i don't find any problem with draft dodging or not signing selective service papers.
why would i risk my life for central banks that design these never ending wars?
i will tell them just as a feminist would say: " don't tell me what to do with my body"

there is no cowardice or anti-national idea in draft dodging.
the only war i see worthy of fighting is one killing off the the ones whose only
goal is to crush personal liberty and have total control of human life on earth.

Don't ask, don't think
Frank Turek - Guest Columnist One News Now - 2/5/2010

The central argument in favor of same-sex marriage or overturning "don't ask, don't tell" contains a fatal flaw. In fact, this is the flaw at the heart of the entire gay rights movement.

Joint Chief Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen dutifully proclaimed the flaw as truth the other day when speaking in favor of ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Lie about who they are?

Sorry Admiral, but as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness. As you know, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits numerous behaviors that are not criminal offenses in civilian life (including adultery, fraternization, and gambling with a subordinate), yet I never once saw anyone excused for their behavior by claiming that's who they are.

The military is essential to our survival as a nation. It's not a social experiment, and serving in it is not a right. People have to qualify and then make sacrifices. Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.

Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually.

More could be said, but I want to zero in on the fatal flaw in most gay-rights causes, and the one the Admiral repeated. It is the failure to distinguish between desires and behavior. Having certain sexual desires — whether you were "born" with them or acquired them sometime in life — does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn't allow the behavior you desire.

Take marriage as an example. Despite complaints by homosexual activists, every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We're all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone "equal protection of the laws" because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry.

"But what about homosexuals?" you ask. The question would better be stated "what about people with homosexual desires?" Put that way, you can see the flaw. If sexual desires alone are the criteria by which we change our marriage (or military) laws to give people "equal rights," then why not change them to include polygamy? After all, most men seem born with a desire for many women. How about those who desire their relatives? By the gay rights logic, such people don't have "equal rights" because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals don't have "equal rights" because existing marriage laws don't allow them to marry a man and a woman.

If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why are there no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious — because desires, even if you were "born" with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws. (See Born gay or a gay basher: No excuse.)

Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant. We enact all kinds of laws in the country and military that conflict with people's desires. In fact, that's why we need them! We wouldn't need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

In other words, there should be no legal class of "gay" or "straight," just a legal class called "person." And it doesn't matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country or military should prohibit, permit, or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.

The standard comparisons to race and interracial marriage don't work either. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You'll find many former homosexuals, but you'll never find a former African American. And your race has no effect on your military readiness, but your sexual behavior often can. Likewise, race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. Interracial couples can procreate and nurture the next generation (the overriding societal purpose of marriage), but homosexual couples cannot.

The truth is that our marriage and military laws do not discriminate against persons for "who they are" — they discriminate against the behaviors in which they engage. But so what? That's what most laws do. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment's freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islamic law on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage and military laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.

Now some may object to my comparison of homosexuality to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. I agree that the behaviors are not the same, but the point here is that the logic used to justify homosexuality is the same. "I was born with these desires" could also be used to justify polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even gay bashing — "Don't blame me. I just have the anti-gay gene!"

That's the logic reduced to the absurd. And that's why people who want to make a case for same-sex marriage or homosexual practice in the military should use different arguments. Claiming you "are" your sexual desires is a case of don't ask, don't think.



Frank Turek is the founder and president of CrossExamined.org and an award-winning author. He hosts a weekly TV program called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." This column is published 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.

Ask the Troops -- They'll Tell You! (www.frc.org)

The Military Times this week released a new survey of active-duty personnel regarding their views on the current law that is supposed to exclude homosexuals from military service. Although it was a reader survey rather than a scientific poll, supporters of homosexuals in the military may take comfort from the fact that it showed opposition to their position declined from 63 to 51 percent since 2003. However, active support for homosexuals in the military increased only half as much, from 24 to 29.5 percent -- meaning that opponents of this radical social experiment still outnumber proponents in the ranks by 21.5 percent. Those who said they oppose a change in the law "strongly" outnumber those who "strongly" support homosexuals in the military by an even larger margin -- 36.8 to 14.5 percent.

The biggest increase was in those who described themselves as "neutral" or "declined to answer" -- whose numbers have doubled in the last five years.
This suggests to me that the pressure of political correctness, and the inevitable vilification of anyone who speaks against the homosexual agenda, is already taking a toll on the willingness of our military personnel to speak out candidly on this subject.
Nevertheless, the poll shows that the idea that homosexuals in the military would be "no big deal" to today's armed forces is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of homosexual activists.

Repeal the law, reinstate the draft
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 2/12/2010

A national defense analyst and Pentagon advisor says if those pushing for repeal of the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service are successful, it will be difficult to maintain an all-volunteer force.

As previously reported on OneNewsNow, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently announced that he is launching a landmark study on how the military would lift its ban on homosexual service members; and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commented that lifting the ban is "the right thing to do."

Bob MaginnisLt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) was part of the military working group that helped craft the 1993 law known as Section 654, Title 10, which strictly prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military. He believes lifting the ban would alienate those people most likely to volunteer for the military.

"If you begin to erode the base -- primarily conservative, many are religious, and of course they're very patriotic... -- if you begin to erode that, guess what? You have no alternative if you want to fill the ranks than to draft," Maginnis decides.

He is convinced that President Obama could care less about how unpopular such a move would be. "The politicians don't want to vote for that, so that's really...the crux of what these people are about to do," the defense analyst explains. "Obama could care less about the military. He's paying back a political payola to the homosexual community."

So Maginnis concludes that what Obama and his chiefs want to do is potentially devastating to the country's ability to defend itself on a volunteer basis.

Serving Private Judy (*An Ohso Note)
For those needing kultural reference points - the Post Judy Garland Funeral Drag Queen Riot in New York (spruced up by the old media as the 'Stonewall Riot'), was a truly hystorical hissy fit of alcohol, drug and hormone fueled brick throwing tantrum theater; which incidentally inspired the frisco "Pink Brick" award each year, thrown at such luminaries as CA Senator Feinstein when she failed to first endorse homosex 'marriage'.

The example of the "Lavender Menace" first warned about by feminist icon Betty Friedan, morphing in to the Lavender Mafia of the Misandry Movement, is just the latest example of how via ruthless insider power struggles radical homosexualist misandrists can exercise favoritism for their own and take over organizations.
Ernst Rohm, the homo-anal coprophile founder of the nazi party and its homosex terrorist enforcers known as 'Storm Troopers", showed the world how such things are done - and his protege Hitler picked up the technique after assasinating Rohm in an internal power struggle amongst homosex factions for control of the 'party'.

But then how many in the world are paying any more attention to such facts this time, than the last time this bunch marched with such open pride?

