Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Well, at least he admitted it’s about opposing contraception Previous entry: NC U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx says Obama lectured her—but she did get his autograph.

The Pray In Jesus Name Project: ‘defending our troops against open homosexual aggression’

Look at this batsh*t crazy Human Events ad on the pending repeal of DADT.  Well, clearly this is the kind of crap that the Obama administration and Congress fear—and what is causing them to call for more study and to say it will be "several years" before implementing the repeal of DADT in the WaPo:

The Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.

A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced Tuesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While the review is likely to take the better part of this year to complete,  and even more time to implement, its initiation will advance President Barack Obama's goal of repealing the ban and bring a divisive issue for the military back to the fore.



Human Events

Below please find a special message from one of our advertisers, The Pray In Jesus Name Project. From time to time, we receive opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. Please note that the following message reflects the opinions and representations of our advertiser alone, and not necessarily the opinion or editorial positions of Human Events or Eagle Publishing.

 

http://www.humanevents.com/images/3p/201001/header.jpg

URGENT NEW PETITION: SELECT HERE TO SIGN AND DEFEND OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, and we will fax your personalized petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen, (saving you hours of labor!)


OBAMA ENDANGERS TROOPS LIVES by REPEALING "DON'T ASK-DON'T TELL"

President Obama pledged in his State of the Union Address to promote open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military, by directly recruiting Congressmen and Senators in 2010 to overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that saves troops lives and already guarantees equality.  Ignoring a letter signed by over 1,150 retired military flag and general officers, who asked Obama to enforce the 1993 Clinton-era law that currently prohibits open homosexual aggression in the military, Obama instead sacrificed military readiness, unit cohesion, and safety of all American troops, to prioritize his special relationship with less than 1% of the American population who claimed to be homosexual in the last census.

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay men and women the right to serve the country they love," Obama boldly misled, repeating the vow he made during a speech Oct. 10th before a gay rights group.  (The truth is homosexuals already now have the right to serve, so long as they keep their sexual aggression to themselves.)  "If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else," Obama said oxymoronically, defining "equality" and "values" as a sudden endorsement of illegal acts of sod omy long banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Joint Chiefs sat stone-faced silent, aghast at Obama's plan, but powerless to publicly oppose their own Commander-In-Chief.  We must be their voice…

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
  

 More crazy below the fold.

 


"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay men and women the right to serve the country they love," Obama boldly misled, repeating the vow he made during a speech Oct. 10th before a gay rights group.  (The truth is homosexuals already now have the right to serve, so long as they keep their sexual aggression to themselves.)  "If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else," Obama said oxymoronically, defining "equality" and "values" as a sudden endorsement of illegal acts of sod omy long banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Joint Chiefs sat stone-faced silent, aghast at Obama's plan, but powerless to publicly oppose their own Commander-In-Chief.  We must be their voice…

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.
  



http://www.humanevents.com/images/3p/201001/ObamaSOTU.jpgAs a former Navy Chaplain and Air Force Academy graduate, having served during wartime combat operations, in close quarters with Sailors onboard a combat cruiser, and having personally counseled both straight and homosexual sericemembers, I can personally attest the last thing our Sailors need is a lack of trust or suspicion toward their fellow shipmates.  Our uniformed servicemembers very lives depend daily on their ability to trust each other, without worry about being ogled, made advances upon, or violated by those with whom they share common sleeping quarters and showering facilities, 24/7 both on and off duty.  Friends, do you care about protecting our military's trust, unit cohesion, and saving our troops lives?  Take action today…

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

Kevin Nix, spokesman for the pro-homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is spearheading the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal effort, told the Washington Times the House bill now has 182 co-sponsors, just short of a majority.  "We're just trying to get to 218 to show that the bill is ready," said Mr. Nix, who added that senators plan to introduce a bill shortly.

"We expect a bill introduction for the first time in 16 years," he said. "We definitely expect a hearing this year. There are still things that need to happen, but we are definitely on the brink of a bill in the Senate.  We want repeal done in 2010.  Done, to the president's desk for a signature."  A spokesman for pro-homosexual Congressman Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA), who is leading the repeal campaign in the House, said he has commitments from 16 members in addition to the 182 co-sponsors, totaling 198 votes, just short of a majority.

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

 

http://www.humanevents.com/images/3p/201001/MarineConway.JPGIn the Pentagon however, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway has emerged in internal deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, according to the Washington Times.

