Saturday, December 18, 2010


Well, the leftists went and did it. They successfully repealed DADT with the help of the usual RINO suspects. Here are the eight traitors:

Brown, Collins, Murkowski, Snowe, Burr, Ensign, Kirk, Voinovich.

Oddly enough, Democrat Senator Joe Manchin failed to vote today. Could it be that he was not to willing to put his stamp of approval on this "historical" legislation today? In reading the liberal posts on the internet, their main point seems to be that this is on par with Truman’s decision to desegregate the military and then the integration of females into the service in the 80’s. Bullshit.

First of all, when blacks were desegregated, a white man and a black man could still find common ground, i.e., women. Consider this, the Gunny, as a white man is standing next to a black man, both of us in the Marines, in say, 1949. A woman walks by and we both are checking her out. We break off the eyeball liberty and our eyes lock for a moment. We both know what we were doing and we laugh about it. Male bonding? That is how camraderie is built, a step at a time. But say, a religious troop is forced to room with a gay troop, is that not reverse discrimination? Is that not legislating for the vast minority at the expense of the majority?

Second of all, the standards have been lowered so far as to be laughable to allow women to succeed in the service. No doubt there are women who have served with distinction but a growing majority never complete their first term, which is a waste of time, money, and resources. Consider this:

"The exodus is particularly unsettling for the Army: A full 47% of its enlisted women are gone, either by choice or involuntarily, before the end of three years, despite having signed up for terms averaging four years."

The average of all of the services combined is 38% of females leaving before their first term is completed.

Top causes of first-term attrition for females:

Substandard performance in initial training: 27%
Medical condition originating before service began: 20%
Pregnancy: 17%
Physical disability: 6%

The cold hard facts is that 4 out of 10 females drop in their first four years. How does that affect deployments? Manning levels? What is the cost to take a female from boot camp, through a service school, then into "the fleet", only to have her take an honorable discharge, say, at the two year mark, for getting pregnant, usually without being married to boot. The cost to take a female from recruitment to a service school is about $35,000. How much has been lost trying to make this work? How deep is this issue being buried by the services in order to prevent the issue from coming to light in this PC world? Remember Jessica Lynch? She was touted as a "hero" by the Lapdog Media, as she was awarded a Bronze Star, proof positive that women could serve in combat. Trouble was, when the truth came out, as it ALWAYS DOES, the story somehow died before it could be reported to America. She was ill-trained, unprepared, got knocked out without firing a shot, likely her weapon was filthy and unusable (Army weapons records were MIA), and the Army whitewashed the whole thing. And when this happens with gays, more whitewash will be applied by the Lapdog Media, and victory will be declared, like the former Soviet Union used to declare their various five-year plans a success, in Pravda newspapers and on other state-controlled media outlets.

Third, the "survey" that Gates and Mullen sent out was not only flawed (many combat units are reporting that they never got it) but the results have been spun by the media.

1. 62% of all service members surveyed expect at least SOME negative results if DADT is repealed.
2. 74% of all Marines and Army combat arms expect serious issues.
3. 82% of Marines in combat arms units foresee issues.
4. Military members stated that if DADT was repealed, those who would bail from the military sooner was SIX TIMES higher than the number who would stay in the military if DADT was repealed. Expect a mass exodus as time progresses and contracts expire. Officers leaving the service as they resign their commissions will be the first step.

Perhaps the most telling number is that 57.5% of all surveyed stated very clearly that repealing DADT would affect "task cohesion" either negatively or "very negatively." Only 9% stated that repealing DADT would have a positive impact. One more point on that survey should be noted. So the problem now is that the military is already having recruiting issues and the Left is repealing a policy that would result in personnel losses to the military, that would outnumber any gains from allowing homosexuals in the ranks.

Oh, the Gunny almost forgot what the Pentagon said in the report (that never made it to the Lapdog Media:

"The majority of views expressed were against repeal." (link at bottom of the page)

So now the military, in doing everything that they have to do to field a first class fighting force, now has to work out the showers and bunking situations. If a straight man has to room with a gay, is that fair? Nope. In fact, it is discrimination. What happens when a gay makes a pass at a straight guy and a fist fight results? Is that now a hate crime? What happens when a Drill Instructors yells at his recruits, "MOVE IT LADIES!" Is that now hate speech because the gay is offended? There are only two winners in this deal, one, the enemies of the United States and the trial lawyers that make up the Democrat Party (100%). The Left can’t even let the troops fight and win without adding this to the mix, i.e., Waxman and Code Pink sending aid to terrorists in Fallujah. The Gunny won't even get into the financial and health care issues which have been discusses at length in other essays.

