Colin Powell Throws Support Behind Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Retired U.S. Army General Colin Powell has thrown his support behind the repeal of the Congressional ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The decision marks a major shift for Powell, who once strongly backed the ban and the policy as essential to maintaining troop discipline and morale.
“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” Powell said in a statement released by his office. While admitting that his “principal issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks," he added that the judgment must be made by “current military leadership,” along with the president and Congress....
I find myself follwing your political reasoning at times. I had the same thought concerning our leaders and the domestic enemy. Obviously, there are many out there who have the same opinion. I normally have a dogmatic position about most positions that I take, however when it comes to bearing arms, takeover, etc., I want to engage but in my spirit there is this resistance part of me. I still am uncertain and need to study more before becoming dogmatic but ultimately I want to please, Christ. How do you feel?
Mike wrote: The oath to support and defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" does present a possible problem, though. What would happen if a domestic enemy turned out to be, oh, let's say a president, or an officer? What of the same oath's requirement to obey his orders?
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Mike wrote: The oath to support and defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" does present a possible problem, though. What would happen if a domestic enemy turned out to be, oh, let's say a president, or an officer? What of the same oath's requirement to obey his orders?
Lurker wrote: Good morning, Mike, Take a closer look at the current armed forces oath. It appears to me that "the same" refers solely to the constitution excepting the National Guard's oath which includes the individual's state. Is the defense of the United States set forth in the constitution? (Govornment has never been one of my strong suits. )
Looks like you're right, Lurker. I saw the absence of the US being referred to as "them" and drew a wrong conclusion. Guess I was influenced by reading old papers which wrote of "these States" and "united States," with only "States" capitalized. That did give some insight into the mindset of the early Americans as to their understanding of the relationship of the states to nation, as does the 1789 oath phrase "..and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever"
The oath to support and defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" does present a possible problem, though. What would happen if a domestic enemy turned out to be, oh, let's say a president, or an officer? What of the same oath's requirement to obey his orders?
Mike, one has to remember that Mr. Powell being an Episcopalian, means Anglicanism
from the above Wikipedia article wrote: The faith of Anglicans is founded in the scriptures, the traditions of the apostolic church, the apostolic succession – "historic episcopate" and the early Church Fathers.
Reason enough for anyone to reject Anglicans as Christian.
Alan H wrote: IMHO, what this oath is suggesting is that the preservation of the United States depends upon the defense of the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, our national security depends upon defending those founding principles, but this is being overlooked by many. If that Constitution is not preserved then you no longer have a United States, because that document was originally written to reconcile the differences between the states.
But the real promblem is the forsaking of God!
I think I agree, Alan. No doubt about your last sentence. If this be true then we, the people, need to send our armed forces into Washington for it is there that our constitution is being trampled under foot.
Lurker wrote: Good morning, Mike, Take a closer look at the current armed forces oath. It appears to me that "the same" refers solely to the constitution excepting the National Guard's oath which includes the individual's state. Is the defense of the United States set forth in the constitution? (Govornment has never been one of my strong suits. )
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
IMHO, what this oath is suggesting is that the preservation of the United States depends upon the defense of the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, our national security depends upon defending those founding principles, but this is being overlooked by many. If that Constitution is not preserved then you no longer have a United States, because that document was originally written to reconcile the differences between the states.
Mike wrote: It is interesting that the oath, up until it was changed in 1960, referred to the US as "them":
"..do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully,"
Now referred to as "the same," with no reference to the States:
"..that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
Subtle lessening of the idea that the country was composed of individual States, but is now an "it."
Good morning, Mike,
Take a closer look at the current armed forces oath. It appears to me that "the same" refers solely to the constitution excepting the National Guard's oath which includes the individual's state. Is the defense of the United States set forth in the constitution? (Govornment has never been one of my strong suits. )
I've been praying for God to give America preachers who will stand firm upon the Bible. Maybe I should also pray for military leaders who will do the same.
Some of the best leaders our armed forces have ever had have been faithful to the Word of God. It now appears that they are being replaced by those who are only concerned about politics. The result will be very damaging.
Any private ought to know that allowing known homosexuals into the military is seriously wrong--and stupid. It is most certainly BAD for discipline and morale. More importantly, it is a great security risk. History testifies to the fact that sexual favors have been exchanged for what should be secret information.
A holy God will never bless our military as He has in the past if we mock Him in such an ungodly manner!
It is interesting that the oath, up until it was changed in 1960, referred to the US as "them":
"..do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully,"
Now referred to as "the same," with no reference to the States:
"..that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
Subtle lessening of the idea that the country was composed of individual States, but is now an "it."
PS, Colin Powell is only doing what he does. Remember, he, being the good RINO that he is, put his support behind candidate Obama.
Alan H wrote: Hey! Doesn't the military oath to protect this nation and its Constitution include protecting the principles of purity and morality? Then, I'd say, this calls for a dishonorable discharge!!!
"The decision marks a major shift for Powell, who once strongly backed the ban and the policy as essential to maintaining troop discipline and morale."
What's changed?
It is shameful that so many of those whom we used to trust to lead us have so often betrayed us by moral compromise. Real leaders can't be bought off! The greatest fight in the world today is the fight for right principle. Where are the leaders these days who will lead in that battle?
Retired U.S. Army General Colin Powell has apparently decided to resign his commission in this particular conflict.
Friends, it is always very disheartening when we see heros turn into cowards. Not that we have much courage ourselves, but we often have to depend upon those who are braver and more skilled than we are for our protection. And this nations moral defense is much more important than its national defense, for this nation cannot long stand when it is morally corrupt within, which it very evidently is.
How I long to see those who are willing to stand for right, but I see little that gives me hope.
Hey! Doesn't the military oath to protect this nation and its Constitution include protecting the principles of purity and morality? Then, I'd say, this calls for a dishonorable discharge!!!
1
There are a total of 15 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
john uk from wales: "
frank
very good scripture; thanks! it sounds like a true..."