 "Most of the senior brass hold deep reservations about President Obama's pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues," the Times reported.

WHY KEEP OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF THE MILITARY?

Four reasons:  1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat.  2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men?  This fact alone would hurt recruiting.  3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield.  Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered.  4) "Gay promotion quotas" would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged "equal opportunity" complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

But Marine Commandant General Conway has gone further than others in stating his opposition to a change in policy, according to a former official who was privy to private conversations on the matter. "He feels very strongly that [removing the ban] would be disruptive, and he opposes it," he said.  But if Congress changes the law, the General must implement the law.

Obama campaigned during his election to end "don't ask, don't tell," the policy signed into law by President Clinton. The policy ended the practice of asking prospective recruits about their sexuality, allowing homosexuals to freely serve, but prohibited openly gay men and women from talking about their sexual urges while serving.  Repeal would allow them to share their sexual urges with their fellow soldiers, creating needless and divisive tension in the ranks.

The House Armed Services Committee will likely hold a hearing on a repeal bill in the spring, meaning the earliest floor vote could come before the middle of 2010, as part of the 2011 Defense Armed Services Authorization or Appropriations spending bill. Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee had planned a hearing in 2009, but none was scheduled. The White House will likely soon submit a repeal bill to the Hill.

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

 The four-star chiefs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army have said little on the topic in public and have not been pressed by Congress to provide their professional opinions. All four declined to answer when asked for their personal opinions on the ban by The Washington Times, except to say they will abide by the law.  They've been silenced for fear of upsetting Obama, who would likely force their immediate retirement.

They are not going to talk until it's time to talk," said a senior officer inside the Pentagon, who added the chiefs will discuss any specific legislative proposal in private with the chain of command - meaning Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the president.

Adm. Mullen, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the president's top military adviser, has expressed concern about carrying out the president's wish.  "I think it's important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn't disrupt the force at a time where it's under a lot of stress," Adm. Mullen told the Military Times in May. "And that, to me, means in a measured, deliberate way, over some time—to be determined. And I don't know what that would be."  (I know how and when….never risk our troops lives.)

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

 

The Times reports Gay rights groups cite recent polls that show the public now supports repealing the ban, unlike in 1993, when polls showed the opposite. That year, Congress stopped Mr. Clinton's bid to change what was then only a regulation. He ended up signing the ban into law.  The Pentagon discharged 633 men and women under the ban in fiscal year 2008. 
 
 
 
 
 
Gallup reported to the Washington Times in June that 58 percent of the conservatives it polled favored allowing openly gay men and women to serve. Overall, 69 percent of adults support ending the ban, Gallup said.  (That's a good reason to forward this email widely, to begin educating our friends on why the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law must remain.)  
 
 

 

Gallup reported to the Washington Times in June that 58 percent of the conservatives it polled favored allowing openly gay men and women to serve. Overall, 69 percent of adults support ending the ban, Gallup said.  (That's a good reason to forward this email widely, to begin educating our friends on why the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law must remain.)  

Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and argues in favor of the ban, pointed a reporter toward a recent article she wrote for the American Thinker.

"Consistently small numbers and percentages of people discharged due to homosexuality contradict any claim that a national security emergency justifies repeal of the law," she wrote.  "And it is not convincing to hold up the small, dissimilar militaries of foreign nations, none of which have adopted the extreme agenda being proposed for our military, as role models for America's forces. Nor does it help to ignore the stated opinions of more than 1,150 retired flag and general officers and current military personnel."  Our military is not a grounds for new and radical social experiementation, especially ones that endanger lives.

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

God Bless you, in Jesus' name,
http://www.humanevents.com/images/3p/201001/sig2.gif

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt 

 

P.S. Prefer to sponsor us by direct mail?  Please mail postal donations to:  The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO 80970.  Please don't wait.   Our troops lives, trust, and cohesion depend on our voice.  Please take action, sign our petition today, and we'll automatically deliver your message!

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

 

Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying "in Jesus name" in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views, not the views of any political party, government, or organization.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 05:04 PM • (31) Comments

Telling that they consider any expression of male sexuality to be “aggression”.

Comment #1: Denise  on  01/31  at  05:33 PM

Well when Homostan and Gaytonia declare war on the U.S of A you’ll feel damn foolish now won’t you.

Comment #2: pharmakos  on  01/31  at  05:41 PM

1) Immediately and decisively deal with sexual harassers and abusers, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.

