It was bound to happen, and for those who knew just how liberal Mr. Obama really is, proof is in the pudding. After all, what do you expect when the most liberal senator around is elected to the office of president? I do not believe this is what the founding fathers would have wanted or expected.
Military troops are people who should be held in high esteem for their what they do in the line of duty to both protect our country and lend a helping hand to others in need. They have needs like anyone else, and certainly deserve to work in an environment unencumbered by unnecessary pressures brought on by thoughtless bureaucrats, including the new president.
In an article citing the Obama administration’s plan to scrap the ban on gay men and women serving in the armed forces, troops discuss how they feel on the matter. To put it succinctly, many of them are not happy with the decision, and in my opinion, rightfully so. You can’t dictate how people feel about certain matters, and knowingly adding fuel to the fire is not in the troops’ best interest.
That’s not all, either. An incoming president doesn’t have to work the same way as the outgoing administration, and no one should believe they should. According to the same article mentioned above, here are some other controversial issues the new administration will deal with:
He is expected to reverse many of former President George W. Bush’s policies, including by closing the U.S. military’s Guantanamo Bay detention center, banning interrogation techniques seen as torture, and scrapping funding restrictions on stem cell research.
But he may be mindful of former President Bill Clinton’s early days, when he failed to push through a change of policy on gays serving in the military and drew fire from Christian groups.
It would be nice if he could keep his liberal ideas out of the White House, but that might be a stretch. Please, President Obama, think about what you’re doing before implementing your radical decisions.
In a Newsmax article on the subject of Mr. Obama’s pro-gay stance, it is evident allowing the ban to be removed would have a detrimental affect on our military. It is my opinion the ban should be kept in place. What do you think about this highly explosive issue?
Elaine Donnelly, founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, declares there would be a certain percentage of troops who would leave if the ban were repealed. I don’t think we have the luxury of weakening our military purposefully or otherwise. Here’s what she came up with after crunching some figures:
- A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10 percent) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people — more than the active duty Marine Corps (200,000).
- If an additional 14 percent decided to leave, the voluntary exodus would translate into a loss of almost 527,000 — a figure approaching the size of today’s active duty Army (more than 545,000).
That’s liberalism for you. None of us know for certain how this hot-button issue will play out, but it is most certainly controversial. I would be interested in your views on the matter. Would you care to comment?