I read the whole thing over on Drudge and was going to post a link on the OT.  Interesting, even the youngest members quoted have a better picture of our aims/goals than The One does. 

With the economy the way it is, I'd imagine there won't be a mass exodus...yet.

It depends upon Obama, but from every indication I've seen, he thinks the military is a prop to be used (or not) merely as a photo op.  I don't think Obama actually disdains the military the way the Clintons did....but he's not done himself any favors.

Time will tell, and there are posters here far more qualified than I to weigh in on this subject.  This should be an interesting discussion.

As an active duty airman, I am not looking forward to him being the CINC. "Don't ask, don't tell" needs to stay in place...getting rid of that will only bring about bad results...why the liberals think it needs to be done away with--and that it would be good for everyone to know who really is gay, is beyond my understanding. Being loaned out to or serving under the UN banner is very unappealing as well. But most of all, we stand to lose much that we have gained in the War on Terror. 

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." --Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon," 1942

Every liberal nanny leader has despised and scrapped our military since...well...for a long time. Why should the incoming nanny be any different?

Tail between the legs field training manuals anyone?

Sitting down and talking with our avowed enemies is the approach we will see. But, God forbid, there will be no interviews on FoxNews!!!

I know this is not the sports thread but I was not able to get online yesterday and discuss the bowls. I am very disappointed in the performance of the ACC. They went 4-6 in bowl games. My Heels losing to WVa was the big let down but the butt whipping that LSU gave Ga Tech was hard to swallow.

The Pac 10 was 5-0

Big East  2-2

Big 10  2-4 with OSU yet to play

SEC  3-1 with Florida, Kentucky, Alabama and Ole Miss yet to play

Big 12  3-1 with Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma yet to play.

(I know the ACC figures are right but I won’t swear to the others.)

I knew that Noel would crow when Nebraska beat Clem’s son. I have been telling you all along that all the butt slapping, chest bumping, and back slapping that Dabo Sweeny does would not win games.

YOU CAN KEEP "THE CHANGE" PALIN 2012

Note how they qualify the numbers:

six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

just flat....no significance.

Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss.  (emphasis mine)

The "nearly" is meant to make the number seem more important than it is.

I notice they didn't describe the six out of ten as "more than half."

If Obama had his way before the mission in Iraq would have been abandoned in disgrace and humiliation regardless of the consequences because he wanted to use it as a political tool.He never chaired a single meeting of his military oversight committee.The only time he is interested in visiting with the troops is for a campaign stop.

That is his record.It's not a distraction.It's not a Republican talking point. It's the truth.Obama is a liberal just like all the rest who believes that America itself is to blame for the war on terror and to my knowledge has never once condemned any of our enemies or used the word "victory."He believes that all we need to do is show our enemies that we mean them no harm and they will stop their campaign and all go home.

The military has seen him in action...or should I say inaction and they don't like it.

Barack Obama is an empty suit and no amount of good press coverage can change that.For the first time in his whole political career he will actually have to take responsibility for something and unfortunately for us all it will be in the White House surrounded by Clinton retreads.

1) Who is more qualified to be a US Senator, Roland Burris or Sweet Caroline?

2) Is Sweet Caroline qualified at all?

3) Which one will they seat?

Yes we have reason to we not just weary but downright worried as hell over what he will do with those of us in the military.

 The only good thing about The Rookie hiring all of the Clinton retreads is that Les Aspin won't be one of them.

 The Dems are already clamoring about cutting 20% out of an already small Defense budget.  

 I lived through the Clinton DoD "budgets".  I've heard the stories about what the military was like under Carter.  For at least a couple years it won't be pretty.

 "I May Be Changed By War, But I Will Not Be Defeated By It" - Audie Murphy

Maybe the military sees that the hubris of Obama, and his slobbering acolytes, has reached a height to which we have seldom been privileged to witness in public.

The Office of the President Elect being but a glorious manifestation of their hubris; and the cause of endless mocking amongst those of us still inclined to prick the pompous facade of the insufferably self-righteous.

In Greek tragedy this excessive pride or hubris was eventually punished by the Greek Goddess, Nemesis.

Now the media hacks generally know what a creepy, thin-skinned, easily annoyed, and essentially unlikeable person Barack Obama is. He was very unpopular with the travelling Hack Corps during the campaign.

Of course, he had/has his homo-erotically charged camp followers, like Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer and others.

And the female hackettes of a certain age all carry a spare set of metaphorical panties to throw at him Tom Jones style.

But generally one gets the impression most, in their hearts, recognized a huckster when they saw one.

But the rub was this, they are still Democrats; and still wanted the extreme lefty Democrat elected.

A sort of forced "Support the Mission, but not the troops' leader."

So will this last? And if not, who or what will be Obama's nemesis.

Will he fly, Icarus like, too near the New York Sun and fall to the ground under a barrage of actual journalism?

Maybe the late British Prime Minister, Harold McMillan gives us a clue. When asked by a journalist what was most likely to blow governments off course, he replied in typical laconic style: "Events dear boy, events."

Events are going to happen to the Obama administration, in buckets. They already are, because he is, after all, the President Elect doncha know?

It hardly helps that one of the moustachioed faces of the new administration is also extremely unpleasant: David Axelrod, ugly on the inside and the outside.

A mordant face to launch a thousand shits in his image. Easily annoyed, and visibly bristling at being asked even a half decent real question, Axelrod is ripe for an on-air confrontation in which he comes off as the uber-jerk.

So it will be interesting to see whether the media finally realizes its job is as nemesis to Obama’s endless hubris.