"Tolerance Macht Frie"

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

Hold the fort on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Military readiness is not the objective of having openly gay soldiers in the US armed services.
Robert R. Reilly 2/12/10

Thanks to recent statements by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mike Mullen, we must acclimate ourselves to what now seems the inevitable rescission of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward homosexuals in the US military. This policy itself was a compromise reached under President Bill Clinton, who had wished to eliminate any obstacles to homosexuals in the armed services at the beginning of his presidency. At that time, a decades-old rule stated that homosexuality was “incompatible with military service.” The “don’t ask, don’t tell” deal prohibited asking a person if he is a homosexual, but allowed for the removal of openly declared homosexuals.

In the intervening years, the willingness to consider the moral argument against homosexual acts has eroded further. Toward the latter part of the Bush administration, the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine General Peter Pace, still had the nerve to say, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way.” He received zero support for his forthrightness.

Now, after President Barack Obama hosted a homosexual celebration in the White House on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Inn riots, Admiral Mullen has appeared before Congress in favor of removing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The excuses to abrogate this policy are almost amusing in their claims that the rule is unconstitutional and in the way in which opposition to the rule is stepped in moral unction. Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, gets the prize for constitutional exegeses: “I was disheartened that the Constitution that I took an oath to support and defend was really being abused by that policy.” In my years of studying the American founding, I do not recall a right to sodomy or any implication that it was an obligation to fight for another person’s right to engage in this obscene act. In fact, until fairly recently, most states had laws against sodomy as a form of moral corruption.

The moral unction award goes to Admiral Mullen, who apparently has not the slightest idea as to why such laws once existed or why his immediate predecessor General Pace would have said what he did. Mullen deserves the award for telling Congress that “allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” and that “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” Now let’s see: if you are not asked, and do not tell, how are you forced to lie?

Regardless, the sentiment expressed by Admiral Mullen is in sync with the homosexual martyrology that developed with the spread of AIDS. They are not only dying for a cause, but are willing to lie for one as well. This is all the more noble because it is in defense of the realm.

It might be wise to pause for a moment and think about what others may be forced to do should the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” be abandoned. I may be able to bring a certain perspective to the issue since I have both served in the military and worked extensively in the world of the arts, which homosexual culture often dominates.

I keenly recall my induction at Army basic training. It was conducted at a former WW II POW camp for Germans. At Indian Town Gap Military Reservation, we first had our heads shaved and then were told to strip naked as we, for several hours, went from station to station being prodded and poked to ascertain our fitness for the coming physical ardors. In the barracks, there were no stalls between the toilets or showers, in case any of us thought there might be some small refuge of privacy left. This was deliberately done to break us down, so we could then be reshaped into fighting men.

Now imagine inserting into this scenario some naked females. What would happen? All hell would break loose. And whose fault would it be? It would be completely unfair to both the men and the women to inject sexual tension into an already highly demanding, emotionally charged situation. Those who contrived such a state of affairs would be largely responsible for the consequences.

Since homosexuals define themselves as being sexually attracted to other men, why would anyone imagine that it is any less combustible to place openly-declared, practicing homosexuals in the same setting? It is curious that the military is the only form of association in which it is suggested that people would have to disrobe in front of others who find them sexually attractive, but with whom they do not desire any sexual intimacy.

Is there a work place in which women are required to do this in front of men, or men in front of women? For obvious reasons, there is not. Why, then, make the US military such a place? The answer is, under the faux guise of civil rights, to enforce the rationalization for homosexual misbehavior on the country as a whole.

What better way to achieve this than institutionalizing this rationalization in the armed forces?

The question may be asked: “If homosexuals are currently serving in the military under the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, why hasn’t the mayhem described above already happened?” The answer is precisely because the current policy requires homosexuals to be covert in their behavior and not to display their predilections openly. Overturning this policy would mean “coming out of the closet” inside the military with the consequences described.
Adding to the tensions would be the fact that any heterosexual service member who objected or acted in a way that could be interpreted as “homophobic” would be the one brought up on charges or dismissed. They would be forced not to object to homosexual behavior.

Unlike many who advocate this change in policy, I have actually worked in an openly homosexual environment and know its consequences. As a professional actor, I appeared in productions in which the majority of the cast members were homosexual, as were the directors. When the “gay” subculture takes over, those who do not participate in it are discriminated against. I am not shocked by this. It is human nature to prefer one’s own. I left after a season in one regional theater, being told by the public relations director: “you’re a good actor; it’s too bad you’re not homosexual.”
More disturbing were the occasions on which I had to resort to or threaten physical force to halt unwelcome advances.

Does anyone seriously think that things like this would not happen in an openly “gay” military?
The lesson from this experience is that the endorsement of being openly homosexual in the military will lead to the formation of an approved subculture within the armed forces that will seek its own ends and the advancement of its own (based at least partly on sexual favors) – to the detriment of those who are not part of it. (This is why, in our saner moments, homosexuality has been considered to be “incompatible with military service.”)
Once again, this is not shocking. It has to be expected as part of human behavior.

What is shocking is that President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen are willing to let this happen to a military that is already under maximum duress from two wars. It is precisely this point that led General George Casey, chief of staff to the Army, to say that any such change should be held off until the troops are back from Iraq – as if there would ever be a good time to do this. In the fine tradition of General Pace, the current Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, believes repeal would harm military readiness.

But military readiness is not the objective of those seeking to overturn the policy. Moral vindication of homosexual behavior is the goal – no matter what the price. Congress, of course, can still stop this from happening as it requires a change in legislation – which has already been prepared by Congressman Murphy, who purportedly has 187 votes lined up for it (only 31 shy of the 218 needed for passage). At least people in the United States will have the opportunity to register their views with their representatives on whether to hold the fort for US service members, or to open the gates for using them as pawns in the homosexual revolution.

Robert R. Reilly writes from Washington DC. He is a contributing editor to Crisis magazine.

This article is published by Robert R. Reilly, and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes... following Mercator.net guidelines.

"TO KEEP OUR HONOR CLEAN!" Why We Must Oppose the Homosexual Agenda for the Military Written by The American TFP Monday, 15 February 2010

As America faces a two-front war and economic fragility, another peril looms on the horizon that threatens the honor and integrity of one of our nation’s most important institutions: our Armed Forces.
President Obama promised in his January 27, 2010 State of the Union Address that he would work with Congress and the military to overthrow the current law that excludes homosexuals from the military.[1]

A Moral Revolution
This move cannot be considered in a vacuum. To understand fully its significance, it must be seen in light of a decades-old homosexual movement that strives to uproot the very foundations of our morality. Thus, homosexual activist Paul Varnell, writing in the Chicago Free Press, affirmed: “The gay movement is not a civil rights movement but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.”[2]

Indeed, the significance of overthrowing the military’s prohibition on homosexuality is well understood by the movement’s leaders. Thus, Thomas Stoddard, former executive director of Lambda Legal, admitted: “This is not a fight about the military. This is a fight of every lesbian and gay American for their place in society.”[3]

Similarly, the nation’s largest homosexual rights group, Human Rights Campaign, plans to spend over $2 million on a national lobbying campaign to influence lawmakers whose votes will be needed to overthrow current law.[4]

These activists understand how our military is a powerful symbol in the minds of Americans. William Kristol was correct when he called it the “one major American institution [that] retains citizens’ faith.”[5] Thus, were homosexuals allowed to serve, it would resound throughout all our nation’s institutions.

