"Your religious beliefs be damned!"

(CNSNews.com) - Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

"Darn right!" an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.

“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.

The proposed regulation, designed to implement part of Obamacare, will require all private health plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives--including those that cause abortions—without charging any fees or co-pay. These regulations were drawn to implement a provision in Obama’s health-care law that calls for all health-care plans to cover “preventive services.”

Combined with Obamacare’s mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance, the “preventive services” regulation would require all American Catholics to buy health care plans that pay for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortions--all of which violate Catholic moral teaching.

A “religious exemption” in the regulation is so narrowly drawn that it does not include any lay Catholics, or any Catholic hospitals, charitable organizations, or colleges or universities. Thus, many major Catholic institutions in the United States would be forced to choose between dropping health insurance coverage for their employees and students or violating the moral teachings of their own church.

In comments on the regulation submitted to HHS last month, the Catholic bishops called for the regulation to be “rescinded in its entirety” and described the proposal as “government coercion of religious people.”

"Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase 'services' to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty," the bishops said.

At a Democratic National Committee fundraiser at the Renaissance Hotel in St. Louis last night, Obama touted the “preventive services” regulation to an appreciative audience.

“And, yes, we passed health care reform because no one in America should go bankrupt because somebody in their family gets sick,” said Obama, according to the official White House transcript of his remarks.

“Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage for no good reason,” said Obama. “They won’t be able to deny your coverage because of preexisting conditions. Think about what that means for families all across America. Think about what it means for women.”

At that point, an audience member shouted: “Birth control.”

“Absolutely. You’re stealing my line,” said Obama.

“Breast cancer, cervical cancer, are no longer preexisting conditions,” Obama continued. “No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth.”

At this point, a member of a laughing audience shouted out: “Darn right!”

“Darn tooting,” Obama answered back—to laughter. “They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs.”

Last week, the Catholic bishops distributed an insert for placement in church bulletins all across the country. It called on Catholics to contact HHS to object to the regulation. On their website the bishops are now asking Catholic to write Congress to urge members to support legislation that would overturn the regulation,

(End of story, my comments follow.)

So someone tell me again why 56% of those who identify themselves as Catholic voted for this jerk?

"We'll decide who is/is not clergy in your church"

Found this at online.wsj.com:

Washington Wants a Say Over Your Minister

By MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL

Today, the Obama administration will invite the Supreme Court to open a new front in the culture wars. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC concerns a commissioned minister, Cheryl Perich, who taught elementary school and led chapel devotions at a small Lutheran school outside Detroit. Ms. Perich became ill and was replaced in the classroom by a substitute. In the middle of the school year she sought to return and then, instead of attempting to work out the dispute through the church's reconciliation process, she threatened to sue.

As relations broke down, the church congregation voted to withdraw her "call" to the ministry, and she ceased to be eligible for her prior job. She sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, with the support of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The federal statutes outlawing employment discrimination based on race, sex, age and disability contain no express exception for church employers. But for 40 years lower courts have applied a "ministerial exception," which bars the government from any role in deciding who should be a minister. Courts have reasoned that the separation between church and state protects the ability of churches to choose their own clergy just as it protects the state from any control by churches. The Supreme Court has never spoken to the issue.

But who counts as a minister? Cheryl Perich's duties included leading students in prayer and worship, but she also taught secular subjects, using ordinary secular textbooks. The sole disagreement in the lower courts was whether her job was sufficiently religious to be considered ministerial. The Supreme Court will consider, for the first time, how to make that determination.
But the Obama Justice Department has now asked the court to disavow the ministerial exception altogether. This would mean that, in every future case, a court—and not the church—would decide whether the church's reasons for firing or not hiring a minister were good enough

But the government, including the judiciary, is not entitled under the First Amendment to decide what qualifications a minister should have, or to weigh religious considerations against others. Is a secular court to decide, for example, whether confining Catholic priests or Orthodox rabbis to males is a correct interpretation of scripture, or merely a vestige of outmoded and stereotypical bias?

