ARMY’s Inside Foe is Killing It – Army to Cut Up to 4,000 Captains and Majors

Army to Cut Up to 4,000 Captains and Majors
18 December 2013

The U.S. Army is sending roughly 19,000 active-duty captains and majors to a screening board for early separation this spring, the Army Times reported. Up to 20 percent of those screened — approximately 3,800 officers — could be scheduled to leave the service by the Officer Separation Board and Enhanced Selective Early Retirement Board.

Officers with fewer than 18 years of federal active service will have their screening process done by OSB, and those with more than 18 years of service will see the E-SERB, according to the Army Times.


Attack of the Heterophobes!

Gretchen referenced1 this one for me:

Former Gay Activist Marries Woman; Addresses Critics Who Condemn His New Heterosexual Lifestyle
By Jessica Martinez, CP Reporter | December 13, 2013|2:10 pm

Michael Glatze married girlfriend Rebekah in October 2013 (Photo: Truth Wins Out)

An ex-prominent gay activist and former editor of a San Francisco-based, youth-focused homosexual magazine penned an open letter about his recent heterosexual marriage addressed to “angry homosexuals” who have criticized him for leaving his past and finding God.Michael Glatze stepped down as co-founder of XY Magazine in 2007 where he walked out by leaving a note on his computer that read, “Homosexuality is death, and I choose life.” His transformation from gay to straight began after he started to question his lifestyle following a health scare and with no one to turn to, Glatze decided to seek help in God. Now, he lives life as a straight man and recently married a woman, Rebekah, who critics are referring to as his “prop.”

“I want to make a little ‘shout out’ to all of the angry homosexuals in our country who are currently spreading all sorts of hate and aggression on pro-homosexual blogs,” wrote Glatze, in an op-ed on “Look, I am not interested in defending myself. I don’t really need to do that. I understand your plight, your point-of-view. I understand the desire to want me to be crazy, or lost in my head and mind, or confused. I understand that it would be just easier if I didn’t exist, or I would just crawl into a hole somewhere and die. But I’m not going to do that.”

He says his intentions are not to rub his marriage in anyone’s face, but to make his critics understand that he stands by his opinion about homosexuality as a flawed and mistaken lifestyle, and that he has a right to his opposing view the same way that they do.

More at the link.

Mr Glatze is easily attacked by the homosexual activists, because he is a Christian (Horrors!) and a political conservative. The activists are holding, essentially, that he couldn’t really have “converted” to normal sexuality,2 and that his poor new wife might not realize “what she’s getting into,” referring to her as a “prop.” Mr Glatze stands as an obvious example: maybe homosexuals really weren’t “born that way.”

But, what interests me is the contrast between the vitriol being heaped on Mr Glatze and the complete absence of (publicly expressed) malice toward Chirlane McCray:

This is an amazing flip-flop: Chirlane McCray, wife of likely Democratic3 New York City mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, was forced to release a statement yesterday admitting that, yes, she was a lesbian before she met her husband, currently the city’s public advocate.

“[I] identified as a lesbian and wrote about it,” she said after Hunter Walker at The Observer dug up a 1979 Essence magazine article Ms. McCray wrote called “I Am a Lesbian.”

“I survived the tears, the isolation and the feeling that something was terribly wrong with me for loving another woman,” she wrote. “Coming to terms with my life as a lesbian has been easier for me than it has been for many. Since I don’t look or dress like the typical bulldagger, I have a choice as to whether my sexual preference is known.”

Then, a sentence that she could never have known could complicate a future husband’s political career: “I have also been fortunate because I discovered my preference for women early, before getting locked into a traditional marriage and having children.”

Reacting to the story yesterday, McCray said that meeting Bill in 1991 changed everything: “In 1991, I met the love of my life, married him, and together we’ve raised two amazing kids. I’m reminded every day how lucky I am to have met my soul mate.”

More at the link. A Google search for de blasio wife former lesbian returned 80,600 results, and I certainly couldn’t check them all, but in the pages I did check, I found nothing at all along the lines of the vitriol expressed toward Mr Glatze. The de Blasios have been married for 19 years now, so it’s a slightly different situation — people like the distinguished Wayne Besen will have a more difficult time referring to a husband of almost two decades as a “prop” — but, despite thousands of stories referring to Mrs McCray as a “former lesbian,” I didn’t find a single attack or claim that she couldn’t really have changed her sexual orientation. Surely, surely! the fact that her husband, the incoming Mayor of New York City, is a far left liberal cannot have anything to do with the apparent reticence of the homosexual activists to attack his wife and claim that she just couldn’t have changed, could it?

After all, to have been just so upset by Mr Glatze converting to Christianity and abandoning his previous minority sexual orientation, while apparently so blasé about Mrs de Blasio’s, would seem to me to by hypocritical.

