Clearly Nebulous

Do I Honestly Think? Yes, but Apparently that Makes Me a Liar

Count me in -- someone I consider a friend relentlessly attacked me on a message board regarding the health care bill. In all my years as an ardent pro-lifer, I have never been as disrespectful to anyone who disagreed with me. But this President, and his agenda, seems to bring this out in so many of his supporters. They choose politics over friendships.

I said that Barney Frank was condescending for asking a woman "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" at his town hall meeting. Yeah, she was the woman who made a hu-u-uge stretch by comparing what she feared could happen under the proposed health care plan to the practices of Nazi Germany.

Okay -- whereas I do agree with those who said there was a possibility that something resembling a death panel -- if only in the virtual form of bureaucrats making life-and-death decisions by turning to "QALY" (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) standards to set health care policy, and that could be looked at as choosing the fit over the weak -- I feel that making any comparison to Hitler does a disservice to those who suffered at the hands of that monster.

I tried to say that by attacking this woman, Frank was just fanning the flames of distraction from the debate, rather than attempting to reach consensus.

I suggested that Frank could have said something like "I detest any comparisons to Hitler, or Nazi Germany -- I think that is a ridiculous comparison -- but in the interest of putting these accusations to rest, I can assure you that any legislation that we pass will very clearly spell out that bureaucrats will not be making life and death decisions. No one need fear anything even resembling a death panel."

But rather than admit that Frank had skirted the issue, this friend felt I was defending the woman (who it turned out was a LaRouchie not a conservative, as had been suggested) and declared that I was just another "vicious and hurtful liar." Yep, for saying that this bill is so unclear and that so much seems uncertain -- I'm a liar. And for mentioning the V.A. pamphlet without expressly saying first that it isn't a death panel, but it does have questions within it that make me uncomfortable and fearful -- I was spreading even more lies. (Nothing like giving a friend a chance to explain herself, eh?)

Here I was trying to help him understand our concerns, and instead of saying oh, something along the lines of, while he doesn't agree such concerns are valid, perhaps there should be language prohibiting such practices added to the bill -- nope, instead he calls me names and says "Do you honestly think that Congress and Obama would stoop to that?"

(This from the guy who -- after saying that no President deserved to be compared to Hitler -- in the very same post suggested that he could see why some people think that "a scum like Bush" was at least a bit deserving of the comparison.)

Do I honestly think that about Congress and Obama? Yes, I do.

Because this is the same Congress whose leaders think it is more humane to suck the brains out of an "unwanted" or "imperfect" child just inches away from birth than let it be born and adopted by the countless couples aching to do so.

Because this is the same man who lied about his Illinois congressional record, denying that he voted against a bill to try to save babies who survive abortions. When his voting record was found, he then lied by saying that he voted against it because he felt there was already sufficient legislation. When the record of his comments on the floor of the Illinois House were discovered which revealed that he opposed the bill because he felt the infant -- even though alive and separate (outside the body) of his or her mother and also capable of being adopted -- was an undue burden on the mother, what did he do?

Did he apologize to the people who had challenged his cover-up for calling them "sleazy liars"? No.

Silence. He was counting on most people not to learn the truth. He was counting on the MSM not to press the issue. And it came to pass, and he was elected. 

So now the counter-attacks by Obamacare proponents ensue. They think the old tactics will still work. But everyone has wised up to Obama, Pelosi, Frank, & co. and they can no longer hide when their deceptions are revealed. These attempts to call us the liars isn't working and the truth is coming to light for all to see.

So while it hurt that this friend attacked me, and I don't expect he will apologize for letting his passion get in the way of respecting me enough to have a true debate, I find solace that the public at large isn't buying the "it's all lies by racist Astroturfers" subterfuge and is demanding an alternative plan.

I honestly think so.

Guarding Against Gardasil

The Washington Post had an article today about how schools in D.C. and Virginia are "requiring" girls entering 6th grade to receive the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) There is an opt-out: In Virginia, you can just not get the shot, but in D.C. parents must fill out a form.

But of course, "opt-out" has already been lost on some. A quote from the article:

"It wasn't really a choice," Haggans said while waiting in line at Kelly Miller Middle School during one of the District's free immunization clinics Thursday. Lanise received her second of three doses of the HPV vaccine at the clinic. "The school said she needed it, so I got her it," Haggans said.

