after a decade of counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, where women demonstrated heroism on battlefields with no front lines. It dovetails with another seismic policy change in the military that has been implemented relatively smoothly: the repeal of the ban on openly gay service members.

Lawmakers and female veterans applauded Wednesday’s news, saying the ban on women in combat roles is obsolete.  “This is monumental,” said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, which has advocated for the full inclusion of women. “Every time equality is recognized and meritocracy is enforced, it helps everyone, and it will help professionalize the force.”

Advocates and experts say women are unlikely to flock to those positions, such as roles in light infantry and tank units and Special Forces — although some may. More substantively, they say, lifting the ban will go a long way toward changing the culture of a male-dominated institution in which women have long complained about discrimination and a high incidence of sexual assault.

“The reality is that so many women have been, in effect, in combat or quasi-combat,” he said. “This is catching up with reality.”

In a statement, Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), the leading Republican on the Armed Services Committee, voiced a measure of concern, saying last year’s study raised “serious practical barriers” that, if ignored, could jeopardize the “safety and privacy” of service members.

James Inhofe - a Christianist who never can separate his bigoted religious views from public policy - not surprisingly raised to bogus issue of  service member "privacy" as a reason to keep women inferior.

Marine Corps to Spouse Clubs: Admit Same-Sex Spouses

In somewhat of a surprising move, the U. S. Marine Corps has directed spouses clubs operating on its installations must either admit same-sex spouses or move off Marine Corps bases.  So far, none of the other branches of the U.S. military have taken such a direct and uncompromising position.  The Marine Corps ultimatum comes in the wake of the ongoing controversy within the Army's Fort Bragg Base in North Carolina where the officers' spouses club  denied admission to a same-sex spouse.  As readers may recall, before the repeal of DADT, the Marines were among the most vocal supporters of DADT.  Here are highlights from Federal News Radio:

The Marine Corps has advised its legal staff that spouses clubs operating on its installations must admit same-sex spouses if they wish to remain on the bases.  It's a step that the other service branches have not yet announced as they grapple with how to accommodate same-sex couples following repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy that barred gays and lesbians from serving openly.

Underscoring the challenges, the Marines' legal advisory - obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press - refers to an ongoing controversy at the Army's Fort Bragg in North Carolina where the officers' spouses club has denied admission to a same-sex spouse.

The Marine Corps commandant's Staff Judge Advocate, in an e-mail to legal offices throughout the corps, said the Fort Bragg events had "caused quite a stir" and cautioned, "We do not want a story like this developing in our backyard."

The memo noted that spouses clubs and various other private institutions are allowed to operate on bases only if they adhere to a non-discrimination policy encompassing race, religion, gender, age, disability and national origin.  "We would interpret a spouses club's decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse's sex," the memo said.

A Marine Corps spokesman, Capt. Eric Flanagan, said the Marines cannot directly control the actions of independent organizations such as spouses' clubs, but added, "We expect that all who are interested in supporting Marine Corps Family Readiness would be welcome to participate and will be treated with dignity and respect."

The Defense Department has not issued similar guidance covering all service branches, and for now is taking the stance that the Fort Bragg spouses club is conforming with the existing rules because the non-discrimination clause does not extend to sexual orientation.

I can just hear the shrieks and imagine the flying spittle among the professional Christian and Christofacscist organizations.  Nothing gives them more joy or buoys their self-congratulatory piety more than bashing gays and the less fortunate.

The Pentagon's F*cked Up Priorities - Banning LGBT Sites While Squandering American Lives

Click image to enlarge

Supposedly American troops in Afghanistan and other parts of the world are fighting and risking their lives to protect American values.  Values like religious freedom, freedom of thought and opinion and freedom from state sponsored censorship.  At least that's the message trumpeted by politicians ranging from Barack Obama to far right wing nuts in the House GOP.  But apparently, the Pentagon hasn't received this message.  Or the message that honoring and supporting our men and women in uniform means not sending them out on futile fools' errands in unwindable wars like the fiasco in Afghanistan foisted on America by Chimperator George Bush and Emperor Palpatine Dick Cheney. 

First, with respect to the Pentagon's disdain for claimed American values, Towleroad and Americablog are both reporting that the Pentagon is blocking blogs and webs sites labeled as "LGBT" - a label that certainly applies to this blog.  Seemingly, some folks at the Pentagon did not get the news alert that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed and that LGBT service members can come out of the closet and that they should be freely able to surf the Internet for LGBT news and outlets (some do somehow make it to this blog from Afghanistan).  It's also disturbing that far right GOP sites are not being blocked.  Here are highlights from Americablog:

It’s bad enough the United States Department of Defense censors Towleroad and AMERICAblog – banning the gay civil rights Web sites from being accessed on DOD computers – and it’s even worse that the Pentagon has no problem permitting their computers to access Ann Coulter’s and Rush Limbaugh’s hate-filled Web sites.

But what’s really offensive is that at least one of the Pentagon’s safe-surfing Internet filters has a censorship category called “LGBT.” And if you’re deemed “LGBT” by the Pentagon, they ban you.

I wonder if the Pentagon has a censorship category titled “Jewish,” “African-American,” or “Latino.”

The LGBT filter existed before the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but still has not been fixed. And the Pentagon was notified of the problem as early as last summer, 2012. Yet no one’s gotten around to doing anything about it. I’m also told that the censorship varies depending on service and geographical region – it’s not entirely clear why the Pentagon doesn’t use the same bans/filters nationwide and agency-wide, if it’s going to censor the Internet at all. This problem has to be fixed Pentagon-wide.

Our site, AMERICAblog, was previously banned for being “LGBT,” but now we’re only banned at least by the Air Force, for being “political” and “activist.” The Air Force is banning my Web site for being “political” while permitting other Republican “political” Web sites. Daily Kos is banned as well. Anyone else smelling a Big Brother constitutional problem with that?

I had a few different contacts try accessing a variety of sites on DOD computers, in order to confirm this, including Zeke Stokes, communications director for OutServe-SLDN, who confirmed via one of their military members. Note what they found. Towleroad – Banned for being “LGBT”

While the Pentagon worries about censoring LGBT sites, liberal "activist" sites and liberal political sites, it still has absolutely no problem throwing away the lives of young Americans not to mention billions of dollars which might just as well be put in a huge piled, doused with gasoline and burned.  Here's the latest sacrificial offering to American hubris and the Pentagon's betrayal of our troops:

 Pfc. Markie T. Sims, 20, of Citra, Fla., died Dec. 29 in Panjwal, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 38th Engineer Company, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, under control of the 7th Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.

For regular readers, you guessed it.  Sims was in my son-in-law's Company and while my son-in-law is lucky enough to be recovering (he still has a long way to go even after 7 weeks), Pfc. Sims will not have that option.  Dead at 20 years old for, in my opinion, absolutely nothing.  This country and most certainly the Pentagon learned nothing from the Vietnam fiasco as we repeat the same exact disaster except in an arid climate rather than in the jungle.  Meanwhile, as always, the generals strut around like peacocks surrounded by attendants while lying to the American public and those only too happy to believe the lies in the White House and Congress.  We are not "making progress" in Afghanistan.  We are merely squandering young lives and bankrupting the country.

The Imperial Life Style of Top Generals and Admirals

While rank and file troops often live in bare basics accommodations or far worse in the field, the military's top brass live a lifestyle akin to a Tsar or maharajah and, from the ones I have encountered locally often have an attitude that their you know what doesn't stink.  One cannot help but ponder whether such an out of touch lifestyle doesn't impair their ability to care about their troops many of whom in the chain of command are treated as if their were members of India's untouchables versus Brahmins.   If we need to cut military spending, let's start with the lavish perks of the top commands.  A piece in the Washington Post looks ate the ridiculous luxuries and staffs these men outrageously enjoy.  Here are highlights:

The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.

The elite regional commanders who preside over large swaths of the planet don’t have to settle for Gulfstream V jets. They each have a C-40, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, some of which are configured with beds.

Since Petraeus’s resignation, many have strained to understand how such a celebrated general could have behaved so badly. Some have speculated that an exhausting decade of war impaired his judgment. Others wondered if Petraeus was never the Boy Scout he appeared to be. But [former Defense Secretary] Gates, who still possesses a modest Kansan’s bemusement at Washington excess, has floated another theory. “There is something about a sense of entitlement and of having great power that skews people’s judgment,” Gates said last week.

