Don't Ask - Don't Tell is Repealed

[Christcorp]

The 14th amendment and serving in the military are 2, totally unrelated issues. Just like you don't have the same constitutional rights; "Implied by amendments 1-9 of the constitution/bill of rights"; while in the military that the traditional citizen does. The federal government has the "Right" to limit military personnel's "Rights".

And there is nothing in the BOR or the rest of the constitution that states that an individual has a "Right" to be in the military. That word "Right" or "Rights" has been thrown around way too much, MINUS the meaning of what a "Right" truly is. Then again, there are a lot of people who believe that the "Bill of RIGHTS" is a list of THEIR RIGHTS. They don't understand that it's actually the rights of the Federal government. Or better yet, the LIMITATIONS on the federal government.

If military service was a "RIGHT", the government wouldn't be allowed to limit how many were accepted into the military. You can't say: "Too many people have spoken today. You can't exercise your right to free speech now. You'll have to wait until tomorrow". Ms Faust obviously has found a political window open that she could exploit. She, as well as her predecessors, has had numerous opportunities in the past to welcome back ROTC as well as fight causes like DADT. Instead, now that the actual battle appears over, she is jumping on the bandwagon. I have no respect for her, or her comments. I have contempt for her.

 

[TheKnight]

The problem I have with President Faust, is her distorted view. Serving in the military is NOT a RIGHT!!! Find that any place in the constitution. Serving in the military is an HONOR and a PRIVILEGE!!! Unfortunately, in today's "Entitlement... Me.... Society", too many people choose the military strictly for economic reasons. They have no idea what honor, integrity, loyalty, patriotism, etc... actually means. And while I think it's fine that not every military member is 100% gung-ho when they join the military; in whatever capacity; I believe it is something they should become aware of. Obviously Ms. Faust never served in the military. SERVING is not a right. With one sentence, she was able to give a "back-handed" compliment to the military. Basically, she's saying that ANYONE should have the RIGHT to join the military. That is simply not true.

I am personally glad that the DADT policy has been rescinded. NOT because gays have a RIGHT to be in the military. But because those individuals who truly have the desire to serve this great country, and sacrifice for it's citizens, should be allowed that privilege without being persecuted for personal beliefs or standards.

Her comment about Lincoln's proclamation freeing slaves also opened them up to service in the Union Army, is also very misleading. Black Americans have served in our military since even the revolutionary war. As Harvard President, and someone who is supposedly educated, it is quite obvious that she sees rescinding the DADT policy strictly as a "Political Achievement" and not for what it truly is. She obviously doesn't know anything about the military, and therefor should keep her trap shut. And neither her, nor anyone else who says that ANYONE has a "RIGHT" to be in the military, understands what a "RIGHT" is. They are simply using the word as a "Political Buzz" word. To entice emotion.

Other than that, Ms Faust is simply trying to "Sell" her school as being "PRO-Military". It's a political strategy that she'll probably succeed in with many Americans.

While I do agree that serving in the military isn't a right, I also believe that it is neither a privilege nor an honor.

The way you make it sound, it's almost as if you think that people are given the honor of military service. However, on its own, military service is neutral. It has neither positive nor negative value.

It's honor comes from the fact that those who choose to do so, do so at the risk of their lives in combat and at the sacrifice of certain freedoms for the sake of the preservation of society. The military is only as honorable as those who serve at their own loss and at their own risk for the sake of the whole.

The 14th amendment and serving in the military are 2, totally unrelated issues. Just like you don't have the same constitutional rights; "Implied by amendments 1-9 of the constitution/bill of rights"; while in the military that the traditional citizen does. The federal government has the "Right" to limit military personnel's "Rights".

And there is nothing in the BOR or the rest of the constitution that states that an individual has a "Right" to be in the military. That word "Right" or "Rights" has been thrown around way too much, MINUS the meaning of what a "Right" truly is. Then again, there are a lot of people who believe that the "Bill of RIGHTS" is a list of THEIR RIGHTS. They don't understand that it's actually the rights of the Federal government. Or better yet, the LIMITATIONS on the federal government.

If military service was a "RIGHT", the government wouldn't be allowed to limit how many were accepted into the military. You can't say: "Too many people have spoken today. You can't exercise your right to free speech now. You'll have to wait until tomorrow". Ms Faust obviously has found a political window open that she could exploit. She, as well as her predecessors, has had numerous opportunities in the past to welcome back ROTC as well as fight causes like DADT. Instead, now that the actual battle appears over, she is jumping on the bandwagon. I have no respect for her, or her comments. I have contempt for her.

I also disagree with you here to an extent. The Bill of Rights sets out to define the relationship between the people and the government. The implication is that the government cannot limit beyond what the Bill of Rights allows it unless the people agree with such limitation.

In terms of the military, I believe that Judge Phillips said it best, "The government may only restrict the rights of military personnel insofar as it contributes to the goal and mission of the military."

The government may not arbitrarily limit the rights of anyone including military personnel.

Beyond that, the purpose of the military is to defend the rights of the people and the American way of life. All military personnel swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which enumerates the rights of the people therein. That being said, it should bother all of us (in light of that oath) when the rights of even one person (military or not) have been limited unnecessarily.

I think every American is able to imagine a situation where they agree that personal rights should be restricted. However, I also believe that all of us should be infuriated with the wanton restriction of rights by the government. In this case, such a restriction was that of gays to serve in the military.

So as much as I normally and regularly disagree with the liberal agenda of the me-lovers who see the Constitution as a list of their personal entitlements, I do not disagree with them when they say that this was a battle of rights. It may not be about any specific rights, but it does touch on our general willingness to allow the government to limit rights.

Is there a specifically outlined right to serve? Absolutely not, but in the spirit of freedom and on the foundation of logic it should bother any sane person that we would restrict military service to those who are physically and mentally able solely because we disagree with their choice of sexual partner. Especially when we fight two wars, recruiting numbers are dropping, and the pool of qualified people to choose from shrinks year after year.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

The federal government has the "Right" to limit military personnel's "Rights".

Only when they are actually IN the military and only for reasons of National security. The ability to 'limit' rights is limited.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

To continue the Harvard ROTC discussion --

At ROTC Commissioning Dr Faust touts the idea of 'soldier-scholar'

Barron, Bilotti, Bras, Chiappini, Doohovskoy, Kristol, Pellegrini, West.
That’s roll call for eight 2009 Harvard graduates who were commissioned late Wednesday morning (June 3). Five are new officers in the U.S. Army and three in the U.S. Marine Corps.
The eight students filled out their final commissioning paperwork (and took their official oaths) in front of the John Harvard Statue.
Among a small crowd of well-wishers was Capt. Thomas J. Hudner Jr., who as an aviator won the Navy’s first Medal of Honor of the Korean War. (His father, Thomas Hudner, was in Harvard’s Class of 1915.)
By 11 a.m., Harvard’s newest military officers were on stage in front of the Memorial Church for a public commissioning ceremony — at which Hudner took a bow, and won a standing ovation from the crowd of about 4,000.
Lt. Col. Timothy Hall, a professor of military leadership at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), praised the new officers for joining the military “fully knowing they will likely be in harm’s way.” (He directs MIT’s ROTC program to which Harvard cadets are attached.)
The new soldiers and Marines are part of a “long crimson line” at Harvard that stretches back to 1636, said Hall, and includes 10 Medal of Honor winners.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, re-administered the oath of office for what he said “must be the smartest new officers in our military.”
Harvard President Drew Faust set aside her prepared remarks to make an announcement: a new partnership with the federal government to help American military veterans get a Harvard education.
Starting this fall, she said, as many as 150 veterans will receive substantial financial aid at Harvard as part of the new federal Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program. The aid, good at every Harvard School, will be matched dollar for dollar by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
“This is an opportunity for us to show our gratitude,” said Faust, “to the citizen soldiers who have given so much for our nation.” It’s an “investment,” she added, that will hopefully be “continued and even expanded” across Harvard in the years to come.
In his remarks, Petraeus imparted to the new lieutenants “five critical admonitions” necessary for leadership: Lead by example, stay humble, make timely decisions, build a team, and “don’t take yourself too seriously — but take your work seriously.”
In this day of multiple wars, he said, humility matters. New officers not only have to lead, they have to listen to combat-hardened veterans. “They have a lot to teach you,” said Petraeus.
Faust praised the general as the embodiment of an ideal she urged the new officers to follow: the soldier-scholar.
“He is a thinker,” she said, and offered a quote from Petraeus himself, who has a doctorate from Princeton University: “The most powerful tool any soldier carries is not his weapon but his mind.”
Faust, a historian, called war “arguably the most consequential activity any nation or society can undertake.” And so the soldier-scholar has the obligation, she said, to grasp the broad issues necessary to understand both opponents and ourselves.
A Harvard education has imparted the ability to “to think, to analyze, to make judgments — to turn information into understanding,” she said. “Your education has introduced you to the big picture — the sweep of history, of philosophy, of cultural difference and change. This is the context that necessarily shapes war and those who bear responsibility for it.”
To each new officer Faust gave a gift-wrapped book — a copy of “Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations” (1977), by political philosopher Michael Walzer, then a professor of government at Harvard.
Petraeus acknowledged that “individual study and education are of enormous importance” — and that “when we had Harvard grads in Iraq, we tried to hang on to them.”
To that he added a caution for the young officers: “You’ll learn the most by getting your hands dirty and your boots dusty.”
The ceremony included remarks by Capt. Darnell M. Whitt II, U.S. Navy (retired), a member of the 1959 cadre of ROTC cadets at Harvard, which numbered 121 students. (Many of them, on campus for a 50th anniversary, took seats close to the front, wearing single red-ribboned medals in their lapels.)
Whitt paid homage to that class — one of whom, a combat surgeon, died in Vietnam — and to the generations of Harvard students in ages past whose names are carved in stone.
In a whimsical look another 50 years ahead (“The president of Harvard might be a man!” he said), Whitt hoped that the number in the ROTC cadre of 2059 “will be much greater than the few in your cohort, or the 121 of us.”
He closed with a sober reminder: “Let us never forget that the land of the free is because of the brave.”

 

[SamAca10]

Just curious.... where does it say this in the US Constitution? I don't have time this morning to whip out my pocket copy and take a look. Thanks.



Actually no. It was the draft that caused them (and many more elite universities) to boot ROTC back in the 60's.

I doubt Harvard will have their own Battalion. IF they 'welcome back' ROTC this will mean that classes will be able to be held on campus and students will get credit for their coursework. This will be great for the cadets and mids.
Dr Faust has been a big supporter of ROTC since she arrived at Harvard. As for Harvard, the institution, - meh.

Where in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to serve in the military? I need you to whip out your pocket book because I left mine back at the Academy

 

[SamAca10]

While I do agree that serving in the military isn't a right, I also believe that it is neither a privilege nor an honor.

The way you make it sound, it's almost as if you think that people are given the honor of military service. However, on its own, military service is neutral. It has neither positive nor negative value.

It's honor comes from the fact that those who choose to do so, do so at the risk of their lives in combat and at the sacrifice of certain freedoms for the sake of the preservation of society. The military is only as honorable as those who serve at their own loss and at their own risk for the sake of the whole.





I also disagree with you here to an extent. The Bill of Rights sets out to define the relationship between the people and the government. The implication is that the government cannot limit beyond what the Bill of Rights allows it unless the people agree with such limitation.

In terms of the military, I believe that Judge Phillips said it best, "The government may only restrict the rights of military personnel insofar as it contributes to the goal and mission of the military."

The government may not arbitrarily limit the rights of anyone including military personnel.

Beyond that, the purpose of the military is to defend the rights of the people and the American way of life. All military personnel swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which enumerates the rights of the people therein. That being said, it should bother all of us (in light of that oath) when the rights of even one person (military or not) have been limited unnecessarily.

I think every American is able to imagine a situation where they agree that personal rights should be restricted. However, I also believe that all of us should be infuriated with the wanton restriction of rights by the government. In this case, such a restriction was that of gays to serve in the military.

So as much as I normally and regularly disagree with the liberal agenda of the me-lovers who see the Constitution as a list of their personal entitlements, I do not disagree with them when they say that this was a battle of rights. It may not be about any specific rights, but it does touch on our general willingness to allow the government to limit rights.

Is there a specifically outlined right to serve? Absolutely not, but in the spirit of freedom and on the foundation of logic it should bother any sane person that we would restrict military service to those who are physically and mentally able solely because we disagree with their choice of sexual partner. Especially when we fight two wars, recruiting numbers are dropping, and the pool of qualified people to choose from shrinks year after year.

I find your take on this interesting. What makes military service honorable is what you do with it- not the service itself. I mean, I know that you and I are both active duty, but I don't really think we're serving our country. We're getting ready to, yes, but right now we're just in training.

Of course, gays were allowed to serve in the military since 1993, per DADT, but they had to not reveal their sexual orientation. I don't think the repeal will affect the Academy environments, especially with all of the diversity trainings we've been given over the past few months. But there will be resistance, especially in the Marine Corps

 

[TheKnight]

I find your take on this interesting. What makes military service honorable is what you do with it- not the service itself. I mean, I know that you and I are both active duty, but I don't really think we're serving our country. We're getting ready to, yes, but right now we're just in training.

I think we are. We may not be serving in the same way that someone who is deployed to Afghanistan is, but we are serving. It's different for everyone, but every Cadet has given up something for the sake of refining themselves in order to serve their nation. Whether it be a normal college experience, freedom to go wherever whenever, the ability to see your family every day, a good job, a beloved partner, etc, we've all given up something dear to us so that we can prepare to fight for our nation. It is definitely service, a different kind of service for sure, but service nonetheless.

Of course, gays were allowed to serve in the military since 1993, per DADT, but they had to not reveal their sexual orientation. I don't think the repeal will affect the Academy environments, especially with all of the diversity trainings we've been given over the past few months. But there will be resistance, especially in the Marine Corps

It's more than just not revealing it, it's keeping it hidden from everyone. If the law were simply "Don't Tell" then I don't think there would have been as much a problem with it.

The problem is, if you have to worry about who you talk to, who you look at, who you email, who you are seen hanging out with, where you go and what you read in order to keep it hidden that you are gay then it's much more than "don't tell." In actuality DADT was more like Don't Ask and Don't Let Anyone Find Out.

Acceptance of gays in the military won't be any worse than acceptance of gays in regular society. We cannot forget that military personnel are made up of people who were at one point civilians, molded and shaped by their surroundings like we all are.

The problem is, as other members have said on other threads on this forum, that society at large has a problem with homosexuals.

We cannot expect an overnight change in anyone be they military or civilian. It is unreasonable to expect people to change overnight. It just won't happen.

As long as society in general has that attitude, gays will take heat for it.

Ultimately, the military will adapt. People will get over it. I have classmates who've never met black people in person before (I'm black), or who've never met a Jew (I'm also Jewish) and those people got used to it.

Part of the problem is that so many people just haven't met any gay people before. So they build stereotypes. Just like I had a certain stereotype of Southerners (being from California) that was broken when I came to the Academy and others had certain stereotypes of Californians, blacks, Jews, etc that were broken when they came to the Academy.

With exposure, people will learn and come to accept those that are different, including gays. In the end, what will matter is that each soldier, marine, airmen, coastie and sailor can do his or her job to standard. Not the race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic or cultural background that the person is, believes in, has or comes from.

 

[scoutpilot]

I find your take on this interesting. What makes military service honorable is what you do with it- not the service itself. I mean, I know that you and I are both active duty, but I don't really think we're serving our country. We're getting ready to, yes, but right now we're just in training.

Excellent point, Sam. I'm glad you pointed that out. You are not serving yet, but you will. Right now, you're in the "taking" part of your career. You're taking in all the benefits of a service academy education. The meager arguments of what cadets have "given up" pale in comparison to what you're being given every day. Your humble and realistic attitude is refreshing, especially on a site where so many parents and cadets think that being at a service academy is the height of service and sacrifice.

Once you graduate, you'll be in the "giving" portion of your career. Your benefits have been simply been front-loaded. Once you pin on those bars, you start serving. And serve you will.

 

[Christcorp]

Excellent point, Sam. I'm glad you pointed that out. You are not serving yet, but you will. Right now, you're in the "taking" part of your career. You're taking in all the benefits of a service academy education. The meager arguments of what cadets have "given up" pale in comparison to what you're being given every day. Your humble and realistic attitude is refreshing, especially on a site where so many parents and cadets think that being at a service academy is the height of service and sacrifice.

Once you graduate, you'll be in the "giving" portion of your career. Your benefits have been simply been front-loaded. Once you pin on those bars, you start serving. And serve you will.

Very well stated scout.

 

[Maximus]

Maybe everyone except the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I have a feeling that if Gen Amos' first press release is not wildly in support of the repealing of DADT, his days are numbered. And he doesn't seem like the type to eat crow.

Eat Crow? Marines would call that "Intestinal Fortitude"

From what I've read, the man is supporting his Marines and their wishes from the DoD surveys. I guess it's not PC to support popular opinion of your subordinates?

 

[fly boy]

While I do agree that serving in the military isn't a right, I also believe that it is neither a privilege nor an honor.

The way you make it sound, it's almost as if you think that people are given the honor of military service. However, on its own, military service is neutral. It has neither positive nor negative value.

It's honor comes from the fact that those who choose to do so, do so at the risk of their lives in combat and at the sacrifice of certain freedoms for the sake of the preservation of society. The military is only as honorable as those who serve at their own loss and at their own risk for the sake of the whole.

No matter how you divide it, I would still say that it is honorable to serve in the military. I don't think you can say that it is simply honorable to choose to serve, but not honorable to actually serve.
Also, is it not a privilege to serve your country in the military? If not, how so?

 

[TheKnight]

No matter how you divide it, I would still say that it is honorable to serve in the military. I don't think you can say that it is simply honorable to choose to serve, but not honorable to actually serve.
Also, is it not a privilege to serve your country in the military? If not, how so?

Because the country needs a military. Generally speaking, privileges are things that one can do without. A nation cannot do without a military. Thus it is not a privilege to serve in the military. Not in the general sense anyways.

On a personal level, I can see how it can be a privilege and be rewarding, but this isn't true (so I think) on a general level.


As far as honor goes, actions are neutral, institutions are neutral. Honor is an attribute of people. And it is determined by how people act in certain situations. When one chooses to give up XY and Z to serve our nation we say that they are honorable.

Either way, it's semantics and not really the purpose of this thread.

 

[Mongo]

Where in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to serve in the military? I need you to whip out your pocket book because I left mine back at the Academy

Doesn’t the 14th Amendment guarantee equal protection under the law? This would mean, to me, that everyone, subject to the bonafide needs of the military, has an equal chance at enlistment.

 

[Mongo]

Eat Crow? Marines would call that "Intestinal Fortitude"

From what I've read, the man is supporting his Marines and their wishes from the DoD surveys. I guess it's not PC to support popular opinion of your subordinates?

By stating his personal views, he has lost his ability to ensure implementation of the policy. One of the basic tenets of leadership is to treat every order as if it were one's own. Always say "I want", never "They want". He can not now do that. Another basic tenet is to praise in public, reprimend in private.

Richard Cohen, with whom I don't often agree, made a similiar case yesterday in the WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122003908.html

 

[Mongo]

Excellent point, Sam. I'm glad you pointed that out. You are not serving yet, but you will. Right now, you're in the "taking" part of your career. You're taking in all the benefits of a service academy education. The meager arguments of what cadets have "given up" pale in comparison to what you're being given every day. Your humble and realistic attitude is refreshing, especially on a site where so many parents and cadets think that being at a service academy is the height of service and sacrifice.

Once you graduate, you'll be in the "giving" portion of your career. Your benefits have been simply been front-loaded. Once you pin on those bars, you start serving. And serve you will.