Did the Pentagon even consider what repealing DADT will do to the military’s mixture of religions? Islam, for example, is staunchly anti-gay so what happens when a Muslim refuses to work with a homo? Who gets punished? More time lost in a bullshit situation created by idiots who have never served a day on active duty. What happens when devout Catholics have to serve with homos, a lifestyle that runs directly against the grain of their religion? It is not like pro-abortionists who can hide that belief in order to get the job done, gays will be openly speaking of and discussing their lifestyle which will offend the majority. Oops, there’s that reverse discrimination thing again. This issue is going to reduce the trust necessary, no, an absolute ingredient in a warfighting unit and when there is no trust, there is a loss of efficiency, mission effectiveness, unit cohesion, and other variables that make a military unit strong. Oh, and speaking of trust, gay troop Manning sure did the US proud, huh?

The eight traitors mentioned above voted along Democrat lines so one has to wonder what the payoff Obama promised them is? Do they get more of our tax dollars looted from the treasury for their states? Lisa Murkowski for one, has her snout so deep in the federal trough, that all one can see is ass sticking up in the air as she feeds. BTW, the Gunny would like to thank the Alaskan Native Corporation for their effort to get RINO Murkowski reelected. Happy now?

So who gets punished if this mess fails? The troops. The nation. Our safety.

Liberals use a bullshit argument when they mewl that "don't ask and don't tell" denies a homosexual a chance to serve in the military. They can serve, they simply cannot tell nor conduct their lives as open homos. How about transsexuals? Do they get to serve? That’ll be attractive, a man, dressed as a woman, in say, Air Force blues, strutting around in public. What an image for the public to consume. Unfortunately for the Left, the truth hurts. The majority of Americans still see gays as a unsatisfactory lifestyle, sorry bout’ that, but it is what it is. What's next, sex changes at your local Naval hospital? Gays couples in Base Housing? Nice. This was done by a lameduck Congress and a corrupt Senate, and will be signed into law by a President who still has yet to provide a valid birth certificate.

At the end of the day, the military is not vehicle for social experimentation because their business IS the killing the enemy, it IS destroying their means to fight, and it IS crushing their will to resist. Secretary Gates is a bought and paid for political hack and Admiral Mullen is a result of the Clinton years and they are a disgrace the offices they hold. Once again, it must be stated that the military was not created with "rights" in mind and those of us who have served KNOW THIS but the social engineers on the Left could care less. The Left is forcing the majority of military to change for the whims of a few as they seek to fix what ain’t broke. Maybe we'll go full circle once we regain our sanity (likely after getting our asses kicked somewhere) and reinstitute the total ban, which worked well enough to produce an ass-kicking military for a century or more. Again, the military exists to fight wars and win them and ANY ISSUE that detracts from that is bad, and that includes throwing out fatbodies, shitbirds, malingerers, drunks, druggies, etc.

"A good moral character is the first essential in a man..." --George Washington


Read: The Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military


  1. Gunny,

    I thoroughly enjoy most of your articles, but on this we disagree. The only points you make that have any merit are based on the report itself.

    For one, Most of our allies have an open military and have experienced almost no issues whatsoever.

    All of your "reverse discrimination" arguments are based in homophobia. I could say that because I was forced to room with a Mormon when I was in the corps that I was discriminated against using your logic. Gay couples in housing? Britain does it, and based on my experience serving alongside them in Iraq, they didn't seem to be bothered by it. I didn't even know it at the time, never heard a peep until I read about it back home. IDF is another incredible fighting force with an open military. Aussies as well, trained with them for 10 days on float and they were badass and never knew of or heard anything like the scary scenarios you throw around.

    To your statement saying most americans still see homosexuality as unsatisfacory, here is a FOX NEWS poll with over 300,000 respondents. Not the exact question but 70% thought the federal judge made the right ruling by throwing out prop 8. If your statement were correct, I imagine the responses would be slightly lower. FOX is also not known to be a heavy lib trafficing site.

    This issue is on the liberal agenda as a whole but not that they give a damn about it. It's just votes to them. It should be backed by any limited government party in my opinion.

    with that said, don't take this personally gunny. Just a disagreement on one policy.

