2 Fer Percy - Ad Astera & Enjoy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority landing because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked."

Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that he was number two behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.

"Ah," the pilot remarked, "the dreaded seven-engine approach."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An officer in the U.S. Naval reserve was attending a conference that included admirals from both the U.S. Navy and the French Navy. At a cocktail reception, he found himself in a small group that included personnel from both navies.

The French admiral started complaining that whereas Europeans learned many languages, Americans learned only English. He then asked, "Why is it that we have to speak English in these conferences rather than you speak French?

The American admiral replied, "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you would not have to speak German."

On Military Repeal, Obama Soldiers on (frc.org)

The President's health care plan may be bottled up in Congress, but 16 blocks away, this White House isn't twiddling its thumbs. On the contrary, it's plotting the next wave of unpopular policies--including a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Sources say that the President is working on his New Year resolutions, and one of them is making good on a promise to inject some political correctness into the ranks of the U.S. military. (Funny, isn't it, how the White House hasn't tried to keep its word on anything but a wildly controversial issue like this one?)

Here our servicemen are sacrificing their lives to wipe out global terrorism, and their commander-in-chief's biggest worry is throwing a coming out party for gays and lesbians.

The top brass in Iraq and Afghanistan are juggling two wars with limited troops and sup plies, and Washington is focused on social engineering. As Carl Mundy, former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, argued in the Washington Times this week, "There is no Constitutional right to serve in the armed forces... The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat." And that combat doesn't include a battle for special rights.

Right now, Democrats have their sights set on the Defense Authorization legislation set to surface sometime this spring. Their most obvious strategy is finding a way to attach it to that must-pass bill. It's a cowardly approach for liberals but an effective one. As for the Armed Services Committee, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) insists it won't be a factor.

"People should not be worried about whether it's done in committee or not. That is a procedural detail that will have no effect on the final outcome... In fact, my recommendation would be if there's any difficulty, not to waste efforts trying to get it in committee, but to add it as an amendment on the floor."

Once again, these leaders are showing their incredible disregard for the policy process--a pattern that started with the President himself.

This administration is so beholden to the homosexual agenda that it permeates everything they do--from granting special recognition to homosexual partners in the health care legislation to political appointee David Hansell, a high ranking official for the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services (HHS) who is holding a series of meetings aimed at forcing Florida to lift their ban on same-sex adoption.

Hansell is even lobbying to cut HHS's financial assistance for all Florida adoptions if the state doesn't change its policy.

The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) has repeatedly analyzed in well-documented detail how the new LGBT Law would work in actual practice. To make the information more manageable, we have drawn a “picture” in our newest CMR Policy Analysis, titled:

Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military
The CMR Policy Analysis uses few words, but every “box” placed on the charts highlights complicated social realities and problems that, taken together, would impose a crushing weight on the men and women of our military.š Even a quick review of the flow chart diagrams will impress on you just how radical and problematic mandatory implementation the new LGBT Law would be.š

As we have been predicting for months, the battle to defend the culture of the military is about to reach a critical point....

The White House and Congress

On January 13, an excellent op-ed by former Marine Corps Commandant General Carl E. Mundy, Jr. was published in the Commentary section of the Washington Times.š General Mundy’s column stresses the 15 “findings” in the 1993 Eligibility Law, which are still valid today:

Maintain Military Gay Ban

It appears that the efforts of Gen. Mundy andš more than 1,160 other Flag & General Officers for the Military─some of whom were in command or significant positions in wars as recent as Iraq and Afghanistan─are having a positive effect on the Pentagon.š The AP and the Washington Post reported on January 13 that Department of Defense lawyers are having second thoughts about the wisdom of repealing the 1993 law this year:

Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban

The AP article said that the DoD lawyers who disagreed on repeal of DADT will be meeting with Adm. Mullen again in the next few days, and reported for the first time that House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) opposes repeal of the 1993 law.š The Hill reported additional details on January 15:

Skelton Opposes Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Stars & Stripes reported that despite the Pentagon’s reluctance to come up with a “plan” to implement the new LGBT Law for the Military, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) says he plans to go ahead with hearings before the end of January. The only people mentioned in the article as witnesses are Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen—a panel that would effectively exclude military officials who strongly support the law:

Senate to Hold ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Hearings in Late January

Such a plan would implement a high-handed Palm Center proposal to keep military officials from “forming alliances” with congressional supporters on the 1993 law, which CMR previously exposed in the American Thinker:

Roadmap for Railroading the Military

The news that DoD lawyers are advising delay on action to repeal the 1993 Eligibility Law is a sign of disarray on the opposition’s side, but this story is far from over. If the Senate is going to have hearings with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen in January, but they are not going to propose repeal this year, what do they plan to discuss?š According to the liberal website Huffington Post, congressional advocates will propose repeal this year, and even if the Administration does not push for it, the liberal Democratic Congressional leadership could write the legislation into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) anyway:

DADT Repeal: Dems Move Forward with Plans

Meanwhile, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) and 30 co-sponsors are proposing legislation to create an unjustified exemption from current law for military homosexuals who testify at hearings:

Dems Want Temporary ‘Don’t Ask’ Immunity

In this article, CMR explains why Hastings’ high-handed idea would be an unjustified circumvention of current law:

Hastings Bill Would Override Gays-in-Military Law

Trial Balloon Targets:

1) The AP reported that SASC Chairman Levin has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to “task” the RAND Corporation to update the report on this subject that they did in 1993.š This proposal is irresponsible for several reasons:

Retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, now a Fox News contributor, completely discredited the 1993 RAND report at that time it was released because it was a typically biased, pre-determined pro-gays-in-the-military paper. Updating that polemic would be tantamount to bestowing defense dollars directly on gay activist groups, including the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center.

RAND demonstrated its liberal bias as recently as November 2009, when it made a significant “in-kind” contribution to the cause by issuing a news release promoting a paper that the Palm Center had solicited from RAND employee Dr. Laura Miller. As we reported in the CMR SITREP, the news release noted that it was not an official RAND report, much less an objective “study,” but the Boston Globe and other major newspapers publicized it as if it were.

2) Another very speculative idea heard through the grapevine suggests that legislation to repeal the 1993 law might postpone its effective date for a few years, going into effect whenever the troops come home from the war or the Secretary of Defense determines that it is “safe” to impose the LGBT Left agenda on our military men and women.

This would be another cynical attempt to circumvent and incrementally repeal current law by refusing to enforce it.š Such a plan would require the troops to be part of a social experiment in the midst of a war, while blurring responsibility for that action and postponing accountability until after the 2010 and 2012 elections.

The Flag & General Officers for the Military statement opposes “any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.” The delayed-effective-date ploy certainly would be as bad, and perhaps worse, than repealing the law with immediate effect. There is no “good time” to weaken the culture of the military, and no one should fall into the trap of arguing that repeal safely can come later.

3) The new Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, thoughtlessly suggested a completely unworkable way to manage results, not “if” the law is repealed, but “when” it is. Speaking in an interview on multiple topics with Army Times, McHugh suggested that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units, but barred from others.

Secretary McHugh’s absurd comment demonstrates Mr. Magoo-like short-sightedness. It also calls into question the judgment of Mr. McHugh, who previously served as Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee.š Secretary McHugh (or unnamed others he was quoting) apparently has not thought of the reaction if gays in the military are not eligible for deployment in close combat units, Special Operations Forces, SEALS, and submarines, in the same way that HIV+ troops must be retained but cannot be deployed in any unit overseas.

This tentative plan, a recipe for constant chaos and demoralizing resentment in the ranks, contradicts claims that the new LGBT Law will “enhance readiness” in the military.

For more information that discredits every flawed argument that has been made for passage of the proposed LGBT Law, please review our website cmrlink.org.

« « « «

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent, non-partisan 501(c)(3) public policy organization that specializes in military social issues.

Of course, it goes without saying that Zogby, like any other organization that does not show homosexuals in the worst possible light, must be lying or manipulating data in favor of the "Radical Homosex conspiracy."

Misandry, the hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality is such a mainstay of our bought and paid for 'free press' that it pervades their 'reporting' like fluoride in the water.

If there were some propaganda points to be made bashing Men, then the story would have broken down the numbers by genders. As it is, Pregnancy is simply included in the list of various problems, when it is not a problem but a result of a choice.

Of course very few Male Soldiers become pregnant, so there is obviously an incentive to bury the statistic (which got a General in Iraq in trouble for trying to do something about, immediately reversed by the ObamAcorns in DC) inside talk of other 'injuries' happening mostly to Male Troops.

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

Combat wounds not the leading cause of evacuations

By MARIA CHENG AP Medical Writer 01/21/2010

LONDON—American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were more likely to be medically evacuated for health problems such as a bad back than for combat injuries, a new study says... The research was published Friday in the British medical journal, Lancet...

In previous wars, including World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, combat injuries also were not the top cause of soldier hospitalizations; illnesses such as respiratory and infectious diseases were.

Twenty-four percent of the evacuations from Afghanistan and Iraq in 2004 to 2007 were due to muscular problems such as back pain, tendinitis, and repetitive stress injuries.

Combat wounds came in second at about 14 percent.

That was followed by neurological disorders (10 percent), psychiatric disorders (9 percent) and spinal pain (7 percent).
The remaining 36 percent of the medically evacuated service members fell into many separate categories, including gastrointestinal problems, infectious or respiratory diseases, chest or abdominal pain, congenital anomalies, benign tumors, pregnancy, and hormonal disorders.

Cohen said chronic pain was almost unavoidable for active troops.
"It's the nature of being a soldier," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If you're in an infantry unit for a year, you will have overuse injuries. Back pain is the rule, not the exception."

Experts said the large number of soldiers with chronic physical pain was likely masking an even bigger problem with psychiatric illnesses such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD.

Don'y know if this has been mentioned yet, but the Wiki article on conscription lists the countries that do and do not have conscription:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription

Note the number of westernised countries that now do not have it.

Although its only 2001 that France stopped it (I remember meeting a chap who was about to do it), and Norway, Finland and Switzerland still do.

See also the section on sexism:

Walking the Plank for Military “LGBT Law” (Center for Military Readiness cmrlink.org)

President Barack Obama is expected to push for acceptance of professed gays in the military, a goal that can only be achieved legally by passage of a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. In response, the Center for Military Readiness predicted that the effort would fail for three basic reasons:

* Members of Congress are becoming aware that repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in our military. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10), and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”

* A decision by the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath of office by suspending enforcement of the law would alienate members of Congress and break faith with the troops he leads.

* Political dynamics of the issue could develop in ways similar to 1994, when Republicans regained majority control of Congress, and no GOP incumbents were defeated.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly noted that even if President Obama keeps pushing for a new LGBT Law for the military, some members of Congress may be more concerned about lessons learned in the recent Massachusetts special election, as well as in 1994. Said Donnelly, “Voters are concerned about national security, and they don’t want America’s military to be used for any purpose other than national defense.”

* In 1994, a survey done for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by Stanley Greenberg, President Clinton’s own pollster, indicated the second most important factor that shifted control of Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 mid-term election was President Bill Clinton’s 1993 push for gays in the military.

* That finding was reported by Dan Balz in a November 14, 1994, Washington Post article titled “Health Plan Was Albatross for Democrats: Big Government Label Hurt Party, Poll Finds.” Greenburg found that 54% of 1,250 voters surveyed named the Health Care Task Force issue as the number one reason they cast a “vote of dissatisfaction” in the leadership of Clinton and the Democrats controlling Congress in 1993. Greenberg also identified a second issue, called “cultural liberalism,” which was cited by 51% of respondents and symbolized by Bill Clinton’s failed 1993 campaign for homosexuals in the military.

