tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post3392039208978383327..comments2023-09-17T10:44:05.122-04:00Comments on i am a bear.: What integrity?Wanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14732829294553674517noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-80815485852277811592008-01-18T02:13:00.000-05:002008-01-18T02:13:00.000-05:00An update...? If you are interested in the ongoing...An update...? If you are interested in the ongoing tale of Matt Sanchez, I would guess the best place to go is his own website, http://www.matt-sanchez.com/ .<BR/><BR/>He has been reporting alongside Marine units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has recently been cleared of all charges made against him in some strange UHaul lawsuit.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, he is still coming up with witty invective against liberals, congressmen, and gays. Here's a fun excerpt from an interview he had with Rightwingnews.com<BR/>http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/12/an_interview_with_matt_sanchez.php<BR/><BR/><I>"General Order #1 prohibits sex and pornography in a combat zone for multiple deployments of up to 15 months. Fortunately, the military frowns on that whole lisping and snapping thing, no one shines boots anymore and the term "drilling" means something entirely different in the Marine Corps.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how many homosexuals are willing to sacrifice (sex) and an entire season of "Ugly Betty." But it doesn't look good, every gay activist has waived a white flag on the Don't Ask Don't Tell quagmire.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I'd settle for gays serving, if Congressman John Murtha would stop outing himself as a Marine."</I><BR/><BR/>Riveting stuff. Apparently, gays don't serve in the military because they love sex and Ugly Betty way too much. <BR/><BR/>And... hmm. I don't know, suggesting that John Murtha isn't a Marine... or a good one at that. I guess it's easy to slime a 48 year veteran of the Marine Corps that doesn't believe in the same politics as Matt. Where's that Marine Corps brotherhood?Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732829294553674517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-37251121382070347442008-01-17T17:27:00.000-05:002008-01-17T17:27:00.000-05:00Your adoring public demands an UPDATE on this stor...Your adoring public demands an UPDATE on this story!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-79023150555025515482007-04-24T10:33:00.000-04:002007-04-24T10:33:00.000-04:00hahah. he blocked your comments!?! that's sooo mat...hahah. he blocked your comments!?! that's sooo matt sanchez!<BR/><BR/>i'm just glad that you didnt stoop to his level and block his.Mike Baihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10068341672299379597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-58859874337699192672007-04-23T03:45:00.000-04:002007-04-23T03:45:00.000-04:00It's funny because he admitted to being an escort ...It's funny because he admitted to being an escort in his own Salon.com article (and all of those other times he admitted to it).<BR/><BR/>Actually it's only mildly amusing. His five minutes are over.Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14732829294553674517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-20382538078670764722007-04-22T16:46:00.000-04:002007-04-22T16:46:00.000-04:00He's pretty much denying the escort thing now, BTW...He's pretty much denying the escort thing now, BTW. Seems his integrity is only skin deep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-3736461627520167092007-04-06T13:39:00.000-04:002007-04-06T13:39:00.000-04:00You were likely on target when you wrote that Sanc...You were likely on target when you wrote that Sanchez put himself through school as a "massage therpaist."<BR/><BR/>In an appearance on the Alan Colmes radio show, Sanchez admitted to prostitution. Ever since then, he's been scrambling to deny it. His usual tactic is to say that "pornography is prostitution," But the cat's out of the bag.<BR/><BR/><I>Colmes: Tell us what happened. A number of years ago, how many years ago was it, you did gay porn?</I><BR/>Sanchez: It was 15 years ago and it just wasn’t gay porn by the way. Uh, but it was 15 years ago<BR/><BR/><I>Colmes: What else was it?</I><BR/>It was more than that but it was ...<BR/><BR/><I>Colmes: Did you work as a male prostitute?</I><BR/>Sanchez: That as well, yeah. <BR/><BR/><I>Colmes: You were a male prostitute.</I><BR/>Sanchez: Yes. This was one of the worst periods of my life<BR/><BR/><BR/>There is plenty more evidence of his prostitution. In 1999 Sanchez registered the "Excellent-Top.com" website, where he advertised his sexual services through 2002, just before he enlisted in the Marine Corps.<BR/><BR/>The site linked to customer reviews of his performances -- reviews that identified Sanchez as "Rod Majors," the porn actor. The site contained headless photos, and a recording of his voice.<BR/><BR/>In March, Sanchez tried to block access to Internet archives of that site but his attempts were unsuccessful.<BR/><BR/>Also, when Sanchez appeared on Colmes's show the first time, Colmes impeached Sanchez's claim that his gay activity had been in the dim past by mentioning that his show had contacted Sanchez at the same phone number that had appeared in a massage ad three years ago in "<I>The Advocate</I>, a New York gay publication." <BR/><BR/>Colmes had confused <I>The Advocate</I>, a national gay magazine, with <I>The New York Blade</I>, a local gay publication. Sanchez jumped on the misidentification to deny that he'd advertised. <BR/><BR/>But later in the interview Colmes corrected the reference to <I>The New York Blade</I>, and then Sanchez admitted working as a "massage therapist." He claimed to have a state license, but people who have investigated the claim say that he does not have such a license. <BR/><BR/>He also tried to fuzz things up by saying that his clients weren't only gay people but also married men, and he claimed that he had run ads in non-gay publications.<BR/><BR/>I believe that Sanchez's massage business was called "No Regrets Massage." The ads ran from July 2, 2004 through Nov. 26, 2004 on the third-to-last page of each weekly issue of <I>The New York Blade</I>. If you click the link before, you can see that there's no doubt about what service "No Regrets Massage" was offering.<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2ra7wm<BR/><BR/>All of this poses significant potential legal problems for Sanchez.<BR/><BR/>When you enlist in the military, you fill out a series of forms including SF-86 and/or DD-1966, which require that you list all periods of employment, unemployment and <I>self-employment</I> for the prior seven years. In Sanchhez's case, that would have gone back to early 1996.<BR/><BR/>If you lie on those forms, including making a material omission, you can be charged with fraudulent enlistment, a felony under Article 83 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Thus, Sanchez's porn, if filmed in the early 1990s, might be exempt from legal scrutiny, but his 1999-2002 prostitution, if (as we can reasonably presume) was not disclosed, he could be prosecuted for fraudulent enlistment.<BR/><BR/>If he was operating "No Regrets Massage" in 2004 as seems likely, that would be a potential violation of Article 133 and/or 134 of the UCMJ. This is because, at that time, Sanchez was attending USMC reserve drills in New York. He has told radio interviewers that, as a reservist, he was effectively a civilian. It's obvious to me that Mr. Sanchez doesn't have a lawyer, because if he did have a lawyer he would know different.<BR/><BR/>Finally, there are the allegations that Sanchez falsely claimed that he was being deployed to Iraq as a reporter with a civil affairs unit, and that he solicited money from a military charity and from U-Haul to help pay his expenses. There is some ambiguity about those issues that will likely turn on the precise wording of Sanchez's claims and solicitations.<BR/><BR/>There's no doubt in my mind that the Marine Corps will administratively discharge Matt Sanchez, who already has dropped mention of his "corporal" rank from his website. If I were laying down a wager, I'd be betting that Matt Sanchez does time in the brig for fraudulent enlistment and maybe for prostitution while on duty with the reserves.Willyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10846675561683735495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-92014116457784196152007-04-05T17:43:00.000-04:002007-04-05T17:43:00.000-04:00For TRUTHFUL and detailed information about Sanche...For TRUTHFUL and detailed information about Sanchez where he can't just edit out what he irks him, go to-<BR/>http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matt_SanchezAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-17756508297008648622007-03-31T04:52:00.000-04:002007-03-31T04:52:00.000-04:00For real information on Matt Sanchez, go to my blo...For real information on Matt Sanchez, go to my blog.<BR/><BR/>mattsanchez.blogspot.comMatt Sanchezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06332135217667601368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-23372032875342384982007-03-24T23:48:00.000-04:002007-03-24T23:48:00.000-04:00FYI Sanchez works for a marketing firm. His income...FYI Sanchez works for a marketing firm. His income does not come by unflattering means.