Other veteran commanders concurred with Gates. David Barno, a retired three-star general who commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan, warned in an interview that the environment in which the top brass lives has the potential “to become corrosive over time upon how they live their life.”

“You can become completely disconnected from the way people live in the regular world — and even from the modest lifestyle of others in the military,” Barno said. “When that happens, it’s not necessarily healthy either for the military or the country.”

Although American generals have long enjoyed many perks — in World War II and in Vietnam, some dined on china set atop linen tablecloths — the amenities afforded to today’s military leaders are more lavish than anyone else in government enjoys, save for the president.

Compared with today’s plutocrats, their pay is modest. In 2013, the base salary for a four-star general with at least 38 years of service will be almost $235,000, although federal personnel regulations limit their take-home pay to $179,700. Unlike top civilians in government, top generals also receive free housing and subsidies for food and uniforms. And when they retire, those who have served at least 40 years get an annual pension that is slightly more than active-duty base pay — this year it is $236,650.

But the frantic search for cuts to reduce the growth of government debt could soon put some of the four-star benefits at risk. When he was at the Pentagon, Gates wanted to trim some of the perks but ran into resistance. It was, he said, the “third rail” of the Defense Department.

“You don’t need a cadre of people at your beck and call in an age of austerity, unless you are a field commander in Iraq or Afghanistan,” a former top aide to Gates said on the condition of anonymity.

I would further argue against such perks for those who have so poorly advised - or perhaps even lied to - leaders in Washington.  Candidly, some of these a-holes need to spend a few days or a week at the front living like average troops, with no attendants and special meals, to help get their heads out of their pampered asses.

Afghanistan: A Fool's Errand and A Gross Betrayal of Our Troops - Part 2

NOTE: The opinions in this post are mine alone and should not be attributed to anyone else.

Earlier this week I wrote here about how, in my opinion, both America's senior military leadership and and too many politicians have betrayed our troops in Afghanistan by placing them in a situation that is impossible to win in the longer term and simply throwing away young lives needlessly.  Any half-witted student of history should have been able to see the handwriting on the wall as the USA ventured into an arid climate version of Vietnam under the leadership of a cretin, George W. Bush, and a megalomaniac, Dick "Emperor Palpatine" Cheney, both of whom approved torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions.  

As regular readers know, I have long been a strong critic of the fools errand missions put into motion by Bush/Cheney.  But what set me off this week was that now my family has been directly impacted.  My son-in-law has been seriously wounded under circumstances it would seem the U.S. Army hasn't fully disclosed.  But my son-in-law was luckier than some because while badly injured, he is still alive.  There's this in today's Seattle Times:

Staff Sgt. Rayvon Battle, a Joint Base Lewis-McChord soldier from Rocky Mount, N.C., died Nov. 13 in Afghanistan.

Battle, 25, served with the 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division in Kandahar province. He arrived in Afghanistan earlier this month, and the cause of his death is under investigation, according to a base official.

Battle joined the Army in June, 2005, and came to Lewis-McChord in November of that year. He deployed twice to Iraq before serving in Afghanistan. He was assigned to the 38th Engineer Company, and deployed to Afghanistan as a squad leader.

Battle was the first soldier from the 4th Stryker Brigade to die during the unit’s deployment to Afghanistan, according to a base official. Since the start of this year, 33 Lewis-McChord soldiers have died in Afghanistan.

I don't know if this needless death arose out of the same incident in which my son-in-law was wounded or not, but I suspect that it was.  The cynic in me believes the statement "under investigation" really means, determining how to best spin this horrible circumstance.   Like Battle, my son-in-law was on his third deployment, having arrived back in Afghanistan just last month.  My sincerest sympathy goes out to the family of Staff Sgt. Rayvon Battle and all other families who have lost loved ones because of the hubris of politicians and disingenuous generals who forget that they are playing with the lives of real people and real families.  