James Madison famously declared that the civil magistrate is not a "competent Judge of Religious truth." Yet every discrimination claim about the hiring of a minister necessarily comes down to the question of whether the church had a bona fide religious reason for its decision. That places the courts squarely in the business of adjudicating the validity of a church's claims about its own religious practice.

The Justice Department's brief grudgingly concedes that there may be an exception for employees performing "exclusively religious functions," but this is an illusory protection. Every church officer—even the pope—performs at least some nonreligious administrative duties. If the government's position were accepted, the courts would be embroiled in disputes about the selection of clergy at all levels and in every denomination. This would be a radical reversal of our nation's long constitutional tradition.

In the colonial era, with an established Church of England, the government controlled who would preach the gospel. The royal governor of Virginia licensed ministers in the colony, and Madison's first known writing on religious liberty was a letter protesting the jailing of Baptist ministers for preaching without a license.

When the First Amendment declared that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it meant that churches would support themselves and control themselves. And the separation of church and state is a two-way street: It protects the autonomy of religious institutions from governmental interference no less than it prevents advancement of religion by government power.

That tradition of church-state separation has continued to the present day. After the Civil War, for example, the framers of the 14th Amendment, which applied the Establishment Clause to the states, voted against legislation to subject churches to antidiscrimination laws, concluding this would violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held (Bishop v. Amos, 1987) that religious organizations must be "free to select their own leaders, define their own doctrines, resolve their own disputes, and run their own institutions." Even EEOC guidelines a few years ago reaffirmed the ministerial exception.

Perhaps American churches should be more open to female clergy and more accommodating toward elderly pastors or disabled chaplains. But if the separation between church and state means anything, such changes must come from within.

As a lower court judge, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: "Federal court entanglement in matters as fundamental as a religious institution's selection or dismissal of its spiritual leaders risks an unconstitutional trespass on the most spiritually intimate grounds of a religious community's existence." It is unfortunate that the Department of Justice does not see it that way.

Mr. McConnell is the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University. He wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in this case on behalf of major Protestant denominations.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Should the government win, I wonder how a dissident priest who came out as a practicing homosexual would fare? What sort of assinine guidelines would they come up with in Foggy Bottom to determine who is clergy and who is not?

China is currently butting heads with the Vatican over the selection of bishops. How soon before we see something similar here?

"Fast & Furious", indictments and equivalence...

The "Fast & Furious saga continues. Much to my surprise it seems to be growing legs as Rep. Issa and his committee keep digging out the dirt.

Now Eric Holder is backtracking and saying he didn't properly understand the question when asked how long he knew of this fubar operation. This comes right on the heels of proof he knew of it months before the shit hit the fan, vice the "few weeks" he initially claimed.

The AP is doing damage control for B.O., citing what they claim was a similar operation (named "Wide Receiver") that was run by the Bush Administration. This sounds like, "We're no worse than the other guys" which is a great way to justify being accomplice to murder.

The problem with that is while "Wide Receiver" had ATF agents nailing the gun purchasers shortly after they'd made a buy for various nogoodniks, "Fast & Furious" let the buyers fade into the sunset with guns in hand, ostensibly leading to bigger fish.

That means we won't be seeing any illegally purchased firearms that could be traced to "Wide Receiver" showing up at crime scenes. Too bad the same can't be said about "Fast & Furious".

So the story won't go away, now theres speculation of having a special prosecutor assigned to look into who knew what and when did they know it.

Return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when Slick Willie eventually found himself facing impeachment for perjury after the infamous blue dress came to light. At the time I thought all too many people were too damned eager to push impeachment, not realizing what goes around will come back around. Proof of that was when constant calls for impeaching G.W. Bush arose for little or no justifiable reason.

So the idea of impeaching ANYBODY is distasteful to me. Politics are partisan enough without idiots trying to even a score.

But this is an entirely different kettle of fish. Innocent people died as a direct result of "Fast & Furious". Theres also a faint stench of "setup" to allowing a flow of illegal American firearms into the narcostate Mexico is becoming while at the same time the gun grabbers start wailing about the cartels being supplied all too happily from Americans looking to make a fast buck.