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972528037851001948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-48650397861115831672007-03-24T23:38:00.000-04:002007-03-24T23:38:00.000-04:00It would be nice to have someone in the military w...It would be nice to have someone in the military who is respected by Fox News and members of the conservative party stand up against DADT. <BR/><BR/>Sadly I doubt such a thing will make much difference though in the long run. Views of CPAC are pretty well grounded against dissolution of the DADT ban. <BR/><BR/>Besides there are large numbers of gay veterans, combat veterans even, and retired officers willing to speak out against DADT. I recommend taking a look at SLDN - servicemembers legal defense network - with their many anecdotes and supporters. They do some great work and have done a lot in support of Rep. Meehan's military readiness and enhancement act to remove the DADT ban. <BR/><BR/>On another note, the notion that one's sexual orientation compromises military readiness if one is homosexual versus heterosexual has lost credence these days even among military circles. This may explain Gen. Pace's move towards a "morality" argument.<BR/><BR/>People have complained that the General does not have the right or authority to make statements or determinations about morality in the military. As the chairman of the JCS he most certainly does. He must both enforce and exemplify the high moral standards that are at the core of what it means to be a military officer. Much of these moral standards are fairly well codified in law. The UCMJ. And just like with any code of law, they may be rewritten. However, there remains much that is unspecified, and interpreted under the auspices of sometimes vague standards such as proper conduct of an officer.<BR/><BR/>Here is where one runs into trouble on issues of morality. In areas in which regular society is of general agreement, such as the instance of adultery, the military justice system, and thus the commander, can well ascribe those under their charge to such standards. Additionally codified law supports such standards, as exemplified by Article 134 which states "Adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct, and it reflects adversely on the service record of the military member."<BR/><BR/>In the case of homosexuality, or more specifically homosexual conduct, neither is general society in agreement about its immorality nor does the UCMJ specify that it is unacceptable conduct along the same vein as adultery. UCMJ 925.125 , Sodomy, was only used until the 1990s as grounds for dismissal of military personnel for homosexuality. Even so, generally The military regulation specifically pertaining to homosexuality in effect between 1981 and 1993 was DOD Directive 1332.14. Since 1993 the DoD policy on homosexual conduct has been based on 10 U.S.C. § 654. Thus it while it remains codified in law it is not part of UCMJ (which is 10 USC 800-934).<BR/><BR/>I mention all of this only to to assert that, unlike the example of adultery, the morality (or immorality) of homosexuality or homosexual conduct is not well defined or well agreed upon either among general society or in the context of military law. <BR/><BR/>My personal opinion is that it is not immoral. Others believe it is. It is currently seen as incompatible with military service under congressional law, but its moral status has not been established. Thus it does not stand as a standard of morality to enforce or exemplify. <BR/><BR/>Once congress decides to remove 10 USC 654, as it inevitably must, some will try to argue that the immorality of homosexual conduct still negates military service. Since this has nowhere been codified (except perhaps in the Sodomy article 925, which if challenged will almost assuredly be overturned after consideration of the Texas precedent) such an argument will not fly.Seanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15972528037851001948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-15574999833813613052007-03-18T20:52:00.000-04:002007-03-18T20:52:00.000-04:00excellent points... keep up the good work!excellent points... keep up the good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6622026.post-34437401773651733002007-03-17T15:50:00.000-04:002007-03-17T15:50:00.000-04:00I'm curious I read the article you linked to "he s...I'm curious I read the article you linked to <A HREF="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2006/11/26/why_gays_can_not_be_pro-choice" REL="nofollow">"he stopped having homosexual sex"</A> and I saw nothing in there from Matt Sanchez stating he has stopped having homosexual sex.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe Matt has ever come out with that claim. If he has can you point me in the direction of an audio link or other link that quotes Matt making this statement?Ed Brophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163386751799889253noreply@blogger.com