I've noted before that Afghanistan has been an uncontrollable hell hole for at least two thousand years - a fact that should have been obvious to anyone who isn't a cretin and recovering alcoholic like George W. Bush and which should have been obvious to a senior military leadership that, in my opinion, likes to play at making war regardless of the consequences to our troops.  Here are highlights from how one South Asian analyst (his website is here) describes the current situation:

The publication Defence News comments expertly on military topics and recently described the performance of the US Air Force in supplying troops in Afghanistan with vital stores. It noted that last year “43 forward operating bases were supplied solely by air, with 27,000 troops receiving all of their food, water, ammunition and fuel from the sky, dropped primarily by the US Air Force... The necessity to resupply troops by air comes from several factors, not the least of which is the skyrocketing number of roadside bombs US, Nato and Afghan troops face, making travel by road a risky bet.”


This is a factual, down to earth (literally) record of proficiency. It is admirable that the US Air Force is capable of such expertise. But it is also an admission of total strategic and tactical failure, because the very reliance on airdrop resupply shows that the vast hi-tech military machines of the west are incapable of controlling roads in a country where they have been fighting a futile war for ten wretched years, in which so many thousands of soldiers and civilians have been killed or wounded.


Yet the Secretary General of Nato Anders Fogh Rasmussen, declared in October that “The enemy is being pushed further back from the population.” Heaven knows what briefings he was given during his visit to Afghanistan, but for anyone to claim that “We saw Afghan security forces that are growing more capable and more confident” is misleading to the point of downright dishonesty.


And the International Force spokesperson fluttered even further into cloud cuckoo land last week when he declared that “Clearly, the security situation is improving, the number of enemy initiated attacks is decreasing and the vast majority of the Afghan population lives in areas where peace and stability has already been established.” In the week following his absurd assertion there were five Nato soldiers killed, an appalling slaughter of Afghan civilians, and a rocket attack on Kabul.

With very few exceptions, units of the Afghan army and police are a shambles. Of course there are some capable Afghans in uniform – but they are few and far between and are consistently let down by their corrupt and bungling government. Their logistic supply system is a bizarre disgrace and they rely entirely on foreign forces for air support.

It is far beyond time that our military leadership stop lying and admit to elected officials in Washington and the American people that Afghanistan is an utter failure and that American forces needs to be withdrawn IMMEDIATELY.

New Washington Post Poll: Obama 51% and Romney 47%

While polls on where Virginia voters fall are all over the place many believe that Virginia's electoral votes will be decided by Northern Virginia ("NORVA") which has a disproportionate number of of, one of my brother-in-laws  government employees.  Indeed one over paid. of my brothers-in-law is such an employee and here's what many government employees are hearing from the Romney/Ryan campaign: (a) there are too may federal government employees and (b) that they are overpaid.  In contrast, Obama has been supportive of government employees even as he has admitted that smart, cost effective spending cuts need to be made.  Guess who these voters will for for.  Hint, it's not Mitt Romney.    Here a re highlights on a piece in the Washington Post that suggest that Barack Obama is again expanding his lead in Virginia:

President Obama is clinging to a slender four-point lead over Republican Mitt Romney in Virginia as both sides ramp up already aggressive campaigns in the crucial battleground state, according to a new Washington Post poll.

Obama outpolled Romney, 51 to 47 percent, among likely Virginia voters, although he lost the clearer 52-to-44 percent advantage he held in mid-September.
 
Unlike in the Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll, Obama still has an edge when Virginia voters are asked who better understands people’s financial problems, and he has not fallen behind a surging Romney on the question of who would better handle the national economy. Nor has Obama lost significant ground among self-identified independents in Virginia, as he has nationally.

Virginia, like Ohio and Florida, is particularly critical for Romney, whose path to the White House would be difficult without the state’s electoral votes.  Both candidates see a route to victory in Virginia. Obama is counting heavily on his advantages among African American, Latino and female voters as well as on his support in Washington’s inner suburbs and the urban centers of Richmond and Hampton Roads.

[I]n Virginia, unlike in national polls, Romney does not have a clear lead on the economy, and he continues to trail on other issues. Romney trails by 10 points on the question of who would better manage the future of Medicare; by 13 points on who better understands Americans’ economic problems; and by 12 points on who is better equipped to manage international affairs.