So yeah, in this case the string needs to be pulled right up to a complete unearthing of any and all involved. Whatever charges can be brought, should be.

Theres a hell of a difference between a horndog in the Oval Office with an intern eagerly gobbling his goop and the arming of murderous animals who cheerfully kill anyone they want.

Same sex military weddings; a line is drawn in the sand...

(CNSNews.com) – Will same-sex marriage ceremonies be allowed at the Catholic Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point?

“The answer is ‘no,’” said Taylor Henry, director of public affairs and media relations for the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, and spokesman for Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who certifies all Catholic chaplains for the armed services.

“Holy Trinity is an actual Catholic parish, unlike the non-denominational chapels that are found on other military installations, and the only services held there are Catholic services. The Catholic Church does not perform the sacrament of matrimony for same-sex couples,” he said.

What about other Catholic chapels on other military bases?

“What non-Catholic chaplains do in nondenominational chapels on U.S. military grounds around the world will be up to the military, but no Catholic chaplain is authorized to perform a same-sex marriage under any circumstances,” Henry added.

Archbishop Broglio, meanwhile, has denounced directives issued last week by Under Secretary of Defense Clifford Stanley and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson clearing military chaplains to perform same-sex weddings in military chapels.

“The Pentagon's new policy, as outlined in these two memos, appears to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law 15 years ago and remains in effect,” Broglio said in a statement released last week.

“Undersecretary Stanley cannot say, on the one hand, that chaplains may take part in any private ceremony as long as it is ‘not prohibited by applicable state and local law,’ and on the other, say nothing of the federal law.

“Nor can DOD's General Counsel say that determinations regarding use of military facilities should be made on a 'sexual-orientation neutral basis, provided such use is not prohibited by applicable state and local laws' while neglecting to take DOMA into account.

Broglio pointed out that voters in 29 states have affirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman by referendum – and 41 states total have adopted laws or constitutional amendments protecting marriage. .

“Fundamentally the new policy seeks to circumvent the clear will of the majority, whose unquestionable sovereignty has the last word in the system of government enshrined in the Federal Constitution,” Broglio said.

“It cannot be forgotten that the 1996 enactment of DOMA was due to the efforts of a substantial, bi-partisan majority in Congress and to then-President Clinton. As a Nation we walk down a dangerous path when appointed officials are allowed to thwart the will of the people.

He added: “The women and men I am privileged to serve place their lives on the line every day to defend the Country whose government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Let us pray that the millions who have died to ensure those liberties did not die in vain."

The Archdiocese for the Military Services is the sole endorser (certifier) of Roman Catholic chaplains to the United States government. A Roman Catholic priest cannot serve within the United States military as a priest without the express permission of the Archdiocese.

As of 2008, there were 285 Roman Catholic priests certified for active-duty military service.

(End of story, my comments follow)

This will be what those pushing the agenda of not just tolerance, but outright endorsement of active homosexuals in the military have been waiting for.

The stage is set. Now it'll take just one gay couple to be refused the use of this chapel for the dance to start. We'll see the ACLU get involved, look for the separation of church and state to be invoked and stand by for the recent pedophile priest scandal to be resurrected (again).

When the dust settles we'll be just a bit further down the same road traveled by Sodom & Gomorrah. Catholics faithful to Rome will also be closer to outright persecution.

I covered this recently: http://agangershome.blogspot.com/2011/09/this-gives-me-bad-feeling.html

It didn't take long at all for the ball to start rolling. A public stance such as the one taken here won't go unanswered.

A worthy cause deserving of support.

Go here for more information: http://sadcatholic.blogspot.com/2011/10/they-miscalculated-you-can-help.html

A breathing piece of cat food = a human life

Anti-whalers launch kamikaze operation
By Tamara McLean in Auckland

RADICAL anti-whaling operation Sea Shepherd is promising dramatic attacks against Japanese whalers in coming months, with volunteers warning they're prepared to die for the cause.

The group has announced "Operation Divine Wind" against the Japanese whalers, who plan to begin their annual hunt in the Southern Ocean in December.

The name translates to the Japanese word kamikaze, the name given to World War II pilots sent on suicide missions.