Of course, there is a difference. Mr Glatze wrote:

I do believe that homosexuality is a flaw, a mistake, a distortion and something from which one can be completely restored.

That is one part that the homosexual activists just can’t stand, and have attempted to get states to pass laws banning homosexual conversion therapy; New Jersey and California have such laws in cases where minors are involved. If such therapies cannot work, as the activists claim, then they shouldn’t worry about them; they’d be nothing but a waste of time and money. What they are really worried about is two fold:

  1. The underlying concept that homosexuality is not normal, and that the existence of such therapies reinforces the idea that homosexuality is not normal; and
  2. It just might work.

As we have noted previously, the entire push for same-sex “marriage” has not been one for hospital visitation rights or certain financial advantages, but one to say that homosexual relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, just as normal, as heterosexual ones. Tolerance of diversity was never really the issue; compulsory acceptance always was. People like Mr Glatze are a challenge to that meme, a walking, talking, living and loving example which proves that changing from one’s initial inclinations might be difficult, but is possible and is better. And that the activists simply cannot stand.

  1. Gretchen used the term “heterophobic,” and so she gets credit for the title. It is a perfect word. :)
  2. The choice of the word “normal” to refer to heterosexuality was consciously and deliberately chosen.
  3. The original has Republican Democratic. Given that no one paying any attention at all could have mistaken Mr de Blasio as a Republican, I assumed that was a correction rather than intentional snarkiness, and deleted the struck out Republican reference.

He must have a different definition of boom times than I do!

Heck, Bob Beckel for Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors! He can’t be any worse.

I guess that we’ll see

From The Wall Street Journal:

Socialist Leads in Chilean Presidential Race
Chileans voted Sunday in presidential elections that polls show are likely to install Socialist Michelle Bachelet for a second term.
By Sara Schaefer Muñoz | Dec. 15, 2013 1:19 p.m. ET

Michelle Bachelet is seen here after casting her vote in Santiago (AP photo)

SANTIAGO, Chile—Chileans voted Sunday in presidential elections that polls show are likely to install Socialist Michelle Bachelet for a second term, bringing a bigger government role in one of South America’s most prosperous countries.

Ms. Bachelet, who served a first term as Chile’s first female president from 2006 to 2010, is well ahead of rival Evelyn Matthei, a center-right economist whose family ties to the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet has hurt her campaign.

The 62-year-old Ms. Bachelet, who pursued moderate polices during her first term, has signaled she will push for greater state intervention if elected again. She has promised to support free college education, plug tax loopholes for businesses and address the country’s income gap. She appeals to voters who feel left behind amid Chile’s roaring growth, which has brought skyscrapers and shopping centers to the country’s capital but has left pockets of deep poverty.

Ms. Matthei, 60, who was labor minister under the current government of right-leaning President Sebastián Piñera, says she will keep the country’s economy chugging along and won’t meddle with the tax code or education system. She has promised to generate 600,000 new jobs, many for women.

More at the link. The BBC is reporting that Mrs Bachelet has won the run-off election by a wide margin, and that Mrs Matthei has conceded.

So, following the center-right presidency of Mr Piñera, under which Chile’s economy has prospered, the voters have decided to change things. The lure of socialism has always been strong amongst poorer people, who se socialism as a way in which their station in life can be improved. Of course, the promises of socialism as far as economic development and raising the lifestyles of the lower classes have never been kept. Income inequality has often been addressed, but rather than leading to a wider sharing of prosperity, such normally makes the wealthier people — except for the connected class — poorer, but doesn’t make the poor concomitantly richer. The rewards of socialism are best exemplified by Venezuela, an oil-rich nation which is nevertheless an economic basket case.

So, I guess that we’ll see. Yet another prosperous country has voted for socialism, of its own free will. Will Chile continue to prosper, or will her economy be dragged down into the same swamps as all of the other failed socialist systems?

The obvious, unmentioned problem

I spotted the tweet:


Which led to this story:

Considering the Humanity of Nonhumans
By James Gorman | Published: December 9, 2013 | A version of this news analysis appears in print on December 10, 2013, on page D1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Humanity of Nonhumans.

What is a person?

“Beings who recognize themselves as ‘I’s.’ Those are persons.” That was the view of Immanuel Kant, said Lori Gruen, a philosophy professor at Wesleyan University who thinks and writes often about nonhuman animals and the moral and philosophical issues involved in how we treat them.

She was responding to questions in an interview last week after advocates used a new legal strategy to have chimpanzees recognized as legal persons, with a right to liberty, albeit a liberty with considerable limits.

