After Reagan’s famous speech to Gorbachev calling for the tearing down of the Berlin wall, it seemed that our adversary would end up a great new ally of world peace and harmony.  The relationship between Reagan and Gorbachev let one to believe that our nations would end up very close.

However, as it seems, the United States may have squandered this opportunity by redefining Gorbachev’s decision to release Russia’s iron grip on the east.   Weather Gorbacheve’s decision to tear down the wall was because of their loosing the arms race; being fearful of Reagan’s new space toys, or even just a measure of solidarity for peace, the United States, after Reagan left office, began to hail it as a Cold War victory.

This, I can only imagine immediately became a lingering thorn in the side of every proud communist in Russia; every aging KGB agent and certainly never forgetting the American Communist Party of which our President has been so enamored with.  Gorbachev must have felt like an idiot, especially after Reagan left office and this idea of a cold war loss took shape.

As time moved pass the tearing down of the wall and other eastern state collapses, the concept inside America that we had won the cold war was being herald: sadly and primarily by my party the Republicans.  We used it, as a war prize, and flaunted it in front of the Democrats.  However, even they used it when it was advantageous.

Now look, I am not saying that Reagan didn’t do a great job: he did.  I am saying that I wonder if Reagan would have rubbed it in, leaving the Russian people feeling, as if, they had been defeated militarily.  No, I don’t think he would have.  I believe he wanted the wall down for freedoms sake and to hell with who won the cold war. Reagan was a man of principle and simple truths.  Now, I don’t have all of Reagan’s writings in front of me, so he may have brought up a cold war victory with Russia and if so please let me know.

I personally believe that a good deal of the communist nationalism we see emerging today is directly driven by the shame of being reminded repeatedly by the west that they lost the cold war.

Sadly, I believe the United States lost the opportunity to develop a greater relationship with Russia when it decided to continually bring up a Soviet cold war loss.

This lack of good  judgement on the part of the those in power within the United States could have, yes possibly, just pissed off some unemployed hard line communist old KGB farts who might have had nothing to do but to design and partner with American sympathizers a way to bring America to her knees: Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac.

This certainly makes one think about how powerful the old Soviet Union may still be.

Having old and cranky KGB  agents around who’s loyalty to Stalin is unwavering even makes the death of the Polish President look suspicious.

Now, I am not saying Putin would be involved in any KGB retribution, as he seems to be truly trying to change his nation for the better, but under his watch, just possibly, world destruction may have possibly been designed.

Could it be, that very soon, under our Pentagons watch and an interesting Presidential Administration that the tables of victory might be secretly turned on its head: might the cold war never have ended until today?

Interesting thought huh?

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as ‘Consequence Management Response Force’ will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

The key phrase is ‘may be called upon to help with civil unrest.’

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military.  This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The source described this as ‘our long, hot summer of discontent’ that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.

However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved.  In 1968 the major players were war protesters.  This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed.

It is highly unlikely that these citizens would ever initiate armed conflict of any kind.  In their view, gun rights are for self-defense–and for defense against tyrannical government, which our Founders regarded as the most dangerous force on earth.

However, it has become clear that other groups may well initiate violence in order to start an ‘incident’ that would give Obama and a rogue Congress a reason to implement martial law, confiscate the citizens’ guns, enforce curfews, and suspend all future elections until such time as it is deemed ‘safe’ to proceed with human liberty as encapsulated in the right to vote.

Tea Party members, for example, have been warned in recent days that members of Andy Stern’s SEIU union and members of the organization formerly known as ACORN plan to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings in order to incite some sort of incident that could result in armed conflict.

In addition, all indications point to a humiliating defeat for the Democrats and Obama in November.  Not only will the House in all likelihood transfer to Republican control, but it is increasingly possible for the Democrats to lose the Senate as well.

And there are Leftwing groups in this country that would use whatever means necessary to prevent that from happening.

ACORN has already gone underground, changing its name so as to fly beneath the radar screen.  How many people will  the group register to vote illegally?

And with Obama’s plan to naturalize between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens, a brand new voter base for the Democrats will be in place prior to November.

Add to this the growing unrest over continued high unemployment, the coming spike in interest rates and inflation, and the still-boiling outrage over the manner in which Obama and the Democrats shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the citizens, and all of the ingredients are present for a major F-5 tornado to sweep across the heartland.

To what extent would soldiers use deadly force during such ‘civil unrest’ should the Consequence Management Response Team be utilized?  During the anti-war riots of the 1960s they killed student protesters.  What about now?

The military source cited by the radio host today was asked this very question.  He would merely say that the culture of the U.S. military is changing–half support Obama and the other half are dead-set against him.

His conclusion?  There is no way to know for sure if they would obey an order to open fire on ordinary citizens.

Update:  The Cato Institute published this warning when the program was launched in its first phase in 2008 (the program has been updated and expanded since 2008). The Founders insisted that standing armies were never to be used against American citizens on our own soil, no matter what violations of this principle have occurred in the years following.  In the spirit of the Patriots and of real journalists government must be questioned constantly and held to intense scrutiny in order to preserve liberty.

