Barbara Boxer compares the United States to Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan because of the military’s policy on gays
There has been a renewed push on repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays serving in the military in light of the recent California court ruling which stated “don’t ask, don’t tell” was unconstitutional. There is now an effort to push a repeal of DADT through the lame duck session of the Congress.
Barack Obama is pushing for legislative action on this issue and Harry Reid has promised to bring up a vote on the repeal of DADT before the lame duck session is over.
Earlier today Barbara Boxer weighed in on this issue, but she went way over the line while trying to voice her support for the repeal of DADT. Here is what she had to say:
We now stand with this rule with countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in banning gays and lesbians from military service,” said Boxer. “Our brave young men and women fight alongside allies like Australia, the United Kingdom and others who allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Let’s not stand with Pakistan and with North Korea and Iran
You read that right; Barbara Boxer compared the United States of America to Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan because of the military’s DADT policy. These countries have some of the worse human rights violations imaginable and for her to compare the United States to those countries because the military has a policy in place in which she disagrees is unforgivable!
There is a legitimate debate to have on DADT but Barbara Boxer went way over the line to make her point and she owes the military of the United States an apology. As disgusting as these remarks are, they are not surprising coming from the left because this isn’t the first time the far left has compared the United States military to some of the most vile regimes in world history. Need I remind you of what Dick Durbin said about the United States military: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”
And then there were the words of one time presidential hopeful John Kerry, who said “there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.”
So the left has a history of insulting the United States military, but it is still stunning when you hear a member of the Congress make such outrageous statements.
Dick Durbin eventually apologized for his reprehensible comments and while I consider Barbara Boxer’s comments less incendiary they are still despicable and she owes the military an apology.
America's Watchtower 
She is a moron. The UK, Australia and other allies also allow soldiers and sailors to drink in combat zones, I guess we should do that too. Oh and they can have full beards as well, even though that severely limits the efficacy of a gas mask.
Hmm, I guess we should try to be more like France too. Or Albania, the Czech Republic, oh oh, how abut Russia. Yeah, we should be more like the Russian military.
I am thinking when you are the strongest, largest, most professional and powerful military in the history of the world, you really shouldn’t look at others to see how to do it the right way. And you shouldn’t let seditious bitches like Barbara Boxer and her Code Pink friends dictate policy to you, but that is another story.
LikeLike
This woman really is a disgrace, I can’t believe she was voted in again.
LikeLike
Just what I was thinking
But they elected Brown too, they deserve to crack off and sink lol
LikeLike
and she worked so hard for it………………
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/22/call-her-senator-she-worked-so-hard-for-that-title-ad-from-david-zucker/
LikeLike
I had totally forgotten about that one, I would have used it in my post! That was a pretty funny video included in that link.
LikeLike
It’s things like this that make me wish I could be in the Senate for just long enough to deliver some parting shots.
For instance, during that Senate investigation of Gen. Patraeus, had I followed Boxer in questions, I’d have started out with, “General– by the way, you MAY address me as ‘Ma’am’ or ‘Senator’ or ‘Hey, You!’ as you please, given that SOME of us have not yet forgotten that senators are PUBLIC SERVANTS…”
Ooooo… just to see the look on Boxer’s face… 😀
LikeLike
I would be careful about saying “parting shots,” to anyone in the government. They don’t have a sense of humor. They would think it would mean what we really want to do…….line them up….and…………
LikeLike
I hear you there! She is such a smug, arrogant person. It drives me crazy that she considers herself to be that important.
LikeLike
Steve… and it drives me crazy that no one in the Senate actually thought to DO it.
To me– and possibly most of the rest of us– that would have been the obvious reaction.
LikeLike
Hey Kalifornians just re-elected her! She is a disgrace.
LikeLike
I know, I don’t know what they were thinking.
LikeLike
Don’t blame me, I certainly didn’t vote for her. Unfortunately, she is the norm, not the exception in California.
Given her support of the United Nations it’s strange that she would even make the comparison.
LikeLike
It must be maddening!
LikeLike
Another reason to consider Calipornia another nation!
LikeLike
Yeah, cut ’em loose.
LikeLike
OT Steve
Robert Smith has a new single out, I think it’s pretty good
LikeLike
Thanks for the heads up RR, I didn’t know about this! I did a google search on this, are you talking about “Not in Love”? It is good indeed!