That is one of the many reasons why our military must be defended from ideologues who would sacrifice its effectiveness and honor on the altar of unrestrained license, even at a time when national and global security rests on its successful campaign against terrorism.

Exacerbating this danger, many pundits cloud the issue by parroting the homosexual movement’s sophistry. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at some of the main arguments used to support repeal of the ban.

Do Homosexuals Have a Right to Serve?
One sophism claims that homosexuals have a right to serve in our Armed Forces. Proponents of this notion often label the current law discriminatory. They compare lifting of the ban to President Truman’s 1948 executive order that desegregated our nation’s military.

However, such claims are baseless. First, there is no constitutional “right” to serve in the Armed Forces, nor could there be such a right. Because of its fighting purpose, the military is necessarily a discriminating organization that revokes membership on the basis of age, height, physical infirmity and many other causes. Obviously, these forms of discrimination would not be accepted in civilian society. Similarly, violations of morality such as lying and adultery can result in court-martial.

Additionally, there is no comparison to be made between President Truman’s desegregation of the military and lifting the ban on homosexuals in our Armed Forces. Homosexual behavior is a moral, not a racial issue. It is a personal choice of lifestyle.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell affirmed this,[6] stating: “Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”[7]

Indeed, current law is not based on who homosexuals claim to be, but on what they do.

Would the Presence of Open Homosexuals Harm Unit Cohesion?
Another argument claims that the presence of open homosexuals would not harm unit cohesion. Those making this claim state that unit cohesion was unaffected in England, Canada and elsewhere when these nations allowed homosexuals to serve.

First of all, it must be noted that these countries are not the United States. Neither Canada nor England has the military commitments or capabilities we do[8] and both have a markedly more liberal view of homosexuality. Indeed, many members of Britain’s Conservative Party, including their leader David Cameron, approve of homosexual adoption and same-sex unions.[9]

In America, things are different, even more so on our bases. As Colonel David Bedey wrote: “It is an undeniable fact…that military communities are bastions of traditional values.”[10]

This is important to consider because shared values are necessary to unit cohesion. According to Commander of the Army Research Institute William Darryl Henderson: “Common attitudes, values and beliefs among members of a unit promote cohesion…some observers contend that similarities of attitudes contribute to group cohesion more than any other single factor.”[11]

Allowing homosexuals to serve would also break down unit trust, a necessary foundation for cohesion. Vietnam War hero Colonel John Ripley explained this in testimony delivered on May 4, 1993 before the House Armed Services Committee, saying: “No one can trust a leader nor can a leader trust a subordinate if he thinks there are sexual feelings just underneath the surface. It makes no difference if the individual is suppressing those feelings. It makes trust virtually impossible.”[12]

Common sense reinforces what Colonel Ripley affirmed. As current law points out, military society is necessarily “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”[13] In turn, this leads to high levels of stress. The effect of adding sexual tension to the mix need only be imagined.

Perhaps that is one reason why America’s two most prominent veterans groups, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion, whose combined membership exceeds 4 million, have both come out against repeal of the ban.[14]

Also, during wartime, men are in continual contact with each other’s blood. Therefore, the well documented increased disease rates of homosexuals would cause them to be perceived as a risk rather than an asset to unit survival.

This increased disease rate should not be underestimated. As Colonel Ronald Ray pointed out: “Despite the fact that they account for less than 2 percent of the total American population, a compilation of recent health studies shows that homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases.”[15]

This increased disease rate has led some to refer to the homosexual lifestyle as a “deathstyle.” Inclusion of this deathstyle in our Armed Forces is a dangerous proposition, indeed.

With these factors in mind, it is simply impossible to suggest that openly serving homosexuals would not damage unit cohesion. Current law and many officers corroborate this affirmation.

Among them is General Norman Schwarzkopf, who affirmed: “…in my years of military service, I’ve experienced the fact that the introduction of an open homosexual into a small unit immediately polarizes that unit and destroys the very bonding that is so important for the unit's survival in time of war.”[16]

Last, the current law, which was passed with a veto-proof majority in both houses of a Democrat-led Congress, states: “The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence…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.”[17]

At a Time of War, Can We Afford to Lose Capable Servicemen?
Opponents of current law also claim that we cannot afford to expel any trained personnel during our present military engagements. In this line, the media often claim that over 300 language experts, including over 50 fluent Arabic speakers, have been discharged from the military under the current law.

These claims are based on exaggerated and misrepresented information. In her July 23, 2008 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Elaine Donnelly, president and founder of the Center for Military Readiness, noted that 9,501 homosexuals were discharged from our military in the 11 years between 1993-2004, a yearly average of 864.[18] While this may seem like a lot, it is relatively few compared with the number of servicemen who were dismissed for other reasons.

For example: 36,513 enlisted personnel were removed during the same time period for having gained too much weight, 26,446 were removed for becoming pregnant and an additional 20,527 for parenthood, while nearly 60,000 were removed for drug use.[19] If we were to stop removing homosexuals from our Armed Forces, how could we continue to dismiss those whose only offense is having too hearty an appetite? Furthermore, if we concede to lower standards for the sake of quantity, where will we next draw the line?

Also, claims that 300 language “experts,” and over 50 “fluent” Arabic speakers have been discharged from our military because of their homosexuality is based on a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study. However, the GAO document clearly states: “Relatively few of these separated servicemembers had proficiency scores in listening to, reading, or speaking…that were above the midpoint on DOD’s language proficiency scales.”

Among the 54 “fluent” Arabic speakers, only 20 had recorded scores, of which none scored above midpoint for speaking proficiency. Furthermore, 59% of these discharged language “experts” had served for two and a half years or less.[20]

Furthermore, we must consider the loss of manpower that would result from lifting the ban. There is convincing evidence to show that these losses would greatly outweigh the number of homosexuals removed under current law.

A 2008 survey done by the Military Times showed that nearly 10% of respondents claimed they would “not re-enlist or extend” their service if the homosexual prohibition were lifted, while an additional 14% reported that they would “consider not re-enlisting or extending” their military careers.[21]

As Mrs. Donnelly pointed out, if we assume that these numbers represent the views of all active and reserve forces, repeal of the ban could result in a loss of between 228,600–527,000 servicemen (depending on the final decision of those considering termination of their careers). These numbers are astounding considering that there are currently around 200,000 active duty Marines.[22]

Similarly, a 2006 Zogby poll showed that 10% of those who had served in the last 14 years would probably not have even enlisted had there been open homosexuals serving. An additional 13% were undecided.[23]

Therefore, if we are concerned about diminishing our ranks at this critical moment, we must maintain, not lift, the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Over 1,100 Flag and General Officers Support the Ban
In addition to all the practical arguments we make in favor of current law, there is a voice of experience that speaks more loudly than ours. It is that of our military leadership whose years of service at the highest levels of command have given them the wisdom to understand the issue and all of its implications.

That is why Congress should heed a statement signed by 1,152 retired flag and general officers, strongly urging them and President Obama to uphold the ban on homosexuals in our military.[24] Their statement is as urgent as it is unequivocal and includes the following passage:

Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the ban] in morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden…would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons… and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force…As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10), and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.[25]

The signatories of this message include 51 four-star officers, our nation’s highest peacetime rank.

And to Keep Our Honor Clean…
These practical arguments are helpful, but they do not constitute the most important component of the issue. The core of the matter touches on a higher reality in which the very identity of the American soldier is at stake.

To be successful, a military must incorporate two seemingly incompatible values. On one hand, it must enforce the highest moral principles of discipline, valor and uprightness and simultaneously inculcate the desire to destroy the adversary.

Indeed, the very existence of the military proclaims that evil exists and, at times, must be confronted. It represents the strength of truth and uprightness and is a symbol of that species of good that fearlessly defies wickedness.

Thus, a successful military must operate in an atmosphere in which good and evil are clearly defined and relativism has no place.

The military also personifies self-sacrifice. As the great Catholic thinker, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, wrote, the military profession proclaims “the existence of values worth more than life itself and for which one must be willing to die.”[26]

It is these values of uprightness, self-sacrifice and strength that project the military into a superior order of things. In a word, they confer an honor upon it, which is so identified with the archetype of the American soldier that our nation’s highest military decoration is called the Medal of Honor.

However, homosexual vice represents the opposite of this military honor. It violates natural law, epitomizes the unleashing of man’s unruly passions, undermines self-discipline and has been defined as “intrinsically evil” by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on numerous occasions.[27]

That is why, in order to advance, the homosexual movement must blur the distinctions between virtue and vice; truth and error; good and evil. If this vice is imposed on our Armed Forces, it will necessarily bring this relativistic spirit with it.

In turn, this mentality would undermine the direct and straightforward mindset, so necessary to the military.[28] It would sully the honor of all who serve and weaken society’s notion of the incompatibility between good and evil, so well represented by our Armed Forces.

In this light, we understand why homosexual ideologues doggedly insist on effecting this transformation within our military. However, it also gives us powerful motives to resist their plans. We must urge Congress to block any efforts to overthrow current law and insist on the ban’s continued strict enforcement.

Colonel Ripley well understood the dangers of abandoning our current law in this respect. That is why he finished his 1993 testimony to the House Armed Services Committee beseeching Congress to maintain the ban on homosexuals serving in the military in the following moving words: “I implore you, as an American and as a Marine who has fought for his country and loves his Corps and country more than life itself, not to lead us into this ambush from which we can never recover.”[29]

On his behalf, we should derive encouragement from the words of the Marines’ Hymn that apply to all the branches of our military as they confront this perilous issue:

“We fight our country’s battles
In the air, on land and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean…”


In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of our hallowed Armed Forces, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality. We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.
The indiscriminate use of the word homosexual and its synonyms has generated much confusion in the public. Many times, it is unclear if it refers to someone with same-sex attraction only or if it refers to someone who practices homosexual acts. This confusion favors the homosexual agenda. We cannot equate people with same-sex attraction who resist it and are chaste with those who engage in homosexual behavior. These are two distinct and essentially different moral realities.

Thus, we use homosexual to refer only to those who practice homosexual acts and thereby deserve moral reprobation.


Footnotes: [1] Although this law, US Code Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 645, is commonly misnamed “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” in fact, it prohibits all homosexuals from serving in the military. “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” is merely a Clinton-era policy that was never codified into law. This policy was deemed illegal in a 1996 ruling of the Fourth Circuit of Appeals. Cf. http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=103.

[2] Paul Varnell, “Defending Our Morality,” Chicago Free Press, Aug. 16, 2000, http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27088.html. To understand how homosexual acts are against nature, it is sufficient to consider the psychological and physical complementarity between opposite sexes.

[3] Jeffrey Schmalz, “Gay Groups Regrouping For War on Military Ban,” The New York Times, Feb. 7, 1993, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/07/us/gay-groups-
regrouping-for-war-on-military-ban.html?pagewanted=all.

[4] Craig Whitlock and Ed O’Keefe, “On Issue of Gays in Military, Pentagon Will Make Recommendations to Congress,” The Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803728_2.html.

[5] William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, Vol. 15, No. 20, Feb. 8, 2010, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...t-mess-success.

[6] General Powell’s unfortunate change of position with regard to homosexuals in the military was due to what he called a change in public attitudes toward homosexuality, not the issue of discrimination. Cf. Karen DeYoung, “Colin Powell Now Says Gays Should Be Able to Serve Openly in Military,” The Washington Post, Feb. 4, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/A
R2010020302292.html?hpid=moreheadlines.

[7] Mackubin Thomas Owens, “The Case Against Gays in the Military,” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/S
B10001424052748703389004575033601528093416.html.

[8] As James Lindsay, Jerome Johnson, E.G. “Buck” Shuler Jr. and Joseph J. Went pointed out: “America’s armed forces are models for our allies’ militaries and the envy of our adversaries – not the other way around.” ”Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit,” The Washington Post, Apr. 15, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704.html.

[9] Cf. Joanna Bogle, “Conservative Britain? I Don’t Think So,” MercatorNet, Jan. 28, 2010, http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/
conservative_britain_i_dont_think_so/. Also: Hilary White, “U.K.’s Conservative Leader Pledges Full Support for Gay Agenda,” LifeSiteNews.com, Feb. 8, 2010, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020805.html.

[10] Colonel David F. Bedey, US Army, Ret., “Exclusive: Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: A Clear and Present Danger,” Family Security Matters, Jan. 27, 2010, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp.

[11] William Darryl Henderson, Cohesion The Human Element in Combat (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1985) p. 75.

[12] Norman Fulkerson, An American Knight (Spring Grove, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 2009) p. 124 and Appendix II.

[13] US Code Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 645: Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces, http://web.mit.edu/committees/rotc/code.html.

[14] “Veteran Groups Resist 'Don't Ask' Repeal,” The Washington Times, Feb. 4, 2010, http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/04/
veterans-groups-rap-push-to-end-military-gay-ban/.

[15] Colonel Ronald D. Ray, USMCR, Gays: In or out? (Washington: Brassey’s (US), 1993) p. 46. Although this study dates back to 1993, its findings are substantiated by current FDA policy that will not accept homosexual men as blood donors. The policy is defended on the FDA’s website, at: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/blood
bloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm.

[16] Melissa Healy, “Schwarzkopf: 'A 2nd-Class Force' If Gay Ban Ends,” The Los Angeles Times, Mar. 12, 1993, http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-12/news/
mn-34392_1_armed-force?pg=2.

[17] US Code Title 10, Subtitle G, Section 645. “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.” (Our emphasis.)

[18] Mrs. Donnelly’s statistics were compiled in a chart she used during her testimony. Chart available online at: http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/Homosexu...rges100107.pdf.

[19] Ibid.

[20] United States Government Accountability Office,pp. 16 – 21, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf.

[21] The Military Times ran another survey on homosexuality in the military in 2009, but it did not include a question about how servicemen would react to a repeal of the ban. Cf. http://www.militarytimes.com/webtool...stionnaire.pdf.

[22] Elaine, Donnelly, “Poll on Gays in the Military Perturbs Palm Center,” CMRlink.org, Jan. 14, 2009, http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=342.

[23] Elaine Donnelly, “PM Polemic for Gays in the Military,” Human Events, Jan. 15, 2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27504.

[24] See: http://www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/.

[25] The statement’s full text is available at: http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/Flag...TUS-033109.pdf. A list of all the signatories is available at: http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM...%29-033109.pdf.

[26] Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution (York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 2008) p. 70. Also available online at: http://www.tfp.org/revolution-and-co...evolution.html.

[27] Cf. TFP Committee on American Issues, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must
Resist Same-sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement (York, Penn.: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 2004), especially Part III.

[28] Corrêa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, p. 70.

[29] Colonel Ripley’s full testimony is available in Appendix II of An American Knight by Norman Fulkerson and online at: http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-
culture/statement-of-col-john-w-ripley-before-the-house-armed-
services-committee.html.

IN THE MILITARY
Obama accused of establishing religion for soldiers

Opening ranks to 'gays' called 'constitutional offense'
February 19, 2010 By Bob Unruh - World Net Daily

A team of top-drawer civil and religious rights lawyers is accusing President Obama of establishing a religion for the U.S. military through his demand to promote open homosexuality in the ranks.

"If chaplains with beliefs that contradict the proposed policy are kept from roles that are likely to generate conflict – like preaching or counseling – then they, the faith groups the represent, and the soldiers whose religious beliefs they serve will all be marginalized," a letter today from the Alliance Defense Fund to Obama said.

"The military would effectively establish preferred religions or religious beliefs," the letter said. "That is a constitutional offense that carries a very pragmatic consequence: just what will happen to recruiting efforts if Christians become second-class soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines."

The letter, addressed to President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, referenced Obama's campaign to allow open homosexual behavior in the U.S. military. While that behavior is formally forbidden under current law, the military acts under a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy adopted by President Clinton.

The letter was signed by Gary McCaleb, senior vice president and senior counsel; Jordan Lorence, senior vice president and senior counsel; Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel; and Kevin Theriot; senior counsel.
The White House declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

The ADF is among the premiere civil and religious rights organizations in the U.S. Among other cases, it has taken on responsibility for arguing on behalf of California residents who approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman when state officials assigned to the task refused to participate.

"Military chaplains who have volunteered to defend the liberties protected in our Constitution shouldn't be denied those very same liberties," said Theriot. "Forcing chaplains to deny the teachings of their faith in order to serve in the armed forces is a grave threat to the First Amendment and to the spiritual health of Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who depend on them."

He said if the military is forced to promote homosexual behavior, "for the first time in American history there will be open conflict between the virtues taught by chaplains and the moral message delivered by the military."

"In such a conflict, it's obvious who will win and who will lose. If the state favors the demands of the homosexual activists over the First Amendment, it is only a matter of time before the military censors the religious expression of its chaplains and marginalizes denominations that teach what the Bible says about homosexual behavior," he said.

The letter advises Obama that the conflict for chaplains is only one of the many possible ramifications, but it is substantial.
Chaplains, as staff officers, "are subject to the military's stringent need for order and discipline, which leaves little room for dissent from established policy," the letter explains. "Yet as religious leaders, they represent 'specific religious denominations, and are accountable in their ministries to those groups.'"

If Obama's demands are met, the letter suggested, "chaplains with contrary religious beliefs will be forced to choose 'to obey God or men.'"
"Orthodox Christianity – which represents the majority of religious belief in the U.S. military – does not affirm homosexual behavior. … An inevitable conflict between military policy and the faith of many military members and chaplains will arise."

The letter said among the probable points of contention are:

• Can chaplains preach on their own religious doctrines or would they be required to subject their beliefs to the military's religious mandates?
• Can chaplains providing counseling following their religious beliefs or the "dictates of military policy?"
• Can chaplains make biblically based statements critical of homosexual behavior?
• Can chaplains be required to allow those who engage in open homosexual behavior to lead worship or be in other leadership roles?

"Ominously, supporters of the policy change are already arguing that normalizing homosexual behavior would require chaplains to provide pastoral counsel to individuals engaged in such behavior, and that refusal to do so based on religious objections would be a 'breach of … duty,'" the letter said.

According to Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, Obama already has ordered the Pentagon to promote his "gays-in-the-military" cause.
"We have received our orders from the commander in chief and are moving out accordingly," Gates told a Senate committee earlier this month, she documented.
But Donnelly noted that the military leader said nothing about benefits for the military, instead only referencing efforts to "minimize disruption and polarization."
In actuality, Donnelly confirmed in a report posted online the sexual behavior agenda established by Obama for the military would give "radical social change" a higher priority than "military necessity."

It would foster circumstances that would allow those who may be sexually interested in their barracks-mates to have official support for their activities, her report concludes.

Soldiers also would be pressured to adopt the "politically correct" attitude of ambivalent sexuality under threat of military reprisals, and a team of instructors would have to be incorporated into the military to provide such indoctrination, the report reveals.

Her analysis suggests chaplains and soldiers of faith would have to leave the military, and those who are left would lack trust in each other.

"Implementation would result in the voluntary or involuntary loss of thousands of personnel – many in communities, grades, and skills that are not easily replaceable," her analysis said. "This would cripple the all-volunteer force at a time when we are at war. Personnel remaining would have to face more deployments and potential combat situations with fewer, less-skilled people."

I think the gays are just a group getting lots of funding for rights and have to show they are spending it somewhere to build their empire (corporation).

If they had no-one to argue, they'd have no reason to exist. IMO

General Disagreement on Gays in the Military (www.frc.org)

The military is used to escalating tensions--but not within its own ranks. Yesterday, two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff more than hinted at an internal conflict over the President's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" campaign. During hearings with the Armed Services Committee, the first cracks over the issue started to show among America's top brass. Both Army Chief Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz disagreed with their Navy counterpart, Adm. Mike Mullen on the effects of overturning the policy.

"I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of the law on a force that is fully engaged in two wars..." Gen. Casey told the Senate panel. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness." In the meantime, the Army Chief completely rejected the push to stop "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" dismissals until a final decision is made. "This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan ..." he said. Today, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway entered the fray in a House hearing, insisting that civil rights would ultimately have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military's ability to protect the nation. Under a bill from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Congress would put a moratorium on the military's discharges over the next year while the Pentagon studies the policy change. Gen. Schwartz was forcefully opposed to the idea, saying it would put the current cases "in legal limbo."

Of course, this is a typical strategy of the administration, which tries to pick off laws by phasing out their enforcement. (Defense of Marriage Act, anyone?) That's why the timing of his team's first strike on the issue was so important. Shortly after the State of the Union address, where President Obama called for repeal, the White House rushed Adm. Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Hill for cover. Both leaders backed the campaign in an effort to head off any dissent. Until yesterday, they were quite successful.

So successful, in fact, that even I was caught in the crossfire. In October, the chaplain of Andrews Air Force Base asked me to speak at a non-political prayer luncheon. Just two days after the State of the Union address, the base rescinded its invitation, citing FRC statements "which are incompatible in our role as military members who serve our elected officials and our Commander-in-Chief."
As a veteran of the Marine Corps, I was shocked that the military would exclude me from speaking to the spiritual needs of our servicemen solely because I exercised my free speech rights in a different forum--in support of the current law of the land. Unfortunately, this is just precursor of things to come in a post-"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military.

This legislation would more than open the Armed Forces to homosexuals; it would lead to a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality.
Will the chaplains' sermons be censored? Would they have the freedom to counsel soldiers with same-sex attractions? Or would they be disqualified from the service altogether? For more on what this would mean to military quotas, don't miss Ken Blackwell's op-ed, "President Obama and Military 'Corpsemen'" in Townhall.


Operation Petticoat?

Given the choice of improving national defense or being politically correct, we know where this administration stands. While it tries to peel back layer after protective layer from the military, the Pentagon has announced yet another policy change. This time, the Defense Department is moving to lift a century-old policy that bars women from serving on Navy submarines. In a letter on Friday, Secretary Gates said the branch would have to adapt to a new era of co-ed subs. The policy was enacted decades ago--largely due to concerns about putting men and women together in such tight quarters. Adm. Mullen downplayed the issue last September when he said the military should "broaden opportunities for women."

In its eagerness to level the playing field, no one in the administration seems to be raising the important questions, like: How much will it cost? Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't a matter of throwing open the hatch and inviting women in. To accommodate both genders, these submarines will have to be retrofitted with separate living spaces and other necessities. It's an expensive project for a military already engaged in two wars. What operations or strategic defense upgrades is our President willing to forgo to promote this kind of progressive feminism?

Homosexual agenda or the Constitution: take your pick because you can't have both
2/26/2010 Bryan Fischer

The homosexual agenda represents a clear and present danger to virtually every fundamental right given to us by our Creator and enshrined for us in our Constitution.

Start with freedom of religion and freedom of speech, the first two of our inalienable rights secured for us in the Bill of Rights.

As a culture, we must choose between the homosexual agenda or the Constitution because we can't have both.

Further proof comes from the abjectly pathetic decision of the chaplains' office at Andrews Air Force Base to rescind a long-standing invitation to Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council. Perkins had been invited to give a non-political talk at a prayer luncheon on the base yesterday, but was abruptly dis-invited for one simple reason: he supports the current law which makes homosexuals ineligible for service in the United States military.

Don't miss the significance here. Perkins is defending current law, and is advocating for the time-honored principle that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service. George Washington famously and literally drummed two soldiers out of the Continental Army in the days of our contest with Great Britain after they were discovered in the act of attempted sodomy.

And yet it now appears that a virtual zero-tolerance policy, rooted in Christophobia, has resulted in the blacklisting of anyone who supports what the military has always believed and practiced.

According to the Washington Times, military officials on the base informed Perkins his opinions were "incompatible" for "military members who serve our elected officials and our Commander in Chief."

In other words, these "military officials," whoever they are, have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally change military policy in defiance of the Congress of the United States, and punish anyone who has the temerity to support normative sexuality in military ranks.

Perkins, who is a former Marine, correctly observes that he has been banned "solely because I exercised my free speech rights in a different forum," and for doing nothing more than "call(ing) for the retention and enforcement of a valid federal statute."

This is just bizarre. Perkins is being punished not for breaking the law but for defending it.

Apparently Andrews Air Force base has decided on its own to bring the hammer down on anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct.

The Air Force lamely defended the decision at Andrews by limp-wristedly saying that Perkins' position on gays in the military made many attendees "uncomfortable."

Wow. I mean wow. These are the men and women we have trained to face down the people who want to kill us while we sleep, and we're wringing our hands that some of them might be made "uncomfortable" at a purely voluntary prayer breakfast?

I had no idea the sensibilities of our men and women in the military were so tender. If free speech makes them that nervous, what will they do when they're up against Osama's boys in the field?

Andrews disinvited Perkins because they wanted the luncheon to be "inclusive." Well, congratulations for making everyone who believes in normative sexuality feel so welcomed, appreciated and "included." If being made "uncomfortable" is what counts here, why is no weight given to those who are offended by this flagrant disregard of military law and freedom of religion and speech?

Maybe it's because those on the left only regard us each as 3/5 of a person. Do you think?

The days of Dred Scott have returned. Christians now are the ones are being confined on the plantation, and warned about being too uppity.

The only ones who will feel "included" here are those who support sexual deviancy in the military. The rest of you Neanderthals, well, that's just too bad. This is the new military, regardless of what the law says, so get used to it.

McCarthyism has now struck the U.S. military with a vengeance. The question now that the military is asking is this: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of traditional morality?" If the answer is yes, you go on our blacklist, and we deprive you of your freedom of religion, speech and military service.

Realize the ominous portents here for the future of our military. Perkins' view represents the view of the vast majority of Americans, especially those considering military service. The new standard appears to be that, even if you are heterosexual, you must embrace the homosexual agenda or you will be banned from the military. That's where this is going, and at Andrews Air Force Base, we're already there.

The implications for national security, especially for recruitment and retention, are sobering. As gays come roaring out of the military's closet with fangs bared, they will be sending heterosexuals to the brig if they won't keep their opinions to themselves. Who wants to serve in a military like that?

The bottom line here is that the more a man loves his country, the more he wants to defend its freedoms, especially of religion and speech, the less welcome he will be in the military of the future. Good luck with that, America.

Center for Military Readiness E-Notes – Issue No. 6

When President Barack Obama announced his intent to “work with Congress” to repeal the 1993 law regarding gays in the military—always mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”— he may have thought that he could impose his pre-emptive plan by executive fiat. Last week, however, the president encountered stiff resistance from the military.

As reported February 25 on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier, four-star leaders of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, during testimony before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, expressed serious reservations about the president’s plans for gays in the military.

· Military Leaders Divided on Repeal of Gay Ban

The service chiefs also went on record in opposition to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin’s plan to accelerate the end of the law with a “moratorium” on discharges—a move that would be tantamount to full repeal. CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears has prepared a summary of the Senate and House hearings that occurred this week:

· CMR SITREP: Obama Proposes, Congress Disposes, and the Military Opposes

We appreciate the efforts of Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Sen. John McCain, who reminded Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that we have a Congress for a reason. House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon also has shown principled leadership by framing the issue with this specific question: How would repeal of the 1993 law improve military readiness?

In a statement issued after the February 2 SASC hearing, CMR noted that neither Defense Secretary Robert Gates nor Adm. Mullen said anything about possible benefits for the military. Instead, Secretary Gates promised to “minimize disruption and polarization,” and to “mitigate” negative consequences for “unit cohesion, recruiting [and] retention.” Adm. Mullen admitted he did not know what repeal would mean, but spoke (for himself only) in favor of policies known to be disruptive. Adm. Mullen called this “leadership,” but it looked like letting down the troops to us.

This has been a very busy time, and we appreciate the many messages of support. Our hard work is paying off, but the most critical weeks are still ahead. You can help by expressing your opinion to your senators and member of Congress. You can also call and write to media opinion leaders—talk radio, newspapers, and favorite blogs—to ask for coverage and informed discussion of the proposed LGBT Law...

« « « « «

A. Latest News



1. The Washington Times reported that members of the Joint Chiefs did not follow the lead of Adm. Mike Mullen in pushing for repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.). Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway insisted that the primary concern should be maintenance of a “combat-ready force,” while Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said, “This is not the time to perturb a force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation.” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead also declined to join Adm. Mullen in calling for repeal of the 1993 law, noting that focus should be on America’s military, not the forces of foreign nations.



· Military Chiefs Resist Push to End Gay Ban



2. Military Times reported that Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey expressed “serious concerns” about repealing the 1993 law, and would “recommend against” a legislative moratorium on discharges for homosexuality.

· Casey Opposes Quick Change in Policy

3. CBN TV highlighted the principled position and leadership of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway in support of current law:


· Top Marine Against Repeal of Military Gay Policy

4. The Washington Times reported that the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars have taken a stand in support of the 1993 law:

· Veterans Groups Resist ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal

5. Meanwhile, on the liberal website Huffington Post, a militant advocate for gays in the military pushed for immediate implementation of the LGBT Law, and made his case for violating sexual privacy in areas where there is none:

· Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” This Year

“..[I]f repeal includes such ridiculous suggestions as having segregated showers for gay people or the ability to opt out of rooming with a gay person then the so-called repeal is in fact no repeal at all. Imagine for a second if the YMCA or your local Bally’s Total Fitness had separate showers for gays and straights? That would be outrageous and totally unacceptable… . Here is what repeal should look like. The Pentagon will have a nondiscrimination policy regarding sexual orientation. That means gay people are allowed to serve openly in the military. It also means that gay people are allowed to eat, sleep, shower and fight alongside straight people. What is more, to live up to the President's promise, this change needs to happen in a year—not three years or seven years—but a year.”

The views expressed above are not unusual on the LGBT Left. All the more reason for members of Congress to ask many specific questions before they vote to repeal the 1993 law.



B. CMR News Conference

At a Washington D.C. news conference during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 18, CMR and the leaders of seven other major groups stood together in support of the 1993 Eligibility Law. With a backdrop of detailed charts, the speakers emphasized the negative consequences of the proposed LGBT Law, and raised new questions and serious readiness issues that Congress must consider. CMR announced and looks forward to working with a new Military Culture Coalition to defend the culture of the military, and to protect it from the harmful effects of the proposed LGBT Law.

We appreciate the support of the distinguished speakers who joined us, and special thanks go to Concerned Women for America and to Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, for helping to make arrangements for the event. CWA has posted on their website video of their new CEO, Penny Nance, and the other speakers who joined us in defending the culture of the military.

Reinforcing the theme of the conference displayed on the podium: “LGBT Law - How Does This Improve Military Readiness?” American Conservative Union President David Keene said, “I hope that this question will be asked, and that answers will be demanded.”

· Stars & Stripes: New Coalition Vows Fight on “Don’t Ask” Repeal


C. Threats to Chaplains and Religious Freedom in the Military

1. At the Military Culture Coalition news conference, Jordan Lorence, Senior Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, announced that his widely respected legal group has sent a formal letter to President Obama and congressional leaders expressing concern about the effects of the proposed LGBT law on the religious freedom of chaplains:

· Change in military policy on homosexual behavior could affect chaplains
The story was reported in News OK (Oklahoma):



· Chaplains Keep Wary Eye on “Don’t Ask” Repeal

2. A recent incident involving Family Research Council President (and former Marine) Tony Perkins, who spoke at our news conference, presages what could happen if the LGBT Law is passed and implemented with “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees for any reason. According to CBN News, an invitation to Tony Perkins to speak at a prayer luncheon at Andrews AFB was withdrawn shortly after FRC criticized President Barack Obama’s push for repeal of the 1993 law:

· Tony Perkins 'Disinvited' to National Prayer Luncheon

CNS News reported more about the AF Chaplain Office’s chilling response to the controversy:

· Air Force Retracted Invitation for Conservative Leader to Speak at Prayer Luncheon After He Criticized Obama’s Position ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ .”

This disturbing story about intolerance in the name of “tolerance” demonstrates how the LGBT Law would work. Chaplains and military members of most major faiths have good reason to be concerned about the censorship and career penalties that would be imposed on anyone who does not support the LGBT agenda. When faced with commands that conflict with their personal convictions, many will simply leave. The chaplain office at Andrews AFB jumped the gun, even though current law remains in effect. But the incident is a cautionary tale that demonstrates the effect of “zero tolerance” under the proposed LGBT Law for the military.