2) Dishonorably discharge anyone whose lack of professionalism is so severe that they actually neglect or endanger their fellow soldiers just because one of them happens to be openly gay.

Problem solved.

Comment #3: Katie Joy  on  01/31  at  05:49 PM

How narcissistic do you have to be to assume that all teh gheys secretly want to have sex with you, and that only the existence of DADT prevents them from talking non-stop about how they want to suck your cock?  (Lesbians, of course, are ignored, as they serve no purpose other than to populate heterosexual porn.)

Why do I suspect that the first reaction most wingnuts have on meeting a gay person isn’t fear or revulsion, but profound hurt and disappointment that they are not immediately hit on?

I think, to the wingnut mind, the greatest fear isn’t that someone is going to hurt them—it’s the deep down knowledge that they are really no more special than anyone else.  That’s intolerable, so they imagine themselves to be the target of gays and terrorists everywhere.  If there ever was a gay terrorist organization, these people would all have spontaneous orgasms at the very thought.

Comment #4: Captain Bathrobe  on  01/31  at  06:07 PM

They don’t do HIV tests as part of the recruitment process? Because I think whether it’s HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis, or whatever, if it’s
1. possible to transmit a serious disease and
2. lack of proper medication delivery could result in a seriously ill soldier on active duty
the government would wish to avoid hiring them into the military.

As for the rest of it, what Katie Joy said. It would make the military far better for EVERYONE if the “boys will be boys” mentality that excuses rape was washed away, even if it’s because they are afraid of the far less likely homosexual aggression.

Comment #5: Samantha Vimes  on  01/31  at  06:21 PM

“It would make the military far better for EVERYONE if the “boys will be boys” mentality that excuses rape was washed away, even if it’s because they are afraid of the far less likely homosexual aggression.”

[mindless military patriarchy]
...but don’t you understand that our brave American soldiers are just bursting with testosterone, which they must be in order to Defend Our Freedom and Protect the American Way of Life?  Naturally, all that testosterone makes them difficult to control, so you’ll see a few rapes here and there.  They’re just Fine American Boys who have to let off a little steam now and then.  It’s only natural.

And remember:  If that sodomizer Bill Klinton hadn’t been in office, there wouldn’t be any queers to kick out of the military…
[/mindless military patriarchy]

Comment #6: MikeEss  on  01/31  at  06:52 PM

MikeEss, that’s exactly what Patton said. “Of course there will be some raping, but see to it that the culprits are caught and punished.” Yeah, it’s just one of those things.

This is the sort of shit that somebody who thinks of sex as a predatory act writes when they fear they might get a taste of their own medicine.  Lesbians don’t exist, apparently, or the potential assaults they might commit on other women are just no big deal, because, well, there’s going to be some raping, would you bitches just shut up about it already?

Comment #7: ginmar  on  01/31  at  07:19 PM

Yawn.

Comment #8: felagund  on  01/31  at  07:24 PM

Katie, you hit it on the head.  But that’s the fundamental issue with modern western militaries.  They’re a society unto themselves with no oversight except from distant government entities that only see the final paperwork and not the day-to-day activities that are covered by the blanket of silence.  The legitimization of homosexuality within the military is the traditional first step to legitimizing the reality of their existence.  Similar to desegregating the military this act will move the whole issue into a place where the inevitable outcome is to give them full citizenry rights (i.e. marriage rights). 

Just as with time, this move would grant the LGBT community more acceptance.  Thus the bigots need to fight it tooth and nail.  I don’t know the finer points of whether this panel is just a formality to lifting the ban or what, but I am sure President Obama will be lifting the ban one way or the other, it is within his powers to sign an Executive Order to change this.

Comment #9: Xeranar  on  01/31  at  07:25 PM

Our uniformed servicemembers very lives depend daily on their ability to trust each other, without worry about being ogled, made advances upon, or violated by those with whom they share common sleeping quarters and showering facilities, 24/7 both on and off duty.

so basically they do not want to be treated the way they treat women in the military, completely ignoring the fact that not all men are chauvinist pigs with delusions of entitlement to sexual gratification.

Comment #10: jadehawk  on  01/31  at  07:55 PM

How stunning to find this outpost of sanity in that sea of batshit crazy:  “Our uniformed servicemembers very lives depend daily on their ability to trust each other, without worry about being ogled, made advances upon, or violated.”  I agree with this statement 100%*

The mistake they are making, of course, is in thinking that this state exists.  I’m sure there are plenty of female servicemembers who would be glad to tell them it doesn’t.