LikeLike
What other rights should gays in the military have? Maybe they could put camouflage lace on their uniforms or the right to ware camouflage green lipstick and eye shadow. If Boxer and company win this round you bet they’ll be back latter for more.
John over at The Current today is suggesting that the Democrats will use the earmark bill as an amendment to help pass some other bill that needs help. Maybe they will tie it to DADT.
BTW, I think your doing a excellent work on your blog. I hope you don’t mind that I add American Watchtower to my blogroll.
Cheers!
LikeLike
I haven’t seen John’s post on earmarks today, but I will be heading over there shortly. Thanks for the compliment and thank you for adding me to your blogroll, I will be adding you to mine as well.
LikeLike
I hope California is proud of itself… They have led the way to socialist moonbattery for a long time… Their position is secure…
LikeLike
They even have Massachusetts beat, and that is saying something!
LikeLike
She was right to compare the US policy to other homophobic military policy. Gays will have equal rights in every capacity soon. The US constitution simply requires equal protection and due process for ALL; there is no gay exception in our constitution or the amendments.
“Maybe they could put camouflage lace on their uniforms or the right to ware camouflage green lipstick and eye shadow.”
^Really now? You are ignorant if you believe every gay man cross-dresses or even has the desire to cross-dress. There are cross-dressing straight men, they’re called transvestites; but I guess you would just call them stupid f**s too, right?
LikeLike
So where do you fall on hate crimes? If I am straight and I get in a fight with a gay man, should there be the possibility of a stricter sentence for only me because I happen to be straight? And if so, how is that equal protection under the law?
You are correct if we accept the premise that sexual orientation is to be considered a “class of person” under the constitution – I am pretty sure it does not explicitly speak to homosexuality anywhere in the constitution or its amendments. So in this regard, we have to assume gays are covered beyond what they are covered by race, creed, religion etc.. Which I have to argue is wrong most vehemently. Gays do not deserve some “super-protection” under the law, anymore than straight people do. We should all be treated equally, leave sexual orientation out of the equation – the only hitch, gays have the biggest problem doing so. I don’t demand special treatment because I am straight, gays should not get special treatment because they are gay. So where does that leave us?
Gays should be in the military, okay, I can live with that, except the military has always had discretion when it comes to making its own rules, hence the uniform code of military justice. Why is an extra set of laws needed separate from the criminal code of the united states? Because the government recognizes the military holds a special relationship with regards to the constitution – it is bound to defend it, but the military is forced to give up its freedoms to do so. Is a soldier given first amendment rights? Can he speak freely about politics, military strategy, etc.? Can he freely assemble when and where he wants? Does he have the freedom to write whatever he wants? The answer is no to all these. Is a soldier afforded 2nd ammendment protection? Believe it or not, it is very difficult for a soldier to obtain a personal fire-arm, and if he lives in the barracks or is deployed, he is not allowed to keep it with him. Fourth Amendment? Hell no, a soldier’s belongings can be searched whenever his superiors demand it. Fifth Amendment? Hell no again, see uniform code of military justice. Sixth amendment, same as fifth. Seventh, same as fifth. Eighth, same as fifth. You see where this is going right?
So the military can make its own rules separate of the Constitution. But they do represent the government, and the exclusion of a certain sexual orientation is obviously at least a tacit recognition of sexual orientation by the military that it is a “class of person”, so that at least lends credence to the argument that gays should be afforded protections separate from the traditional classes in the Constitution. But this by no means over-rides the discretion the military holds in deciding its own standards and rules for the conduct of its personnel.
LikeLike
So very, very well said! I agree with you on hate crimes, this is nothing more than a special protection or a right that others do not enjoy. If two men get in a fight, the crime is the same no matter what the sexual orientation of the men are, yet it is a wrose crime if you find out later one of the men was gay. It makes no sense whatsoever. A crime is a crime and the punishment should be the same no matter what the sexual orientation of the person is.
I also agree with you about the military: I personally don’t have a problem if a gay man or woman wants to serve this country but that is not my call to make. The military has the right to set their own rules, as you said, there is no absolute right to free speech in the military, and it is justifyable that there isn’t. They also have the right to decide who can be accepted into the military and who will not be accepted, people know the rules when the VOLUNTEER to join the military and the MUST live by them, if they cannot do that they have no business joining in the first place.
LikeLike
I agree with Steve, very well said. It’s important not to forget that the military sacrifices freedoms in order to be effective, and you relinquish some rights you had as a civilian. As Steve said, you volunteer for the military, you must live by the rules. But why go to lengths to deter otherwise able and willing participants? This isn’t like situations where someone’s disabled and physically and or mentally unstable which poses direct threats to our security, it’s about someones own unique personal identity. The DADT policy tells gay people we don’t want you in this organization, but if you really want in, if you really really want to serve, you have to be dishonest. I applaud those that take the risk, and it is more sacrifice than I think I would tolerate. Sacrificing home, and the freedoms fleeceme stated, I believe I could discipline myself to do, but when I’m being asked to excommunicate myself from my partner who has been by my side for 8 years and counting, it is not something I would be willing to do. And I agree DADT is at least effective in discouraging people from enlisting based on their sexual orientation. But do we want to discourage ANYBODY who is otherwise willing and able from considering military life?
The heart of the issue is equality. You asked me my stance on Hate Crimes, and I’m probably out of step with most on my side on this issue, but I agree Hate Crimes are unnecessary, and I have thought so for many years. But that goes for all Hate Crimes regarding religion, sex, and yes even race. Most on my side would scream at me considering recent violence in the news commit ed by young teenagers directed at teenage homosexuals (or perceived homos,) but I don’t believe any minority deserves special rights; and Hate Crimes generate special rights whether intentional or inadvertently.
Interestingly it sounds like we’re on the same side of the fence regarding DADT and Hate Crime, Steve. I ask you to advocate the repeal of anti-gay legislation and I will promise to advocate repeal of special rights. Equality is important and its a major principle we defend when we go to combat. I want to thank you both for the insightful dialog, it’s not what I expected.
LikeLike
Thanks Allen, we do seem to be more in line with each other than one would imagine. I do like an honest debate, but all too often people that disagree with me come here and just insult me, when this happens I tend to blow them off with some type of snide comment. I am passionate about my beliefs and sometimes I can fly off the handle but I do appreciate when a person in disagreement comes here and offers me a chance at honest debate and you have done so.
When it comes to social issues I consider myself to be somewhat moderate, or libertarian. I do not believe that it is any of my business what another person does in their private life. Here is what I wrote about myself in my “About Me” page on social issues and gay marriage in particular:
” I am a fiscal conservative, and somewhat moderate on social issues.
I don’t care if someone is a homosexual, but I don’t believe in gay marriage. I believe marriage is a religious institution therefore if it contradicts religious beliefs it should not be legal. I do understand that marriage affords couples legal benefits, and the issues that homosexuals are confronted with in regards to making medical decisions and such. I think that civil unions provide gay couples with all of the benefits of marriage and therefore it is an acceptable alternative.
Having said that, I believe that gay marriage is a state’s rights issue. If a state legalizes gay marriage through the proper process I am okay with that state’s right to do so.”
I live in New Hamsphire and we have legalized gay marriage and while I disagree with gay marriage I have accepted it in my state because the proper procedure was used to pass it. Mu problem with Massachusetts gay marriage law is that it was court imposed and did not go through the proper procedure. I believe first in and foremost in the rights of the states to define marriage and other issues as long as it is done properly. I am a constitutionalist and therefor procedure is what is most important to me on these issues.
As for gays in the military, this issue is a little different based on what I said in my previous comment, and what fleeceme also said. The military doesn’t necessarily provide its members with absolute constitutional guarantees, as noted above. It is up to the military to decide what is best for the military and I think the issues of gays in the military opens up some interesting questions.
Women are allowed to serve in the military, but they are separated from the men, they do not share barracks for obvious reasons. If gays are allowed to serve openly should they be allowed to share in the same barracks as straight men? I am not saying that gay men will not be able to control themselves in front of other men, but rather asking if the same rule that disallows women from sharing baracks with men should be in order here as well. I don’t know the answer to this question and I defer this to fleeceme as he served in the military and I did not.
In the end I would go along with whatever the military decided. They are in the process of reviewing their policies and it seems as if they are more tolerant now than ever regarding the issue of gays serving openly. They know a hell of alot better what is best for all those serving and I would defer to them.
LikeLike
Some of those countries actually stone to death gays and women who commit adultery, to compare the United States to those countries goes way over the line. As I said in my post, there is a legitimate debate to be had here but what Boxer said just goes to far and is not helpful in moving the debate forward.
LikeLike