Each of the five soldiers I talked with stated that resignation would be considered or for the three enlisted soldiers, trying to find a way out were options.  Each of those I talked with worried about unit cohesion being disrupted and for one soldier the idea of showering with a man who views him as a sexual object almost sent him into a violent rage: I had to remind him that it wasn’t a done deal.

The Pentagon is in the process of a year long review in which to determine how the armed services would be effected by President Obama’s decision to repeal don’t ask don’t tell.  His orders seem firm and regardless of the findings this destructive policy will likely be implemented.   During the review they intend to question military personal, but I fear that the majority of comments and concerns will be ignored as unacceptable: especially if they are anything like those I gathered.

The question now is how many military service personnel will resign or request an early out?  How many family military traditions will be abandoned because homosexuals and transvestites want to wear the uniform?  This is a question the Pentagon will likely not understand until the policy is repealed.

If this new policy does take effect it will be the first policy to publicly acknowledge that God does not exist.  One might ask how I arrived at this conclusion.  It is very simple, America’s motto is In God We Trust it reminds us that we acknowledge the existence and providence of God.  However, by intentionally recognizing a lifestyle that God openly acknowledges as wrong the United States openly either rebels against God or acknowledges he does not exist.  If Lucifer  exists he must surly be glad to see this day, he and the Democratic Party.

I would encourage the Pentagon and its leadership to wrangle up the courage to say to the President:  for 200 years we have held faith in the God of the Bible and will not now abandon that faith.  Courage is not always staring down a barrel of a gun, but standing up for principle while in the presence of a powerful man bent on changing the dreams of our fathers.

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” George Washington

It is fascinating to see people take on such a defensive stance for gay rights and the repeal of the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy. There are two clearly identifiable factions involved in this debate – which by the way, are not even interested in supporting the military even in general, only have their sights aimed at exacting social change – those who defend the homosexual lifestyle even though they are not gay and gay people. At no point have operational readiness and overall morale issues being considered by proponents of the repeal, including many in the higher echelons of the military. The idea of equal rights within our armed forces is very appealing to those who support gay rights, believing that personnel who practice homosexuality are overly treated with disdain and discriminated against but there is much more to this argument.

The purpose of this piece is not to determine or discuss the nature vs. nurture of the homosexual lifestyle but rather to illustrate the lack of balance in how this controversial policy may be implemented. Clearly, by leaving the most relevant points out of the public’s discussion in the media the topic of gays in the military, the fact that their sexual preference is not the most important contribution to their service to their country, will work both for and against them in the end. Moreover, by allowing yet one more social experiment to be introduced into an already burden military system is truly of a destructive nature rather than pursuant to preserving national security.

The cause du jour
Gay activists such as the lackluster TV personality Rachel Maddow attended Congressional hearings in support of gay rights in the military. It is even less relevant to the debate to have Maddow, a self-described Air Force brat and lifelong activist, to see the issue is not about gay rights. Other members of the left-side media such as columnist Dana Milibank of the Washington Post praised Admiral Mike Mullen’s courage and wished that Mullen be awarded a medal for his courage. This support could not be more misguided. The important thing about military service keeping the service member’s identity separate is to ensure unit cohesion, to name only one. This is also the best way to maintain pride and professionalism within any military unit but emphasizing the quality of its people and their mission performance. Though this may be considered to be a catch all term there is more than just being able to get along or work together well.

Old problems, new perspective
During the 1980s many changes within the U.S. Navy, a service where personnel can find themselves in close quarters onboard ships, had begun to show some impact in the ability to deploy capable units into combat. Back in the 1980s issues such as outfitting restrooms for women and dealing with male/female attitudes do not compare with the potential introduction of even more frivolous accommodations.

The crux of this debate rests on the fact that by allowing one social experiment that goes against military conduct will do nothing more than create an even more ‘protected’ or privileged class of people who can do no wrong and who will probably abuse the service. If this concept is hard to believe then let’s look at the problem with from the combat operations perspective, to include another catch-all cause of assigning women to submarines. This is hardly in concert with national security or unit readiness; just like the early issues encountered in the Navy when women began sea-shore rotations, the outfitting of submarines, which do not enjoy the luxury of room as in the surface fleet, will pose even more problems. In speaking with former submariners the idea of mixing the sexes is not really the issue; again, the ability to perform every task without worrying for personal modesty and potential cases of sexual misconduct. Submarines will have to undergo modifications that may be expensive and intrusive in the end because given a small number of female officers would have to actually share quarters refuse to go to combat on ‘moral’ grounds and disrupt unit readiness. Modesty, since men living in tight quarters will at times be forced to ignore in order to fulfill their mission, would be then cast as the priority. This is hardly training like we fight. Dare we think of a man or woman taking offense to someone’s nudity total or partial – because those pucker-factor moments won’t wait for folks to don their britches first – and choosing to focus on the uncomfortable moment rather than impending war?

There is such a thing as common sense which tells us that the personal whims of one group can easily destroy the unity and effectiveness of our armed forces. Regardless of the argument that other countries have experimented with some of this type of all-inclusiveness may show its progress in how they fight. Ultimately, what senior leadership calls diversity will turn into the open door our enemies need in order to gain strategic dominance. Do we see the Chinese, Russians and even Venezuela make drastic social changes to their services? No. Their main focus is to fight and win wars…

…not guess if that guy in your unit is like the one in The Crying Game.