Interesting perspective. Just so we can be on the same sheet of music, could you clarify a few things for me? If one goes to further training after graduation, are they continuing to “front load”? Or does it depend on the type of training? Perhaps flight school is more operational than say supply or transportation school? When one is home between deployments, are they “giving”? Most often, not really. Would training for an upcoming deployment not also be considered “front loading”? Grad school? Perhaps we could consider all schools less than maybe six months as "serving" and all of greater duration as "front loading"?

Taking it one step further, some deployments are more arduous than others. Would not a deployment in country to Afghanistan now be considered more “giving” than say a Navy destroyer cruise? Would not the soldier on the ground be more “active duty” than those who merely provide support? Do those who only wear the National Defense Ribbon rate a salute?

Perhaps we could develop some sort of point system and give “worthiness” badges to those who have met your criteria for active duty. Or perhaps we could just consider all those who have raised their right hand and promised to defend their country as service members.

All in all, is this not just a continuation of the childhood game as to whose is bigger?

 

[bruno]

By stating his personal views, he has lost his ability to ensure implementation of the policy.

Richard Cohen, with whom I don't often agree, made a similiar case yesterday in the WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122003908.html

So prior to the passage of that bill, The Chiefs of the Army, AF , Navy and USMC were asked to testify in front of congress on the affects of the bill. By doing so - you now think that the CMC should be relieved of his position (as should the Army Chief of Staff I assume since his testimony pretty much dovetailed with Gen Amos). That will certainly encourage candor in front of Congress in the future won't it? Essentially- you will have mandated a "Don't ask don't tell" policy for the military leadership in front of congress. "Don't ask us our opinion of the effect of proposed laws and we won't give it because if we give it then we are fired should you have a different opinion."
Fortunately Richard Cohen is wrong about virtually everything he writes and his predictive powers are virtually nil, so I suspect that Gen Amos career is perfectly solid. Now if he goes out and starts actively opposing the new law- then his career life expectancy would be measured in hours.

 

[Luigi59]

So prior to the passage of that bill, The Chiefs of the Army, AF , Navy and USMC were asked to testify in front of congress on the affects of the bill.

Psssst - The "Chief" of that "other" branch of the military was also there.

Perhaps this picture will refresh your memory.

Left to right, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr., Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead,
Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos,
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, and Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp Jr. appear
before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images / December 3, 2010)

 

[Mongo]

So prior to the passage of that bill, The Chiefs of the Army, AF , Navy and USMC were asked to testify in front of congress on the affects of the bill. By doing so - you now think that the CMC should be relieved of his position (as should the Army Chief of Staff I assume since his testimony pretty much dovetailed with Gen Amos). That will certainly encourage candor in front of Congress in the future won't it?

I think, if I remember correctly, that all the Chiefs who addressed Congress stated that there would be issues that would have to be addressed, that it would not be a seamless transition. This is totally different than Gen Amos calling a press conference and stating that Marines are going to die. This is where he was out of line:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121404985.html

And this is what has upset the CJCS and SecDef.

 

[bruno]

I dunno- sounds to me like he did exactly what he is paid to do. From that WP article:

"The commandant made clear Tuesday, however, that he would not resist if Congress formally integrates gays into the military, saying the Marines would "get in step and do it smartly." He noted that the Corps was "not a democracy" and that the Pentagon's survey did not amount to a referendum in which leaders were beholden to obey the whims of the force.
At the same time, he said he was obligated to listen to Marines under his command.
"Right now is a very intense period of time for a pretty healthy slice of the United States Marine Corps. This is not training," Amos said.
"The forces that wear this uniform, that are in the middle of what I call the real deal, came back and told their commandant of the Marine Corps they have concerns," Amos said.
"That's all I need. I don't need a staff study. I don't need to hire three PhDs to tell me what to interpret it," he said. "If they have concerns, I do, too. It's as simple as that."

 

[Maximus]

By stating his personal views, he has lost his ability to ensure implementation of the policy. One of the basic tenets of leadership is to treat every order as if it were one's own. Always say "I want", never "They want". He can not now do that. Another basic tenet is to praise in public, reprimend in private.

Richard Cohen, with whom I don't often agree, made a similiar case yesterday in the WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122003908.html

Unit Core God Country