Also, stepping back from the batshit crazy and looking at just the regular-crazy from the top of the article, isn’t it funny how there has never been any study done or evidence collected to show that having openly gay servicemembers *would* harm unit cohesion, but the burden of proof has been shifted so that it’s (supposedly) necessary to conduct a full study to show that it *wouldn’t*? 

*Although I am troubled by the seeming equivalence drawn between “ogling” and “making advances” on the one hand and rape on the other.  “Making advances,” in particular, could be anything from perfectly acceptable behavior to criminal sexual harassment, depending on how the advance-er responds to being rebuffed by the advance-ee.

Comment #11: A.  on  01/31  at  08:00 PM

If there are gays in front line troops, aren’t they supposed to be aggressive?

Comment #12: bad Jim  on  01/31  at  08:10 PM

Shorter Pray in Jesus’ Name:

We believe gay servicemembers will act toward male servicemembers the way male servicemembers act toward female servicemembers.
This is because we are utterly incapable of envisioning, let alone enforcing, any better way for servicemembers, or anyone else, to act w/r/t sex.

Moreover,

4) “Gay promotion quotas” would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged “equal opportunity” complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.

No, but when DADT is finally repealed,  every L/G servicemember who rises through the ranks will have to deal with Bible-bangers who insist that (a) said L/G GI only got ahead via quotas—even though the quotas will only exist in the minds of said Bible-bangers/drama-queens; and (b) every Holy Joe too incompetent to make rank will blame the L/Gs.

Comment #13: Molly, NYC  on  01/31  at  09:44 PM

I’m sure the reason they’re not concerned with male-on-female aggression and harassment in the military is because they don’t think there should be women in the military in the first place. Girls shouldn’t play with guns, doncha know. Tain’t feminine.

Comment #14: Bitter Scribe  on  01/31  at  10:24 PM

They can’t possibly think conservatives would or can read all of that.

Comment #15: Emily  on  01/31  at  10:36 PM

presently impartial promotion boards

Ah, the famously impartial promotion boards! Would the people on these impartial promotion boards be the same people who currently fire soldiers for being gay?

Comment #16: Rebecca  on  01/31  at  10:59 PM

Why not let the servicemen & women decide?  Put it to a vote.

Comment #17: Kwillow  on  01/31  at  10:59 PM

“They can’t possibly think conservatives would or can read all of that. ..”

Nah, just the red bolded parts.

Comment #18: Kwillow  on  01/31  at  11:00 PM

#17,

A basic right to co-exist isn’t something that should be put to a vote.  Either someone’s sexual preference is a problem that makes them unable to perform a job, or it isn’t.  Whether or not someone makes others uncomfortable is not important in regard to sex any more than religion, race, or even left-handedness should be.

If everything was put to a vote, tomatoes would be toxic, the Earth would be flat, and Native Americans probably wouldn’t have souls.  Human rights are not determined by popular votes, but by our ideals.  They don’t always match up, but progress happens.

Comment #19: 3letterjon  on  02/01  at  02:19 AM

Also, the military is ruled by the civilian government.  They follow orders, and that’s part of the sacrifice they make when they join up.  If they find that they couldn’t serve alongside open homosexuals, then they will be disobeying orders and thus unfit to serve.  If they can’t follow orders, then they shouldn’t have joined up in the first place.  Good riddance to servicemen and women who can’t set their personal biases aside for the sake of their duty.

Comment #20: 3letterjon  on  02/01  at  02:25 AM

If I were a closeted serviceman who wanted to keep my job, I wouldn’t in my right mind vote yes in such a poll or express opposition to DADT, because if it fails I would risk casting suspicion on myself. Plus in these sorts of intolerant environments, straight allies are made invisible too. No one can imagine supporting LGBT people unless you were one yourself. See: high school and that Ugandan op-ed piece posted earlier where the man opposing the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ keeps having to mention that he’s not gay himself.

Comment #21: JilliefromChile  on  02/01  at  03:06 AM

Wingnuts don’t think anyone has intelligence or agency.  Men in the military can’t be expected to control their aggression because “boys will be boys” and they all think with their little heads (and then they’re handed lethal weapons), and women can’t be trusted with the ability to control their own bodies because their ladybrains are too small or something. 

So basically they’re saying that most people are stupid and that we need to turn to our Fearless Leaders (ie, powerful wingnuts) to think for us.