So even though it isn't actually required, some parents will still think it is, or simply go along with it, and get the three shots -- kaching! that's another $375 in Merck's pocket!

Well, my daughters will not be getting the HPV vaccine, even though I am a big advocate of vaccines -- for easily communicable diseases. My daughters don't need a shot for something that is sexually transmitted. 

I believe that there should be some mandates to protect the public at large -- but only for diseases that can be spread by casual contact and are potentially deadly. The government has no right to require protection from something you can only catch from sexual contact, potentially risking a bad reaction which has included paralysis and some deaths that can't be explained.

Jessica Varga of Nevada became paralyzed hours after receiving a dose of Gardasil.

I'm not so worried that my daughters will become promiscuous if they get this shot. Whereas, I think young women do avoid sex for fear of getting pregnant and some for fear of getting AIDS, I can't imagine too many are thinking about other sexually transmitted diseases or cancer when they're deciding whether or not to have sex.

But I do take exception to the notion that our schools and our government are assuming that young girls will inevitably become sexually active so soon that they feel that girls as young as nine need this shot. Even entering sixth grade these girls aren't even twelve -- and they're already being set up to have sex at a young age?

These proponents of Gardasil actually think they are empowering young women to take control of their sexual health. Not from where I stand.

My daughters will be truly empowered. They will be taught that it's best not to have sex until marriage, and all the reasons why. They will unequivocally believe that their sexuality is so special it is not to be trifled with, that no boy should ever be allowed to attack their self-esteem or trick them to think otherwise. A truly empowered young woman would never have sex unless under the best of conditions, practically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, etc etc -- and not before they're at least eighteen.

If they do decide otherwise -- after they're out of high school, in a long-term monogamous relationship with someone whose health history they are fully aware of, and after full discussion and consideration of possible repercussions -- I will have taught them that they should be examined by a doctor first, and then they can make any health care decisions for themselves. (They will also be encouraged not to use an abortifacient to prevent pregnancy, and they will base their decision knowing that sooner or later they will get pregnant... but that's another blog post.)

What's really going on here is the bigger agenda of sex without consequences. Gardasil, birth control, abortion -- all being shoved down the throats of young women while trying to convince them they are "taking control of their sexuality." Sounds more like certain sexually liberal advocates are trying to convince everyone -- most importantly themselves -- that recreational behavior that can damage you both body and soul, and potentially can create another human being, can be alright if you simply get shots, pop pills, and undergo "procedures."

I'm not buying it -- and neither will my daughters.

Gardasil can also vaccinate men, though it has not yet been approved by the FDA to be marketed as such. Isn't it interesting that once again the responsibility of preventing sexual consequences is placed on young women? Why don't radical feminists have a problem with this, like traditional feminists do?

Update: Apparently the FDA has now approved Gardasil for males, as of October 16, 2009. So when will liberal groups push for young men to get vaccinated? Doesn't matter, my son will not be participating either...

 

 

Compassion for One Remorseless Terrorist or Victims' Families?

Should Scotland be compassionate? Let's boil it down to that simple question and say, yes they should.

But any act of compassion has to be examined as to exactly what effect it will have for all those involved. If showing compassion for one murderer results in gut-wrenching strife for countless others -- how is that taking the high road?

Apparently, some of the victims' families -- kind (but sadly misguided) souls that they are -- have said that they agree that this terrorist should be freed.  I'm afraid that their need to let go of any hatred and to not give in to the evil that affected their lives has led to that erroneous notion.

The Lockerbie Murderer (I will not speak his name, for I hate to contribute to the reknown for those who commit atrocities) has already been shown compassion. He was spared his life by not receiving a death sentence, and he has been receiving treatment for his illness -- more than likely at the expense of someone else in Scotland. (At least now, maybe someone else will move up in line.)

If he received a life sentence, that should mean spending the rest of his life -- to the last second -- in jail. Even if we can see the end of that life approaching much sooner than expected, even if he is at death's door, that sentence should be carried out, to the bitter end.

Some actions should result in a complete surrender of any benevolence.

