The reasons for avoiding service, even at times of war, are perhaps at odds with the murder statistics if folk think they are safer at home..

In some US cities, they are 3 times more to be murdered in a year than if they serve in the gulf, i recently read tonight..

I would think that non one wants an unwilling fighter, conscript armies are not the best apparently..

"...All enemies foreign and domestic" is the short answer (from the US oath of allegiance - which even the Obamacon is expected to repeat, however insincerely).

Many different elements want to destroy America and what's left of the West, whether they call it the great satan or the Patriarchy. Part of it is just the tendency of some to gang up on whoever is the biggest dog in the room, if only because they want to be the big dog.

However - as I frequently point out, the Radical Leftist / Gender Feminist / Homosex movement is IMNPHO the core of the threat.

Just read the SCUM Manifesto - Solanas pretty much sums up the pogrom.

Ohso

Shortage of Intelligence characterizes Obamacon HomoSociliast 4th Reich... Ohso.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

Obama's intel picks short on direct experience

By PAMELA HESS Associated Press Writer 01/05/2009

WASHINGTON—President-elect Barack Obama's decision to fill the nation's top intelligence jobs with two men short on direct experience in intelligence gathering surprised the spy community and signaled the Democrat's intention for a clean break from Bush...

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, an eight-term congressional veteran and administrative expert, is being tapped to head the CIA... and Obama's own policies and priorities...


Panetta could face tough questions at his nomination hearing about his background in intelligence. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who will chair the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Monday she was surprised by the pick, and neither was informed nor consulted.


"I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," she said. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."



A former senior CIA official who advises Obama defended the surprise choice of Panetta, who has no direct intelligence experience beyond a two-year stint in the mid-1960s as a U.S. Army lieutenant.



The official said Panetta had been a consumer of CIA intelligence...He said he was selected for his administrative, management and political skills...

Center for Military Readiness: the most serious challenges we have ever faced are approaching fast, starting today.

President-Elect Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are about to be sworn in. Within weeks, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) will re-introduce legislation to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military (Section 654, Title 10).

Last week came news that the law enjoys widespread support—especially among our men and women in uniform. The newly-released 2008 annual Military Times Poll of active duty personnel reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal the 1993 law, mislabeled as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” This level of support has remained virtually unchanged in annual survey results dating back to January 2005.

The Military Times Poll also asked a new question that produced astonishing results. If Congress votes to repeal the law, 10% of respondents said they would leave the military, and an additional 14% said they would consider ending their careers. I analyzed details in my article for National Review Online:

Military Times Poll: Troops Oppose Gay Agenda for the Military

Contrary to several misleading news reports, activists for gays in the military are not letting up in their drive to impose their agenda on our military. A reporter for a liberal news organization told me that this cause is the #3 Goal on the agenda of liberal activists.

Leaders of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) Left have been meeting with high-level members of President-Elect Barack Obama’s Transition Team and pushing hard for the appointment of people who support their causes. The Washington Times recently reported that some activists want the administration to appoint the first Secretary of the Navy who is openly gay:

Military Nominees and the Homosexualist Agenda

SEX, LIES, AND RAPE - How to Recognize False Allegations of Rape
9/4/06 "Center for Military Readiness | Sex Scandals" www.cmrlink.org

Sexual assaults occur in the military as well as the civilian world. There is nothing in civilian society, however, which duplicates the incomprehensible reaction of military officials who lose all perspective when dealing with this problem. Unnamed complainants are labeled “victims” even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed. Publicly named men accused of misconduct are treated as “innocent until accused,” and are rarely given the benefit of the doubt.

Victimology vs. Justice

It is a primary tenet of “feminist jurisprudence” that women never lie when complaining of sexual abuse. This delusion is as ludicrous as the notion that all women think alike.

Any man who states the obvious, however, puts his career at risk. Even liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz was accused of sexual harassment just for discussing in class the possibility of false rape allegations. In 1993 Dershowitz told author David Horowitz that he began videotaping classroom lectures on the subject for his own protection, and that other experts in the field stopped teaching rape law rather than take the risk. 1

According to a report of the Defense Department Inspector General released in 2005, approximately 73% of women and 72% of men at the military service academies believe that false accusations of sexual assault are a problem. But military officials keep pretending that the problem does not exist.

Untruths Without Consequences

Linda Fairstein, a former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, has criticized the doctrinaire belief that women never lie. Writing in Cosmopolitan magazine, Fairstein quoted FBI statistics on unfounded claims of forcible rape. These reports, she wrote, occur at rates as high as 9%, compared to between 1.5% and 5% of reports submitted in all other criminal categories. She continued,

“Having worked in this field for decades, I’ve found this phenomenon especially painful to witness. Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims, and the precious resources of criminal justice agencies are wasted….[T]hese falsehoods trivialize the experience of every rape survivor.” 2

A June 3, 2004, Washington Post article titled “Sexual Assaults in Army on Rise” reported the results of a five year study of reports of abuse. The number of “unfounded” cases tripled from 48 to 157 between 1999 and 2003. An Army spokeswoman could not explain why. It is time to find out.

Every allegation is different, and appearances often deceive. Certain indicators should be investigated in order to separate truthful allegations from fabricated ones. Primary motives for false reports, which are not uncommon, include a) Jealousy or Revenge; b) Need for an Alibi; and c) Emotional Problems/Desire for Attention. None of these should be a surprise.

a) Jealousy or Revenge

The phrase “woman scorned” is more than a stereotype. Linda Fairstein described several cases in which women “cried rape” in order to have revenge on former lovers. One involved a secretary who accused her boss of assaulting her after hours. The tearful woman seemed very credible—at first—but the man told Fairstein an entirely different story.

His admitted affair with the accuser was documented with a paper trail of travel receipts over a period of two years. The alleged rape occurred on the night that he refused her demand to divorce his wife. When Fairstein confronted the accuser, she admitted to being so upset with her former lover that she wanted to make sure he lost both his job and his marriage.

Accusations motivated by revenge are not uncommon. In a study done in a small Midwestern city over a period of nine years, Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D. found that 27% of recanted allegations (12 of 45) were filed for purposes of revenge—usually after a real or perceived love affair ended. 3 Dr. Kanin added that because the suspect is always identified to authorities, revenge cases present the highest risk of a miscarriage of justice.

An average of 41% of accusers over nine years (45 of 109) recanted allegations of rape, even when facing possible penalties for filing false police reports. These recantations did not follow prolonged periods of investigation or interrogations that victim advocates frequently describe as “second assaults.” 4

Seeking more information on the phenomenon, Dr. Kanin studied rape reports at two Midwestern universities over the course of three years. Counting only those allegations that were officially recanted by accusers, the study found a false allegation rate of 50%. The police agency involved, headed by a female investigator, found that in this group revenge was the motive for 44% of the recanted rape allegations. 5

b) Need for an Alibi

Sex crime investigator Fairstein compared alibi allegations to Pinocchio’s nose—a white lie that grows and grows. She described, for example, a young woman who had traveled with a group and spent the night with a co-worker after drinking with him in the bar. She was not in her room to receive calls from her boyfriend, who instigated a search. This “victim” tearfully accused her co-worker of raping and restraining her in his room. The man was taken into custody, but a paper trail of receipts contradicted the woman’s story. The accuser recanted, and investigators recommended psychiatric help for her.

In the military, one of the most egregious alibi allegations occurred in the aftermath of the Navy’s infamous 1991 Tailhook scandal in Las Vegas. Ensign Elizabeth Warnick, known as “Belly Button Beth” because she allowed drunken aviators to drink tequila from her navel, accused two of her colleagues of gang-rape. Her accusations devastated the careers of the men, but Warnick admitted later that she had lied to mislead her boyfriend about her own behavior at Tailhook.

The Navy’s failure to prosecute Warnick for her blatantly false allegation against male officers was an early example of “Double Standards Involving Women,” a phenomenon CMR identifies as DSIW. Policies based on DSIW hurt women by creating resentment and distrust. Women in the military are not responsible for DSIW, but they frequently get the blame.

c) Emotional Problems/Desire for Attention

The May 2005 saga of “Runaway Bride” Jennifer Wilbanks, who fled her own lavish wedding and concocted a kidnapping story to explain her disappearance, demonstrates a syndrome psychologists call pseudologia phantastica. 6 The disorder, which is not limited to women or rape charges alone, requires identification and treatment, not unquestioning belief.

MSNBC commentator Tucker Carlson faced this problem in 2001. A woman he had never met claimed that he had drugged her at a Kentucky restaurant and sexually assaulted her with violence. Many sleepless nights and $14,000 in legal fees later, the accuser dropped the charges. Carlson survived, but the lives of many men falsely accused never are the same. 7

The military is not exempt from this unusual but disturbing behavior. At a recent Article 32 hearing to determine the need to court-martial Spec. Cooper Jackson, civilian Ashley Elrod testified that she made up a story about being raped by a Marine, Cpl. Justin Huff. Elrod told the lie to Spec. Jackson, who is accused of kidnapping and murdering Cpl. Huff, the alleged rapist. Spec. Jackson allegedly cut Cpl. Huff’s throat and set him on fire. Under oath Ashley Elrod admitted making phone calls in which she lied to military men since she was 15 years old. “I have low self-esteem,” she said. “I need someone to talk to.” (Navy Times, June 26)

False rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones. All of these possibilities and more must be objectively considered by investigators, without interference from victim advocates who wrongly insist that women can do no wrong.

Objective Investigation of the Crime of Rape

Rape investigations are inherently difficult. Sex crimes usually occur in private, with few witnesses. Alcohol dulls memories, and “he said, she said” stories are frequently inconsistent. At the military service academies, personal conduct rules that do not apply in the civilian world create a perverse incentive for alibi reports.

These factors can be mitigated when authorities apply the same investigative techniques that they do in other criminal cases. Visible clues and patterns of behavior help to distinguish truthful allegations from those that are false.

Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D., of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division, has incurred the wrath of victim advocates by spotlighting the reality of false accusations. Writing in a publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations, McDowell notes that:

“The ambiguity of many rape allegations is a genuine test of an investigator’s ability; an inherent conflict arises between the investigator’s obligation to accept the victim’s complaint as legitimate and his obligation to remain open to the possibility that there may be a ‘hidden agenda.’ ” 8

McDowell recognizes that an investigator’s questions can make a victim of assault feel wronged again. This is especially so when investigators who have been misled in the past betray suspicion when inquiring about sensitive, personal matters.

The only way to minimize that problem is to understand the dynamics of false rape allegations and, in the process, learn the hallmarks of truthful accusations. This effort is essential not only for women’s sake, but to avoid grievous injustice to men who may be severely punished for crimes they did not commit.

Trained investigators recognize “shorthand” cues that are not infallible, but are useful in assessing the validity of complaints. They also recognize that self-esteem is a central feature of human personality. Some people who fail to live up to their own standards try to protect their self-image by denying wrongful acts or offering excuses. McDowell analyzes how some accusers use false accusations as defense mechanisms to protect self-esteem:

“They do so by selectively ‘forgetting’ what happened, denying responsibility, projecting blame to someone (or something) else, overcompensating, or by seeking escape in a world of fantasy….When a person falsely claims to be the victim of a crime, an alternative reality is created. The focal point of that alternative reality becomes the crime itself, reducing the role of the “victim” to passive non-culpability.” (pp. 59-60)

Validating Accusations

McDowell’s article cites findings from a 1983 study of 556 rape investigations in which 27% were found to be false. Noting certain characteristics that set the two groups apart, McDowell explained factors that are sometimes but not always present when questionable allegations are made:

• Many people have no understanding of what real victimization actually entails. ”Their imperfect understanding of rape is often transparent, raising the suspicion of investigators who are sensitive to allegations that are either atypical or unrealistic.” (p. 61)

• Some individuals try to restore self-esteem and evade responsibility for their own behavior by fabricating claims of being “lost, intoxicated, frightened, confused, or otherwise incapable of preventing their victimizations.” These stories are frequently rewarded with the “protected status” of “victim,” which enlists the support of friends and sympathetic advocates. (p. 61)

• Medical literature acknowledges that some patients make apparently credible but false complaints of physical ailments. False reports of rape, however, are sometimes bolstered by bizarre scenarios or self-inflicted injuries. Law enforcement people accustomed to seeing injuries are usually credulous, but they can recognize questionable characteristics. Self-inflicted wounds, for example, usually avoid sensitive areas or permanent disfigurement of the body. (62-63, 67)

• Seventy-five percent of confirmed rape victims in the study said they knew the assailant. About half of the false claims involved a non-existent stranger, with another third involving slight acquaintances. The essentially anonymous rapist effectively absolves the complainant of responsibility and affirms her innocence. An unsolvable case also shifts responsibility to the alleged offender and ultimately to the police.

• Genuine rape victims invariably are able to provide detailed descriptions of the rape. Women making false allegations typically are not clear in their descriptions. Some claim that they were unconscious or had their eyes closed. Others provide exquisitely detailed accounts, described with pleasure. Investigators must be cautious, but extreme under- or over-reporting can be suspicious, especially if stories change.

McDowell acknowledges that investigators’ questions might upset women who have been sexually assaulted. In a discussion of ways to maintain rapport with women making questionable allegations of rape, he recommends that investigators closest to the complainant remain supportive, professional, understanding and non-judgmental. If unresolved conflicts emerge, they should be raised by a supervisor who assumes and recognizes the complainant’s desire to be a responsible person.

Some accusers are relieved when disparities discredit their story because it is exhausting to maintain a lie. Others react with outrage because they need to believe what they have claimed, and fear losing control. In all cases, investigators should work with families to provide emotional support

McDowell also notes that even those who are emotionally prone to make false allegations can, indeed, be true victims of rape. All the more reason to maintain professionalism, objectivity, and compassion when investigating sexual misconduct and rape. (pp. 71-73)

Rape by Accusation

Author Warren Farrell, a former board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in the 1970s, made an interesting personal transition from male feminist to an advocate of equality that does not discriminate against men. In his 1993 book The Myth of Male Power, Farrell examined the McDowell study and other available reports. “False accusations are not a rarity,” he wrote, “they are themselves a form of rape, and a political hot potato. It will doubtless take a female politician of enormous integrity to confront the issue.”

The armed forces need to find out why indicators of false accusations are so persistent. Extreme feelings of guilt because some military women have been abused are no excuse for denying reality. The first step in solving a problem is to first admit that the problem exists.

ENDNOTES

1. Frank S. Zepezauer, “Believe Her! The Woman Never Lies Myth,” IPT Journal, Volume 6 – 1994. Also “David Horowitz’s Notepad: The Intellectual Terror in Our Universities,” FrontPageMagazine.com, December 10, 2001.

2. Cosmopolitan, “Why Some Women Lie About Rape,” November 2003.

3. Kanin, Archive of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23(1), 1994, pp. 81-91.

4. Kanin, p. 84. Recanted allegations in this 9-year study varied from year to year, from a low of 27% (3 out of 11 cases) to a high of 70% (7 out of 10).

5. Kanin, p. 90

6. Graham Reed, The Psychology of Anomalous Experience, Prometheus Books, NY 1988. In the Penguin Book of Lies, pp. 527-529, quoted by The Heretical Press, www.heretical.com.

7. Fairstein, quoting Tucker Carlson’s book, Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites, 2003.

8. Forensic Science Digest, “False Allegations,” Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1985, p. 56-76.

Panetta has unusual portfolio to be CIA chief

By TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON—Leon Panetta, Barack Obama's surprise choice to head the CIA, clearly isn't someone with much hands-on national security or intelligence experience.


But no one disputes that the man knows government... the federal bureaucracy as a former... chief of staff for President Bill Clinton..


"It is true that he doesn't have an intelligence background..



A former Republican... A lawyer, Panetta became a Democrat in 1971...


Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said Panetta's selection was an invigorating gamble by Obama.

Soldiers say they'd leave military if 'gay' ban lifted
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 1/7/2009

A conservative military watchdog is very concerned about a recent survey of military personnel that indicates a significant number of service members might leave the all-volunteer force if the ban on open homosexuals in the military is lifted.

The annual survey was conducted by the Military Times, which once again asked active duty personnel if they oppose the effort led by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-California) to repeal the 1993 law -- Section 654, Title 10 -- which clearly states that open homosexuals are not allowed in the military.

Approximately 58 percent of the respondents indicated that they were in favor of continuing the ban. But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, is more astonished at the response to a question that had never been asked on that survey before.

"In essence, what would you do if the law is repealed?" she relates that question. "The Military Times found that 10 percent of respondents said they would leave the military, and an additional 14 percent said they would consider ending their careers," she points out. "Now, even if half of those numbers turned out to be an accurate prediction, that would be devastating to our volunteer force. It would pretty much destroy the military as we know it."

She believes those who might consider leaving have legitimate concerns if the law is repealed. "The new policy would be forced co-habitation with homosexuals 24-7 in all military communities," Donnelly adds. "Corollary programs to make the program work would include professional diversity training to enforce acceptance and zero tolerance of anyone who disagrees."

Donnelly expects Tauscher to reintroduce the repeal legislation within the next several weeks.

CMR (Center for Military Readiness) Responds to Palm Center Attack on Military Times Poll

You may have seen the news yesterday that the Obama Administration fully intends to repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military. The incoming White House spokesman provided no details, but the news sparked a flurry of interviews with CMR on radio stations around the country.

Obama to End Military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy

Friends who mistakenly believe that action on the legislation to repeal the 1993 law is not likely or imminent should make note. This threat to good order, discipline and morale in our military is very real. As the cell phone commercial guy used to say, “Can you hear me now?”

Another group of friends mistakenly believe that repeal of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military is a “done deal.” It is not. As you will see in the news release below, your CMR is fighting back. I hope you will take a moment to read the article we have posted on our website, titled:

Poll on Gays in the Military Perturbs Palm Center

We are taking on a well-funded California group, the Michael D. Palm Center, which has been lashing out at the Military Times, a liberal newspaper on their own side. They are also aiming fire at me for being so rude as to write about the implications of the recently-released Military Times Poll.

The only coup d'etat attempt on a U.S. president I'm aware of was against Franklin Roosevelt right after his first election. But this was actually foiled by a military man:

The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was according to an Congressional committee report a political conspiracy in 1933 wherein wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, the Business Plot was publicly revealed by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testifying to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot


The novel "Seven Days In May" was a Cold War treatment of the idea, probably reflecting the tensions between the military and the Kennedy administration. I enjoyed the movie version, with Burt Lancaster as the hawkish ringleader and Kirk Douglas as his whistle-blower subordinate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_days_in_may

Will Obama seek repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 1/19/2009

A former evangelical Navy chaplain says there would be serious national security consequences if Barack Obama follows through on his pledge to allow homosexuals to serve in the military.

According to Fox News, last week incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a startling pronouncement last week -- the president-elect will allow homosexuals to serve in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy put in place by Bill Clinton. The Obama transition team declined to elaborate on a timetable for repealing the policy, and would not explain which lawmakers or Pentagon officials would attempt to repeal it.

Gordon James Klingenschmitt is a former Naval chaplain who is absolutely opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. He fears it would negatively affect America's battlefield successes.

"How can we expect God's blessing on our arms when we openly embrace sodomy?" he asks. "[That's] the same sin that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for committing. When we embrace that in our military...[we] will the lose the blessing of God upon our troops and we will lose wars -- it will cost us wars. America will be destroyed if we allow them to be openly embraced by our military."

According to Klingenschmitt it would also introduce a health risk...

Just read a review by Orson Scott Card on this book on the Ornery American Website (www.ornery.org) and it seems to beg for a good read.

Anyone else familiar with:
Carlo D'este, Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War, 1874-1945

Gays and The Military: A Bad Fit

By James J. Lindsay, Jerome Johnson, E.G. "Buck" Shuler Jr. and Joseph J. Went (4/15/09 Wa Post Op-Ed)

With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.

Are Gay Activists Too Wedded To the Cause?

The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations issued by President Bill Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."

While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.
ad_icon

In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not reenlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.

If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people -- more than the total of today's active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.

And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived."

Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways.

Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations. There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.

Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries -- not the other way around.

As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.

Consequently, our recent open letter advised America's elected leaders: "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.

Retired Army Gen. James J. Lindsay was the first commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. Retired Adm. Jerome Johnson was vice chief of naval operations. Retired Lt. Gen. E.G. "Buck" Shuler Jr. was commander of the Strategic Air Command's 8th Air Force. Retired Gen. Joseph J. Went was assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. They are founding members of Flag and General Officers for the Military.

From: Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness

April 15, 2009 Re: Today’s Washington Post Op-Ed: Flag & General Officers for the Military





If you doubted the importance of personal involvement in the debate regarding homosexuals in the military, please read this outstanding op-ed article in today’s Washington Post:

Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit

The authors are four of the 1,000+ retired Flag & General Officers for the Military. On March 31, this distinguished group of former military leaders, including 47 who achieved four-star rank as service chiefs and combatant commanders, delivered and released a concise and respectful Open Letter addressed to the White House, Pentagon, and Members of Congress.

The open letter took a firm stand in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That statute, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., frequently is mistaken for the administrative policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A list of the statement signers, which has since climbed to 1,115, is posted:

We, the Undersigned Flag & General Officers

The significant, game-changing impact of this unequivocal and principled open letter is proven by the near-hysterical reaction of opposing activist groups and individuals.
Intolerant advocates of gays in the military did not expect to see this op-ed published in one of their primary house-organs, the Washington Post. Predictably, the usual nameless activists are flapping around in the comments section—inadvertently confirming just how threatening to their cause the flag and general officers’ op-ed really is.

Show me a movement that constantly resorts to personal attacks to get their way, and I will show you a movement that has no legitimate argument.

Leftist ideologues seem to think that intimidation, diversionary tactics, false analogies, flawed civilian “research,” and misrepresentations of military realities can substitute for sound reasoning.

Displaying immaturity and willful ignorance of what we know about human characteristics and historic military experience, they insist that our men and women in uniform should be forced to bear the heavy burden of social engineering that undermines morale, team cohesion, and readiness. They are wrong.

The signers of this article have observed that we have the strongest, most-admired military in the world. There is no excuse for taking unjustified risks with policies that will undermine the “3 R’s,” recruiting, retention, and overall readiness in the All-Volunteer Force. This is the voice of common sense, bolstered by decades of real-world experience leading all branches of the armed forces in peacetime and in war.

Elected officials might be misled, however, if people who support the 1993 law remain silent on the sidelines, allowing only the voices of intolerance and intimidation to be heard.

*Ohso Note - I post these excerpts as corroboration for a number of facts I have already cited in support of positions. Curiously enough, although the author denounces some of the sources (Such as the book "The Pink Swastika" by Abrams and Lively), he does use many of the very same facts highlighted by these authors and actually corroborate much of their story.

But then the truth of the matter is rather well documented, if not widely disseminated...

Must be an oversight, couldn't be censorship after all.
Ahem.

Ohso
.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


"The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists"
By Johann Hari - October 21, 2008

The news that Jorg Haider - the Austrian fascist leader - spent his final few hours in a gay bar with a hot blond has shocked some people. It hasn't shocked me. This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism. Take a deep breath; here goes.,,

The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay.

It's time to admit something. Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music...

On and on it goes. If you inter-railed across Europe, only stopping with gay fascists, there aren't many sights you'd miss. France's leading post-war fascist was Edouard Pfieffer, who was not batting for the straight side. Germany's leading neo-Nazi all through the eighties was called Michael Kuhnen; he died of AIDS in 1991 a few years after coming out. Martin Lee, author of a study of European fascism, explains, "For Kuhnen, there was something supermacho about being a Nazi, as well as being a homosexual, both of which enforced his sense of living on the edge, of belonging to an elite that was destined to make an impact. He told a West German journalist that homosexuals were 'especially well-suited for our task, because they do not want ties to wife, children and family.'"...

And this Gaystapo has an icon to revere, an alternative Fuhrer to worship: the lost gay fascist leader Ernst Rohm. Along with Adolf Hitler, Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. Born to conservative Bavarian civil servants in 1887, Ernst Rohm's life began - in his view - in the "heroic" trenches of the First World War. Like so many of the generation who formed the Nazi Party, he was nurtured by and obsessed with the homoerotic myth of the trenches - heroic, beautiful boys prepared to die for their brothers and their country.

He emerged from the war with a bullet-scarred face and a reverence for war. As he put it in his autobiography, "Since I am an immature and wicked man, war and unrest appeal to me more than the good bourgeois order." After being disbanded, he tried half-heartedly to get a foothold in civilian life, but he saw it as alien, bourgeois, boring. He had no political beliefs, only prejudices - particularly hatred of Jews. Historian Joachim Fest describes Rohm's generation of alienated, demobbed young men humiliated by defeat as "agents of a permanent revolution without any revolutionary idea of the future, only a wish to eternalize the values of the trenches."

It was Rohm who first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler. He saw him as the demagogue he needed to mobilize support for his plan to overthrow democracy and establish a "soldier's state" where the army ruled untrammelled. He introduced the young fascist to local politicians and military leaders; they knew him for many years as "Rohm's boy." Gay historian Frank Rector notes, "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm's protégé." Rohm integrated Hitler into his underground movement to overthrow the Weimar Republic.

Rohm's blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order.

As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm "projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute... He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same.
He believed straight people weren't as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA."
They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning "hysterical women of both sexes", in reference to feminine gay men.

This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country's first gay magazine. You could call it 'Queer as Volk': they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.

Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers - who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA - Hitler and Rohm's underground army - was seen as predominantly gay.

Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, "I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933... I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay."...

German historian Lothar Machtan argues that Hitler had Rohm - and almost all of the large number of gay figures within the SA - killed to silence speculation about his own homosexual experiences... Hitler was certainly very close to several gay men, and never seems to have had a normal sexual relationship with a woman, not even his wife, Eva Braun...

Rohm is venerated on the Homo-Nazi sites that have bred on the internet like germs in a wound. They have names like Gays Against Semitism (with the charming acronym GAS), and the Aryan Resistance Corps (ARC). Their Rohmite philosophy is simple: while white men are superior to other races, gay men are "the masters of the Master Race"...

GAY JOURNALIST ADMITS THE FASCIST TENDENCIES OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS (IVA)

Members of the pro-family community have observed for years that there is strain of fascism in the homosexual movement. This expression of the movement is not content with mere tolerance. Its aim is the elimination and destruction of those who argue for sexual normalcy in life and public policy.

It turns out that a leading homosexual journalist agrees.

Johann Hari, a self-described "gay left-wing" journalist in Britain, writing in the Huffington Post, admits that the leadership of European fascist movements is dominated by homosexuals.

With surprising honesty, he says, "The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich ... (with one exception) all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay."

Ernst Rohm, for instance, the founding father of Nazism and Hitler's mentor, talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and believed that gays were superior to straights. For him, homosexuality was a key principle of what Hari calls "his proposed Brave New Fascist Order."

Rohm, according to another historian, "believed straight people weren't as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA." (Note: the SA were Hitler's Brownshirts, his Storm Troopers.)

Hitler eventually had Rohm killed, and many historians suspect it was to prevent Rohm from leaking information about Hitler's own sexual proclivities.

"[T]here has always been," Hari says, "a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism."

Historian William Shirer wrote that only about 10% of Hitler's inner circle was sexually normal. He recruited homosexuals as his enforcers, largely because he couldn't find a sufficient number of heterosexual men who were savage enough to suit his tastes.

The Nazis were hard on effeminate gays, it is true, but only because they exalted the muscular, hypermasculine forms of homosexual expression. Many of the Nazi prison camps were run by homosexuals, who treated male populations as their own private harems.

The deaths of many homosexuals in the prison camps were, according to researcher Scott Lively, a result of "gay on gay violence."

Germany's leading neo-Nazi in the 80's, Michael Kuhnen, who died of AIDS in 1991, once told a West German journalist that homosexuals were "especially well-suited for our task, because they do not want ties to wife, children and family."

Fascism, Hari goes on to say, "is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music."

Homosexual pornographic film-maker Bruce LaBruce openly says that, "Fascism is in our bones, because it's all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures."

Hari says that on "Homo-Nazi" Web sites today, the message is clear: white men are superio r to other races, and gay men are "the masters of the Master Race." They alone have the "superior intellect" necessary for a "fascist revolution."

One gay fascist Hari interviewed said, "I always knew in my heart racist and gay were both morally right. I don't see any conflict between them."

Hari, certainly no fascist himself, concludes, "If Bruce LaBruce is right, many of the mainstream elements of gay culture - body worship, the lauding of the strong, a fetish for authority figures and cruelty - provide a swamp in which the fascist virus can thrive."