The Nonhuman Rights Project, an advocacy group led by Steven M. Wise, filed writs of habeas corpus in New York last week on behalf of four captive chimpanzees: Tommy, owned by a Gloversville couple; two at Stony Brook University; and one at the Primate Sanctuary in Niagara Falls. The lawsuits were dismissed, but Mr. Wise said he planned to appeal.

He believes that the historical use of habeas corpus lawsuits as a tool against human slavery offers a model for how to fight for legal rights for nonhumans.

There’s a lot more at the link. The story continues to note the efforts, and arguments, of some interested people, many of them scientists, to confer a form of legal personhood on animals deemed to have some particular aspects of behavior which would commonly be associated with a self-aware intelligence: tool use, self-recognition and the ability to plan for the future. But even though the article, at least in the web edition, has an illustration of three elephants, the article completely ignored the elephant in the room, that being the legal non-personhood of human beings prior to birth.

The New York Times has been quite liberal about publishing articles which advocate personhood for some non-humans, including, two months ago Dogs Are People Too.  But, when it comes to recognizing actual human beings who have yet to make their way through the birth canal, the Times is a bit more reticent.  In November of 201, the Times published an article by Gary Gutting, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, telling readers about all of the problems with declaring an unborn child to be a legal person, giving us arguments against doing so based solely on the fact that an unborn child possesses unquestionably human DNA:

Accordingly, the case against the morality of all abortions, no matter how early, needs to appeal to features of the newborn that are present at every stage of development beyond the fertilization of the egg.  Here the only plausible feature seems to be having the DNA characteristic of the human species (the structure that, in the natural course of things, will lead to the newborn baby).

The problem, however, is that a fertilized egg itself has this DNA.  Therefore, if we grant that killing a fertilized egg is not murder, we must also agree that the mere fact that a fetus or embryo possesses human DNA does not show that killing it is murder.  It also seems to follows that at least some early-term abortions are not murder, since it’s hard to see any moral difference between a fertilized egg and, say, an embryo of two or three weeks.

A possible response is to claim that there is a person with full moral standing only once the fertilized egg has been implanted in the uterus (about five days after fertilization).  But why think that implantation confers personhood?  The only plausible reason seems to be that an implanted egg is on a natural path that will, if all goes well, lead to a full-term birth.  But the same is true of a fertilized egg.  So it’s hard to see that the potential to develop into a newborn morally differentiates a fertilized egg before and a fertilized egg after implantation.

The basic problem is that, once we give up the claim that a fertilized egg is a human person (has full moral standing), there is no plausible basis for claiming that all further stages of development are human persons.  The DNA criterion seems to be the only criterion of being human that applies at every stage from conception to birth.  If we agree that it does not apply at the earliest stages of gestation, there is no basis for claiming that every abortion is the killing of an innocent human person.

More (both above and below) in the original.  I find it odd, however, that a professor of philosophy at such a prestigious Catholic university would be pushing the edge examples to argue against the very Catholic position that live begins at conception.  Dr Gutting tries to push the difference between fertilization — the point the Church defines as conception — and implantation, a distinction the Church does not take, because he wishes to legitimize the use of the so-called “Plan B” contraceptives, the “morning after” pills which impede the implantation of a human embryo in the uterine wall. The Times is, of course, a strong supporter of abortion.

Your Editor finds it rather odd: our friends on the left are just so eager to protect the lives and health of animals, yet so willing to allow a living human being to be just thrown away if the wrong person — his mother — does not want him.

Rule 5 Blogging: The IDF again

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Kate Upton in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

This week, we return to the Israeli Defense Force, because:

  1. There are a lot of available photographs of female Israeli soldiers; and
  2. They are just so darned good looking!


Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: The IDF again’ »

From Around the Blogroll

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain spotted the the hypocrisy:

Ed Schultz Goes Way Off-Message

Ed Schultz, The Angriest Man on Television™

Posted on | December 13, 2013

The Angriest Man on TV™ gets paid big bucks for his act as a left-wing populist who hates Republicans like God hates sin. Alas, when it comes to the lowly wage slaves who haul the freight at his network, Ed Schultz sounds like more like Ebenezer Scrooge:

Ed Schultz decided to take a break from his normal act of ranting against Republicans today by raging against some fellow liberals who had the temerity to criticize him and other MSNBC hosts for declining to publicly take the side of union members in a dispute they’re having with the cable channel’s parent company, NBC Universal.

Schultz . . . lashed out at a report from which mentioned him: “I become the target because I’m living good. I become the target because I have a platform. . . . They’re just out to take somebody down who’s got something they don’t have.” . . .

“I’m not going to lower myself to people who just have got employment envy, income envy, exposure envy, platform envy,” Schultz said, according to a Salon transcription of the show. . . .

Schultz also attacked an internet columnist named David Sirota in a way that could not be construed as anything but “punching down.”

“It’s interesting that you have had class envy on me for years, that you’re never going to be as big as I am. That’s what you’re all about, Sirota.” He reiterated his opinion moments later, calling Sirota a “loser.”

Wow, that’s weird. I actually agree with Ed Schultz: His critics are envious, and David Sirota is certainly a loser. But that message is not in sync with the egalitarian ethos of the Left, and Ed Schultz just exposed himself as a loud, phony, hypocritical plutocrat.

More at the link. We are, of course, not surprised in the slightest that the Heroes of the Working Man are strong union supporters, right up until the moment that the union has a dispute with their companies. From the Kennedy family’s opposition to the Cape Wind project because it could “be seen from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views,” meaning the views from the Kennedy estates, to Senatrix Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a strong advocate for higher taxes on wealthier people to pay for more social spending, who chose not to pay a voluntarily higher state income tax rate in Massachusetts on her own income of $716,000, to 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards’ use of a subchapter S Corporation to save himself $591,000 in federal taxes, to Nobel Peace Prize laureate and über-environmentalist Al Gore selling his failing Current TV network to Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the Emir of Qatar, whose county earns its billions of dollars by producing and selling the very fossil fuels Mr Gore loudly complains are destroying our climate, our wealthier American liberals have managed to be quite conservative when it comes to their individual interests, when it comes to Their Money rather than Other People’s Money. At The First Street Journal, we call that Democrisy, and in the cases of the Kennedys and Mr Gore, we can add the Ecopocrisy label as well.

Karen, the Lonely Conservative, noted more Democrisy:

War On Women: Dems Attack And Belittle Female Physician For Testifying About Obamacare
by Lonely Conservative • December 14, 2013

Democrats would like us all to think that when it comes to women they’re our knights in shining armor, riding in to protect us from icky Republicans and conservatives. But if a woman dares to speak the truth about their dreadful policies they whip out their pitchforks faster than you can say “war on women.”

Dr Patricia McCaughlin, testifying before Congress

Dr. Patricia McLaughlin, whose ObamaCare woes were first highlighted in The Post, gave a House committee a simple prescription for the defective health care law: “Fix it!”But Democratic lawmakers pounced on her for relating how she got hit with an ObamaCare “double whammy.”

McLaughlin told the House Oversight Committee, which invited her to testify after reading The Post article, how she had lost the group health plan for her four-person office.

Then, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield dropped her from its provider network, forcing her patients using that insurance to go elsewhere or pay out of pocket, she said.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) questioned whether McLaughlin was dumped from the network because her “credentials” weren’t as good as other doctors’.

More at the link. Dr McLaughlin found out that our good Democratic friends, those oh-so-noble supporters of women’s rights who castigate any Republican proposal they possibly can as a #WarOnWomen, will turn tooth-and-nail on any woman who dares to deviate from the Democratic Party line: note Martin Bashir’s suggestion that someone should defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth, for which he was subsequently resigned,1 or any mention at all of Christine O’Donnell on the Delaware Liberal.

Sister Toldjah noted that Mitt Romney turned out to have been right in what he said.

Hube pointed out the Denver Post’s selective editing out of a school shooter’s political views. Donald Douglas wrote about the same issue.

L D Jackson wrote that the President’s minions are denying that his immigration policy is actually his.

William Teach noted the impact of anthropogenic global warming on Santa Claus. So, if you can’t get your kids much for Christmas this year, you can blame global warming, and, of course, George Bush.

And finally, John Hitchcock takes a brief time out from his time on the road with an article on Truth Before Dishonor.

  1. That may look like a tortured grammatical construction, but it isn’t: “he was resigned” is The First Street Journal’s way of saying that he resigned his position, but that he had no choice in the matter. In the Army, the word is “voluntold.”

Round Three This Week


Maybe this is why. Eat your heart out WARMISTS

Sun’s Current Solar Activity Cycle Is Weakest in a Century
By Mike Wall, Senior Writer | December 11, 2013 06:50pm ET

SAN FRANCISCO — The sun’s current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say.
Our star is now at “solar maximum,” the peak phase of its 11-year activity cycle. But this solar max is weak, and the overall current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, conjures up comparisons to the famously feeble Solar Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, researchers said.

“None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something,” Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University told reporters here today (Dec. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. [Solar Max: Amazing Sun Storm Photos of 2013]

Read More Here:

This Begs The Question of the Year – Obama, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US?

Obama Personally Apologizes to Americans Losing Health Plans

President Barack Obama on Thursday told Americans that he was sorry that they were losing their health insurance under Obamacare, despite his repeated assurances for more than three years that they could keep their coverage if they were pleased with it.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” Obama told NBC News in an interview at the White House.

“We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them — and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

Read Latest Breaking News from