I have little knowledge of Ireland apart from having a cousin who was sent there as a Military cop and several friends who were posted there to fight IRA terrorists. A good friend of mine was severely injured there by the very people he was trying to protect. The history of Ireland is akin to Feminism with the Irish propensity to invent victimhood. As for specific 'Mutinies', I doubt I could discuss with anything useful.

Obamacon Draft Dodger Deferment?
The latest 'bait and switch' scam run by the Democrap Obamacon Machine is designed to pave the way for quickly turning over the American Military to the Radical Leftist / Gender Feminist / Homosex lobby - and then using it as an Enemy of the People.

The Obamacon has dodged issues of Military Service (his VP pick Biden is a craven cowardly 5 time draft dodger who claimed a medical deferement saying that he was unfit to even serve as a Military Attorney) all along the campaign.

Like almost every other issue buried in the Oratorical Excrement the Obamacon learned at the feet of 'Reverend "G-D America" Wright and Weather Underground Terror Bomber Pal Ayers - the Obamacon simply serves up steaming platitudes in a nauseating Quasi-Baptist Meeting Chant to staged sympathetic audiences, and leaves substance of the New Pogrom to his Homosex Democrap Handlers.

No mention of what he will do to 'Equalze' the 98% vs 2% male / female casualty ratio. But then this scam is about empowering Separatist / Neo-Exterminationist Dyke Misandrists (and their Homo-Anal Coprophile Allies) so they can be in charge of sending (non homo-anal) Men off to Die...

Mixed in with a few token Womyn if possible (at least at first) - so as to prevent any public examination of Male Disposability. They even have their updated slogan for the pogrom prepared:

Tolerance Macht Frei!

Ohso. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obama believes women should register for draft Also would consider opening combat positions to femalesPosted: October 13, 2008 © 2008 WorldNetDaily Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama may not have drafted a woman to be his running mate, as his rival John McCain has, but he does believe that America's young women should be eligible for the military draft and possibly combat duty.
"I think that if women are registered for service … I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do," said Obama in a debate last year. Obama's comments at the July 23, 2007, CNN/YouTube debate also suggested that while he doesn't support a draft and doesn't "necessarily" see women in combat roles, he does see restricting women from the battlefront as a breach of equality.
"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Obama replied when asked if women should register for Selective Service. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal."
A recent interview of Wendy Morigi, Obama's national security spokeswoman, further confirmed that Obama would consider expanding the role of female soldiers in combat. "Women are already serving in combat (in Iraq and Afghanistan), and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground," Morigi told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain."
Obama and McCain differ on the issue, with the Republican candidate supporting current Department of Defense guidelines restricting female soldiers from direct ground combat with the enemy, including service in armor, field artillery and special forces. According to his campaign, McCain also disagrees with Obama's position that women should be required to register with the Selective Service.
Leaders of women's organizations are mixed on the subject. Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center believes women should be able to compete for any position on the battlefield. "I hope a new president will revisit the restrictions," she told the Post-Gazette.
Elaine Donnelly, former member of President Clinton's Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, however, sees strategic military reasons for restricting women from the front lines.
"There are differences between men and women where physical strength is an issue," Donnelly told the Post-Gazette. "There are a lot of civilian feminists who are making unreasonable demands on the military."

Center for Military Readiness (www.cmrlink.org) - Elaine Donnelly, President, 10/17/08


It is unfortunate that the 2008 presidential candidates and their friends in the media have said very little about military/social issues that will be decided by the next Commander in Chief.

The presidential and vice presidential debates are now over, but not a single question was asked on matters such as gays in the military, women in land combat, or whether young women should be required to register with Selective Service.

That is disappointing, but these issues are not going away. The Center for Military Readiness is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization. We do not endorse candidates, but we do write about military personnel issues of importance to our men and women in the military.

In recent weeks I have written several articles on these issues, and will continue to do so before and after the election on November 4. I thought you might be interested in these four articles, which I wrote for National Review Online’s “The Tank” section so far this month:

October 7 “Slick Strategy on Gays in the Military”

October 15 “McCain Shouldn’t Wobble on Gays in the Military”

October 15 “Candidates, Co-Ed Combat, and Conscription Registration”

October 16 “Plumber Joe and the Culture of Freedom”

I hope you will forward this message to others who might be interested in these issues... Please let me know your thoughts—I hope to hear from you soon.

Elaine Donnelly, www.cmrlink.org

Racial Solidarity has won out over the 'brotherhood of arms' - in the form of former General / Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell coming out of the kloset and endorsing the Obamacon...

And apparently trashing Sarah Palin while giving Draft Dodging Coward Biden a free pass - Despite the fact that Biden has publicly sworn he is unfit to even serve as a low paid military attorney, when he got his last Draft Exemption after law school - and before then going to work as a high paid private attorney.

Perhaps the American Military (after they follow the lead of a prior Weimar Republk and pimp the Army to the Ho-mo-sex Pervert / Hatemonger cult) will adopt a more appropriate 'Salute' to replace the old one that guys like McCain used...


Indeed - perhaps the Obamacon Vision for the future is kind of like a Rap Version of the Nuremberg Rally - with a line of new age storm troopers:


Raising a CLENCHED LEFT FIST (just like that Classic Olympics picture beloved by unrepentant terror bombers) in Salute to the Racist Obamacon 4th Reich.



Oh well - no matter, the Ho-mo-Nazis of old (like Coprophile Ephebophile 'Final Solution' author Heydrich) also 'Commanded from the Rear' - and just look at what they accomplished.



Heil Hussein - Tolerance Macht Frei!

Ohso. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

Reporting' Recommendations.

The Incestuous Clique of Wealthy Radical Leftist / Gender Feminist / Ho-mo-sex political activists that control our Bought and Paid for 'Free Press' - just announced their 'recommendations' for the 'Vanilla' (voters / taxpayers) they have been working so long and hard to keep clueless for just this opportunity.

Startlingly - Not - our local BANG (friscos - bay area news group / incestuous leftist clique) has Endorsed: The Very Same Political Interests they have been Biasing their alleged 'reporting' in favor of all along.

Shezammmm! Houda Thunk It? It Almost defies belief in a genuine 'Free Press' to find that they have been literally Campaigning in favor of Certain Candidates and Issues all along, while at the same time pretending to provide some sort of pretext of 'balanced' coverage in the name of (try not to gag) 'Journalistic Integrity.' Almost. Ahem.

A great example of this Old Dead Tree Media commitment to providing "All the News Printed to Fit - Our Ideology" can be found in the expanded "Politics" section (not to be confused with the 'comic pages' - which are much more vicious in attacking McCain) in the Sunday Paper. Along with the usual BAMN BAMN (Bash McCain - By Any Means Necessary) filler, there was also a profile of CHINO Joe Biden, second stooge to the Obamacon.

Proving once again that with our Old Media - What is Censored is often far more important than what is included, the 'profile' did mention Biden (#2, and also in line to be Commander in Chief) graduating from Law School and going in to Private Civilian Practice - But OMITTED HIS RECORD OF DRAFT DODGING - INCLUDING CLAIMING HE WAS UNFIT TO SERVE AS A MILITARY ATTORNEY.

Ole CHINO Joe had even recently sent his Lawyer Son off to foreign military service, with the admonition to "Serve Honorably" - and yet the OLD MEDIA CENSORS decided that a profile of the Craven Cowardly Hypocritical bozo that They Want to be in office which included such Ungood Facts - was just too much 'Truthiness' for the Vanilla to swallow...

Particularly with the Election so close.

Ohso.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

U.S. Troops Support McCain 3-1

A Military Times poll indicates landslide support for John McCain, who captures 68 percent of the military vote to Barack Obama's 23 percent. Tuesday, October 21, 2008

A poll by the Military Times newspaper group suggests that there is overwhelming support for John McCain among U.S. troops in every branch of the armed forces by a nearly 3-1 margin.

According to the poll, 68 percent of active-duty and retired servicemen and women support McCain, while 23 percent support Barack Obama. The numbers are nearly identical among officers and enlisted troops.

The Military Times, which publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times, polled 80,000 subscribers from Sept 22 to Sept. 29. The non-scientific survey gathered 4,300 respondents -- all of them registered and eligible to vote.

A racial divide was immediately evident among the respondents. Nearly eight in 10 black servicemembers chose Obama, while McCain captured 76 percent of white voters and 63 percent of Hispanic voters.

Numbers among men and women respondents were also visibly different. Men overwhelmingly said they would vote for McCain, 70 percent to 22 percent. But among women the margin was much closer: 53 percent support McCain, while 36 percent support Obama.

U.S. troops also said in the poll that they prefer McCain to handle the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- 74 percent said McCain would perform better, while just 19 percent said Obama would.

Four years ago the Iraq War was the single most important issue on which the military voted. But the war now ranks third in importance to these voters. The most important issue among the respondents was character (42 percent), followed by the economy (25 percent) and the Iraq War (16 percent).

There was a racial divide on these issues, as well. Black servicemembers said the economy was the No. 1 issue that affected their vote, and white troops said character was paramount.

The Military Times offered certain caveats for its poll, which was open only to its 80,000 subscribers. Responses were entirely voluntary and were not focused on a representative sample of the public, as scientific polls are. The troops polled were also somewhat older than average enlisted servicemembers and included more officers than is representative of the military as a whole.

Yet judging by the numbers, it appears that the Democratic party has not made many inroads into the traditionally Republican military.

Dawn of the 4th Reich?

I have been reviewing the history of the decline of the Weimar German Republic in to the National Homo-Socialist Reich (including a new book about the Boy Raping Ephebophile Ernst Rohm who founded the Nazis), and the parallels are mounting quite rapidly, and dare I say ominously.

Similar to the era of the 1930s I believe that the Deliberate Creation of Economic Chaos (particularly through the vehicle of the Oil Markets) has enriched some, and has influenced Voters and Elections throughout the world - as it was intended to do. When Certain Candidates for powerful office are only electable in response to Economic / Social Crisis, by a frightened electorate more concerned about their pocket books than their liberties, then we have a repeat of the situation in 1933-34 that led to the Totalitarian Homosex Reich of National Socialism.

In Weimar Amerika the knives are drawn for another long night (Anyone who doesn't understand the reference Needs to Read "The Pink Swastika" and watch a History Channel Documentary titled "Night of the Long Knives" - about the post revolutionary power struggle between the various Homosex Factions of the Nazi movement)... And why Square in their Sights for the Next Takeover is the U.S. Military - Which these same interests Desperately Want to Place Homosex Radicals in Charge of...

However, this time it is Not just Homo-Anal Ephebophiles and Drag Queens (like the Nazis) who are to be placed in power to promote their own kind, but even More Importantly - Dykes (Hyper Militant Misandrists - including those who sometimes mimic heterosex foreplay with other womyn) are to be placed in Control as Soon as possible - so as to further prime mission of the new order and Destroy the "Patriarchy."

After all one has got to keep their eyes on the Real Prize, even during an economic stampede. When playing the 'tolerance' scam on the 'vanilla' (clueless voters / taxpayers), using the right mix of victimization driven Tantrum Theater along with Rank Raw Intimidation works as well today as it did for the Homosex Perverts of the Nazi 'SA' (Rohm's Ephebophile Storm Troopers) who led the way to another National Socialist Victory.

Just Remember - like the Good Germyns of a Bygone Era, who learned the hard way that "Arbeit Macht Frei" ('Work Makes you Free' - the Slogan Hung over the Death Camp Gates), so too may be the difficulties associated with coming to terms with the true meaning of the New Slogan of Progress:

Tolerance Macht Frei.

Ohso
Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. George Orwell 1984 On the Thought Police.

The Pentagon: No Place to Play Games [Elaine Donnelly - Center for Military Readiness]

By now everyone should know that Sen. Barack Obama, if elected Commander in Chief, will raid the defense budget for redistribution elsewhere. Obama said so himself in a 1-minute 30-second video for a leftist group called Caucus for Priorities, in which he pledges to put an end to “misguided defense policies.”

On Tuesday Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal asked: Will Obama Gut Defense? Stephens cited Rep. Barney Frank’s call for a 25 percent cut in defense spending, which would make it possible to spend more on new domestic programs after American forces withdraw from Iraq.

Congressman Frank’s recommended cut in defense spending conflicts with Obama’s reported willingness to increase the size of ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines, and to provide them with “first rate” equipment. Is Obama likely to keep those promises? In an article titled Obama’s Pentagon, retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis expressed skepticism about the senator’s intentions—primarily because of the people who are advising Obama on military affairs.

Former Clinton Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, Maginnis wrote, has said that he expects an Obama administration to maintain Pentagon spending at current levels. Danzig has also questioned “affordability issues” associated with the Army’s Future Combat Systems plan, the Air Force’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and the Navy’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer. Cost overruns require close oversight, but Obama’s plans go beyond efficiency. In his statement to the Caucus for Priorities, Obama promised to eliminate “unproven missile defense systems,” and to achieve what he calls a “world without nuclear weapons.”

In 1999, Secretary of the Navy Danzig, an outspoken advocate of women serving on submarines, insulted men of the Silent Service by calling them “a white male bastion.” If an Obama administration mandates “career opportunities” for female sailors on cramped submarines, which operate with constantly recycled air that would elevate the risks of birth defects, submarine commanders may have to disrupt undersea missions by conducting hazardous mid-ocean evacuations of pregnant sailors.

Rudy deLeon is another military/social activist who may make a comeback at the Pentagon. As Bill Clinton’s Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, deLeon worked with gay activists to circumvent the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. If he returns to an even more powerful perch at the Department of Defense, an army of feminist attorneys and gay activists are likely to gain a new power base.

With access to defense dollars and Pentagon prestige, civilian ideologues will push hard for their most extreme causes, including full acceptance of professed (not discreet) homosexuals in the military, women in direct ground combat (infantry) battalions, and an Office of Victim Advocate (OVA) that would operate as an “Office of Male Bashing” in the Pentagon.

But that is not all. Vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Biden strongly supports the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an international treaty that would surrender sovereignty to international bureaucrats on all issues involving women — meaning, just about everything.

According to Paul Weyrich, Obama also supports legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Non-Violence (HR 808), sponsored by anti-war liberal Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and 70 co-sponsors. This is not a joke—it is a threat to America’s volunteer force and its ability to defend America.

Voters should be concerned not just about the resources that would be taken away from the armed forces, but the new burdens that would be loaded on. The situation could reprise the 1990s, when the Clinton administration slashed the defense budget, while Pentagon social engineers pushed hard for radical social experiments that weakened morale, discipline, and retention in the ranks.

An administration that takes away resources while adding heavy social burdens could change the sturdy, five-sided shape of the Pentagon into a shaky structure resembling a tower of wooden Jenga blocks. In the popular tabletop family game of the same name, rectangular-shaped Jenga blocks that resemble railroad ties are laid in cross-hatched layers to form a tall column. Each player carefully withdraws one of the smooth wooden planks and places it on top of the tower.

Every round weakens the structure of the column while adding increasingly heavy burdens that make it taller, but less stable. The player who pulls the last plank that causes the tower to tumble loses the game with laughter all around.

It would not be a laughing matter, however, if the next administration weakens the infrastructure of the military while simultaneously burdening it with cultural changes that greatly increase the difficulties and hazards of military life. This would be a dangerous game, and it could break the volunteer force.

Political Revisionist Propaganda Masquerading as Scholarship.

A review of the book: “Ernst Rohm – Hitler’s SA Chief of Staff” by Eleanor Hancock.

The Politically Biased Pro-Homosex Propaganda that pervades the latest book by Eleanor Hancock, purporting to deal with the Nazi movement and its Notorious Boy Raping Ephebophile Founder Ernst Röhm; is a sad travesty of ersatz ‘scholarship’ in service of hystorical revisionism promoting a Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex Political agenda…

- Besides, it cost over $60 US and was a boring waste of time and effort to wade through. The first ten chapters could have easily been condensed in to one or two; and would have been far more reader friendly if handled in narrative summary form. Instead we get a mostly tedious recitation of minutia about putsches and counter putsches and reichswehr intrigues of post war Germany, little of which sheds much light on a Monster like Röhm.

However, elimination of the minutia would have eliminated almost two thirds of the book, and left way too much room for discussing Ungood Facts, say about the true nature of the SA and its Storm Troopers. Instead, it isn’t until chapter 11 that a book about the Chief of Staff of Hitler’s SA – Actually takes on that subject directly, albeit in a politically abbreviated / sanitized form. Unfortunately, most of the Major Nazi Homosex players introduced are treated as one dimensional sexless cardboard cutouts; such as Hitler’s girlfriend “Frauline Anna” (Deputy Fuhrer Rudolph Hess), the Ephebophile Leader of the ‘Hitler Youth’ (Von Schirach), and of course the Homosex author of the ‘Final Solution’ (Reinhard Heydrich).

As with most works of this nature I always look carefully through the Index and Bibliographies to check the thoroughness and balance of the research cited. However, even such terms as “Ephebophile” “Pederast”, “Coprophile” commonly associated with the Homo-Anal Boy Rapists of the Nazi and Particularly Storm Trooper (SA) leadership and ranks, were not only Conspicuously Absent; but even tangential discussion of the subjects was mostly avoided with small exceptions. Indeed, we are told that Rohm was removed from oversight of the Hitler Youth and its leader Von Schirach because of concerns for publicity about his own openly depraved Boy Raping Behaviors; without mention of Von Schirach’s own notorious Pederasty and service as a “Chicken” pimp for the Nazi Leadership.

Tellingly, the Most Important and Thoroughly Documented Work ever written about the Nazi Homosex Hate Machine – THE PINK SWASTIKA by Abrams and Lively, is nowhere mentioned despite its tremendous relevance for Any Scholar of the Era. Likewise, reference to the History Channel Documentary about Rohm and the SA titled “Night or the Long Knives” is missing, despite its discussion of Homosex Control of the SA and the Hitler Youth, as well as Hitler’s Own Homosex Behaviors.

Indeed - German Author Lothar Machtan, who so clearly documented Hitler’s Homosex World and Nazi Comrades in his book “The Hidden Hitler” (Also featured on the Video “The Hidden Fuhrer” from Strand releasing) gets no respect for this work either. I simply could not find any part of Hanckock’s book that discussed this Central Fact of Nazism – that Hitler was a Syphilitic Coprophile Homosex Prostitute and most of his cronies like Rohm, Heydrich and Von Schirach were as bad if not worse.

Instead, in what is clearly an Insult to the Educated Reader (but may work for student hostages to the Thought Police in Academentia, who need to regurgitate such propaganda to earn grades), Hancock unbelievably asserts that the Reality so clearly Documented by other credible authors, is simply the result of what she terms: “Leftist Homophobia.” (P-168). This appears to be the Real Scam and Real Purpose of this Book – to Promote Homosex Pandering, primarily in the Military Today, by Censoring the Facts about the Central Role played by Depraved Boy Raping Homosex Perverts controlling the Nazi Movement!

Also missing are references to the works of Tuchman “Guns of August” or Manchester “Arms of Krupp”, and their highly relevant information about the long standing German Militarist / Homosex Connection running through Frederick the Great and back beyond Sparta. Likewise, Jewish Scholar Samuel Igra is missing, and the well written summation of his works found in “The Poisoned Stream.” In short, an entire body of scholarship showing the Inextricable link between the Nazi movement and Homosex behaviors, particularly Ephebophilia and Coprophilia, has been Censored from this story – and Not by Accident but Intent.

The true purpose of this work appears to be to Sanitize both Röhm and the Nazis in regard to the Widespread Homosex Perversions that truly characterized them and motivated so much of their actions; although this agenda emerges in mostly subtle ways. This Bias almost certainly relates to the Feminist Politics of the Author and the Pro-Homosex Policies of her Government and University, where she is a Professor in the “Humanities and Social Sciences” department – as well as her position with the Australian Defense Bureaucracy. It is doubtful that a more honest analysis could have been written by anyone hoping to remain employed by such agencies, let alone escape prosecution for Thought Crime.

The push to repeat the Evil of the Nazi Era and place Homosex Activists (of both genders) in charge of the Military as a sign of ‘tolerance’ - is one that is underway throughout the western world. I urge anyone with an interest in the Facts Censored from this Scam to get a copy of The Pink Swastika, which is not only more readable as a literary work than Hancock’s expensive waste product, but so thoroughly debunks most of what she wrote that it is almost hilarious (in a rather sinister manner) to compare them. Indeed, the butchering pederast Edmund Heines is given almost a complete pass by Hancock, where “The Pink Swastika” says: “Heines was another pederast and convicted murderer… also the sexual partner of Rossbach, Röhm, and possibly Hitler” who blackmailed the parents of Boys he Perverted.

In summary, this work is better seen as political propaganda for the cause of placing Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex Activists in charge of the Military. The need to ‘rehabilitate’ the Nazis from their openly notorious Homosex Militarist Roots - in order to reduce the stigma of Reintroducing the same Hate Based Misandrist Pogroms once again, is one more step down a path that should be a warning to all.

That Hancock chooses to end her book with a homage to Röhm (murdered in a cell by his equally depraved Homosex Rivals – after he refused to do what the German Military caste called the “Honorable” thing and shoot himself with a gun provided); shows how far she has stooped to clean up after a depraved Butchering Boy Raping Coprophile Pervert of the Lowest Order – when she ends by saying that this pig died like a soldier

Personally, I think that if pithy tripe is the way to put a period on this work, I would end it under a suitably different slogan; perhaps something kinder and gentler for this new age of Mandatory Homosex Pandering, like:

“Tolerance Macht Frei”

“Not merely the validity of experience but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” George Orwell 1984 On the Thought Police.

Obama expected to press repeal of military ban on 'gays'
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 12/5/2008

A conservative pro-family leader believes the Obama administration will move sooner rather than later to attempt to repeal the law that forbids homosexuals from serving in the military.

In recent weeks there have been conflicting reports about a timetable for the new, more heavily Democratic-controlled Congress to try to repeal the 1993 law that bans homosexuals from the military. The Washington Times reported that president-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to repeal the ban. The paper quoted two sources who advised the Obama transition team about the potentially explosive issue.

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, gives credence to a story published in CNN that the policy could be overturned this year.

"I was told by a reporter, [from] a very respected media institution, that the number-three priority on the list of the liberal activists who are very excited about Mr. Obama taking over the White House...is indeed [the] repeal of the law regarding gays in the military," she explains.

Obama, according to Donnelly, is committed to social engineering in the armed forces. "The president-elect Mr. Obama has made it very clear that he would support legislative efforts to repeal the law," she contends. "He wants to open the armed forces to social engineering on an unprecedented scale, making it a civil rights issue to say that there should be homosexuals in military 24/7."

Donnelly says it is important for supporters of the military to contact their members of Congress and urge them not to repeal the ban.

Ear Mark of Ms.Andry

The breaking story of how our New Secretary of the Abomination State, and a couple of other big wheels in the Democrap Pork / Patronage machine - bargained away the Safety of our Male Troops (98% of Casualties are Male, a serious decline from previous wars where it was almost 100%) in return for Campaign Donation Deals, simply highlights the Misandry (Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) that is the mantra of a Democrap Hate Machine and its newest messiah / Obamacon.

That Hitlary of Rodham is a Ruthless Misandrist is no surprise, given both her Dyke Past and the Monica Debacle of 'marriage' to Slick Willie; but some still have trouble warping their mind in a manner similar to that of Senators 'Squirmer' and Specter - who are ostensibly male, and might be expected to show a little more concern for their own gender. Not to worry, it is a pre-requisite for any position of 'respect' in the Democrap Machine is that all 'elite' males must first roll on their backs and pee themselves in a politically correct manner - as an act of shame for being born with a penis; while their feminist overseers look on and grade the performance.

Anyone who wants to see how this peculiar act of radical gender feminist contrition is performed with grace under pressure, should look at some of the videos of Slick Willie Klingon during the height of the Monica Lewinsky "I Did Not Have..." show, particularly the ones where he is obviously drunk on camera but putting on a game face while the NOW / EMILY (early money is like a yeast infection) Coven extracts the maximum public squirm factor from him. Indeed, in Weimar Kalifornia the former Attorney General (wild bull lockyer, now democrap treasurer of a bankrupt state = -$48 Bil and counting) publicly announced Homo-Anal Rape as his Penal Policy - for Men Only of course, as befits a Male Feminist Democrat party hack who speaks out against gender violence - in accord with Strict Feminist Criterion of course... We are 'not' barbarians after all...