In launching the mission at the weekend, Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson promised on the group's Facebook page a "very dramatic and adventurous three months beginning in December".

"I am confident that we will be able to stop them once again," he wrote in a statement "liked" by more than 2000 Sea Shepherd Facebook fans.

The Sea Shepherd has become increasingly successful in recent years at disrupting the Japanese fleet, last year taking it further when New Zealand activist Peter Bethune illegally boarded a whaling ship and was briefly jailed.

Angered by the campaign, which reduced the catch, the Japanese government has injected $US27 million ($27.71 million) into the program to improve the safety for its crew.

Undeterred, Sea Shepherd announced it will send 100 volunteers to the Southern Ocean and is prepared to lose lives if necessary.

"They will have to kill us to prevent us from intervening once again," Capt Watson said.

"Are the Japanese people ready to take human lives in defence of this horrifically cruel and illegal slaughter of endangered and protected species of whales?

"If so, my answer to the Japanese Government is hoka hey - it's a good day to die."

He also accused Japan of continuing its whale program solely to save face against activist opposition.

"It now seems they are simply obsessed with killing whales not for need, and not for profit, but because they believe they have the right to do what they wish and kill whatever they wish in an established international whale sanctuary, just for the sake of defending their misplaced honour."

He claimed the program was a "smack in the face" to foreign nations that donated funds in the wake of Japan's killer tsunami.

Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research has yet to comment on the claims.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

This isn't treated as a bunch of nuts making completely idiotic statements, its treated as hard news. In this day and age, it unfortunately is.

Not too long ago, idiots like this would have been laughed off the face of the planet. "You want to commit suicide for cat food? Have at it sweetpea!" would have been a popular sentiment. Not these days.

So the life of a whale is seen to be equal to that of a human, even those who disagree will do so with a muted voice. This is where the ideas of moral relativism and "judge not lest ye be judged" has brought us. These nutjobs will confront the Japanese whalers and you can bet they'll be sympathetically portrayed by the MSM.

I've read several places where Caesar decreed his horse be worshipped as a god and when Christians refused they were persecuted. So it's a safe bet a good portion of the populace of Rome went along with worshipping "Flicka". A lot of them probably did it with a smirk.

But how many actually bought into the insanity with a straight face?

How far from that level are we?

Catholics and the death penalty...

Found this via Pewsitter:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Catholic Church's position on capital punishment has evolved considerably over the centuries.

And as a result, "it is not a message that is immediately understood -- that there is no room for supporting the death penalty in today's world," said a Vatican's expert on capital punishment and arms control.

Because the church has only in the past few decades begun closing the window -- if not shutting it completely -- on the permissibility of the death penalty, people who give just a partial reading of the church's teachings may still think the death penalty is acceptable today, said Tommaso Di Ruzza, desk officer at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

St. Thomas Aquinas equated a dangerous criminal to an infected limb thereby making it "praiseworthy and healthful" to kill the criminal in order to spare the spread of infection and safeguard the common good.

However, over the centuries, justice has evolved from being the smiting arm of revenge toward a striving for reform and restoration, much like today's medical science, where amputation is no longer the only recourse for curing an infection.

Modern-day popes have reflected that change in attitude.

As far back as the 19th and early 20th centuries theologians pondered the seeming paradox between the Fifth Commandment, "You shall not kill," and the church's dark history of condoning state-held executions to deal with heresy and other threats and crimes.

Pope Paul VI took concrete action in distancing the church from this form of punishment, first by formally banning the use of the death penalty in Vatican City State, although no one had been executed under the authority of the Vatican's temporal governance since 1870.

Pope Paul also spoke publicly against planned executions and called for clemency for death-row inmates. Pope John Paul II also would punctuate his Angelus and general audience talks with impassioned appeals to spare the life of a prisoner on the verge of execution.

It was the Polish pope who "earnestly hoped and prayed" for a global moratorium on the use of capital punishment and the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

Pope Benedict, too, continues to send appeals for clemency in high-profile cases via telegrams either through a country's bishops or nuncio, and he has praised a U.N. resolution calling upon states to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church recognized "as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." At the same time, it said, "bloodless means" that could protect human life should be used when possible.

The "extreme gravity" loophole was tightened with changes made in 1997, which reflected the pope's 1995 encyclical, "Evangelium Vitae." It specifies that the use of the death penalty is allowed only when the identity and responsibility of the condemned is certain and if capital punishment "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."

However, given the resources and possibilities available to governments today for restraining criminals, "cases of the absolute necessity of the suppression of the offender 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent,'" it says.

Pope Benedict, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had a major role in drafting the 1992 Catechism and, especially, its 1997 revised passages. When he told journalists about the changes in 1997, he said while the principles do not absolutely exclude capital punishment, they do give "very severe or limited criteria for its moral use."

"It seems to me it would be very difficult to meet the conditions today," he had said.

When a journalist said the majority of Catholics in the United States favor use of the death penalty, Cardinal Ratzinger said, "While it is important to know the thoughts of the faithful, doctrine is not made according to statistics, but according to objective criteria taking into account progress made in the church's thought on the issue."

Di Ruzza said the divergence of many Catholics in the United States from the church's current position is a sign that "the universal church must also accompany the particular churches a little bit" and help guide them on this "journey of purification," which is more a process of "maturity rather than a revolution or change in tradition."

Without reading Popes John Paul and Benedict's clear condemnations of the death penalty, the catechism will "unfortunately have the risk of being ambiguous or taken out of context," he said.

The church upholds the inherent dignity of all human beings, even the most sin-filled, and believes in hope, conversion and mercy, he said.

There is always room for conversion, he said, and forgiveness does not mean being naive about the real evil the human being is capable of committing.

The death penalty does not solve much; a victim still feels loss and crime is not deterred, he said.
Communities must strive to promote the common good, and it's dubious "that you can kill someone for the good of all," he said.

"The beauty of forgiveness must also be truly discovered; it's this that saves us," said Di Ruzza.

Otherwise, "by killing the just or the unjust without understanding that they have dignity, we will find ourselves after 2,000 years in the same courtyard shouting, 'Kill him!,' like they did with Jesus."

"God forgave us. He did not call us to death. Jesus let us overcome death" so as to more fully embrace life, he said.

END

(End of story, my comments follow)

In rebuttal I offer this from "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" by then Cardinal Ratzinger:

"...3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

The rest of that missive can be found here; http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I've been told by some Catholics that I can't really be considered "pro-life" if I support the death penalty. Fair enough, I don't wholeheartedly and without reservation attempt to belong to any group of any persuasion. The exception to that would be the Church, which by it's very name implies a "big tent" mentality. Since membership there is wrapped up in my eternal destination I'll put a premium on the requirements, all of which are found in the Catechism, Bible and various papal encyclicals. Nor will I mindlessly follow any popular trends no matter who may promote them. Because at the end of this life I'll be standing in front of the King of Kings, ALL BY MYSELF with no one to blame for my life and how it was lived but me.

Extend sub deployments? What could go wrong?

Found this at washingtonexaminer.com, my comments within the article are in bold:

Navy explores longer sub deployments
By: MICHAEL MELIA

The Navy is considering lengthening the standard deployment of attack submarines beyond six months as it faces rising demands with a fleet that has been shrinking since the end of the Cold War, the commander of American submarine forces told The Associated Press in an interview.

Already, attack submarines are at times asked to stay out longer than six months — extensions that can be trying for sailors who serve in tightly confined spaces with limited outside communication as members of the "silent service."

Vice Adm. John Richardson told the AP this week that keeping subs out longer is one of several options the Navy is considering as the number of attack subs is projected to continue dropping in the next decade and beyond. Older boats seeing more use, that'll mean more equipment failures at the worst possible times. Lovely, just stinking lovely.

"I think we're looking at all the options," he said. "As you try and maintain the same presence with fewer hulls, there are all sorts of variables in that equation. One would be extending deployment lengths. So that's certainly on the table."

Submariners are not alone in seeing deployments extended periodically, as two wars and evolving threats strain the entire U.S. military. A spokeswoman for the admiral, Navy Cmdr. Monica Rousselow, said it is impossible to say how long sub deployments might become because so many factors are involved. To my successors in the sub force: BOHICA shipmates!

Extending deployments permanently would save resources because the Navy could complete more missions with the nuclear-powered submarines that it has available. The fast-attack subs travel to far-flung corners of the globe for missions including intelligence gathering and firing missiles, but they can maintain a presence only for so long before making the time-consuming journey back to U.S. bases. The real restriction is the crew, running out of food will get the attention of most people. Those boats ARE tight as far as space goes, you just can't dump an extra couple of months of groceries down the hatch and walk away thinking, "They'll figure a way to store it".

Navy contractors began stepping up submarine production this year, but pressure on the defense budget has raised uncertainty about future procurement. While some critics describe the multibillion-dollar vessels as costly relics of a different era, Richardson says submarines remain integral to America's nuclear deterrence strategy and the security of a nation that conducts the vast majority of its trade by maritime channels. They perform a host of other missions also. For a glimpse of what a boat's capabilities can include I recommend reading "Blind Man's Bluff" by Sontag and Drew.

Enlisted crew members on the attack subs sleep six to a room, stacked in bunks areas barely larger than a closet, and navigate corridors so narrow only one person can pass at a time. That would be if they're lucky enough to have their own rack(bunk). The Los Angeles class of subs were initially designed for more crewmembers than could be accomodated by assigning each sailor his individual rack. So the practice of "hotbunking" was used.The deployments are typically broken up by port calls, but they can remain at sea for weeks or months at a time. The bigger, roomier ballistic missile subs generally stay closer to their home ports and have shorter deployments.

Sailors in the elite, all-volunteer submarine force go through psychological screening to make sure they can cope with the tight quarters and extended time beneath the ocean's surface. Nobody with claustrophobic tendencies is allowed on board.

But retired submariners say the time at sea does take a physical and emotional toll, particularly when a mission is suddenly extended.

"You establish a battle rhythm in your mind where 'Six months is how long I'll be' and then, if it becomes seven months, you have to shift your mind a bit," said retired Rear Adm. John Padgett III, who remembers a particularly grueling 7 1/2-month submarine deployment during the Vietnam War. "You get a little tired of it."

Deployments longer than six months are unlikely to cause problems for specially trained sailors, but they would probably entail challenges for their families, said Army Col. Tom Kolditz, a psychologist at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. DUH!! Then the problems the wives & kids are having come back on those same sailors, this guy talks like an idiot. But wait a minute, we can always go back to the mindset of "If the Navy thought you needed a wife, they'd have issued one in your seabag". Yeah, that'll do wonders for retention.

"You can probably find business decisions in the community based on that six-month cycle. You can find various kinds of financial planning done on that six-month cycle. If you take something like that that people are used to and change it, it can create problems," said Kolditz, director of the military academy's Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership.

At Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, support services are available to help sailors' families deal with prolonged deployments, said Beth Darius, a services facilitator for the base's Fleet and Family Support Center.

"We honestly try to tell them, 'Yes, you have a fixed date, but remember that date can always change,'" she said. "We try to help them not cement that date, but I personally know how easy it is to get that date and count down, and then have it change on you." The divorce rate in the sub force is just a bit high. This is coming from a guy who went through Connecticut courts twice for that experience while in the canoe club. I'm a slow learner, shoot me.

Richardson said in the interview Wednesday that constraints on communication are part of the nature of submarining, but that the Navy is working to improve bandwidth on the vessels. He said sailors will be able to communicate with family members more than ever, although e-mail will remain available only when it can be sent without the risk of giving up the sub's location.

Beyond the strain on sailors and their families, U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney said, the longer deployments reflect an increasingly acute security problem. Although Navy contractors received approval this year to double production of Virginia-class attack subs to two a year, he said that will only slow the decline in the size of the fleet and will not fully replace older ships as they are taken out of commission.

The number of nuclear-powered attack submarines in the U.S. force has fallen from a peak of 98 in the late 1980s to 53 at the end of fiscal year 2010, a decline that roughly matches a drop in the overall size of the Navy since the end of the Cold War. Each Virginia-class attack submarine costs about $2.6 billion and carries a crew of roughly 135 officers and sailors.

Courtney, who is pushing for an increase in attack sub procurement, said they are unmatched in their ability to deliver firepower and do surveillance without being detected. THAT is a fact, been there and done that. Nope, can't talk about it.

"Look at Libya. When President Obama said 'unique capabilities,' what he was really referring to was the USS Scranton, the Providence and the Florida, which in a matter of an hour obliterated Gadhafi's air defenses," said Courtney, a Democrat whose eastern Connecticut district includes the sub base and the Groton headquarters of the Navy's primary submarine contractor, General Dynamics' Electric Boat.

Currently, the submarine force can accommodate only about half the support requests from combatant commanders, according to Richardson, who said sub deployments are currently extended a month or more to meet demands on a case-by-case basis. He noted that surface ships also face extended deployments, as all branches of the military contend with increased demands.

As the Navy deals with rising security demands and budget pressures, he said, the force is also looking into repositioning submarines around the globe to reduce transit times and pressing builders to reduce maintenance periods and wring more deployments from aging vessels.

(End of story, my comments follow)

So the Powers That Be recently opened up the sub force to women, they've also scuttled DADT and will soon be actively recruiting flamboyant gays into the military (if you think that statement is a bit drastic, you don't know our military and the kind of assholes in charge in Washington).

Now they're looking at increasing the length of deployments. Yes, I know it's happening in the surface navy as well as the other armed forces of our nation. My chosen screen name is SUBvet for a reason. Check the profile if you're still puzzled.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Plenty.

Eddie and Freddie go to sea aboard the USETAFISH, Eddie hooks up with Suzy Creamcheese who is the boats newest recruit. Suzy and Eddie slap bellies whenever they think they're alone (the photos the roving watch takes of them will go on sale a week after returning to homeport). Suzy dumps Eddie halfway through the deployment and starts banging Freddie (that roving watch loves it, they're making him rich).

Eddie cops an attitude, during one field day he clobbers Freddie. They both go talk to the "old man" (Captain). He discovers Suzy's involvement in this and transfers her skanky ass back to homeport. She promptly files a sexual discrimination complaint against the command (Eddie and Freddie weren't transferred, she was.Therefore she was inappropriately reprimanded, or so the complaint goes). The squadron sends out Lt. Lana, the lesbian JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer, to investigate the onboard climate of USETAFISH in order to determine if there's a problem with discrimination.

Lt. Lana interviews Mona Mattressback who just got denied promotion (if she studied for the test, she'd probably pass). Mona sees the Lt. Lana is a manhater from Jump Street and plays it up, citing numerous incidents where her LCPO (leading chief petty officer) made inappropriate comments to her. In private. No other witnesses cited. The good JAG officer knows she has a case and pursues it. To make a long story short, after the local fishwrap back home gets the story, the officers and crew of the good ship USETAFISH are crucified by the squadron commodore in order to show that "something has been done".

Then we can add in the zip of extending the deployments of the boat because, as a newer craft, it doesn't break down as often as the dinosaurs of the squadron do.

The crew gets the big flick, if you stick around you're screwed by either spending life at sea or by being dragged across the coals for PC purposes. Time to hit the highway by faking claustrophobia (very easy to do) and spending your remaining days in the canoe club aboard a tender (repair ship) that is basically welded to the pier and hardly ever gets underway.

I haven't even factored in a gay sailor or two actually in the crew, this post is already overly long.

Yep, we'll maintain an elite force under these conditions. Sure we will.

When pigs fly.

This gives me a bad feeling...

Here's the story: US: military chaplains may perform same-sex unions

So what happens when "Steve & Dave" show up for counseling and the only chaplain available cites religious beliefs against doing anything to help them keep their union intact? Not all denominations are represented on every military base. During the few years I spent as a Pentecostal I tried starting Bible study classes on the nearby base. I wound up talking to a chaplain who was Southern Baptist because there were no Pentecostal chaplains at that facility.

So the couple I mentioned may get married by a chaplain associated with the First Church of I'm-Okay-You're-Okay-And-Jesus-Is-Our-Palsywalsy, then get transferred to a spot where the Chaplain Corp is represented by a Catholic and a Southern Baptist. Wedded bliss hits the shitcan, they want counseling and the scenario I mentioned takes place.

I see a real possibility of legal action, and before anyone reminds me that service members can't sue the military I'll just state that spouses and family members can do that AND complain to their Congressional Representatives. So if that Rep. should be Barney Frank, just how sympathetic a hearing will the military get?

How long before ALL chaplains are instructed to provide services for ALL couples, regardless of any religious beliefs that are violated?

Think, think, think

Here's a quiz to see if you're paying attention: http://woodstermangotwood.blogspot.com/2011/09/keep-gray-matter-active.html

I missed two.

(H/T Adrienne's Corner)

Gee, who couldn't see this coming?

Found this at http://www.washingtontimes.com/:

Activists call for end to military ban on transgendersBy Rowan Scarborough

With homosexuals now able to serve openly in the military, the gay rights movement’s next battleground is to persuade the Obama administration to end the armed forces’ ban on “transgenders,” a group that includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.

“Our position is that the military should re-examine the policy, the medical regulations, so as to allow open service for transgender people,” said Vincent Paolo Villano, spokesman for the 6,000-member Center for Transgender Equality.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which pushed to end the military’s gay ban, is urging President Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity.”

It had wanted the order to happen on Sept. 20, the official date “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as the gay ban was called, ended via repeal legislation signed by Mr. Obama.

SLDN’s goal is contained on a Web page with the headline, “Working toward transgender military service.” The page states that a decision to remove the ban must be made at the Pentagon. “Relationships between transgender organizations, medical associations, and military allies will be crucial for advancing this issue,” it says.

“SLDN will continue to urge President Obama to issue an executive order to prohibit discrimination and harassment in the military based upon sexual orientation and gender identity, and we will work closely with our allies to educate and create greater awareness of this inequity,” SLDN spokesman Zeke Stokes said.

“SLDN supports the revision of medical regulations to ensure that transgender Americans may serve.”

SLDN has raised the possibility of filing lawsuits to attain its goals, which include housing and other benefits for the partners of gay military members.

A White House spokesman declined to provide Mr. Obama’s position on transgenders in the military, referring a reporter to the Pentagon.

“Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the military services,” said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez. “The repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will have no effect on these policies.”

The SLDN says “transgender” is commonly identified as an umbrella term for “transsexuals, cross-dressers, gender-queer people, intersex people, and other gender-variant individuals.”

Transgenders are not banned by law, but rather by a Defense Department instruction, “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Service.”

It lists scores of medical conditions that make one ineligible, including: “Current or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias.”

The instruction was last updated by the Obama administration. Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, signed the new 52-page version in April 2010. If the administration did desire to lift the ban, it could have done it then, in theory.

SLDN has set up a website on Change.org for a petition asking Mr. Obama to issue a nondiscrimination order on transgenders.

In a letter to Mr. Obama, SLDN Director Aubrey Sarvis wrote: “We … call on you to show the leadership President Truman did when he issued an Executive Order banning racial discrimination in the armed services and to issue an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination in the armed services based on sexual orientation and gender identity to be effective on the date of repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and Marine Corps combat veteran, said: “At some point, the administration will need to decide where this ranks among the military’s priorities. But it should send the message now that a line has been drawn, and it won’t get caught up in these discussions. I hope the administration has enough sense to see this for the unneeded distraction it is.”

(End of story, my comments follow)

Stick a fork in it, our military is dead.

When "Steve" comes to a dress uniform inspection dressed like "Eve" just how the hell do you know if the uniform is properly worn?

Stupid questions aside, our fighting men & women are being so disrespected it isn't funny. If the current administration in Foggy Bottom even seems to be thinking of implementing this insanity we deserve a military coup.

It's almost midnight, I've been spending the last few hours shampooing cat puke out of my carpets. Then I go online and find this shit. Phooey.

I'm going to bed, maybe when I wake up we'll all be back in Kansas.