D. Current Commentary and Analysis

1. In recent weeks a number of familiar and new voices have been heard in this important debate:

· Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington Times, Maintain Military Gay Ban

· Col. Oliver North, USMC: Military Lab Rats

· Richard H. Black: Danger to Discipline

· Frank Gaffney on NewsMax: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Won’t Change

· Wes Pruden, Washington Times: Nothing Gay About This Mission

· Col. David F. Bedey, who appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America on Sunday, January 31, makes a convincing case for the current law: Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: A Clear and Present Danger

· Tony Perkins, Homosexuality vs. the 3 R’s of the Military

· Peter Sprigg took on Chris Matthews and the SLDN on Hardball

· Ted Nugent: Don’t Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

2. In this article, CNS News reporter Nicholas Ballasy carefully drew distinctions between the 1993 Eligibility Law and the administrative policy DADT:

· “ ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Not Consistent with Existing Federal Law Barring Gays From Military, Says Center for Military Readiness”

The president’s push for sexual minorities in the military, which was not added to his State of the Union Speech until very late in the day, may have backfired. Despite the emotional performance of Adm. Mullen on February 2, the Pentagon’s official budget proposal did not include a request to repeal the 1993 law.


The Military Culture Coalition news conference highlighted a rainbow-striped Pentagon with a white question mark superimposed. The more questions are asked, the less likely there will be a LGBT Pentagon.

« « « « «

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent, non-partisan 501(c)(3) public policy organization that specializes in military social issues. Tax-deductible contributions to CMR can be made here. More information is available at www.cmrlink.org.

Lame Duck Ex-Mass
Look for our lame duck congress to drop this egg on the national face next december.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cowardly Lyin' (FRC)

Despite the President's claims, Rep. Chair Susan Davis (D-Calif.) made it clear that her party has no interest in studying "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or its effects on our troops. " When it comes to repeal, the question is not whether--but how and when." From the very beginning of yesterday's House hearing on the subject, Rep. Davis talked about the inevitability of repeal rather than the military's need for an honest and thorough examination of the law. "Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have set in motion a study group to determine"--not the consequences of abolishing the policy, but--"what needs to be done to implement repeal..."

So why the comprehensive review? Unfortunately, it's part of a broader White House ploy. The President wants the issue to energize the radical base of the Democratic party, but won't force a vote until the final report is presented to Congress on December 1.

It's no accident that the time line calls for the report to be presented a month after the election to a lame-duck Congress.

It's the cowardly way out on an issue that demands Congress's full and sincere attention. Join us in calling on members to push back a final vote on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" until next year when the public can hold their elected officials accountable for their vote.

Don't ask, don't bleed
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 3/5/2010

The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one's hope of donning the uniform.

This is discrimination only insofar as "discriminating minds" with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.

In formal recognition of the long-established finding that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:

• The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
• Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
• 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;
• 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; and
• There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.

So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about "out and proud" homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?

The answer to both is no.

The fact that "homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline" has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

All things considered (and we've only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should "gays" be allowed to serve openly: "I would not re-enlist or extend my service." Furthermore, 14 percent warn: "I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service." The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.

When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the "gays in the military" debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.

Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress, and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.

In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful "gay rights" rhetoric. However, it's an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who've already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.

For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be "tolerated."

Mr. President, it's your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It's high time you begin to take your job seriously.


Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law, and author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War." He serves as director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. 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.

The following article about FRC Chair Tony Perkins (banned from an Air Force base meeting - because he supports the Existing Law) ends with a disturbing, yet valid question?

Whether the view of military service as a positive public duty by young people will continue if the military itself becomes a tool for promoting the sick hatreds and vile perversions of the radical gender feminist / homosexualist agenda?

The Left wants to destroy Amerika -BAMN (by Any Means Necessary) and the military has always been a favorite target, particularly by those wanting to poison the country from within.

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


Soldiers left out of policy change debate
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 3/5/2010

A pro-family leader and former Marine says it will be up to people outside the military to voice concerns about the negative consequences of repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The pressure to repeal the 1993 law that bans homosexual military service increased this week when Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-Connecticut) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010. Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania) is the lead sponsor of similar legislation in the House of Representatives. (See related article)

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC) and a Marine Corps veteran who strongly opposes President Obama's call for repealing the ban, finds it unfortunate that over the next 12 months when the policy is supposed to be reviewed, rank and members of the military will not be able to express their opposition to any change in the policy.

Tony Perkins"People have to understand the military culture -- they follow orders," he explains. "So don't expect the military to be free to speak out against this radical policy change. If the military is to be protected, and by extension the nation, the American people are going to have to speak up and say, 'Don't play games with our military.'"

Perkins adds that service members who oppose homosexuals serving in the military might do their talking with their feet.


"A 2008 Military Times poll suggests that ten percent of those in the military would not re-enlist [if the ban were lifted]," he notes. "This is going to have a very significant impact upon retention and recruitment. Most of those who serve in the military hold to traditional values."

The FRC president believes that as his children come of age, it is going to be a very difficult question as to whether they will carry on the family tradition of military service because of policies such as this.

MISANDRY - The Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality, has infiltrated our Military much the same way as other areas of government, media, law and academentia - primarily through the craven pandering to Radical Gender Feminist bigotry.

The story of the "Super Feminist" poster girl for promoting Affirmative Actresses in the Navy is being spun very carefully by the old main steam media, including the headline for this AP/ Times article, but websites like militarycorruption.com are publishing the rest of the truth - and is it ever ugly.

Captain Holly Graf - first female commander of a guided missile cruiser, is apparently such a raging radical gender feminist harpy that she has been compared to the legendary Captain Bligh (source for the Mutiny on the Bounty), including physical assalut, spitting in the faces of subordinates and even threats to kill - as well as various abuses of power that go with both Rank and Rank Misandry

In an on line Editorial www.militarycorruption.com stated the following:

Holly Graf must go! For the good of the U.S. Navy and all those she has harmed and harassed over the past 25 years, this unfit and obviously disturbed individual should put in her papers and retire without delay. Graf ought to consider herself lucky she got away with so much for so long.

The double-standard she operated under, thanks to her "enablers" up the chain-of-command, is an insult to the vast majority of Navy women, officer and enlisted, who deserve respect for outstanding service. The "glass ceiling" needs to be broken, but not by a pampered and protected shrew like her.

Gone is Graf's dream of becoming an admiral, like "big sister" Robin. Even the thought of hot-tempered Holly pulling down an 0-6 paycheck for some no-work desk job at the Pentagon is enough to make one sea-sick. She doesn't deserve such favored treatment, while the good men and women of our Navy have to adhere to all the rules and regulations of the UCMJ.

An Academy grad should be held to an even higher standard. She was not. We say, "retire" Graf now, and make sure that in the future, no similar situation arises where frightened so-called superior officers, let "political correctness" reduce them to total impotence.