Anywayyyyy... I will say that this type of Misandry is not just a Democrap Phenomenon - One need only take a look at the ruins of the Republican Party after former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld decided that he could save money in the budget by accepting a Higher Death Rate of Male Troops - in place of buying the Equipment (like Mine Resistant Vehicles) and support that eventually turned the tide in Iraq. This is a typical big business approach to using the Lives of Men (over 90% of work related deaths) as the grease for the engine of the economy; and showing their concern for the 'sacrifice' by laying wreaths at the memorial (probably contracted for and built by a donor) before cashing their stock options.

Thus I am indeed heartened in ways both strange and strained by the Equal Opportunity Graft of Hitlary, which if naught else shows just how far we have come as an Abomination.

Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>


Earmark helps businesses, not troops - Seattle Times special report By Christine Willmsen and David Heath

After being lobbied by companies making a decontamination powder, powerful U.S. senators Charles Schumer, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Arlen Specter forced the military to keep buying what it considers inferior chemical-warfare protection for the troops.

Scientists have discovered a lotion that can save the lives of U.S. soldiers exposed to chemical weapons — a product vastly superior to the standard-issue decontamination powder. Naturally, the Defense Department wants to scrap the powder and switch to the more-effective lotion. But there's a problem: After being lobbied by the companies making the powder, several members of Congress pushed through two earmarks worth $7.6 million that forced the military for the past two years to keep buying the inferior product.

Among the lawmakers who championed the earmarks are Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Clinton, who is poised to become secretary of state, received nearly $7,000 in campaign donations from the beneficiaries of these earmarks in recent years. Specter got more than $47,000...

But by forcing the military to buy the older product, lawmakers are taking that chance, says Winslow Wheeler, a director at the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information. The M291 earmarks show that Congress still hasn't reformed, he said. "The pork process pays little attention to merit, reason and analysis."...

Clinton and Schumer did not respond to requests for comment. Specter and a spokeswoman for Rohm and Haas defended the second earmark... Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., offered a different rationale for the favor...
Schwartz received $8,000 in donations from executives and the political action committee at Rohm and Haas, a leading employer in her district.


• Earmarks Backed by Hillary Clinton Putting Our Troops Lives ...
Earmarks Backed by Hillary Clinton Putting Our Troops Lives at Risk ... the lives of U.S. soldiers exposed to chemical weapons — a product vastly superior ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2144658/po... - 10k - Similar pages
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2144658/posts

• Nation & World | Earmark helps businesses, not troops | Seat...
Dec 7, 2008 ... Charles Schumer, left, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Arlen Specter, ... Chemical warfare is a serious threat should U.S. troops ever ...
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20084... - 76k - Similar pages
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...0_favor07.html

• Earmark hurts our soldiers - Democracy Forums
Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; and Charles Schumer, D-N. ... Chemical warfare is a serious threat should U.S. troops ever clash with ...
www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=337976 - 43k - Similar pages
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=337976

• Earmarks that Endanger our Troops « Jane Q. Republican
Dec 7, 2008 ... What do Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter, and Chuck Shumer have in common? Unfortunately, it’s not their ... Tags: chemical weapons, earmarks ...
janeqrepublican.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/earmark... - 22k - Similar pages
http://janeqrepublican.wordpress.com...er-our-troops/
• DispatchPolitics : Senators directed military spending Colum...
Among the lawmakers who championed the earmarks are Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y .; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. ...
www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_w... - 28k - Similar pages

I attempted to ponder this statement at length, and then tried a 10' Pole for good measure... But he left for winter basketball league and we were right back at the crux of the question.

To Wit - Would it be 'Treasonous' to suggest the above course of action?

Of course that would beg the whole question of sovereignty, as treason implies a duty of loyalty to one's sovereign nation / ruler...

- and obviously any furriner wot wuz to say such stuff wouldn't be committing 'treason' per say - and could thus be bombed fairly expeditiously without a whole lot of the due process concerns that attach to Amerikans who trash Amerika.

Still - as the English are so fond of pointing out - Treason Never Prospers, for if it does, it be not treason... Ahem.

Apparently, Point of View does depend to a degree on Perspective, or is that vice versa? Particularly given the English penchant for upholding the Divine Right of Kings and all...

Ohso

"We hath got the Crown. I' faith, and we will kill any whoreson who tries to take it away, by the Lord Harry." From the Coronation Ceremony, in the book Guards Guards by T. Pratchett.

Personnel-Stressed Aussie Navy Takes Christmas Break [Elaine Donnelly - Center for Military Readiness]

The Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that the Australian Navy will be closing for Christmas, due to personnel shortages and child-care difficulties facing families in its ranks. The article quotes the navy chief, Vice Adm. Russ Crane, stating his belief that this action will help “significantly reduce some of the separation rates we're seeing at the moment."

How can the Australian Navy be facing shortfalls in personnel recruitment and retention? And why do the Aussies have to work so hard to appear “family friendly”? After all, they have already adopted tolerant and diversity-building policies, such as acceptance of professed homosexuals in their military. Nevertheless, according to the Herald, in the last fiscal year the Australian military met only 73% of recruiting goals. With such enlightened, progressive personnel policies in place, how could there be any shortage of willing and able recruits?

Perhaps this is what the United States can look forward to if Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) makes good on his recent suggestion that military funding should be cut by 25%. The openly gay chairman of the House Financial Services Committee also is demanding repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Do Mr. Frank and his gay-activist friends expect our military to take the holidays off? Inquiring minds in Congress need to ask.

The influential e-mail network USNA-At-Large, which is widely read by Naval Academy alumni and supporters, has been having a lively discussion on this issue. Correspondent Jeff McGarry wrote:

So, if you want to threaten Australia, mid-January is the optimal time . . . when their non-deployed Navy has all been off for 45 days, and are still 15 days from starting back to work (so many will still be on vacation far from their ships). It's also a great time to steal their ships since they have announced that no one will be on board. That's the craziest retention plan I've heard of yet.

Adds John Rogers ’70:

Is Australia part of the 1000 ship allied force that [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm.] Mike Mullen is counting on to defend the United States? Hope the Chinese come after us at some other time of the year.

Paul Lang ’61 asks,

I wonder what Australian veterans of the Battle of the Coral Sea (those still living or in heaven) are thinking now.

And USNA member Dick Nelson ’64 asks a fair question, which he posted with a picture of George Washington leading brave soldiers who overcame family-stressing adversity in a wind- and wave-tossed boat:

Obviously, Australia's enemies will also take a break and play by the rules. Wait a minute . . . does Al-Qaeda believe in Santa Claus? Didn't Washington cross the Delaware and surprise the Hessian mercenaries on Christmas?

Good Questions, all! And yet the cultural gap between the Australian military and our own is beyond the understanding of homosexual activists who want to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.

They continue to hail this and other gay-inclusive military forces as role models for our own.

The Center for Military Readiness believes that the Australian military should be following our example, not the other way around.

Constructing The Co-Ed Military, "Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy: Elaine Donnelly, 14 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol'y 815 (2007)"


C. The 1993 Law Regarding Homosexual Conduct

A common thread in the debates about social policy in the military center on the institution's unique character, culture, and mission. The armed forces exist to defend the republic -- a purpose that sets the military apart from all other institutions in the civilian world.
Advocates of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military almost always discuss the issue in terms of civil rights. But participation in the military is sometimes a duty; it is never a right. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to the military.399
The issue was discussed in a comprehensive law review article by Professor William A. Woodruff of the Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law at Campbell University:
The armed forces are unique. In a government based upon the consent of the governed, the military is autocratic. In a society that treasures individual freedom, the soldier must conform and sacrifice individual freedom for mission accomplishment. In a country where the right to speak one's mind is paramount, the soldier is called upon to defend that right while not enjoying its full extent. To some, it is paradoxical that the defenders of freedom must forfeit their own freedom. Consider the mission of the military, however, and the paradox vanishes. The mission of the United Armed Forces is to fight and win our nation's wars. It takes an army to do that, not a debating society . . . .


[*pg 900]
Wars are won not by individuals, but by units functioning under extremely difficult circumstances . . . . In the final analysis, all military rules, regulations, policies, traditions, and customs are related to, and in some manner support, the ultimate goal of combat effectiveness.400

As famously articulated by the Supreme Court in Goldman v. Weinberger,
we have repeatedly held that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. The military must insist upon a respect for duty and a discipline without counterpart in civilian life, in order to prepare for and perform its vital role. . . . The essence of the military service is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.401

The military guards individual rights, but it must be guided by different rules. This principle should inform all discussions about social policies, including the question of homosexuals in the military.


1. Congressional Oversight
a. Clinton Vows to Repeal Department of Defense Regulations
The contemporary public debate about homosexuals in the military began in 1992, when former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton challenged President George H.W. Bush for re-election. President Bush did not raise the issue much during the campaign, but homosexual activist groups contributed heavily to the campaign of Bill Clinton and Al Gore and expected Clinton to deliver on his promise to "lift the ban" on homosexuals in the military.402
Shortly after the election, on Veterans Day, President-elect Clinton vowed to deliver on his campaign promise and announced his intention to change policies that excluded homosexuals from the military.403 At the time, the ban was not inscribed in law, but in Department of Defense directives that were adopted in 1981.404 On January 29, 1993, the newly inaugurated president ordered the [*pg 901] Department of Defense to cease asking "the question" about homosexuality, which used to appear on military induction papers.405 This change was described as an "interim policy," pending further review by Congress and the Defense Department.406
A storm of spontaneous opposition ensued. Many congressional offices needed extra staff to answer thousands of phone calls and letters protesting the president's move, and it quickly became apparent that even a Congress controlled by the president's own party would not permit the Administration to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military arbitrarily.407 Then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin formed an internal Military Working Group and charged the panel to come up with a suitable plan for accommodating homosexuals in the military by July 15, 1993.408 The Joint Chiefs and military experts argued for continuation of the status quo, but task force members were under pressure from the White House and activist groups to devise a plan to accommodate gays in the military.
Feeling political backlash, in March 1993, President Clinton said at a news conference that he might consider a plan that would allow homosexuals in the military but restrict them from certain assignments. Self-identified homosexual Bob Hattoy, Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and an advisor to Clinton on the issue, flatly rejected that option.409 The internal and public debate [*pg 902] intensified when a coalition called the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Military Freedom Project drew up a list of "recommendations" that left no doubt that activists would not be satisfied with the option of homosexuals serving in the military discreetly. The wish list included, inter alia: (1) an Executive Order to ban discrimination based on homosexual or bisexual orientation or conduct in the armed forces; (2) an end to all discharge procedures for homosexual orientation or conduct; (3) training programs on the acceptance of homosexual or bisexual personnel into the military, on the same basis as racial and gender issues; and (4) an official Defense Department committee, similar to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), to advise the Secretary on matters relating to homosexuals and bisexuals in the armed forces.410 Some items on the wish list were partially granted by the Clinton Administration in 1994.411

Homosexual activist groups staged a large (though not as large as planned) rally in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 1993. Organizers promoted the march as what would be "the largest civil rights demonstration in [U.S.] history" and were disappointed when President Clinton did not promise to be there in person.412 The event included bizzarre elements that were aired on C-SPAN, including some provocatively dressed marchers and a group holding up posters depicting President Clinton with a "Pinnochio" nose.413 President Clinton did not show up at the rally, but he met in the Oval Office with a large group of organizers, who consulted frequently with officials from the Deparments of [*pg 903] Defense and Justice on legislative and legal strategies to advance the cause of homosexuals in the military.414

Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in an awkward situation, but they did their best to resist the president's original, radical plan without challenging his authority as Commander-in-Chief.415 Following pressure from Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, all of the chiefs of staff were lined up behind President Clinton for a media event at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., when President Clinton announced his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" proposal on July 19, 1993.416 Departing significantly from DoD directives in effect since 1981, President Clinton's July 19 policy maintained that "Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct."417


Congress Exercises Oversight Responsibilities
Enactment of Clinton's proposal appeared possible at first, but in response to political pressure, members of Congress became engaged. They exercised effective oversight by asking a lot of questions. For example, in May 1993, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Ranking Member John Warner (R-Va.) visited several ships and submarines at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia. An Associated Press photo of that visit showed the senators crouched down to solicit the opinions of three men occupying cramped sleeping spaces in the torpedo room of the nuclear attack submarine USS Montpelier.418 One gay activist leader called Nunn's tour an "inflammatory spectacle," while another denounced Sen. Nunn as a "bigot" for having any hearings at all.419
Various drafts of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" type proposal started to emerge and fire from both sides.420 Proponents of gays in the military saw them as a betrayal of [*pg 904] their justified expectations, while opponents criticized such proposals as incremental steps in the wrong direction. During this time both Houses held a total of twelve legislative hearings, which heard from diverse panels of experts and advocates on all sides of the issue.421

Immediately following President Clinton's announcement on July 19, 1993, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees heard testimony from several prominent officials, including Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, DoD General Counsel Jamie Gorelick, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Colin Powell, the Chief of Staff of each of the services, and key members of the Pentagon's Military Working Group. Under close questioning, all gave candid answers that revealed serious flaws in the July 19 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" concept; in both Houses of Congress, members started to question and doubt the wisdom of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell.422 Then-Rep. James Talent (R-Mo.) commented,

when I listened to the Chiefs and the Secretary yesterday, what I basically heard them saying was that they had resolved this debate in favor of essentially keeping the old policy, . . . [but] [w]hen I read the policy as a totality . . . [it] doesn't seem consistent with what I understood the Secretary and the Chiefs have been saying about the policy.423

The sticking point was an inherent inconsistency that could be easily exploited by activist lawyers challenging the policy in court: If homosexuality is not a disqualifying characteristic, how can the armed forces justify dismissal [*pg 905] of a person who merely reveals the presence of such a characteristic? Members of Congress recognized that such a policy would be unenforceable, unworkable, and indefensible in court.

With the exception of Clinton administration insiders trying to finesse what had become a hot-potato issue, and a few gay leaders who were willing to accept compromise in order to avoid codification of the ban on gays in the military,424 there were no significant constituencies advocating passage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by Congress. Following extensive floor debate in both Houses, Congress rejected President Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" proposal with overwhelming, veto-proof bipartisan majorities.425 Instead, Congress passed a law that continued the pre-Clinton (1981) policy of excluding homosexuals from the military.426 In so doing, members wisely chose language almost identical to the 1981 DoD Directives regarding homosexuality, which had already been challenged and upheld as constitutional by the federal courts.427 Congress allowed President Clinton's "interim policy" of not asking questions of inductees regarding homosexuality to stand?with the provision that a future Secretary of Defense can restore such questions, without additional legislation, if the needs of the service require it.428
Legislation dealing with intensely controversial issues does not become law by accident. In this case, Congress codified the policy in place long before Clinton took office. Contrary to frequent misstatements of the law then and now, there is no way that bipartisan, veto-proof majorities [*pg 906] would have passed a law making it "easier" for homosexuals to serve. Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), then-Chairman of the HASC Personnel Subcommittee, underscored the point in a December 16, 1999, memorandum to his colleagues:

Although some would assert that section 654 of Title 10, US Code . . . embodied the compromise now referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," there is no evidence to suggest that the Congress believed the new law to be anything other than a continuation of a firm prohibition against military service for homosexuals that had been the historical policy.

The law, as well as accompanying legislative findings and explanatory report language, makes absolutely clear that known homosexuals, identified based on acts or self admission, must be separated from the military. After extensive testimony and debate, the Congress made a calculated judgment to confirm the continued bar to the service of homosexuals in the military. The case supporting the Congressional position is well documented and compelling.

. . . .

Those that claim that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has failed simply do not understand the underlying law. The prospect of a homosexual openly serving in the military was never contemplated by the Congress and any policy that suggests that the military should be receptive to the service of homosexuals is in direct violation of the law.429

c. Conditional Compromise
In the course of debate, Congress considered whether the armed forces should be required to assume the risk that homosexuals would remain celibate. The Senate Report addressed the issue directly:
It would be irrational . . . to develop military personnel policies on the basis that all gays and lesbians will remain celibate. . . . [W]hen a person indicates that he or she has a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, the armed forces are not required to wait until the person engages in that act before taking personnel action.430

The House Report also discussed the possibility of accommodating homosexuals, provided that they refrain from homosexual acts:
[A]ny effort to create as a matter of policy a sanctuary in the military where homosexuals could serve discreetly and still be subject to separation for proscribed conduct would be a policy inimical to unit cohesion . . . and discipline, unenforceable in the field, and open to legal challenge.431

Instead of codifying the legally questionable "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" concept, Congress chose to adopt unambiguous statements that were understandable, enforceable, consistent with the unique requirements of the [*pg 907] military, and devoid of the First Amendment conundrums that were obvious in President Clinton's July 19 proposal.
The only concession made during this process in 1993 was ommision of "the question" about homosexuality, which President Clinton had eliminated with his January 29, 1993, "interim policy."432 Congress nevertheless authorized restoration of routine inquiries about homosexuality by a future Secretary of Defense,433 who can (and should) restore "the question" without additional legislation. This concession did not nullify the language of the law itself, but it allowed the Congress, which was controlled by the Democrats at the time, to give political cover to President Clinton by calling the plan a "compromise" and referring to it as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The politically expedient strategy has caused problems ever since.

Widespread misunderstandings about the rationale and meaning of the law have continued for four major reasons. First, in 1993, major media inaccurately reported that Congress had passed Clinton's "compromise" plan to accommodate homosexuals in the military, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Reports did not note that the statute actually said something quite different: "The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service."434

Second, President Clinton had an interest in appearing to deliver on his campaign promise to lift the ban on gays in the military, even though he had not done so. Disregarding the legal mandate to provide documents and briefings that "set forth" the provisions of the law, in December 1993, Clinton issued enforcement regulations that implement his original proposal, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?even though Congress had rejected that concept as unworkable.435

Third, the law passed by Congress is widely misunderstood because no one gave it a distinctive and appropriate name. Absent a name of its own, the law that Congress passed was frequently misidentified with the catchphrase "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is easier to remember than the utilitarian "Public Law 103-160" or "Title 10, United States Code, Section 654." And fourth, there was no individual author or descriptive "short title" for the legislation because the statutory language came directly from Defense Department regulations, which were promulgated in 1981.436
[*pg 908]
To clarify the difference between the law regarding homosexual conduct and President Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" enforcement policy, this Article hereinafter will refer to P.L. 103-160, Section 654, Title 10 as the 1993 law regarding homosexual conduct in the military, or "The Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993."...


Enforce the 1993 Homosexual Conduct Law
Activists who want to repeal the law banning homosexuals from the military are determined to impose their agenda on the military. This would include the full range of benefits and "sensitivity training" programs designed to promote acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and conduct.615

For the sake of civilian institutions as well as the military, they should not be allowed to succeed.616
President George W. Bush is obligated by the U.S. Constitution to enforce all laws, but he is not required to retain administrative regulations written by his predecessor, including the policy known by the catch phrase "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Whether intended or not, inconsistencies between Clinton's policy and the 1993 homosexual conduct law create an advantage for activists who want to repeal both.

In doing this, the Department of Defense should not apologize or be intimidated by civil rights analogies and pejorative accusations. Gen. Colin Powell, who was Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff early in the Clinton Administration, wrote a classic letter addressing the subject to then-Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) in 1993. Dismissing Schroeder's argument that his position reminded her of arguments used in the 1950s against desegregating the military, Gen. Powell replied:

I know you are a history major but I can assure you I need no reminders concerning the history of African-Americans in the defense of their nation and the tribulations they faced. I am part of that history. . . . Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.617

Columnist Charles Krauthammer agreed:
Powell's case does not just rest on tradition or fear. It rests on the distinction between behavioral and non-behavioral characteristics. Skin color is a non-behavioral trait. Homosexuality, like gender, is not. Consider the behavioral implications of gender differences: Men and women are sexually attracted to each other and sexual attraction engenders feelings not just of desire but shame and a wish for privacy. . . .

That is why if a white person refuses association with blacks, the military tells him that the refusal is irrational and will not be respected. But the military does [*pg 947] respect the difference between men and women. Because the cramped and intimate quarters of the military afford no privacy, the military sensibly and non-controversially does not force man and women to share barracks.618

In recent years, advocates of gays in the military have been promoting the idea that sexual modesty does not matter, since modern military facilities provide more privacy than older ones. Even if people are exposed to others in the field, they say, younger people are used to it, and this is not a big deal.619 This is an elitist argument, which is contradicted in numerous ways that usually escape notice.

A midwestern family-oriented recreation center, for example, has separate locker rooms for men and women, next to the community pool. Inside the entrance of the women's locker room is a sign clearly stating that boys of any age are not permitted. A similar sign, regarding girls, is posted in the men's locker room. The signs are there not as an affront to young boys (or girls). They are there because the community respects the desire for sexual modesty in conditions of forced intimacy. This is the case even though people who use the recreation center do not live and sleep there for months at a time.

Servicemen and women in the military deserve the same consideration, and much more. As columnist Thomas Sowell wrote, "Military morale is an intangible, but it is one of those intangibles without which the tangibles do not work."620 Military people depend on policymakers to remember basic realities and to guard their best interests. Considerations such as this strengthen vertical cohesion -- the indispensable bond of trust between military leaders and the troops they lead.

To ensure that the intent of Congress is carried out with regard to homosexuals in the military, the Secretary of Defense should:

• Improve understanding and enforcement of the law by eliminating the Clinton Administration's enforcement regulations, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which are inconsistent with the 1993 law that Congress actually passed, and (better yet) restore "the question" about homosexuality that used to be on induction forms prior to January 1993.

• Oppose any legislative attempt to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law in Congress.

• Ensure that the 1993 statute is vigorously defended every time it is challenged in the federal courts.

• Prepare and distribute accurate instructional materials for potential recruits, recruiters, and all military personnel that include the text and legislative history of the 1993 law.
• Remind the media that everyone can serve their country in some way, but not everyone is eligible to be in the military.

IN THE MILITARY
6 out of 10 servicemen wary of Obama in charge
Survey: 'Nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief'
Posted: January 03 © 2009 WorldNetDaily

A recent Military Times survey of active-duty service members found 6 of 10 U.S. soldiers polled said they were "pessimistic" or "uncertain" about Barack Obama serving as commander in chief of America's armed forces.

In follow-up interviews reported by the Army Times newspaper, respondents cited Obama's inexperience in leading soldiers, his plans for accelerated removal of troops from Iraq and his pledge to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexual service members as reasons for their cautious outlook.

"Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers," said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified, "nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief."
"How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?" asked Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron. "And if you're pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what's left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?"

Duke political science professor and civil-military relations writer Peter Feaver, however, says concerns about a new administration's leadership are to be expected.
"What [Obama] is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office," Feaver told Army Times. "It's sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him.
"They respect the office of the commander in chief," Feaver said. "As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem."

The sixth annual Military Times survey asked over 30,000 subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers, "How do you feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief?"
A total of 5,181 active-duty, National Guard and reserve and retired military subscribers responded to the email invitation issued from Dec. 1 to Dec. 8.

Of the 1,947 active-duty soldiers that responded, a third answered that they are "optimistic," while 25 percent answered "pessimistic" and 35 percent admitted to being "uncertain." The "uncertain" response differs from "no opinion," which garnered 8 percent of the vote.
Other survey results found that nearly 80 percent of the respondents support the war in Afghanistan and nearly the same amount favor increasing troop strength there, though 30 percent believe it may take more than 10 years of military presence in Afghanistan to achieve American goals.

The majority of active-duty service members also oppose Obama's campaign pledge to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexual soldiers to serve openly in the armed forces. 14 percent said they would consider ending their military career after serving their obligated tours of duty if the policy was repealed.

Army Capt. Steven J. Lacy, a logistician assigned to the 71st Transportation Battalion, told Military Times he's worried about the effect open homosexuality may have on military units.
"I think a lot of people are," Lacy said. "In the field environment, you're in very close proximity to one another. The fact that someone could be openly gay could exacerbate stress on teams and small units when you're already at a high stress level."
71 percent of respondents in the survey, however, said they would continue to serve even if the policy was overturned.
Army Times reported that as a voluntary response poll and not a scientific, random sampling, the survey could not calculate a statistical margin of error or guard against variances caused by the characteristics of Military Times subscribers. The responses cannot be considered representative of the opinions of the military as a whole.