The Last Domino to fall in the destruction of the Republic will be the Citizen Army - which the ObamAcorns want to follow the lead of their predecessors in the National Homo-Socialist Third Reich, and turn over ultimate power to the pervert / hatemonger lobby.

Like the boy raping homo-anal coprophile ephebophile that founded the Nazi Movement (Ernst Rohm) and his boy toy prostitute protege (Hitler) - their successors understand that destroying the Military and replacing it with a hierarchy of Misandry and Buggery - is the best way to destroy the same enemies who would oppose them in other areas of society.

Ohso
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obama to take on military gay ban at 'right time'
The Associated Press 10/04/2009

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama will focus "at the right time" on how to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

"I don't think it's going to be—it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately," James Jones said.

The Democratic-led Congress is considering repealing the 1993 law. Action isn't expected on the issue until early next year...

Will It Take More than an Army of One? (www.frc.org)

President Obama's strongest promise to homosexual activists in his speech Saturday night was his bold declaration, "I will end Don't Ask Don't Tell." But the only way he has the power to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (the Clinton compromise allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, but not openly) is by returning to "asking" and "telling"-- that is, asking prospective recruits their sexual orientation and telling homosexuals they're ineligible to serve.

To achieve his goal of allowing homosexuals to serve "openly" would require Congress to repeal the 1993 law which declares that homosexuals in the military "create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."
It would also likely require repeal of the law against sodomy in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)--otherwise, we would be deliberately recruiting into the military people with an openly stated intention to violate military law.

But the Palm Center, a liberal think tank, is urging President Obama to bypass the law by ending discharges of homosexuals through an executive order--and actually urging him not to consult with military leaders!

They're wrong on both counts. The President should enforce the law that Congress passed, and listen to the members of the military--who don't want it repealed!

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


Democrats Mask-a-Raid on Troop Bill

The American military is trying to win two conflicts abroad, so the last thing it needs is to be deployed in a culture war to legitimize homosexuality. Unfortunately, that didn't stop House leaders from piggybacking on a military funding bill to pass their pet project: "hate crimes." Yesterday, the House voted 281 to 146 in favor of extending special federal protection to homosexuals as part of the $680 billion Defense Authorization bill, a maneuver that Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) called a "disgrace."

The Democratic majority "should be ashamed at the way it has used the needs of our men and women in uniform as a platform for a partisan agenda," he said. Republicans tried to stop Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from hijacking the bill on Wednesday but failed by 56 votes from stripping hate crimes from H.R. 2647.

Under the charge of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), 131 Republicans and 15 Democrats opposed the bill, but in the end it wasn't enough to stop Nancy Pelosi. After the vote, Rep. Boehner was frank in his disappointment--not only because hate crimes passed, but because liberals used an otherwise popular military bill to infringe on the very freedom our soldiers are fighting for."

This is radical social policy that ... is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can't pass it on its own," he told reporters. The first prize on a very long wish list for homosexuals, "hate crimes" now heads to the Senate for approval. Contact your Senators today and ask them to stop the real crime: leaders who abuse their power to advance irrelevant special interests.

Men make up nearly 98% of battlefield casualties in the US Military - which is why the Democrap Machine has so little concern for them, save to force homosex perversions on them of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Support Our Troops Earmarks (www.frc.org)

Our troops will be interested to know that the Senate is focused on bringing home a victory in one campaign: their own.
When the chamber marked-up the Defense appropriations bill, some Senators started siphoning away billions of dollars in military equipment for their own pet projects.

At last count, there were over 778 earmarks attached to the bill, most of which are completely unnecessary or irrelevant--or both! The Washington Times exposed a few of these "needs" last week. "Among the... pork packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat."

Adding insult to what could be real injury, liberals are trying to attach legislation to the Defense bill that would give the District of Columbia full voting rights.

This backdoor approach seems to be strategy du jour for the leadership, who used this same maneuver to pass "hate crimes" legislation in the House earlier in the month. Liberals know that D.C. voting rights (much like "hate crimes") is contentious and unpopular--and very unlikely to pass as a stand-alone bill. But rather than work out the issue democratically, Senate leaders are using another Defense bill as a vehicle for their radical agenda.

While our soldiers wait for new supplies, fuel, and training, leaders are either delaying the bill with constitutional questions or trying to funnel money away from soldiers to finance their own political interests.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) from my home state defended her pork--an extensive World War II museum in New Orleans--saying it would be a "constant reminder to future generations about the tremendous sacrifice of millions of Americans."
That may be true, but instead of building bigger memorials, we should concentrate on keeping our soldiers from becoming part of one.

Elaine Donnelly (www.cmrlink.org) : Gays Leaving Military Not Security Issue

Sunday, October 11, 2009 By: Elaine Donnelly Article Font Size

On Saturday evening President Barack Obama delivered a speech suggesting that he needs to impose the gay agenda on the military for reasons of national security. That was quite a performance—but no one should be fooled.

Gay activist groups keep focusing on almost 13,000 discharges that have occurred over a period of 15 years, due to the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve. But under closer examination, the notion that these personnel losses have nearly crippled the All-Volunteer Force simply falls apart.

Newly released Defense Department figures documenting military discharges in the past five years confirm the pattern evident in the previous decade: discharges due to homosexuality affect a minuscule number of troops, and represent less than one percent of personnel losses that occur for other legitimate reasons.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently reported that discharges due to homosexual conduct, averaged over five years, accounted for only 0.32 percent of all losses; 0.73 percent if departures due to retirement or completion of service are excluded. During the previous ten years, 1994-2003, the average percentage of discharges due to homosexual conduct was 0.37. In 2005 the Department of Defense provided additional perspective with figures comparing discharges for six reasons, including homosexuality, for the ten years in question. Highlighting the same categories for the subsequent five years, an interesting pattern emerges.

During the 15 years that almost 13,000 ineligible homosexuals were honorably discharged, three times as many servicewomen (39,454) left the service due to pregnancy.

In the same period, the armed forces discharged over four times as many people (55,790) due to weight standard violations, and seven times as many (90,302) for drug abuse. Consistently small percentages of people discharged due to homosexuality contradict any claim that national security emergency requirements justify repeal of the law.

The Gays in the Military Campaign (GIMC) nevertheless claims that service members being discharged for homosexuality include many experienced people with critical skills. On the contrary, Defense Department figures show that homosexuals most often affected were junior personnel, not career service members with years of experience. Almost all of the honorable discharges for homosexual conduct, usually evidenced by statements voluntarily given, are uncontested and processed administratively.

The Secretary of Defense could reduce these numbers to near-zero by complying with current law mandating accurate briefings on the meaning and effect of the 1993 Eligibility Law, which is usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Defense Secretary Gates also could exercise his current authority to drop former President Bill Clinton’s convoluted administrative policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and restore “the question” about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms. Both actions would eliminate misunderstandings, explaining that homosexuals can serve our country in many ways, but not everyone is eligible for military service.

Some gay activists contradict themselves with the claim that the Pentagon suspends discharges of homosexuals when units are deployed during a war. Fabulists claim that discharges declined during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, due to “stop loss” orders suspending the enforcement of regulations regarding homosexuals.

On the contrary, the CRS has reported that a review of discharges during the Persian Gulf War indicates that the alleged pattern was not evident in the data. The CRS further noted that personnel not subject to stop-loss orders to remain in wartime service include soldiers affected by disability, hardship, pregnancy, unsatisfactory performance, and homosexuality.

If a person claims to be homosexual just prior to deployment, an investigation taking as long as eight weeks still must take place. During that time he may be deployed, but if his claim is confirmed, he is returned home and honorably discharged. These rules discourage the possibility of “false claim[s] of same-sex behavior being used as a means of avoiding a mobilization.” CRS added that retention of individuals who are not eligible for service is a “violation of federal law.”

A related legend claims that openly homosexual troops were retained during the Persian Gulf War, and their success demonstrated that repeal of the 1993 law would not have adverse consequences. In a June Washington Post op-ed promoting repeal of the 1993 law, retired General John Shalikashvili repeated this claim, which apparently originated with the activist Michael D. Palm Center in California.

The fable, however, does not hold up. Lt. Gen. Robert B. Johnston, USMC (Ret.) who served as Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) at the time, would have been privy to any conversation between Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Colin Powell and Gulf War Commander Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf authorizing such an accommodation. According to Gen. Johnston and several colleagues then in command, the alleged retention of openly professed homosexuals during the Persian Gulf War never happened.

The Gannett newspapers’ annual Military Times Poll found that 58% of active-duty subscriber/respondents supported the 1993 law, for the fourth year in a row. In 2008 10 percent also indicated that they would decline re-enlistment if Congress repeals the law.
Such losses occurring in all military components (228,600) would be more than today’s active-duty Marine Corps. Before voting to repeal the 1993 law, Congress should focus on the big picture. The loss of even a few thousand experienced personnel would devastate the All-Volunteer Force.

False “National Security” Argument for Gays in the Military 11/1/2009

CMR Releases New Policy Analysis The ongoing campaign for homosexuals in the military has repeatedly claimed that personnel losses due to homosexuality pose what some activists call a “threat to national security.” Under closer examination, the argument falls apart.

Newly released Defense Department figures documenting military discharges of homosexuals who are not eligible to be in the military, over the past five fiscal years, show the same pattern evident in the previous decade: Discharges due to homosexuality affect a minuscule number of troops, and represent less than one percent of personnel losses that occur for other legitimate reasons.

http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/DoDDischarges1.pdf

In the new report linked above, CMR has illustrated Defense Department numbers with graphs and tables that put this issue into perspective. According to numbers provided to the Congressional Research Service by the Defense Department, discharges due to homosexuality, averaged over the past five years, (2004-2008) accounted for only 0.32 percent of all losses; only 0.73 percent if departures due to retirement or completion of service are excluded. [1]

The Department of Defense first put the issue into perspective in 2005, when the Under Secretary for Personnel & Readiness provided figures on discharges for homosexuality, compared to losses in general, for the years 1994-2003. The average percentage of discharges due to homosexuality during those ten years, as calculated by the Department of Defense, was 0.37. [2]
In 2005 the Department of Defense also provided figures comparing discharges for six reasons, including homosexuality, for ten years, 1994-2003. The October 2009 CMR Policy Analysis highlights the same categories for all fifteen fiscal years, 2004-2008, making it easy to see that proportionate losses for the six reasons noted have not changed significantly.

[1] Obtained from the Department of Defense by House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee Ranking Member John Kline (R-MN).

[2] Letter from Dr. David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, Feb. 7, 2005, published in the GAO Report “Military Personnel Financial Cost and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DoD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot be Completely Estimated,” GAO-05-299, Feb. 2005, pp. 42-43.

AMA ignores health facts in homosexual advocacy
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 11/11/2009

A conservative military watchdog says the American Medical Association (AMA) apparently doesn't know the facts about the 1993 law passed by Congress that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military.

On Tuesday the homosexual activist group Servicemembers United hailed a recent decision by the AMA to pass a resolution calling for the repeal of the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy. "This is yet another nail in the coffin of the flawed and outdated [policy], and it should send a strong message to those who continue to blindly claim that this policy works," states a Servicemembers United press release.

The AMA -- which, according to Servicemembers United, worked "exclusively" with them on the resolution for nearly six months -- cited concerns that military medical providers might divulge personal information about patients to their commanders, thus exposing a service member's homosexuality and resulting in their discharge.

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says the AMA's confidentiality concerns have nothing to do with the actual 1993 law, which says homosexuals are not eligible to be in the armed forces even if they do not reveal it.

Elaine Donnelly"The first thing that they ought to have done is read the actual statute," she suggests, "and then maybe they would have figured out what their position should be. The second mistake they made was they consulted only with the advocates of gays in the military. It would have made a lot more sense to get balanced information."

And according to Donnelly, there is another reason why the AMA's support for homosexuals in the military is misguided.

"An organization that concerns itself with health matters should know that introducing into the military people who are at high risk of HIV infection makes no sense," she asserts. "For the AMA to ignore all that and listen only to an advocacy group that's looking at only part of the story really reflects very poorly on the credibility of that organization."

Donnelly says ultimately it will be up to Congress, not the AMA, to decide whether to lift the ban on homosexual military service -- and she believes Congress will not do it.

Home of the Free Because of the Brave www.frc.org

It began on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, in 1918. That's when "the war to end all wars" ended. The Armistice that ended World War I found a million American soldiers in France. In a short, sharp six months of combat in the trenches, the U.S. suffered more than 50,000 combat deaths.

But the dread Spanish influenza epidemic then raging through the battlefields would claim more than that many young lives. Armistice Day was celebrated with wild enthusiasm here in the U.S and throughout the exhausted victorious nations that had fought from 1914 to 1918 "to make the world safe for democracy." For more than thirty years, the annual observances included work stoppages, prayers, and trains halting to honor those who had sacrificed so much. Only in 1954, after an even more terrible world war and a bloody stalemate in Korea, did Congress designate November 11th as Veterans Day, a day to honor all those who served in our armed forces.

Today, many of our young volunteers--soldiers and Marines, airmen, sailors, and Coast Guardsmen--are serving five and six tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. We rely on them for our liberties. We believe America is the home of the free because of the brave. In World War II, one in every eleven Americans was in uniform. Today, that number is barely one in two hundred.

Increasingly, the burden of national defense is borne by fewer and fewer. Members of Congress are increasingly out of touch with our defenders.

With fewer Members having served in the military, fewer of our nation's decision-makers understand the unique problems faced by military families. One thing is always vital: Our troops must know we care about them. They must feel our concern. That is why today is a day not only to honor them with our words, but to lift them up with our prayers. God is not unmindful of those who bear arms in a righteous cause. For hundreds of years, U.S. military chaplains have ministered to those who have borne the battle on our behalf.
I especially want to thank those Christian chaplains who bring God's Word to those who are far from home, fighting in hostile lands, facing demonic forces. If ever the need for Christian chaplains to do their life-saving work was clear, it is now. We must reject all those who would quench the flame of faith in our ranks. We must never forget that "unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain." Denying our God can never keep us free. God bless our troops.

Which Vets Do the Democrats Care about?

While H.R. 3962 does very little to nothing to help out the failing health care system for our nation's veterans, it does however, seek to give benefits to veterinarians at the cost of American taxpayers. Sections 765 and 340m allow veterinary students eligible for $283 million federal grant funding, including scholarships and loan forgiveness.

Suicidal Political Correctness
Date: 11/12/2009 www.afa.net by David Limbaugh

Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can't criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities' first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter -- Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- rather than to protect our soldiers.

The military is the last place we should expect political correctness to flourish. We recognize, after all, that our armed forces exist primarily to safeguard our national security, not as a laboratory for social experimentation. Or do we?

Forget "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now. I'm referring to the reaction of the Army's top brass to the Fort Hood slaughter in the news conference and television interviews following the shooting.

The first question to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey (and Army Secretary John McHugh) was whether he believed "this was a wake-up call to the nation that the Army is simply too small to carry out the tasks that it's been given." "You've been having suicide rates that are off the charts," the reporter went on. "Your soldiers are under great stress from multiple deployments."

Our military manpower is a legitimate concern, but I think it would be more appropriate for this type of question to come up in the context of whether we have the troops necessary to perform our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, it surfaced in relation to whether an overly stretched Army might have contributed to causing this mass murder.

Instead of telling the questioner it's far-fetched, if not outright absurd, to suggest that a soldier committed multiple homicides because he was stressed from an overstretched Army, Gen. Casey dignified the question by responding that our Army has 70,000 more soldiers than it did five years ago and beaming about the Army's new "comprehensive soldier fitness" program, which helps soldiers build resilience and strength to deal with adversity.

A follow-up question was even worse. "Sir, some other counselors are saying this is just the tip of the iceberg. Suicide rates are now higher this year than they were last year. How concerned are you about this danger to recruits?"

Notice that the questioner's concern wasn't over the danger to soldiers of suicide murderers, but of suicide -- that is, what danger soldiers are to themselves as a result of military stress.

What are these people smoking? How lopsided has our thinking become that we view this murder through the prism of the shooter's stress and victimhood rather than focus on how to prevent such murders in the future? Besides, the shooter didn't commit suicide here.

Again, this kind of thinking isn't limited to the liberal press. Neither Secretary McHugh nor Gen. Casey challenged the questioner's implication or emphasis; they eagerly described the Army's "groundbreaking program ... to try to understand the dynamics and the forces behind suicides, particularly in the military."

Nor was their response merely a defensive reflex to a misguided question. Casey volunteered similar boasts about the Army's "huge" mental fitness efforts in his interview with CNN's John Roberts.

Casey -- in this interview and others, on ABC and NBC -- also expressed his concern about a "potential backlash" to Muslim soldiers. On NBC's "Meet the Press," he told host David Gregory, "Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

I'm not sure I believe Casey is more concerned about the ethnic or religious composition of our armed forces or overblown threats to it than the actual murder of its innocent soldiers. I doubt he would express similar concerns in private, but I would be more concerned about the state of our officer corps if he did than if he didn't.

Does anyone really think we're going to discriminate against or expel Muslims from the service as a result of these murders? On the other hand, doesn't the safety of innocent soldiers and our national defense demand that we get to the bottom of why such an obviously radical Islamist was not purged from our ranks and whether inflated diversity concerns handcuffed us and, at least indirectly, led to these murders?

You've surely already heard about the shooter's radicalism, his ties to al-Qaida, his statement that infidels should have their throats cut and boiling oil poured down their throats, his profession as a "Muslim first and American second," his anti-American rants, his harassment of fellow doctors about religion, and our government's paralytic inaction despite awareness of all these things and more.

We're heading the way of Europe in not only our adoption of socialism and smothering of liberty but also our suicidal abandonment of national security. We will survive as a nation only if we radically reverse these trends.

RAND Lends Brand to Palm Center Polemic
11/12/2009 www.cmrlink.org
In-Kind Contribution to Gays-in-Military Campaign?

On November 10 the Boston Globe reported that “RAND and the University of Florida” had produced new research that would help the Obama Administration to repeal the 1993 law regarding gays in the military, mislabeled (as always) “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Globe hailed the report as something new and credible. In fact, it is neither.

As stated in a November 9 RAND news release, the 23-page report was the result of a “contract” between the Michael D. Palm Center, a University of California-based activist group, and the two authors, Laura Miller, Ph.D., of RAND and Bonnie Moradi, Ph.D., of the University of Florida. A corporate spokeswoman has confirmed that the Miller/Moradi/Palm paper, pretentiously titled Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members, was not a RAND study.

The paper in question actually is a substandard re-interpretation of the thoroughly-spun Zogby Poll sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center in 2006. The "new" paper, which was commissioned by the Palm Center, amounts to a re-reading of four year-old tea leaves that also were paid for by the Palm Center.
Perhaps RAND trusted that no one would inspect the document too closely, or notice that it provides over-interpreted conclusions based on a small survey sample gathered by questionable, non-random methodology that was paid for by a gay activist group.

CMR analyzed an earlier version of the report that the Palm Center had posted on their own website months ago, and found only a few minor changes and page differences in the paper just announced and published by the Armed Forces & Society Journal. The paper is dense with academic jargon and social science formulas, but it does not meet objective standards that research firms usually to non-social issues.

1. The published paper focuses almost entirely on the four year-old Zogby Poll, which used a methodology described as follows: “Zogby International conducted interviews of 545 US Military Personnel online from a purchased list of US Military personnel.” (sic)

* This 545-person sample, and the report describing it, are not as credible as they sound. Due to security requirements heightened since 9/11, the U.S. military does not sell or provide access to personnel lists to civilian pollsters or anyone else. The Miller/Moradi/Palm report, to its credit, included this honest comment: “Initial attempts to secure a list of military personnel from the Department of Defense in order to draw a random sample for this survey were unsuccessful.”

* The Zogby/Palm Poll further weakened its own credibility by claiming, “The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles.” An objective reviewer would ask, if a “million-man” polling sample existed, why did it locate only 545 respondents?

* As noted by Miller and Moradi, the Zogby/Palm Poll’s description of methodology referred to a “double opt-in format through an invitation only method.” The obfuscation was no substitute for the plain and conspicuously-missing word random. Respondents, apparently, self-selected themselves to answer a survey on gays in the military, which might have led to a disproportionately large sample of gay or liberal participants. Even the Miller/Moradi/Palm report acknowledged on page 6 that the Zogby/Palm Poll and other studies shared “the limitation of being unable to distinguish responses by sexual orientation, as asking for sexual orientation disclosure on a survey would pose a substantial risk to participants under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ “

2. The news release announcing the Miller/Moradi/Palm paper noted that further research is needed to investigate the general pattern that high-grade enlisted personnel and officers were more supportive of the ban than low- and mid-grade enlisted personnel, in order to find out why “Those who reported prior training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment also were more favorable of the ban than those who had not had the training.”

* The paper offered speculation on reasons for this resistance on page 6: “One possibility worth exploring is whether the content of antigay harassment training teaches or reinforces the premise of DADT, that is, the presumption that open gay and lesbian service members are harmful to the military.”

* Objectivity and logic would suggest a different interpretation: Higher-ranking people understand the problems associated with gays in the military better than junior personnel, and heterosexuals who are annoyed by pro-gay “diversity” training don’t want to put up with more of it.

3. In 2007 CMR published an analysis of the 2006 Zogby Poll that remains valid today. It noted that the key question asked by Zogby was omitted in the news release that made national news at the time: “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?”

* On that question, 26% of those surveyed “Agreed,” but 37% “Disagreed.” The Zogby Poll also found that 32% of respondents were “Neutral” and only 5% were “Not sure.”

* If this poll were considered representative of military personnel, the 26% of respondents who wanted the law repealed were far fewer than the combined 69% of people who were opposed to or neutral on repeal. This minority opinion was hardly a mandate for radical change, but the poll is still being trumpeted as if it were.

4. To its credit, the Miller/Moradi/Palm paper mentions this key question on page 6. The report must be faulted, however, for omitting comment on four annual Military Times Polls, all of which indicated that 58% percent of the active-duty subscriber/respondents supported current law.

* A new “Table 1” lists the numeric findings of one of the Military Times Polls, done in 2007, but not the one done in 2008, which was even more emphatic than the three previous surveys. In 2008 10% percent of respondents indicated that they would not re-enlist if the law (called DADT) were repealed, and an additional 14% said that they would consider ending their careers.

* Findings such as this were simply omitted, perhaps because they did not fit the “support for DADT is dropping” theme and template of the Miller/Moradi/Palm report.

It is not clear why the RAND Corporation would lend its resources to this project, which unquestioning media presented and reported as if it had the full weight and credibility of an actual RAND report.

Whether intended or not, the public relations assistance appears to be an in-kind contribution to the Palm Center, calling into question the objectivity of anything that RAND produces on this subject. (In 2007 RAND produced a contrived and inaccurate Rubber Stamp Report condoning Army policies regarding women in combat that violate policy and law.)

The Palm Center has a pretty slick PR operation going for them, but they have failed to make a convincing case for repealing the 1993 Eligibility Law.

Rep. Barney Frank: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to Be Repealed

By James Tillman WASHINGTON, DC, November 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank said on Wednesday that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), the current military policy handling homosexuals in the armed forces, is likely to be repealed in the next year's Department of Defense authorization bill, according to The Advocate.

DADT, an administrative policy initiated in 1993 by President Clinton, permits homosexuals to serve in the military if they keep their homosexual behavior and attractions secret, and ensures that military recruits will not be asked if they are homosexual. Nevertheless, the service of homosexuals in the military remains explicitly prohibited by law, despite the DADT policy.

The legal ban has long been a target for homosexualist advocates, even while others have criticized the administrative policy as misleading or excessively permissive.

Frank said that he has been in communication with the White House, Nancy Pelosi, and other congressional leaders. He said that the White House was committed to repealing the measure, mentioning as an anecdote that the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had switched from speaking about 'if' DADT would be repealed to speaking about 'when' DADT would be repealed. "That's because Rahm called him up," Frank continued. "The White House has been consistently committed."

Such action would fulfill President Obama's recent promises delivered in a speech to the homosexualist Human Rights Campaign. "We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford -- for our military's integrity -- to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie," the President said. "So I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy."

Frank's remarks, however, are some of the first that indicate the timing and the method whereby the White House would attempt to lift ban on homosexuals in the military. President Obama has been harshly criticized by homosexual advocates for failing to act quickly enough to lift the ban.

Adding their voice to those crying for the ban's repeal, the American Medical Association also voted on Tuesday to oppose the DADT policy, contending that such a policy harms homosexuals by keeping them from being honest with their doctors.

Not all of those lobbying the White House are attempting to lift the ban, however; much evidence suggests that members of the armed forces largely wish to retain it.

An open letter recently signed by more than one-thousand military flag and general officers urges President Obama to retain the current law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military, saying that changing it "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."

Such arguments have been echoed by other members of the military.

"The presence of openly gay men ... would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and morale," according to Sergeant Major Brian Jones, Ret., in testimony before Congress in 2008 regarding the repeal of the ban.

"I find it surprising that we are here today to talk about this issue of repealing the 1993 law," he said. "Our Soldiers are over-tasked with deploying, fighting, redeploying, refitting, and deploying again. ... With all of the important issues that require attention, it is difficult to understand why a minority faction is demanding that their concerns be given priority over more important issues."

Despite such objections, the Defense Department reauthorization bill could be voted on next year and take effect by October 1, 2010, according to Frank. He also said than an executive order could prevent homosexuals from being discharged from the military even before then.

"Once the bill is passed, even if it hasn't yet taken effect at that point, the president could justify a stop-loss order because it would no longer be the law -- it's just a matter of time," Frank said.


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Obama Criticizes People with "Old Attitudes" in Keynote Speech at Homosexualist Dinner
Obama to Allow Open Homosexuals in Military
Former President Clinton Calls for Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

*Ohso Note - Matthews is an old tv media whore who publicly admits that the ObamAcorn makes him tingle. West Point is the site where Benedict Arnold wanted to sell out the American Revolution - and now the Academy that trains Army Officers. So in a strange way things have come full circle in the Abomination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Chris Matthews Calls West Point 'Enemy Camp'
12/1/2009 Elijah Friedeman, the Millennial Perspective

Chris Matthews referred to West Point tonight as "the enemy camp."

Matthews: "I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case.
I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."

If the president did see skepticism from the crowd as Matthews suggests, could it be because Obama waited months before making a decision on Afghanistan? Could it be because these cadets at West Point realize what the president does not: American soldiers are dying over there while politics take center stage over here?
Or maybe Matthews thought they were skeptical because the cadets didn't experience any tingling legs.

Whatever the case, Matthews' comments are absolutely inexcusable.

Activist Groups Dissemble on Mislabeled "RAND Report"
Center for Military Readiness 12/1/09

On November 9 the Boston Globe and other major media misrepresented a private paper commissioned by the gay-activist Michael D. Palm Center as if it were a genuine research report of the RAND Corporation. This was not a RAND study; it was done by a RAND employee on her own time, together with an academic associate. The authors were Laura Miller, Ph.D., who is employed as a researcher at RAND, and Bonnie Moradi, Ph.D. of the University of Florida.

As noted in RAND's November 9 news release, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, commissioned the paper, which "was the product of a contract directly with the researchers and not through RAND." Survey results used for the study were from a four-year-old 2006 Zogby International Poll that also was commissioned by the Palm Center, a gay activist group formerly known as the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military." It remains unclear what the Palm Center's involvement, described as a "contract," was.

The Palm Center and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) nevertheless misdescribed the Miller/Moradi paper as a RAND report: -Statement on Rep. Frank's Remarks to The Advocate on 2010 Repeal

Both organizations exaggerated "findings" that CMR analyzed in this article: -RAND Lends Brand to Palm Center Polemic

CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears asked questions of the RAND Media Relations department, which tried to correct the situation. On RAND's request, the Palm Center changed the headline on their article promoting the Miller/Moradi paper slightly. But in an interview with National Public Radio in Connecticut, Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center misrepresented the paper as "a new RAND Report."

RAND also contacted the SLDN, which replaced their original characterization of the Miller/Moradi paper as "a new survey by the RAND Corp." with a revision that remains misleading. The SLDN now describes the paper as "a new study by researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida and commissioned by the Palm Center."

This version still dissembles. Using the plural word "researchers" suggests a typical RAND team "study" rather than what the Miller/Moradi paper really is. The document was written by a single RAND employee, working without compensation on her own time, together with an associate at the University of Florida, reinterpreting four-year-old (not "new") information from a Zogby Poll paid for by the Palm Center.

Understanding that RAND was not professionally "commissioned" and their employee was not compensated, the SLDN's new iteration obfuscates nearly as much as before. The extent and nature of the Palm Center's involvement still is not clear. And as of this posting, the SLDN continues to refer to a non-existent "RAND study" in their website article linked above.

RAND is very careful about the use of its copyright and logo, and rightly so. Certainly the corporation does not want its name and reputation to be "borrowed" and misused to exaggerate the credibility of a private paper done for an outside activist group---especially one that is likely to misrepresent the document in congressional testimony and other public statements.
Regardless of intent, the Palm Center benefited greatly from the RAND news release, which helped them to promote their cause under false pretenses.

This episode in the ongoing Gays in the Military Campaign, known as the GIMC, goes beyond public relations, or PR. When ideologues fabricate information to change public attitudes toward an issue, the proper term is "perception management," or PM, for short.

Palm Center/SLDN Polemics continue to undermine the credibility of homosexualist groups that demand government power to impose their gay agenda on the military.

This is not the first time that the Palm Center has misrepresented "research" that cannot withstand close scrutiny. PM tactics such as this will not be enough to persuade Congress to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.

'Honest and Open' act a misnomer
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 12/4/2009

A conservative military watchdog says legislation being introduced by a Florida congressman is an attempt to incrementally repeal the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service.

Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) has introduced what he calls the "Honest and Open Testimony Act," which would allow homosexual and transgender members of the military to openly testify in congressional hearings without fear of retribution. Under the 1993 law passed by Congress, such individuals are not eligible for military service in the first place -- but due to Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" directive, they are able to serve as long as they do not reveal their sexual orientation.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, has a problem with the name assigned to Hastings' bill.

"First of all the name is downright Orwellian. This bill would mandate a way to manipulate hearings on gays in the military that would be anything but 'honest and open,'" she argues.

"It's an attempt to repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military incrementally. You create an exception for hearings for homosexuals in the military to come forward and declare themselves to be gay, and therefore not eligible to be in the service.

If you say, 'Well, the military must retain them anyway,' you have pretty well repealed the actual law."

Donnelly points out that Hastings is not even a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which means he has no knowledge of the issue that should be taken seriously. She further believes those serving on that committee will take a dim view of Hastings' proposal.

The enemy that will defeat us
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 12/8/2009

For the first time since September 11, 2001, I find myself seriously questioning whether or not the United States is capable of winning the War on Terror. And it's not because of my lack of faith in our supremely naïve Commander-in-Chief. Though his discomfort in even identifying our enemy and his indecision in how best to pursue them is cause for great concern, my questions are motivated by something much deeper and much more sinister.

America's moral confusion has now reached the point where it has become routine for us to treat the good guys as the bad guys, and vice versa. The most recent example of this tragic reality came with the news that three U.S. Navy SEALs will face court-martials for the mistreatment of an enemy terrorist they captured. In 2004, Ahmed Hashim Abed masterminded a successful plot to ambush, murder, mutilate and burn the bodies of four American security agents. Abed's ruthless cohorts then hung the charred remains of these Americans from a bridge in Fallujah to allow the world press to photograph and publicize.

Abed came into U.S. custody when a team of the Navy's elite commando squad captured him just recently. But Abed is a trained al-Qaeda fighter and knows all to well the Achilles heal of the mightiest military force the world has ever known: political correctness. After being taken into custody, Abed cried that he had been punched by his American captors, resulting in a bloody lip.

In a sane culture, this plea would have elicited uproarious laughter at Abed's plight. This is a man who has excelled at sawing innocent people's heads off, and he is complaining about a bloody lip?! These SEALs should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for demonstrating the remarkable restraint to only punch this murderous savage. But we don't live in a sane culture, and consequently Navy SEALs Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe, and Julio Huertas are now facing court-martial trials for prisoner abuse that could unbelievably end their military career in shame.

The real shame rests with a society that allows such a backwards travesty to occur.

But it's not the first time. Following an intense firefight in Haditha, Iraq, in November of 2005, eight U.S. Marines were charged with the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians. While the liberal "tolerance" police evidently want us to avoid rushing to judgment when a Muslim radical murders 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, they aren't that interested in waiting for due process when it comes to charges brought against our own troops.

Keith Olbermann called the Haditha incident, "willful targeted brutality." The liberal rag The Nation reported that there was enough evidence to prove the Marines had committed a "massacre." The New York Times called it the "nightmare defining atrocity" of the Iraq war.

But worst of all, Democrat Representative John Murtha (a former Marine himself) stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and, taking the word of our enemy over the word of our soldiers, slandered those Marines by stating, "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

As it turns out, these liberal loudmouths were dead wrong. Charges have been completely dropped against seven of the eight Marines, and the one who still faces trial is being charged with not properly investigating the incident. In other words, there was no massacre. Our soldiers acted properly and responsibly, which is far more than can be said for these left-wing elitists here at home.

To this point, neither Olbermann, The Nation, the New York Times, nor Rep. John Murtha have uttered one word of apology for acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury in their false condemnation of our soldiers. And stunningly, Congressional Democrats are so void of any conscience and integrity, Murtha still maintains his position of leadership within their party. It's an embarrassment to Democrats, but also to the country at large.

Which brings me to my larger point. There's a reason that confiscated al-Qaeda training manuals show that the first lesson they teach their converts is this: when captured by the Americans, immediately allege abuse.
And why? Because it works. Just ask the three Navy SEALs, the eight Marines, and countless other brave defenders of freedom who are falling victim to this culture's viral stupidity born out of backwards, politically correct liberalism.

And if Americans of both parties don't speak up to stop it, that is the one force on earth that I am sure will defeat us.



Peter Heck (peter@peterheck.com) hosts a two-hour, daily call-in radio program on WIOU (1350 AM) in Kokomo, Indiana. "The Peter Heck Show" comments on social and political issues -- and doesn't shy away from recognizing how faith influences politics. This column is printed with permission.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

There is obviously a huge back story to this that the old media of the Abomination is sitting on to make it go away...

- but then Misandrists are desperate to cover up the entire issue of using pregnancy to escape hardship / dangerous duty - and then after being transferred to a nice 'welfare state' base in the rear, using an abortion to terminate the formerly blessed event...

And of course - bacause it involves the 'right to choose' (to kill civilian babies) it is all 'confidential', unlike a male soldier shooting himself in the foot to avoid duty, which is still punishable.

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

Military to scrap pregnancy punishment

Thu Dec 24, BAGHDAD (Reuters) – The U.S. military in Iraq will scrap a policy early next year that has led to the punishment of some soldiers serving in Iraq for becoming pregnan...
General Ray Odierno said the new, Iraq-wide guidelines would take effect beginning January 1, lifting rules enacted by the U.S. commander in northern Iraq, who reports to Odierno, that laid out possible punishments for pregnancy among his soldiers.

The policy had been criticized by some women's advocates and on Tuesday four U.S. senators wrote to the secretary of the U.S. Army asking that it be rescinded....

Major General Tony Cucolo, in charge of 22,000 U.S. troops in northern Iraq, has defended his policy, saying that he could not afford to lose soldiers to pregnancy while the U.S. military draws down its soldiers from Iraq...