Romney has taken a 13-point lead on the issue in Washington’s outer suburbs, including Loudoun, Fauquier and Prince William counties. In the inner suburbs, Obama continues to hold a wide lead.

In Virginia, contrary to the most recent national numbers, Obama has an edge on enthusiasm: Among his backers, 70 percent are “very enthusiastic” about his candidacy, compared with 56 percent of those who back Romney. But Obama’s supporters appear to need more of a nudge than Romney’s do. Ninety percent of Democrats contacted by Obama said they are “absolutely certain” they’ll vote, compared with 82 percent who had not been contacted; among Republicans, more than nine in 10 said they are certain to vote regardless of whether they had been contacted.

I hope this polling is accurate for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it would confirm that Virginians as a whole are not as stupid and gullible as Roimney believes them to be.

Tony Perkins' Spittle Flecked Comments on Anniversary of DADT Repeal

Remember how the Christofascist whined and convulsed over the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell a year ago yesterday?  Remember all the dire predictions about the collapse of the U. S. military and how it was predicted that straight males would either leave the military or refuse to enlist in the first place?  Naturally, none of the predicted horrors have occurred so hate merchants like Tony Perkins and Elaine Donnelly who used DADT repeal to shake down the ignorant and simply minded are posturing to try to save face.  Now Perkins - a pathological liar and friend to white supremacists - is saying it will take 20+ years for the damage to make itself evident.  I guess he still needs some kind of shtick to keep the money flowing in.  Here's a sample of his batshitery and lies via Joe My God:

"Has America's military completely collapsed in the first year after repeal? Of course not--our service members are too professional to let that to happen. But these challenges are only a non-story because the media won't tell the story. We need only look at no-fault divorce in the 1970s to recognize that radical shifts in public policy take decades to fully manifest.

Let's hope the same isn't true for our brave men and women in uniform."  

A year ago, Perkins indeed was predicting an immediate collapse.   I guess those straight Southern boys enlisting in the military haven't found "teh Gay" to be so terrifying after all.  As Right Wing Watch reports some of the other usual gay-haters were more circumspect in their statements since the experience in the military has not matched their hysterical dire predictions of a little more than a year ago.  Here's a sampling:

On this day last year, the military certified the repeal of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy after Congress overturned the policy. Religious Right activists warned that the military will suffer as a result, however, their ominous predictions failed to materialize as studies show that the new policy is working and benefiting the military.

Consequently, it wasn’t a surprise that anti-gay groups were largely quiet today on the anniversary as their warnings about an exodus of soldiers, a drop in enlistments and a return of the draft were clearly wrong.

Ron Crews of the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty released a statement that the “radical sexual agenda in our military” is leading to significant “negative consequences,” citing one example of possible sexual harassment, same-sex ceremonies on bases and the supposed “silencing” of chaplains and DADT supporters

Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink also said in a post quoting Crews and calling for Congress to pass a GOP-backed bill banning same-sex ceremonies on military property, which they said would preserve religious freedom by barring all chaplains from performing such ceremonies.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, who predicted an increase in rape if the policy was repealed, pivoted away from his group’s hysterical claims to instead focus on possible same-sex marriages in the military, a result of the “radical sexual and social agenda” pushed by “homosexual activists.” Sprigg also cited a survey from the Military Times, but didn’t mention that the same poll found negative views of the repeal among service members are declining.

He also dismissed claims that the military would have “completely collapsed in the first year after repeal” since “our service members are too professional to allow that to happen,” but FRC president Tony Perkins did in fact predict the reinstitution of the draft and that congressmen who voted for the repeal will have “blood on their hands

The truth is that these individuals and organizations are premeditated liars who have but one agenda: impose their religious beliefs on all Americans like some would be Christian Taliban.

Study on DADT Repeal: Openly Gay Service A Success

Remember all the shrieks and dire predictions from the Christianists before the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?  Well, a new study shows that none of the horrors forecast by hate merchants like Elaine Donnelly and Tony Perkins have come to pass.  Instead, a new study shows that DADT repeal has not reduced military readiness and that the integration of openly gay and lesbian members of the military has proceeded more or less problem free.  A piece in the Huffington Post looks at the study's findings.  Here are highlights:

[A]llowing gays and lesbians to serve openly has not compromised military readiness.  .   .   .   .   co-authors include professors at the U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, and U.S. Marine Corps War College.

What did we find? The comments of a heterosexual Army Ranger who we interviewed sums up the story. He said that repealing DADT "didn't change anything... We've got a guy in the unit who is gay. We've been working together for years and everyone knew, but no one ever cared. For us it's all about whether or not you're good at your job... it's all about quiet professionalism, not about your sexual orientation." Even opponents of DADT repeal told the same story.

Only two service members, both chaplains, were identified as having left the military as a result of DADT repeal. A Pentagon spokesperson told us that she was not aware of a single episode of violence associated with repeal. Pentagon data show that recruitment and retention remained robust after repeal. Survey data also reveal that service-wide, the troops reported the same level of morale and readiness after repeal as they did prior to repeal. And our statistical experiment found that cohesion increased after repeal. Prior to repeal, experts predicted that disaster would follow from allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. In light of those concerns, the evidence we found is striking.

Last month, the GOP added a provision to its platform that implies that some members of the party suspect that DADT repeal has not gone smoothly:  .   .   .   But if concerns remain about repeal's impact on combat effectiveness or the military's ability to pursue its mission, those concerns should finally be laid to rest.

Let's be candid.  DADT was NEVER about military readiness.  It was always about self-styled "godly Christians" writing discrimination into the nation's laws to punish LGBT individuals for refusing to conform to fear  and hate based Christianist religious beliefs.  Claims to the contrary - like largely everything else claimed by Christianists and their GOP puppets - simply lies.

What Romney's Ryan Pick Means

Since the boyfriend and I have been engaged in family stuff most of the day and evening here in Somerset, Pennsylvania, I've been  out of the loop on the reactions to Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate.  Personally, I see the selection as fraught with danger for Romney and a sign of desperation to change the narrative.  It certainly is a move to appease the far right and the Tea Party crowd much as McCain's selection of Sarah Palin seems to have been.  While Ryan is light years more intelligent than Palin, he too may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many voters sitting on the fence.  I believe that Palin lost the 2008 contest for McCain.  Ryan may do the same thing for Romney if the Obama campaign can successfully tie the extremism of Ryan's budget proposal around Romney's neck.  Senior citizens and older baby boomer ought to be terrified at what a Romney-Ryan victory might portend.  Ezra Klein does a good job of summing up some of this in a Washington Post piece.  Here are excerpts:

1. Both Democrats and conservatives are going to get the exact debate they wanted. I’m not so sure about Republicans.

2. This is an admission of fear from the Romney campaign. You don’t make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals favor your candidate. You make a risky pick like Paul Ryan if you think the fundamentals don’t favor your candidate. And, right now, the numbers don’t look good for Romney: Obama leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by more than four percentage points — his largest lead since April.

3. Related point: Two of the top contenders in the Romney campaign’s veepstakes were Ohio’s Rob Portman and Florida’s Marco Rubio. Given that there’s fairly good evidence that vice presidential candidates are worth at least a point or two in their home states, the Romney campaign’s decision to pick Ryan is evidence that they feel they need to change the national dynamic, not just pick off a battleground state.

4. Romney’s original intention was to make the 2012 election a referendum on President Obama’s management of the economy. Ryan makes it a choice between two competing plans for deficit reduction. This election increasingly resembles the Obama campaign’s strategy rather than the Romney campaign’s strategy.

5. It’s worth recalling how Ryan became a semi-household name. It wasn’t a Republican strategy to put him forward. As Ryan Lizza recounts in his New Yorker profile of Ryan, it was a Democratic strategy to put Ryan forward. Ryan, he writes, “was caught between the demands of the Republican leaders, who wanted nothing to do with his Roadmap, and his own belief that the Party had to offer a sweeping alternative vision to Obama’s. Ryan soon had an unlikely ally, in Obama himself.” While Republicans were trying to keep Ryan quiet, the Obama administration was trying to make him famous. They saw his plans as the clearest distillation of the GOP’s governing philosophy — and they thought it would drive voters towards the Democrats. We’ll know in November whether that was a genius strategy or an epic miscalculation.

6. Consider the case for Romney until today: He’s a relatively moderate businessman running because his experience in the private-sector gives him crucial insight into how to manage the economy. Now consider Ryan: He’s worked in politics his entire life, beginning as an aide to Sen. Bob Kasten, then working for Sen. Sam Brownback and as a speechwriter to Rep. Jack Kemp. He’s known as a relatively ideological politician who has put forward a detailed policy plan to remake the federal government. It’s a rather different message about what’s important. And how does Romney say the problem with Barack Obama is that he’s “never spent a day in the private sector” and then put Ryan a heartbeat away from the presidency?

7. Ryan upends Romney’s whole strategy. Until now, Romney’s play has been very simple: Don’t get specific. In picking Ryan, he has yoked himself to each and every one of Ryan’s specifics. And some of those specifics are quite…surprising. For instance: Ryan has told the Congressional Budget Office that his budget will bring all federal spending outside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050. That means defense, infrastructure, education, food safety, basic research, and food stamps — to name just a few — will be less than four percent of GDP in 2050.

8. It’s not just that Romney now has to defend Ryan’s budget. To some degree, that was always going to be true. What he will now have to defend is everything else Ryan has proposed. Ryan was, for instance, the key House backer of Social Security privatization. His bill, The Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005, was so aggressive that it was rejected by the Bush administration. Now it’s Romney’s bill to defend. In Florida.

9. Joe Biden has a lot of debate prep ahead of him. I’ve interviewed Ryan three times. Twice on health care (here and here), and once on economics (here). He’s very quick on his feet, and he’s got a lot of experience explaining his plans to skeptical audiences.  .  .  .  Democrats underestimate his political skills at their peril.

10. Everyone always says they want an election focused on the issues. For better or worse, we’ve got one.

I believe that if voters truly come to understand just how extreme Ryan's proposals have been, they will run to the Democrats.  The big issueis whether Obama can truly educate folks sufficiently before November.

Coming Defense Spending Cuts May Backfire on GOP

The GOP likes to wrap itself in patriotism when its not wrapping itself in the cloak of religion.  And in this area with its large number of military personnel, many in the military and their families seem to have a knee jerk reaction of mindlessly supporting the GOP.  Even when it is not in  their best interest to do so (a similar argument can be made for working class Americans who vote for the GOP which despises them).  That blind allegiance may be about to come home to roost if a budget agreement isn't worked out because automatic spending cuts will soon be triggered and defense spending will get hammered.  For Virginia, this is a huge issue since so much of the state's economy relies on defense related federal spending.  Virginians may be about to get what they asked for by supporting demagogues in the GOP like Eric Cantor.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the results of GOP intransigence that may be about to hit.  Here are excerpts:

Senator Lindsey Graham rode last week like Paul Revere from South Carolina’s wooded upstate to its gracious Low country to its sweltering midsection, offering a bureaucratic rallying cry for his military-heavy state — the defense cuts are coming. 

On Jan. 2, national security is set to receive a heavy blow if Congress fails to intervene. That is when a 10-year, $600 billion, across-the-board spending cut is to hit the Pentagon, equal to roughly 8 percent of its current budget. 

Mr. Graham’s colleagues in the Senate have been strangely quiet about the impending cuts, set in motion last summer when the Budget Control Act ended an impasse over raising the nation’s borrowing limit with a deal designed to hurt both parties if they did not strike an agreement later on. A special select committee was assigned to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. If it failed, the cuts would come automatically, half to national security, half to domestic programs.  It failed, and the reckoning is approaching.

[N]no one knows what “sequestration,” the term for the automatic cuts, will look like, not lawmakers, not the military. But Republicans who helped create it as a bludgeon to force a bipartisan budget accord are now desperate to undo it. Indeed, some of the loudest advocates for blocking the cuts — like Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee — voted to create them;  .   .   .   .  

But the threat they created may be doing its job. Mr. Graham is openly talking about revenue increases to offset the costs. Even South Carolina’s ardently conservative House members, Mick Mulvaney, Joe Wilson and Jeff Duncan, said last week that they were ready to talk. 

On its face, the automatic cuts do not sound that bad. If they are put into effect  .  .  .  .  operations and maintenance, research and development, procurement, fuel, military construction — would face immediate cuts as deep as 13 percent .  .  .  .  

Mr. Graham warned the citizens of Beaufort that the Marines would have to shut either their Parris Island or San Diego training camps, and would face the same choice between their airfields at Beaufort or Cherry Point, N.C. In fact, under the law, all bases face the same cuts because Congress has prohibited base closings.   The dire warnings are not coming from Mr. Graham alone. They are coming at least as loudly from Leon E. Panetta, the secretary of defense. 

“The consistent pattern here is they [the GOP] have chosen to defend special interest tax breaks over defense spending,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “They made that choice.”

For now, Democrats and Republicans are waiting for the other side to blink. And the pressure may be working. Mr. Graham said the sentiment for raising revenues by closing tax loopholes or imposing higher fees on items like federal oil leases is expanding in his party.  Asked about the “no new taxes” pledge almost all Republicans have signed, he [Graham] shrugged: “I’ve crossed the Rubicon on that.”

The GOP has played games with people's lives - all to avoid tax increases for the very rich and large corporations.  Meanwhile, the rest of us have been paying the price.  It's time for this GOP agenda to end.  

Former Survivor Cast Member Rudy Boesch Proves He's a Bigot at Military Event

Living in Hampton Roads it's impossible to escape the huge military presence and hearing about military related events. One such event was the 50th Anniversary event for the Navy SEALS which were first organized on January, 1962. In honor of the occasion, more than 150 retired and active Navy SEALs attended a 50th anniversary ceremony Friday at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story in nearby Virginia Beach. One of the two two featured speakers at the SEALS' 50th anniversary ceremony was Rudy Boesch, a retired Navy SEAL and locally best known as a former cast member of the reality TV show "Survivor."

Boesch apparently behaved himself until asked if he keeps in touch with any members from "Survivor" cast, Boesch's response was that "I don't talk to queers — and when I say queer I mean homosexuals." Not only was the comment uncalled for and inappropriate, placing those in active military status in an awkward position, it's not true. First, I have known several gay SEAL team members, so it's all too likely Boesch has in fact spoken to gays in the military. He's simply too ignorant to know it. Moreover, years ago when we lived in the same neighborhood, Boesch spoke with me more than once. I was precinct captain for a political party and every time Boesch went to vote he spoke to yours truly. Boesch typifies the ignorance of those who think they don't know and interact with gays on a regular basis. Here are highlights from the Daily Press on the unfortunate display of bigotry:

Rudy Boesch, a retired Navy SEAL and former cast member of the reality TV show "Survivor," was one of two featured speakers at the SEALS' 50th anniversary ceremony. He spent much of his speech reflecting on his 45-year career in the military. His speech took an unexpected shift in his final remark. Boesch said when people ask him if he keeps in touch with any members from "Survivor," he responds: "I don't talk to queers — and when I say queer I mean homosexuals."

Lt. Arlo Abrahamson, a public affairs officer for Naval Special Warfare Group 2, said, "Those were his views as a retired Navy SEAL. Those views do not reflect the views of the United States Navy or Naval Special Warfare."

Members of gay-rights organizations, when told of Boesch's comment Friday, expressed dismay. "How is that pertinent to the purpose of the event?" said James Hermansen-Parker, president of Hampton Roads Pride, a gay rights organization in Norfolk. "How is that pertinent to the celebration of 50 years as Navy SEALs? I find it very closed-minded of him."

"I'm disappointed and I thought he was better than that," said Michael Hamar, a gay activist and Norfolk attorney. "I think with 'don't ask don't tell' ended, it's inappropriate now. He's making a bigoted remark at a military function where the military now — at least formally — says it's a non-issue."

Boesch was speaking at about the same time that The Virginian-Pilot reported that Navy Capt. Owen Honors would retire April 1. Honors was relieved of command of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise for making videos that included anti-gay jokes.

Fortunately, the mindset of those like Boesch will eventually die out as bigots die off. Meanwhile, it's unfortunate that he needlessly tarnished what might otherwise have been an honorable event.