Comment #22: NobleExperiments  on  02/01  at  03:38 AM

More of the same shit.  This guy says we should just lock up all homosexuals or force them through therapy.

They are hateful fascists all.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/01/american-family-association-radio-host.html

Comment #23: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/01  at  10:03 AM

My dad was a career officer in the military.  He thinks this whole debate is ridiculous.  See, everyone in the unit or whatnot knows who is gay.  And they don’t give a flying fuck about it.  There are even situations wherein a couple of straight guys, in a wartime situation, will find themselves falling in love and doing things with each other they wouldn’t dream of doing back at home.  And my dad is from the older military, not today’s military with kids who have grown up in a more open, tolerant world.  No one on the ground gives a shit if you’re gay or lesbian. 

Also, beyond gay servicemembers being assured that their partners at home will be notified if they are grieviously wounded or killed when this idiotic policy is repealed, the military will save money and manpower by not forcing gay or lesbian servicemembers out.  Interestingly, many of the homosexual servicemembers they remove are in the exact MOSes that the military needs most:  Interpreters and language specialists and even the medical corps.

Comment #24: speedbudget  on  02/01  at  10:04 AM

I’m still waiting for the first instance of someone getting kicked out of the military for asking.  It should just be called Don’t Tell.

Comment #25: 3letterjon  on  02/01  at  10:30 AM

Personally, I’d like to defend our troops against “open heterosexual aggression”.  Heterosexual rape is far too common in the military, and we need to take it more seriously.  Actually, I’d like to protect our troops from any kind of sexual aggression, but heterosexual rape is the biggest problem.

Comment #26: bananacat  on  02/01  at  11:55 AM

When I was reading that “I can personally attest the last thing our Sailors need is a lack of trust or suspicion toward their fellow shipmates” I thought “and therefore we must get rid of the pernicious system whereby any member of the service can destroy another member’s career by alleging that their target confessed to being gay.”

But no.

And, of course, Meinhold syndrome: the delusion on the part of many homophobes that they are irresistible attractive to gay people of their own gender.

Comment #27: paul  on  02/01  at  11:55 AM

How times change.  When DADT first came out it was considered more damn Clinton liberalism.  It was roundly condemned by every conservative with a voicebox; and now it’s their avatar?  God give me strength.

If I was a paranoid type homo-bigot type, I’d be much more worried about “hidden gays” or “secret gays” because then you just never know who’s after the old family jewels.  If they were open they’d have to deal with them as humans instead of boogie men/women.

And now, seriously folks, I’d bet almost everyone who’s in a unit with a gay person knows it and doesn’t care a goddam bit.

Comment #28: Magis  on  02/01  at  01:14 PM

Captain Bathrobe says: I think, to the wingnut mind, the greatest fear isn’t that someone is going to hurt them—it’s the deep down knowledge that they are really no more special than anyone else.  That’s intolerable, so they imagine themselves to be the target of gays and terrorists everywhere.

This!

Comment #29: CParis  on  02/01  at  03:18 PM

whoa! isn’t the whole thing with the military you do what they tell you and suck it up?

Comment #30: shade  on  02/01  at  08:51 PM

When asked about Herzinger’s criticism,
Wolfgang Ischinger, director of the Munich conference and a former German ambassador to the US and United Kingdom, told the Flower Girl DressesThe Jerusalem Post that that “is the risk one runs when inviting Mottaki.” One “has to be speak Rolex replica watchesnot only with friends but with opponents,” Ischinger said.
According to Ischinger, the US had also “encouraged” him to sound out possibilities in an informal way with Iran to resolve the A line Pleated Applique Satin Wedding Dressnuclear dispute. He was “not surprised” that there was “no new offer” from Iran, adding that he was “skeptical that the there would be a breakthrough.”A line Pleated Satin Lace Wedding Dress
Jürgen Jentsch, a spokesman for the Munich
conference, told the Post that Ischinger was in Israel last week and attended a conference in Tel Aviv.A line Pleated Satin Wedding Dress
Observers view Ischinger’s comments on Thursday in the Bayernkurier newspaper as playing down the Iranian threat. Ischinger said, “The country has still not built an atomic bomb. I can understand that Iran’s politics afterA line Pleated Satin Wedding Dress the experience of the last decades leans toward feeling threatened and the country finds very few partners in the region with whom it can interact.”
When questioned about his comments, Ischinger told the Post that Iran’s politics must be seen within the context of the war with Iraq (1980-1988).

Comment #31: wuwei  on  02/07  at  06:09 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.