  2. JP,

    No problem, we agree to disagree.

    I was in two units where we had gays from other services chopped to our unit and one both occasions, they caused issues and both were removed from the deployment. One tried to climb into the rack with a Marine he fancied, I was on fire watch, and the gay took a beat down. He had been warned several times prior to no avail.

    Also if I remember correctly, a gay yeoman turned the USS Kearsarge into the USS Queer Barge by transferring gay sailors into every open billet. I heard that shit aboard that ship was pretty bad.

    Argument for gays is that it works for Israel yet upon examination, Israel does not deploy people on ship for months and months, indeed, many of their troops go home at night.

    During BJ Bubba's reign of hell, the Navy Times reported a "mass exodus" of Officers and SNCOs to retirements/seps, in June 1997 I think.
    I believe that this is wrong and like all conservatives, I believe that change is best implemented slowly and over time to make sure it works. Why is Obama and the Left in a rush on this? What happens if a massive amount of officers resign their commissions?

    They are simply pandering for votes at the expense of the troops. I did not even cover the health issues of gays, the most "health-risk" group in our society other than addicts.

  3. In the cases you mention, One, the gays should be sent to the brig and discharged no different than a male doing the same to a female in a mixed gender barracks.

    Regarding Israel, no they do not deploy as we do, but they do have barracks like ours in the states so close living conditions do occur.

    Any instance of sexual misconduct should be dealt with in accordance to the UCMJ whether hetero or homo.

    I just can't rationalize discriminating against anyone based on who they prefer to have sex with. I don't want any part of it, but to each his own. If they wanna shoot some hajis just like the rest of us than I say the more the merrier.

  4. Seems to me this repeal is going to backfire on gays. When a law is repealed,and nothing to take it's place,does not the law,standard,regulation,or whatever,especially in the case of the UCMJ,revert back to what was in place prior? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here,but I see nothing now that says if an openly gay person declares such at recruitment time,the branch they are trying to enter is under NO obligation to accept the person. Those gays who are already serving,will they be subject to discharge under the UCMJ if they are found to be acting in violation? Another example of not-well-thought-out legislation,if you ask me.

  5. Mullen.....simply the least inspiring CNO of my career. The Sailors knew he was a political hack, and knew he had exactly zero warrior leadership skills.

    A Chief friend of mine said yesterday afternoon, "Looks like it is time to retire!"

  6. I think what scares a lot of people is that straight men could now face the same sexual harassment and abuse that women in the military have gone through. I think a lot of soldier's will find out that gay men are just regular people though, and not out to turn straight men gay.

  7. JP,

    As far as gays go, I don't give a damn what they do so long as I don't have to see it but there is more here than shooting hajis.

    One, what happens when they go HIV pos? They're non-deployable. What happens when they go AIDS and are hospitalized? An empty billet. Who foots the bills for their very expensive medicine? The taxpayers. Who foots the bill when they die? The taxpayers through SGLI. What happens if they come in clean and get Hep C because of the nature of their lifestyle? Who pays their disability from the VA and who pays for their transplant?

    I REALLY don't care if gays serve openly but until these questions are answered, this is just a scorched earth policy from the Left, rammed down our throats, because they're pissed off after Nov. Human nature being what it is, this is asking for trouble.

  8. clyde,

    Good point. Again, this is really just the left and the RINO bastards pandering for votes.

  9. What I want to know is why is it so darned important for them to announce to the world their sex preference? When ever they announce "Hey, I'm Queer" and automatic picture pops into a persons head of a perverted sex act. Why is it necessary?
    When I first left California and came back to this area, I worked at a factory. There were several homosexuals that worked there. One in particular, dressed like a woman. Several wanted to use the female bathrooms. This one that dressed like a woman, actually wanted rest time when it was "that time of the month."
    These people have a mental disorder. god didn't make them that way. He wouldn't make them queer, then punish them for it, when the bible tells us he hates them, and they are an abomination.
    Congress has made a big mistake. they are trying to look so fair minded while flushing others rights down the tube. They will have a lot to answer for, because in their so called righteous indignation to put these sick perverts in a place they have no business, all the while they fight to have innocent unborn babies slaughtered by the millions, their hands are dripping with blood!!

  10. Craw,

    Agreed. Both Gates and Mullen are as Col Hackworth would say, "perfumed princes." Gates is nothing but an Obama asskisser.

  11. Nanna,

    What is more aggravating is that DADT was working fine, but a few rabble rousers didn't like it, sought to overturn it, and then won't serve, and then it is off to another do-gooder act.

  12. pushpins,

    Like the broad brush on the sexual harrassment gig. Care to name any cases? I never saw one in 21 years but I did see a lot of preferential care for females that caused tension and discord.

    Did you miss the crux of the essay? That there are a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of lies and half-truths that the Left and the Lapdog Media foisted on us. That this is being rushed through without enough thought to it.

    And when it fails, when someone gets killed as a direct result, when deployments are canceled, or units have issues, who is to blame?

    Change is one thing, hurried change to pander for votes is quite another.

  13. Gunny,

    All this to appease 2-3% of the US population. For what?

    Follow the money.

  14. About women:,9171,1968110,00.html
    is just the first article I could find. Plus I remember AFN running a lot of commercials about it but whatever.
    It's been studied again and again. Why does it even need to be studied when most other developed nations have successfully allowed gay men and women to openly serve for years.

  15. Hardnox,

    You got it brother. Taking in campaign donations and pandering for those votes. The Senate, the Congress, and the POTUS are corrupt beyond belief. They ain't worth a cup of warm spit.

  16. pushpins,

    While I like the fact that you post here and provide a counterpoint, please do not cite anything from Time. It's pure shit.

    I cited the Army's very own stats and other stats from DoD in the essay.

    In my 21 years, I saw females drop from runs, drop from humps, leave the field for female issues, etc. Once my unit got 3 female replacements. Two came up pregnant shortly after reporting in and one came up sick, lame, and lazy, i.e., laminated light duty chit.

    Are some females who can do it? HELL YES and it was a pleasure serving alongside them but don't sugar-coat it. Almost 50% of the time it doesn't work and that is a lot of money wasted.

    BTW, using the Israelis as an example ain't too good either as they got their ass waxed the last conflict they got into with the PLO/HAMAS and every other nation is a piss poor example as they're used to US doing all of the heavy lifting, i.e., fat german (NATO) troops in Afghanistan refusing to go on patrols, etc.

  17. Your point about "move it ladies" or some similar comment, which sure as hell will happen, has to have the legal douches licking their chops. Can you imagine the number of lawsuits that are going to be filed because some gay is "offended" over some comment or joke that in itself is rather harmless. You have to be careful about what you say around the ladies now as it is. Even though 99%+ can deal with it. I guarantee there are a number of gays going to join up just to wait for the inevitable "offensive comment." But then the demoassholes have been ba-lowing lawyers for many years now.

  18. Navyvet,

    Indeed. Since the Deomcrap Party is 100% trial lawyers, this is what they've been waiting on. Careers will be ruined over bullshit, people will resign their commissions or separate as they did during BJ Bubba's reign of Hell, and the military will go back to what it was during the Carter regime, demoralized, broken, ill-equipped, and ill-trained.

  19. Nanna: "Whenever they announce "Hey, I'm Queer" and automatic picture pops into a persons head of a perverted sex act."

    I guess because it IS a perverted sex act.

    I don't know if homosexuality is by choice or by nature but I do know all the brew-ha-ha by the homosexuals stems from a giant inferiority complex problem.
    Same sex marriage, gay pride parades, everything that homosexuals do to "in your face, straight America" is a pathetic plea for acceptance and approval. The more folks disapprove the louder they cry out. Now they are on the dangerous ground of destroying (with mucho help from the left) the effectiveness of the American military.
    But they don't care. They are so self centered in their quest for acceptance and approval they will destroy everything if they don't get their way.

  20. The Gunny,
    No I believe it is you who deserves congratulations! You have created an excellent site where homophobes and racists can come here and share their views on white brotherhood!

  21. Anon,

    I noticed that you could not refute any of the facts above nor could you provide any answers to the questions I asked.

    So, you're just one of the libs who think that the vast minority should force the vast majority to conform to them? Do I have that right?

    BTW, homophobe means someone is afraid of homosexuality. What is the word for someone who is repulsed or disgusted by it? As far as racism goes, I see plenty of it from your party and your side but little from the right.

    Nice try though.

  22. Anon,

    Homophobes & racists.

    That's the best you can do about the exchange of ideas on this website?

    How do you know everyone that frequents this site is white?

    You Mr. Meatwhistler, are the rascist...and a douche bag.