The absolute clincher in this case? This cretin has never expressed any regret for what he did, and would likely do it again. If he had the chance to bring down the plane that took him home today and crash it into any U.S. embassy they fly over, I imagine he wouldn't have hesitated.

And will those in Libya bow their heads when he arrives, quietly welcoming a sick family member, humbly acknowledging that a mercy has been bestowed upon them they didn't deserve? No -- they will celebrate and welcome him home as a hero who has performed valorous deeds.

While the victims' families and friends will be suffering yet another assault upon their trampled spirits, a murderer's family and friends and countless others will dance in the streets.

It is obvious that compassion was lost in this imprudent injustice to release a murderous monster. The truly compassionate act would have been to spare the victims' loved ones further pain. 

Remember, 279 people aboard that plane -- 178 Americans -- and 11 people on the ground died at the hands of this remorseless assassin.

Hey BO -- Forget FedEx -- Have a Look at Safeway and Whole Foods

FedEx and UPS compete with the US Postal Service?! Come on, Obama. Everyone knows that overnight service is just one aspect of mail delivery. You can't walk up to a FedEx box with a letter that has a stamp that cost you only 44 cents and send it to the other side of the country in just a few days.

Rather than grasp for these poor examples of how private industry competes with the government -- why not switch it up altogether? Rather than continue beating the dying horse known as Obamacare (you know, that 1000+ pages bill that you haven't actually read) -- why not have a look at other successful models in the private market?

Two CEOs have stepped forward to present their own ideas for health care reform. Op-eds by Steven Burd, the CEO of Safeway, and John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, have appeared in the Wall Street Journal in which they explain the plans that their respective companies use to secure health care for all their employees who wish to have coverage -- while also cutting costs. They make a case that these methods can be applied to health care reform for the whole nation.

The proposals they make are similar to those presented by conservative pundits, but these two men have the advantage of showing that these models work, as their own employees are benefitting from these plans without bankrupting their companies in the process.

But are these men's proposals being given due consideration by liberals? To the contrary -- rather than actually examine these plans, and perhaps make suggestions about tweaks that can be made... Nope, instead there has been a call to boycott Whole Foods. For the crime of suggesting that there is another way -- even though it's a way that has been successfully put into practice (actually more likely the crime of daring to disagree with their Beloved Leader) -- the President's supporters are going to look elsewhere for their organic milk and alfalfa sprouts.

Now, I think we have to remember that these plans are working with healthy, employable people. Many of the uninsured in the U.S. don't fall into that category -- people with severe health problems that prevent them from being gainfully employed. But that doesn't apply to the vast majority of the citizens of this country.

If the supporters of Obamacare used these examples as a starting point, certainly we can come up with a system that will work for everyone. If they just use those open minds of theirs and actually look these ideas over, they may see another way that will still meet their goals without raising the ire of over half of the country, that can be paid for, and that won't turn into yet another bureaucratic boondoggle.

A Special Place in Heaven for Pro-Lifer Eunice Kennedy Shriver

Here's what the MSM will not tell you about Eunice Kennedy Shriver -- unlike almost everyone else in her politically powerful family, Mrs. Shriver remained true to the pro-life views of her Catholic faith. She recognized that political clout was not reason to abandon one's principal's in defending the most helpless among us.

Here is an excerpt from a story on Mrs. Shriver from Feminists for Life's Remarkable Pro-life Women, published in 1998.

WHEN EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER was awarded the Presidential Medal of Honor in 1984, then- President Ronald Reagan declared, "With enormous conviction and unrelenting effort, Eunice Kennedy Shriver has labored on behalf of America’s least powerful, those with mental retardation …. Her decency and goodness have touched the lives of many."

Shriver, a longtime supporter of Feminists for Life of America, has demonstrated a lifelong concern for the "least powerful." The founder of Special Olympics International and executive vice president of the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, Shriver supports organizations that work on behalf of women and children, born and unborn...

As executive vice president of the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, Shriver continues to support solution-oriented programs to eradicate discrimination and problems faced by the disenfranchised. The Kennedy Foundation says its mission "is to provide leadership in the field of mental retardation and services to persons with mental retardation, both those born and unborn, and their families."

Shriver, recognizing the high rate of mental retardation among children born to teen-age mothers, led the foundation’s efforts to develop an innovative program to address the causes of problems facing teen-age women and their children. Called Community of Caring, the program focuses on "health and nutrition for the pregnant teen, preparation for childbirth, development of parental skills, and the importance of continuing in school and avoiding risk-taking behavior." Parents and community volunteers act as a mentoring network for teen-age mothers. Since its inception in 1986, more than 350 schools have adopted the Community of Caring program.

In my opinion, the tireless efforts of Mrs. Shriver easily make her the most significant, successful, and saintly of the Kennedy Clan.

Purity Begins at Home -- from Day 1

I saw an article on AOL about how the Candie's Foundation is causing a stir with a new shirt that has what they consider to be a slogan that supports abstinence -- or safer sex -- or something -- they don't seem sure.

Why do I feel like it all -- the whole foundation -- is just a stunt? It seems "sorta pushing abstinence, but actually acting like teens can truly make this life-altering decision to engage in this behavior" is the equivalent of breweries joining the "designated driver" bandwagon -- it's the hip thing to do, that tries to misdirect our attention from the problem they're part of.

When it comes right down to it -- it seems to me like this campaign is trying to reel in girls who are already too far in peril. Whether or not they have already had sex, they are already in a hypersexualized state where their identities are too far embroiled in "all things sexy."

Why are we trying to make abstinence "sexy"? Why can't abstinence just be what it is? The smartest, safest, all-around best way to go?

I don't let my girls watch shows or videos, buy clothes, or listen to songs that push them to grow up too fast. And I'm only about 90% successful, at best, considering how much is out there. I keep having to endure what I feel are very "pouty" pictures. Thankfully, despite what others may think when they see them -- they are not trying to be sexy or emulate characters from a tv show that has inappropriate content. They're just imitating the models in innocuous ads. (No Abercrombie catalogs -- or clothing -- in this house!)

They're not calling up or texting boys (although I have been unhappy with some networking comments) and they tell me when boys say rude things to them. They think boys are stupid -- and I intend to keep it that way for as long as I can. (I know that a part of them longs to have a boyfriend -- but it doesn't involve anything beyond innocent puppy love.)

It's no accident that I started from a young age to tell my girls that they are more than just a pretty face. And being pretty is not about make-up and sexy clothes. (Oh, and that boys lie. Even the good ones. They can't help themselves -- or more accurately, their raging hormones.)

Let's teach both girls and boys from the beginning that purity, prudence, and pride are to be valued. Trying to bring them back when they've already been overexposed -- that's one genie that will not get back in the bottle.
 

Now that's a slogan I like! (Ok, a little cheesy -- but it's on the right track.)

Joker... Joker... JOKER!

First there was the original, Heath Ledger. His performance was praised by one and all. Then came the George W. Bush cover on Vanity Fair and the Right shrugged and said that was rude -- but inaccurate. We all knew that W. was actually Batman.

                                                    

So now there's the ubiquitous Obama as Joker poster and the Left is up in arms. Immediately they started sputtering -- how terrible! Why.. why... it's RACIST!

Well, despite eloquent and empassioned arguments by legitimate commentators, like the article by Philip Kennicott in the Washington Post yesterday -- I'm sorry but it's a stretch. A huge one.

 

First they tried to argue that it was a black man in white face. Oh, wait. It's nothing like the opposite of a white man in black face, where a white man is performing a denigrating portrayal of a black man. No it's a man in a clown face. An evil clown.

 

So, they try to say things like, as in the article above,

 

"He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and '70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness "

WHAT?!!

 

Ok, raise your hand if you looked at that poster and thought to yourself -- yes, he's like the Joker because he is black and therefore urban and therefore dangerous.

 

Yup. NOBODY!

 

Now raise your hand if you thought -- yes, he's like the Joker because of the things he has done. He is single-handedly trying to take down our way of life with his reckless and dangerous actions.

 

Yup. IT"S UNANIMOUS!

 

 

 

 

Why the White House "Fishing" Really Stinks

The White House is being blasted for asking supporters to send "fishy" information about the health care reform bill that they have received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address -- the now infamous flag@whitehouse.gov.

I was all set to say -- ok, ok, we made our point. This is what liberals would have said if this had been tried during W's administration. No one seriously believes that this is going to create problems for any individual. There isn't going to be an "enemies list" or any such nonsense. There is no need to be paranoid.

But then I recalled how individuals in California who had made contributions in support of Prop 8 were targeted by those opposed. The San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of the marriage initiative and some of those donors were harrassed with a deluge of emails and in other menacing ways.

So who's to say this couldn't happen with people who voice concerns about a sweeping, unnecessary overhaul of an imperfect system? When they point out that the few million who are in a medical care crisis can be helped (and changes that can benefit everyone can be made) without the government taking over and without costing us trillions of dollars that we don't have -- should this be made a permanent public record?

The White House knows all the counterpoints being made to their proposals. They can simply respond to them. Why do they feel it's necessary to ask their supporters for specific people's names and/or email addresses? Maybe it's all innocent enough. Maybe the White House had no ulterior motive. But who knows what would have become of that list? What could happen if it gets into the wrong hands?

It's one thing for a blogger to go on record and put herself out there. I accept the consequences. But people shouldn't have to worry that their random conversations at the water cooler, the soccer game, or the neighborhood block party could lead to trouble.

I wouldn't have believed it. But it has happened. The conservative reaction to this move by the White House is not paranoia. It's an all-too-real concern about potential payback.

Linda Douglass, White House Communications Director for the Office of Health Care Reform

Is this woman Big Brother? Probably not, but why is she asking Americans to report on their neighbors?

Remember What Lisa and Euna were Fighting

The scenes of Lisa Ling and Euna Lee being reunited with their families are heartwarming. It is hard not to be moved seeing these women return to American soil, knowing that they faced what may have been a death sentence, considering the harsh conditions in North Korean work camps.

It was clearly not an easy diplomatic decision. More harm than good may have been done in the bigger picture by giving a crazy despot an air of legitimacy. But seeing the images of Lee hugging her 4-year-old, it seems the right course was taken.

And who knows? Now that Kim has rubbed elbows, maybe he'll desire to do it again. Assuming that Americans now know to stay far away, there won't be any more hostages held for trumped-up charges. He won't have any cards to deal -- he'll have to make concessions to get back to the table. Only time will tell. 

But what has been lost in this story -- and I assume that Lee and Ling will remind us -- is why those women were on that border. As I wrote in June, these two brave souls were trying to expose the human trafficking that North Korea turns a blind eye to.

They wanted to expose the horrors faced by young women who don't have a voice. No former U.S. president can step in on their behalf to rescue them.

There is an organization that works toward the abolition of child sex slavery and exploitation that I support. It's called Love 146 and their website is at www.love146.com

Watch this video, and if you are moved -- make a donation. If you are as moved as I was, make it a monthly pledge.

The New "B" Word -- "Birther"

I've never really been called a "Broad" -- but I've been told that once upon a time it was actually a compliment. A Broad could hold her liquor, make a guy laugh, comment about a ballgame... Think Maclaine or Dickinson in the Rat Pack days. I like to think I'm a Broad. (Ok the liquor thing -- not so much anymore. I'm a lightweight now. Practically a teetotaler.)

Shirley Maclaine when she was a fun broad -- not a New Age quack.

And I've managed seldom to be called a "Witch with a B" -- to my face anyway. I deliberately chose a husband who does not use such language. A lesser man would probably use it a lot -- I can be rather... well, I act in that manner that is called "aggressive" when a man does it, but "b-witchy" when a woman does. If so, yeah, that's me.

I've never been called a "Breeder" to my face ever. But I know there's a group out there who refers to me as one. Oh yeah? Badge of honor! I'll gladly bring the children into this world who will be paying your Social Security. You're welcome, you ingrates! A--hem.

They actually sell shirts with this on it -- what the heck?!

So now some folks are going around calling themselves "Birthers." Not the most accurate appellation, I think. It sounds as though it refers to women who have kids, just like "Breeders." But, whatever, there it is -- another "B" word.

The mainstream media -- other than Lou Dobbs -- has given no credence to the questions raised by this bunch. Even conservative media like Bill O'Reilly and The National Review -- heck, even Ann Coulter -- have backed away from it, claiming it is a non-issue. Although they do believe that Obama is probably hiding something.

But I imagine they smell a set-up. It will turn out that there was some small detail that may be a bit of an embarrassment, and oh won't everyone who was screeching for proof of his birth look stupid? And then any calls for the release of his other records will never happen, out of sympathy for Obama and out of contempt for the huge amount of egg on the faces of the Birthers.

So do I think Obama was born in Hawaii? Chances are he was. But I can't say I know for sure. And I think it's amazing that everyone who supports BO says that he has already produced a birth certificate. That anyone who thinks he hasn't proven he is a natural born citizen is crazy -- that the State of Hawaii confirmed it.

Have they not ever heard that there are other more complete birth documents that Obama is keeping secret? That he has spent $800,000 (an amount, I admit I can't find the source for, but is the number that crops up everywhere) blocking what the "Birthers" are calling for? Why doesn't that raise red flags with the MSM? The same media that went berserk when someone else spent $150,000 on clothes that Sarah Palin never even asked to be purchased?

The same media who clamored over the eligibility of John McCain last year? The same media that raised a ruckus about unsealing the divorce records of Obama's opponent for his Senate seat in 2006?

Jack Ryan -- the first man run over by the Obama Media Love Train.

What was he hiding in those divorce records, they bellowed? They insisted they be made public and did not let up until the records were unsealed and a man was ridiculed and called a liar for not wanting the world to know that he propositioned his own wife in a bar.

So now we have sealed birth records, sealed college records, and sealed law school records -- from a man who championed transparency... and the media has no issue with that whatsoever? If it were not this man, whom they adore so much, they would be rabidly foaming at the mouth for the release of these records. And they are calling the Birthers kooks?

 So, if someone who thinks

A) that Obama should be held to the same standard that every other candidate was -- most notably, his own opponents 

B) that he should stop giving lip service to transparency and actually practice what he preaches and

C) that since he is not above anyone else's standard and touts transparency then he should therefore release all these records

is a "Birther" -- then yeah, count me in. Badge of honor.

[And if you believe A and B, it should also be C -- and then you're a Birther, too.]

Do Ask Congress, Do Tell the Military... It's Time for a Change

The WashPo had an article that focused on one particular Air Force pilot, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who is awaiting a policy change regarding gays in the military. The airman -- who has nine Air Medals, including one for heroism under fire during an enemy ambush near Baghdad in 2003 --was outed by a civilian. 

He faces dismissal which means he will lose nearly $50,000 a year in retirement pay as well as medical benefits. Fehrenbach is more disappointed that he will be unable to serve the country in a time of war. "It doesn't make sense to throw out someone who's ready, willing and able," he said. 

He was hopeful with Obama's election that the policy would change, but the President has backed down from campaign promises. He's probably shrinking away for political reasons. He doesn't want more controversy with everything else going on right now.

The President has mentioned conducting a study. Which according to this article, has already been done -- more than once -- with the conclusion that changing the policy will not adversely affect morale.

An excerpt:

Professor Diane Mazur, a former Air Force officer who teaches at the University of Florida and who has published widely on gays in the military, added that “every research study published over the last fifteen years has concluded that military readiness is not harmed — and may be strengthened — when all qualified Americans can serve and no one has to live in secrecy.”

The article also points out that "conducting a study" is usually code for "delaying and killing."

I believe BO should not make an executive order, but he should urge Congress to take action soon. Because this is a change that should not be a mandate from any President. It should come from Congress --those who represent the citizens of this nation -- which will give it more legitimacy.

Yes, I know there are still strong opponents. Yes, I recognize that the military brass should generally be the ones who make policy decisions. AND it's about time that everyone acknowledges that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to serve.

The argument is that gays in the military are a disruption. In fact, the airman was charged with "damaging good order and discipline." How is that so, when he served in an exemplary manner for 18 years? It seems the supposed disruption only happened when his orientation was revealed by an outsider.

Nothing changed except the presumed reaction of those around him. Seems to me -- if any problem even exists --it's their problem -- they are the source of the disruption, not Fehrenbach.

If the compromise needs to be that it's taken on a case by case basis -- I think that's fair enough. But the burden of proof should be on the military to prove that the person's behavior or actions was the problem -- not the biases of those who serve with them. Anyone who has a problem can be reassigned.

There's no compelling reason to dismiss good men and women who just want to preserve our freedoms. It's time for Congress to act and change this archaic policy.

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach