Camelback Mountain - Its a Bomb

In a foxhole somewhere in Diyala Province

Ahmed: Get ready on the detonator. I can see a patrol of the Americans coming.

Mamoud: Duck Ahmed!!!! The godless American F-16’s are dropping bombs.

Ahmed: May Allah damn these Americans!!!

(There is the whistle of a bomb falling from the sky followed by a surprisingly soft muffled thud near the two intrepid salafists.)

Ahmed: Hah, a dud. That was close.

Mamoud: It kicked up a lot of dust but I can still see the Americans. I am ready.

Ahmed: Mamoud, what is that funny smell (sniff, sniff) It is like, hmmm, like the smell of a camel in rut. Mamoud . . . is that some new soap you are using?

Mamoud: What? No. And I do not smell it. Now watch for the Americans.

Ahmed: It smells very good, actually. Hmmm, you know Mamoud, I really like the color of that new ghutra you’re wearing. It really brings out the color of your eyes and the highlights in your beard.

Mamoud: What in Allah’s name are you talking about? Keep your hand on the detonator – the damned Americans are almost -

Ahmed: Mamoud, has anyone ever told you that you that you have a pretty mouth?

Mamoud: (picking up his rifle and pointing it at Ahmed) Are you insa - (sniff, sniff). Wait, I am smelling it now too. Hmph, you know, Ahmed, it really is rather nice. . . But I think it is more like the smell of a he-goat. A very big . . . strong . . . he-goat.

Ahmed: I don’t know but . . . your robes are a bit dusty and rumpled. (moving behind Mamoud and begins to straighten out Mamoud’s robes and rub his shoulders) Here, let me fix them for you.

Mamoud: Thank you Ahemed. Hmmm, the Americans are almost here but, ooooo, that feels so goo - . . . hey, is that your AK-47 hitting me in the back?

So might go the first successful field test of a “gay” bomb. No, this is not a joke dreamed up as part of a new Mel Brooks movie. It is straight from the Pentagon planners. It does not kill, it just stimulates the senses with strong aphrodisiacs that leave a radical Islamist forgetting all about the joys of jihad and martyrdom to seek something no 72 virgins will ever be able to offer:

A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviwing the documents.

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.

. . . "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

Read the entire article here. You just can't make this stuff up. But, what the hell, I will support it if it takes the jihadis concentration off blowing up Americans and onto . . .

(H/T Jules Crittenden)

Read More...

Summary only...

Dems & The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy

There is an agenda among the more aggressive gay and lesbian groups to ensconce their lifestyle as completely acceptable within society, protected as a civil right and equal in all respects to heterosexual relationships and lifestyle. This is clearly evident in the push for gay marriage coupled with a rejection of the concept of civil unions." That push for acceptance has also been raised in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in our Armed Forces:

The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.

In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, . . . Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.

Republicans countered that the policy should not be changed, certainly not in time of war.

It is a dispute that underscores the continuing power of social issues — like gay rights and abortion — in each party’s nominating contest, even as the larger debate revolves around a divisive war. And it shows the Democrats returning to yet another issue that confounded them in the past — like universal health care — with the conviction that the public is more ready for change this time.

Democratic leaders have been moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” for some time now . . .

The issue flared anew because it came up in this week’s debates, not because of any big new campaign initiative on either side. But aside from policy considerations, there is a political rationale for the Democrats’ stance: Gay men and lesbians make up an important part of the Democratic Party’s political and fund-raising base, and voters in general are increasingly tolerant on gay issues related to employment and discrimination, analysts say. While gay marriage remains deeply divisive, allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in time of war has a far more centrist appeal, advocates and analysts say.

. . . [I]n the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering. . .

Read the entire story here.

As to the charge of social engineering, leaving aside for the moment that we are in the middle of hostilities, that is not necessarily a valid argument. Our military is the most integrated of all institutions in America and, indeed, it has, more then any other single institution, served as the engine of integration in America. It has been the premeir engine of integration since Harry Truman ordered the military desegrated 59 years ago. That was an exercise in social engineering. It worked spectaulalry.

There can be no claim made that homosexuals can not or do not make every bit as good soldiers as their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the most famous military men of history were either homosexual or bisexual (Julius Caeser, Alexander, many of the Sparatans). For myself, I both commanded and served with a few men in the military whom I strongly suspected or came to know were gay. They were all good soldiers and I was proud to have served with them. Being gay has no bearing on whether a man or woman can be a good soldier.

The penultimate question is not morality, nor is it a question of civil rights. The sole question must be what effect would allowing openly gay soldiers to serve have on unit cohesion? Unit cohesion is an issue of supreme importance in the military. That question was asked and answered fourteen years ago during hearings on this precise issue. The answer was that it could significantly impact unit cohesion and change the dynamics of how our units operate. Having been an infantry company commander, in light of what I know of the average soldier and military life, I concur.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that arose out of the 1993 hearings was completely appropriate. It does not punish or keep out homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. The policy merely asks gays to keep their sexual preferences out of the unit. It is functional and it works. And the fact is, we are at war. The time to engage in a grand experiment in social engineering is absolutely not while hositilities are ongoing.

But that is not what Democrats nor their radical constituency want. To understand their agenda and how far they are willing to go to achieve it, you need look no further then the Democrats treatment of Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, a man who wanted to serve his country but then was outed and criticized by the liberal media for having previously appearing in gay porn. It was truly a low point. The agenda of the Democrats must be resisted.

Update: The best line coming out of the Democrat Presidential candidates' embrace of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy," comes from Conan O'Brian who speculated that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be replaced by the new policy, 'Don't Tell Me You're Wearing Those Boots With That Gun.'"

Read More...

Summary only...

Ask But Don't Sway?

I am reminded of the scene from The Birdcage where Robin Williams attempts to teach Nathan Lane to pass for straight.

Gay police officers in the Philippines have been warned not to sway their hips while on duty – or risk losing their jobs.

Chief Supt Samuel Pagdilao said the force did not discriminate against homosexuals but would fire those who misbehaved.

'If they sway their hips while marching, or if they engage in lustful conduct, I think that will be a ground for separation. If they behave within the norm, I don't think we'll have a problem,' he added.

See the story here.

Read More...

Summary only...