Or maybe events themselves will be the nemesis, overwhelming the carefully constructed façade of “competence” that rests on a foundation of thin air, and white media complicity in not treating a black candidate with the same skepticism it treats white politicians? (Sorry, someone has to state the obvious.)

It may take a while, though. Let’s hope it happens in the first term at least.

"The nature of an ideology is not determined by majority vote—but by logic... The logic of environmentalism leads to a society without technology... even if various environmentalists would deny this." Ayn Rand, 1971

has been floating around the internet for a while now. But I see it as the new model for the USN under Obama.

Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster

I served 1986-1992; November, 1992. I saw the writing on the wall that elevction year, and when it became apparent that Clinton would likely win the presidency, I opted out of the service. There were other reasons, but that was the nail in the coffin for me; honestly, I probably would have re-uped if Bush would've looked like the likely winner. Ultimately, I couldn't serve under a man that so disrespected everything that I was at the time; a uniformed soldier, or more distinctly, a Marine Corps Sergeant. 

'Don't ask, don't tell' made it worse. Not that I was worried about somebody looking at me in the shower; that's not intimidating or threatening, and frankly- wouldn't happen often enough to worry about. It's simply my opinion that most homosexuals are not cut out to be strict disciplinarians. They tend to want to buck the system, play by their own rules and not follow blindly the authority of anyone they disagree with. Homosexuals, many of them at least -especially as the lifestyle has gained in popularity so significantly during the PC years of Clinton- place so much stock in their ability to display openly their homosexuality, they don't have the mindset for the regiment of military service. My guess is there are a not whole helluva lot of gay cops (outside of the village people, that is) either. Suffice it to say, some people just aren't cut out for certain things. Certainly, there are many many straight people not cut out for military service, but by-and-large, I could not trust an openly gay squad member. And trust is everything in the service.

As for Obama- I could not serve under him either. He simply does not respect our men and women in uniform. And I don't care how many libs try to tell me that they support the troops but not the war- while a war is underway, any outward antithesis in a public forum against a war in which Soldiers, Seamen, Airmen and Marines are in harms-way, is not supporting those brave men and women. There is no way to spin it- if you're anti-war, you're anti-troops. You can debate the merits or execution of a war before and after, but once sons and daughters are being shot at, support means providing everything necessary to bring them home alive. Incentivising the enemy by publicly declaring your decent is, in my view, detrimental to the welfare of the troops. And oddly enough, it is usually the defient ones who suddenly start blaming -and prosecuting- the same troops they say they support. Again, not my definition of support.

Obama has been ardently anti-war (either by way of his personal beliefs or as a means to a political end- which says everything you need to know about this guy- we don't really know what he believes...) during a war, and for that reason alone, will not earn the respect of the majority of service members. Like with homosexuals, most will not be able to trust him. White, black, orange or purple- his race is immaterial. He does not show the utmost respect for a man or woman who would blindly lay their life on the line for the sake of this country and everyone living here- he does not deserve to be CINC.

Any attempt to interact with service members will be met mostly with caution by the members; will be revered by the adorning press as his selfless respect for their contributions to a war they neither wanted nor deserved; and seen for exactly what it is by political insiders- a photo op for political gain.

He rates only a left-hand salute. 

Here endeth my rant. 

Here's the link to a great article by Steven Paulson of the AP.  He states that the governor of Colorado has appointed a successor to Sen. Ken Salazar, who will become a cabinet secretary in the Obama Administration.  The cool part of Paulson's piece is that he labels Salazar's move to Interior Secretary as a "promotion". 

http://www.breitbart...

Needless to say there are 99 other egomaniacs that might disagree with that assessment.

obama has already said he wants to cut funding to the military and fund his own private army. Servicemen, and every American has good reason to be wary of him. Didn't Hitler do something very similar? Oh no, it was exactly the same. If I remember right, that didn't turn out so well.

I want to thank whoever writes the script for adding the HOME link at the bottom of each blog. 

JDW

DAILY WAVE

Whatever else you think, your mother and my mother are both mothers

Unlike many lefties, these people's memories actually do pre-date January of 2001, and they realize that Obama will turn our military back into a meals-on-wheels program, as did Bill Clinton.

Or possibly something worse.

-Dave

“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.”

:-)

-Dave

“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.”

My heart goes out to the Travolta family with the loss of their 16 year old son Jet from a seizure today, I guess John tried to revive him to no avail...as a woman who has lost a son, I understand the pain.

Prayers sent.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Civil War/Wal-Mart

Ken Burns says No.

What say you? 

In the immortal words of Buford T. Justice, What the hell is the world commin' to?

-Dave

“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.

The more I see the problems in the world and in this country, the more I believe, if left up to our congress, we are in a helluva pickle.

It may come down to every man for himself.  Pelosi? Reid? and last and least Obami?  Man-o-man that right there is a helluva an outfit.

If these jokers attempt to bail out the print media, or any media in this country, I for one am outta here.  I can retire and live like a dadgummed king elsewhere.  

This ought to be some four years ahead of us.  And unless and until the Republicans grow a spine, it'll get pretty interesting around these parts.

far be it for me to jump into an ongoing conversation BUT

"gays who love their country" can join the military.

The point is, NO ONE needs to know HOW anyone prefers to have SEX! More importantly, no one wants to know either.

I don't tell you my sexual proclivities and you don't tell me yours.

Don't look now but SEX is NOT a CIVIL RIGHT!  Period.

Gays who want to serve "their" country, and who insist upon telling everyone their sexual preferences, can always join the piece...oops I mean peace corps.