* Greenberg’s survey was significant because gays-in-the-military was not even an issue in the 1994 elections. Congress had already settled the issue in 1993, and bipartisan veto-proof majorities had approved current law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. The voters punished Democrats anyway, due to a lingering impression of what Greenberg called “cultural liberalism.” Those concerns could emerge again if President Obama and LGBT Left liberals in Congress insist on votes for gays in the military.

In 2010, the Massachusetts special election detected public opposition to similar issues involving what is usually called “political correctness in the military.” In an article titled “It’s the Enemy, Stupid,” Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online quoted Senator-elect Scott Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign’s internal polling showed “terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants” to be an even bigger issue than health care.

Said Donnelly, “Liberals and Blue Dog Democrats can dismiss the national security message sent by Massachusetts, as well as Stanley Greenburg’s post-1994-election analysis, but they would do so with political risk.”

The Center for Military Readiness in an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.

MIlitary Unreadiness...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


www.cmrlink.org


As Center for Military Readiness has been predicting for months, the Senate Armed Services Committee has scheduled a hearing on the issue of gays in the military—mislabeled with the catch-phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” on Tuesday, February 2. The only witnesses will be Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

A high-stakes game, putting the culture of our military at risk, is now on. It is time for everyone to get on the field and to defend the interests of military men and women whose views will not be heard at this hearing.

Given the very public arm-twisting from President Barack Obama in his State of the Union Speech last week, we do not expect either witness to defend current law, Section 654, Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. They are duty bound, however, to provide honest answers if their personal opinions are asked.

It is possible that the witnesses will discuss various unworkable “plans” to implement repeal of the law incrementally—by suspending enforcement, which would be a violation of the president’s oath of office, or by delaying implementation until after the war, which would eviscerate current law and guarantee actual repeal on a delayed basis.

Suggestions that some units be open to professed (not discreet) homosexuals, but not others, are simply unworkable and unacceptable. Nor does it make sense to give tax dollars to the RAND Corporation for the production of yet another polemic advocating gays in the military.

I urge you to immediately get in touch with senators on the Armed Services Committee, and ask them to attend the hearing and support Ranking Member John McCain in asking specific questions of the witnesses. Names and contact numbers are (at CMRLink.org), and the main number of the U.S. Capitol, through which any senator or congressman can be reached, is 202/224-3121.

You can also help by forwarding this message to your contacts and/or organization members who are concerned about this issue. Please remind the senators that all statements and recommendations must center on the purpose of the current law: military effectiveness.

The proposed new LGBT Law should not be imposed on our military men and women due to predictable negative effects on recruiting, retention, and readiness—the 3 Rs that are essential to maintain a strong All-Volunteer Force. On Sunday’s ABC Good Morning America Col. David F. Bedey, USA (Ret.) made excellent points included in his article:

Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: A Clear and Present Danger

A Clear and Present Danger - Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’:
1/ 27/10 by Colonel David F. Bedey (US Army, ret.)

Long simmering on the White House’s back burner has been fulfillment of a key campaign promise: the repeal of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 (commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” or simply DADT), a 1993 law that effectively prohibits homosexuals from openly serving in the U.S. military. In a seemingly uncharacteristic display of restraint, the White House has resisted some of its most ardent supporters’ calls for immediate action on this front of the crusade to radically transform America.

It’s all a matter of timing.
Up to now, the White House has focused on an aggressive effort to socialize our economy through de facto nationalization of the auto industry, institution of an impoverishing cap-and-trade regime, massive expansion government through various “stimulus” and bailout programs, and most importantly, a takeover of the health care sector.

But one would be foolish to doubt Obama’s commitment to the gay/lesbian lobby.Once victorious in the economic realm, cultural projects like DADT would become the main effort.
Or at least, that was the plan. Then came Scott Brown’s capture of the Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy.
Facing the prospect of seeing much of their economic agenda derailed and his vision of healthcare “reform” thwarted, the White House is likely to determine that making immediate gains on the cultural front will be necessary.

It is true that the public’s tolerance – not to be confused with enthusiastic acceptance – of homosexuality has markedly increased over the past 17 years. And the electorate is preoccupied with rising unemployment, mounting national debt, and the looming threat of inflation. So in an application of Rahm Emmanuel’s infamous dictum, “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” the White House and its collaborators in Congress may well sense an opportunity to appease the gay/lesbian faction while the rest of the country is distracted.

So look for the move to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to gain steam.
But would allowing homosexuals openly to serve in the U.S. military be wise?
The following case for repealing DADT was helpfully posted on the White House’s website during the first couple of months in 2009:
President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Variations on this message continue to appear in op-eds and so-called “hard news” reports. Unfortunately, it displays both ignorance of the norms military service and a lack of attention to facts.

First of all, there exists no Constitutional right to serve in the military. The Services routinely (and in my judgment rightly) discriminate in order to preserve the effectiveness of the force. For example, most service members must retire in their forties or early fifties (age discrimination), and failure to meet body-fat standards is grounds for separation (weight discrimination).

Second, the claim that “300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic” relies upon a mendacious representation of data found in a 2005 GAO report that examines separations for homosexual conduct over the 10-year period 1994-2003.

Even a cursory reading of that report reveals that few, if any, of the 300-plus individuals could conceivably be deemed “experts” – many didn’t even complete their language training. And of the over 50 (actually 54) ostensibly fluent in Arabic, only 20 achieved any sort of proficiency at all and none of these scored high enough to be considered fluent in the language.

Finally, replacing soldiers separated for any reason is expensive. But the “millions” spent on replacing admitted homosexuals needs to be put in perspective: such dismissals account for less than one percent of all separations. And at any rate, the “millions” can be considered wasted only if the grounds for separation were not justified from a national security perspective.

The misinformation pervading the White House’s earlier-stated position on DADT obscures this central question: Would allowing homosexuals to openly serve compromise the effectiveness of our military? Addressing this question is a matter professional judgment.

On one side of the debate is John Shalikashvili, joined by around a hundred other retired flag officers. Gen. Shalikashvili asserts that the evidence supports repeal of DADT. This opinion is based upon experiences reported by foreign militaries and a rather sparse body of social science research. He closes his argument by claiming that those who support the current law are driven by “speculation or emotion,” rather than “let[ing] the evidence do the talking.”

What Gen. Shalikashvili doesn’t address is revealing. He fails to consider whether lessons learned by other militaries translate to the American case. And he fails to point out that the research he cites in support of his position was produced and/or funded by gay rights advocates. (For example, he insinuates that the well-respected Rand Corporation generated a paper, when in fact it was the product of the University of California Santa Barbara’s Palm Center, hardly a disinterested scholarly enterprise.)

Gen. Shalikashvili’s views ought not be taken lightly. But he is being disingenuous (or perhaps naïve) when he portrays the data supporting his judgment as being definitive. Furthermore, his insinuation that those who hold professional opinions contrary to his own are motivated by “speculation or emotion” – an accusation that he cannot possibly back up – is both cheap and insulting. The general would have enhanced his own credibility had he offered a more balanced assessment of this complicated issue.

Carl Mundy, a retired general and former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, recently set forth the case for leaving “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in place. Rather than offering pseudoscientific arguments, he approached the topic by revisiting the language of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 to see whether or not the principles set forth in 1993 remain relevant. He concluded that service by openly gay or lesbian people continues to pose a high risk to the effectiveness of our military.

Gen. Mundy’s opinion is shared by over 1,100 retired generals and admirals, who have gone on the record in support of the current law. Is their professional consensus to be considered mere “speculation”? Are we to believe that the judgment of this cohort of experienced and dedicated professionals is captive to “emotion” (i.e., they can be dismissed as a mob of homophobes)? No reasonable person could answer either question in the affirmative.

It is clear that, on balance, professional military experts judge the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be fraught with unacceptable risk to the effectiveness of the U.S. military. This alone should give lawmakers pause. But abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” poses another threat to our national security that has not been remarked upon.

To appreciate this threat, consider the following passage from 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654:
Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

The key point here is the existence of a military community. The effectiveness of our military is not simply a matter of unit cohesion (although that is important); it is also founded on the cohesion of the supporting military community, which extends to the families of service members. It is an undeniable fact – often bemoaned by the left – that military communities are bastions of traditional values. Among these values is belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage.

Should “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be repealed, it takes little imagination to perceive that the gay/lesbian lobby’s next demand would be for partner rights including access to on-base family housing. The aftermath of the passage of California’s Proposition 8 provides a glimpse at the turmoil that might be expected. This backdoor approach to federal recognition of gay marriage would roil military communities in a controversy that could not but degrade our overall military effectiveness.

Many, if not most, opponents of DADT care less about risking our national security than they do about advancing the homosexual cause. They have an ardent supporter in the White House, as indicated by this posting on the President’s current website:

[President Obama] believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Here we see yet another example of Obama making contradictory promises: supporting the homosexual agenda while strengthening our national security. From what we have seen since his inauguration, how do you think he is going to try to resolve this self-induced dilemma?

Serious consideration of the repeal of DADT leads to the inescapable conclusion that doing so would pose a significant risk to our national security.
The drive to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” constitutes a clear and present danger to our nation.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Colonel David Bedey (US Army, ret.) served more than 30 years on active duty with the Army before retiring in July 2008. A veteran of the Persian Gulf War, he served in combat engineer units around the world and spent the last 12 years of his military career on the senior faculty at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He now lives in Montana where he writes on cultural issues.

DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops (Center for Military Readiness - www.CMRLink.org)

In response to a plan that an AP report said would be presented before the Senate Armed Services Committee today by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not compromise principle by proposing an unworkable plan to undermine the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10). The testimony that Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to deliver suggests an irresponsible plan that would incrementally eviscerate the law by unilaterally suspending its enforcement for specious reasons.

“Such a plan would create an incentive for “third parties” to guarantee retention of gay partners in the military simply by identifying their partner as gay. Homosexuals would become a protected class under standards different from everyone else. This would constitute a clear violation of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, and establish a double standard that, in the name of ‘consistency,’ weakens discipline across the board.

“Finding #9 in the law could not be more clear: ‘The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.’ Finding #10 reads, ‘Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.’

Furthermore, Finding #13 clearly asserts: ‘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.” There is nothing in the actual law that authorizes the institutional dishonesty inherent in Secretary Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s reported plan to establish a double standard for homosexuals who are not eligible to serve in the military.”

Donnelly continued, “The Secretary of Defense does not get to choose which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not. Nor does he have the power to issue regulations that contradict the law, creating confusion and demoralizing the troops in order to help President Obama deliver on a political promise.”

“If the Defense Department excuses the behavior of personnel who show poor judgment by engaging in homosexual conduct revealed by others, there will be more misconduct, not less. This is a plan for officially condoned indiscipline, in violation of the clear language and intent of the law.”
Background:
This article provides background on the genesis of Secretary Gates peculiar comment about more “humane” ways to enforce the 1993 law:

Defining Discipline Down
The idea of finding a more “humane” way to enforce “DADT” began when Air Force Lt. Victor Fehrenbach was “outed” by a “third party,” who turned out to be a young man that Fehrenbach had solicited for sexual activity on a gay website. The two shared a hot tub, but the younger man accused Fehrenbach of sexual assault in a late-night call to the police. Fehrenbach cleared himself of the charge—the encounter was consensual—but the process revealed that he was a homosexual and therefore not eligible to be in the service. (Fehrenbach has allowed himself to be described as an F-15 pilot, but he is actually a weapons systems officer or WSO.)

Fehrenbach told only part of his story on national television, to the applause of gay activist groups pushing for repeal of the 1993 law. He was also a guest at the White House during President Obama’s June 2009 “LGBT Equality” month promoting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered cause. Although Secretary Gates did not mention Fehrenbach by name at the time he was in the news, the aviator’s carefully air-brushed personal story apparently led to the “more humane” comment from Gates.

Shortly thereafter, the Idaho Statesman published a detailed report that told the rest of the story. CMR requested a copy of the police report and quoted it in the article above.

In most cases, homosexuals reveal themselves to be gay, and they are honorably discharged. If credible information comes to the attention of military authorities, and there are no unusual circumstances that rebut the reasonable “presumption” of homosexual conduct, the person in question is subject to discharge, usually honorable. Anyone who engages in homosexual conduct is, by definition, not eligible to be in the armed forces.

President Obama is promoting a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and more than 180 others, H.R. 1283, would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” If passed, the law would be retroactive—allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged. The LGBT Law would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.

As stated in the statute itself, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.” Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.

There is no way that a Pentagon panel of any size can come up with a plan to make the LGBT agenda work with no negative effects on recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military. CMR has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be:

Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military

More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”

* * * * * * *
The Center for Military Readiness in an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.

On DADT, Obama Orders Military to Fall in (www.frc.org)

While the President plows ahead on his agenda with--or more likely without--the country's support, he could emerge from these fights with nothing more to show for it than the last Democratic President. But make no mistake. If he fails to persuade Congress to legislate his extremism, this President has other ways to achieve it.
Today's hearing in the Senate's Armed Service Committee is the perfect example. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, together with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is rolling out a "relaxed" standard on homosexuality in the military that would strip the law of its teeth while the President tries to overturn it.

To prepare for what they call the "eventuality" of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, the top brass has said it will dramatically shift the process of "outing" homosexual servicemen. For starters, the military would no longer investigate a soldier's sexuality based on a "third party" account. In other words, only "flagrant violators" would be ousted--dramatically cutting down on the number of dismissals. Also, generals and admirals will be the final authorities on which soldiers are discharged after years of processing those decisions in the lower ranks. In effect, the President is saying that he may not be able to overturn the law without Congress, but he can stop enforcing it.

Under this administration, the new policy seems to be ordering the military to disobey the rule of law--the very thing they've been sworn to protect. Richard Black (U.S. Army-Ret.), former chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division, explains why that's an irresponsible and potentially dangerous decision.

In today's Washington Times, Black paints a horrifying picture of life with homosexual soldiers that would only worsen once gays and lesbians are empowered to flaunt their sexuality. "...At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care...

Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army b ase to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window... At Marine Corps Base Quantico, a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training."

The other side drones on about "political correctness" but says nothing about the safety forfeited to achieve it. In just a few days, more than 30,000 of you have signed FRC Action's petition to Congress, urging members not to turn the military into a battleground for social engineering. Please join the fight by sending the link (at www.frc.org) to your family and friends!

Rabbis Warn against 'Disaster' of Open Homosexuality in the Military

NEW YORK, February 2, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America, has warned against the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning open homosexuals from military service.

"When Americans are suffering economically and millions need jobs, it's shocking that the Administration is focused on its ultra-liberal militantly homosexualist agenda forcing the highlighting of homosexuals and homosexuality on an unwilling military," said Levin in a statement Tuesday.

"This is the equivalent of the spiritual rape of our military to satisfy the most extreme and selfish cadre of President Obama's kooky coalition," said the rabbi.

He agreed with Eileen Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness in concluding that allowing open homosexuals in military service "will hurt the cohesiveness of the military, cause many to leave the army, and dramatically lower the number of recruits, perhaps leading to the reinstatement of a compulsory draft."

Opening the Flood, Gates (www.frc.org)

"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight." That's the best argument Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) could come up with for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during yesterday's Senate hearing in the Armed Services Committee. According to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), it's not good enough. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy... Has this policy been ideal? No... but... [i]t has helped to balance a potentially disruptive tension between the desires of a minority and the broader interests of our all-volunteer force...

We owe our lives to our fighting men and women, and we should be exceedingly cautious, humble, and sympathetic when attempting to regulate their affairs. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has been an imperfect but effective policy. And at this moment, when we are asking more of our military than at any time in recent memory, we should not repeal this law." We applaud Sen. McCain for holding the line when so many in the administration have crossed it.

Apart from his comments, the only positive note from yesterday's hearing was that senators of both parties reminded Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen that opening the military to homosexuals would require Congress--it's not within the President or Pentagon's power to act unilaterally. Judging by our busy press room, FRC continues to be the go-to organization on this issue in the media.

Apart from a series of print interviews, Peter Sprigg and I took the lead on a few national talk shows yesterday, debating the fallout of homosexuals in the military with experts from the other side. You can watch all three appearances--on CNN, MSNBC's "Hardball," and "Larry King Live"--by visiting our newsroom.

Danger to discipline by Richard H. Black
The Washington Times 0 February 1, 2010

President Obama's promise to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military has caused tension among those responsible for military discipline. Former Marine Commandant Gen. Carl E. Mundy and 1,160 retired admirals and generals strongly oppose the change.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was tasked by Mr. Obama with implementing the change. But that task has proved difficult. On Jan. 15, The Washington Times reported, "Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers from each branch of the military." There are good reasons why top officers, including current Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the change.

From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ) and department regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The uniform code prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.

Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton's proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank.

The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the chief of public affairs referred to it as a "potentially explosive issue." It was "explosive" because it contradicted the administration's campaign to portray gay GIs as "perfect gentlemen - a boon to the force."

At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren't the only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration's proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.

Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. They are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.

Homosexuals dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.

Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.

Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause "disruption" and "serious problems." Mr. Skelton is correct.

Assaults aren't the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between homosexuals while others are present. The Fort Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and enlisted men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?

If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned - and made the subject of sensitivity training?

Discipline will suffer if gays are permitted to serve. I learned the importance of discipline on the Marine drill fields of Parris Island. S.C., and during fierce fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment. Later, in the disciplinary collapse following the Vietnam War, I spent many years helping rebuild discipline in the Army. Experience shows that highly disciplined units are important in garrison - and vital in battle.

Mr. Clinton practically brought down his presidency trying to lift the ban. After an exhaustive national debate, the House of Representatives determined that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Congress then enacted Title 10 U.S. Code Section 654, which states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. That ban is an essential element of military discipline. It must be retained.

Richard H. Black, retired from the U.S. Army, was chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division. As a Marine pilot, he flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam and he served four terms in the Virginia General Assembly.

Everything You’ve Heard About “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is Wrong

by Peter Sprigg February 4, 2010 (www.frc.org)

One thing I have noticed in the debate over homosexuals in the military is that roughly 99.5% of the American public, including 99.5% of long-time Washington political reporters and 99.5% of members of Congress, believe three key things about the issue.

1. The current policy regarding homosexuals in the military is governed by a law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
2. Under current law, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military as long as they are not open about their sexual orientation.
3. Doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Each of these three statements is false.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not the law of the land. It was a compromise policy announced by the Clinton Administration in July of 1993, after their original proposal to simply open the military to homosexuals was widely rejected.[i]

When Congress adopted legislation on this issue in November of 1993, they did not say that homosexuals were welcome to serve in the military. On the contrary, they declared, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”[ii]

Doing away with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would only allow more consistent enforcement of the current law against homosexuality in the military, unless Congress were to also repeal the law that they adopted in 1993.

For the record, here are the findings that Congress made—and that President Clinton signed into law—in 1993. This is the current law regarding homosexuality in the military:

Congress makes the following findings:

`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

`(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
[i] Susan Yoachum and Carolyn Lochhead, “Clinton Orders New Gay-GI Policy: He concedes few will like compromise,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 1993, p. A1.

[ii] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, November 30, 1993, Title V, Subtitle G, Sec. 571, “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” (10 U.S.C. 654); online at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:5:./temp/~c103HPMAIr:e399464: