...but first some background.
Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.
What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.
Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.
If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide. The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!
Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.
What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command. The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.
For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well? If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).
Remember, you heard the term coined here first.
UPDATE 05/24/2017
Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.
Lula,
It depends on how bad it is...a violation may get "paper" work, a letter of counseling, or a letter of reprimand that is a "bad mark" in the soldiers file for a while...or something more serious might warrant an Article 15 (possibly with administrative or dishonorable discharge), or even a court marshall (trial)......there isn't a "fixed" way to handle UCMJ violations. Supervisors, commanders, and the legal office can/may be involved in the decision process.
For instance, I've seen sexual harassment at one installation treated as a back slapping, boys-will-be-boys event. Beers all round! And at the next installation handled with extreme career ending prejudice. As in...whew, lucky they didn't do jail time. Same for adultery.
This appears to be the same way, though I have to say the AF is giving its troops a window of time to adapt. Meaning they are using propaganda videos and the policy letters right now....the hammer will come later.
Today while at the hospital I saw this REALLY tall black woman walking toward me in a tacky purple dress (which I know is mean, but it was so tacky!) and white pumps....
When only 10 feet split us, I realized she was really a HE in a wig (that was falling down and barely hanging on the very back of his head....I could see his military hair cut in front, so it looked like he had a long mullet).
My first thought....that's the first trans gender person I've ever seen on a military installation. Immediately following thought: White shoes? After labor day?!? Aren't men who dress as women supposed to be fashion-ottas?
Is that gender-ist?
What? These are the things I ponder while walking the halls of the hospital!
ha,ha,ha,ha, ha, ha, ha,
A law firm that defends and promotes Christian heritage and moral values is suing the Department of the Navy for documents it claims misled Congress about the consequences of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on behalf of Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR). It seeks to obtain records the plaintiffs believe will show the Pentagon's intentional deception to gain congressional support for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" -- the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military."This did not respect the true feelings of our military whatsoever," contends Erin Mersino, trial counsel at TMLC. "The congressional repeal was based on false information, and the studies were not done appropriately. Secondly, there were supposed to be policies and regulations in place to ensure military effectiveness, and that was not completed."In addition, she says the Defense Department and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce any documents over the last two years that would uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."Donnelly says the public has the right to know the truth about a story published by The Washington Post in November 2010 that pushed President Obama's agenda, "pretending that the majority of military people were just fine with repeal of the law. Well, the Department of Defense inspector general did find out that that story was actually being crafted and pre-scripted before the vaunted survey of the troops even began," the CMA president reports.So Mersino tells OneNewsNow that the goal of the lawsuit is to turn back the clock -- "to have the law changed back to what it used to be, to have the repeal reversed with new legislation."
Donnelly is confident that the court will order that the requested documents to be released.
Men are now victims of military sex assaults...
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/now-men-are-victims-of-military-sex-assaults/
A retired Army chaplain is concerned about a recent same-sex "ceremony" conducted at a military chapel in Louisiana.
Same-sex "marriage" is not legal in Louisiana, being one of more than 30 states where voters have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Despite that, an Army chaplain performed in mid-May what he called a "holy union" ceremony for two lesbian soldiers at Fort Polk. The chaplain had the two participants sign a Memorandum of Record acknowledging they understood it was not a legally binding marriage ceremony. Congressman John Fleming (R-Louisiana), whose district includes Fort Polk, has denounced the same-sex ceremony and expressed his frustration publicly, pointing out it conflicts with state law and had "nothing to do with military readiness or our national defense." Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) has done likewise. Col. Ron Crews (USA-Ret.), who served as a chaplain for 28 years and is now a spokesman for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, concurs. "This is a tremendous disappointment that this chaplain, even though he had the authority to do what he did, wound up doing that in a state that has a clear definition of marriage recorded in their state law," he comments. According to Crews, this raises the bigger issue "of whether our military is to be used to promote a social sexual agenda right now, or is our military supposed to be able to focus on its true mission -- and that's defending this country." The retired chaplain also says the Fort Polk ceremony highlights the need for legislation recently passed by the House that will not allow similar incidents to happen in the future.
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Friday thanked homosexual military members for their service, as the Pentagon prepares to mark June as "gay pride" month with an official salute.
In a remarkable sign of a cultural change in the U.S. military, Panetta said that with the repeal last year of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that prohibited homosexuals from serving openly in the military, "gays" and lesbians can now be proud to be in uniform. "Now you can be proud of serving your country, and be proud of who you are," Panetta said.The defense chief also said he's committed to removing as many barriers as possible to making the military a model of equal opportunity.Panetta's video message was part of a Pentagon salute to LGBT troops as the Pentagon joined the rest of the U.S. government for the first time in marking June as gay pride month. It comes nine months after repeal of the policy that had prohibited homosexual troops from serving openly and forced more than 13,500 service members out of the armed forces.This month's event will follow a long tradition at the Pentagon of recognizing diversity in America's armed forces. Hallway displays and activities, for example, have marked Black History Month and Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month.
A forced agenda
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 6/15/2012 12:05 PM
Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (USA-Ret.) is senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council. He reacts to Panetta's announcement of an official military salute to homosexual troops."They want to be recognized as the same moral equivalent of heterosexuals," he tells OneNewsNow. "And the way to do this is to force forward their particular agenda -- you know, make them on the same equal opportunity status as African-Americans, Asian-Americans, anyone."According to Maginnis, even equal status is not enough for those who push that agenda. "Actually they'd like to exceed it," he says. "They want our total endorsement of who they are and what they represent. So this is no surprise. I've been warning about this years, and now it's becoming true."The retired Army officer, who has long studied the impact of open homosexuality in the military, laments what has transpired under the Obama administration."I know how destructive that lifestyle can be, so I'm personally distressed by how official Washington has kowtowed," he says. "But I think even more so, [I'm] distressed that those in the military -- the senior ranks -- caved to the political persuasion of the Obama administration to force this down our throats ...."And that, he says is "unfortunate because it undermines the effectiveness of our force and the cohesion that's so critical -- and especially in time of war."
Elaine Donnelly with the Center for Military Readiness takes strong exception to how the military is being used for an experiment in social engineering. "Our military is there to defend the country. It operates under different rules," she tells OneNewsNow. "Of course careers and opportunity are important, but the needs of the military must come first."As for Secretary Panetta's announcement? "Celebrating the gay pride agenda is not an appropriate role for the secretary of defense," says Donnelly. "Our military does not exist to promote diversity as defined by the LGBT left."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/get-in-line-or-resign-admiral-tells-military-chaplain?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=26d6437049-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_0
Get in line or resign admiral tells military chaplain.....
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 20, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Although the U.S. Military fight and die to uphold freedom, high-level military chaplains report they are increasingly being denied freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. There is also alarm about the negative effects on troop morale over the undoing of the 237-years’ practice of providing traditional religious support for U.S. soldiers.
“We were promised that we would see no change - very little change,” says Col. Ron Crews, alluding to a two-star officer’s assurance that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal would not impede the ministry of military chaplains. That promise, he says, has not been kept.
A retired Army chaplain is very disappointed that the Pentagon has hosted its very first ever "gay pride" celebration.
The celebration was held in the Pentagon auditorium on Tuesday. The speakers --which included both President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (via video) -- told those in attendance about the "value of gay service." "As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month," said the president, "we remember the activists and advocates who refused to be treated like second-class citizens." Panetta added: "And now after repeal [of the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy], you can be proud of serving your country and be proud of who you are when in uniform."Editor's note: The linked AP video report neglects to include any comments in opposition to the pro-homosexual celebration at the Pentagon. Col. Ron Crews (USA-Ret.) served as an Army chaplain for 28 years and now serves as a spokesman for the Chaplain Alliance For Religious Liberty. "It's extremely disappointing to me that the Pentagon is celebrating today behavior that one year ago was a court-martial offense," he laments. "The Pentagon is setting apart a category of military personnel that's based on their sexual behavior." The retired chaplain says Tuesday's celebration illustrates the need to elect new leadership this fall. "We hope that people in this country are going to recognize the direction that this country is going and will say enough is enough," he shares. "And [we hope] that there will be a change at the ballot box that would provide new leadership; that we would have a Commander-in-Chief who would honor and recognize marriage as a union of one man and one woman; and that Congress would once again recognize the traditional family and moral values that have made our country strong." Crews says the Chaplain Alliance finds it ironic that while the Pentagon is willing to celebrate deviant behavior, it has never promoted a "heterosexual pride month" to honor the contributions of those who make up at least 97 percent of the military.
Evidence the Military is spiraling downward.....
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1636396
What's happening now?
Well, there are homosexual "weddings" at West Point.
http://onenewsnow.com/culture/2012/12/04/weddings-at-west-point
Obama condemns rights of Christian military chaplains
http://onenewsnow.com/ap/politics/obama-condemns-rights-of-christian-military-chaplains
I think it's true that the Republicans, even those who voted against the repeal of DADT, have given up. The mainstreaming of homosexuality is in full swing and now in the area of spouses clubs that are in military bases. Fort Bragg, NC isn't quite buying it ....yet?
http://onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/01/16/republicans-move-on-to-next-defeat
THE CRAZINESS CONTINUES
The military.....budget cuts and handing out healthcare for homosexual partners...
http://onenewsnow.com/national-security/2013/02/08/whats-happening-in-military-is-not-equality
Sandra Fluke wants "transgender" (people who are confused about their gender) in the military as an HHS "accommodation"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sandra-fluke-embraces-transgender-soldiers-in-the-military-hhs-mandate-acco?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4991203b07-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_02_22_2013&utm_medium=email
Military Archbishop – Catholic Morality Cannot Be Restricted
By Paul Conner, The Daily Caller – The archbishop for the U.S. military spoke out for the first time against the effort to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” setting up a possible conflict between Pentagon brass and the 285 Roman Catholic priests who serve on active-duty in the military.
Archbishop Timothy Broglio at Al Asad
“Those with a homosexual orientation can expect respect and treatment worthy of their human dignity,” said Archbishop Timothy Broglio, Catholic overseer for military chaplains, in a statement released late last week. “However, unions between individuals of the same gender resembling marriage will not be accepted or blessed by Catholic chaplains.”
Broglio was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI two and a half years ago, though it is unclear if the archbishop speaks for the Vatican, which has so far been mum on the issue.
Catholic priests serve an estimated 1.5 million Catholic men and women in the U.S. military, according to the Archdiocese website.
The statement follows an April 28 letter from 41 retired Army, Air Force and Navy chaplains to President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying that repealing the rule would present chaplains with “a profoundly difficult moral choice”–whether to obey God or men.
“Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent especially for the armed forces at a time of war,” Broglio said. “Catholics believe that nothing will be done if there is a careful and prudent evaluation of the effects of a change.”
An evaluation by the Pentagon is scheduled to be completed by Dec. 1, but by then, Congress may have already passed legislation to repeal the Clinton-era rule that allows gays to serve in the military only if they do not reveal their sexual orientation.
The provision is steadily making its way through Congress on the coattails of a $760 billion defense spending bill, and it has strong supporters in Gates, Obama and Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to repeal the policy on March 27. So did the House of Representatives 234-194. If the bill passes the Senate, the Pentagon would still need to wait until the Dec. 1 study is delivered to remove the ban.
The chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps all oppose repeal.
“A number of chaplains and commanding officers have expressed concerns about the effects of a change,” Broglio wrote. “There is a request for guidance.”
Guidance from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: “Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law,” and “under no circumstance can they be approved.”
So what happens when a gay man or woman serving his or her country seeks guidance from a priest? Does the priest withhold a blessing? Would the priest have freedom to espouse the Catholic teaching that homosexuality is “objectively disordered?”
“No restrictions or limitations on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted,” said Broglio. “First Amendment rights regarding the free exercise of religion must be respected.”
But Broglio made it clear that compassion would be a top priority as chaplains walk a razor’s edge.
“Catholic chaplains must show compassion for persons with a homosexual orientation but can never condone — even silently — homosexual behavior,” Broglio said. “A change might have a negative effect on the role of the chaplain not only in the pulpit, but also in the classroom, in the barracks, and in the office.”
More craziness....
Sandra Fluke embraces transgender soldiers in the military, HHS mandate 'accommodation'
by Ben Johnson
CLAREMONT, CA, February 22, 2013, (LifesiteNews.com) – Sandra Fluke has brought her unique insights to bear on U.S. military policy, while teaming up again with Planned Parenthood to support the HHS mandate.
Last week, Fluke told a California college that Barack Obama's repeal of the “Don't Ask, “Don't Tell” policy did not go far enough, because it did not include transgender soldiers.
“We still don’t let trans-folk join the military,” Fluke told a gathering at Claremont McKenna College on February 13. “That needs to change.”
Service in the military, she said, should be open to the entire “the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning” population, according to the Daily Caller.
“I think the steps that we have to focus on right now are some of the ones that will be the most impactful but also the ones that society is ready for,” she added.
The speech came just days before the Georgetown contraception activist sent out an e-mail under the auspices of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) calling on its members to aggressively support the Obama administration's plan to force religious employers to fund contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.
Fluke praises Obama's latest “accommodation,” which states that religious non-profit entities would not directly cover practices that violate their religion – but that their employers must offer such services “free of charge.”
“President Obama's plan strikes the right balance,” Fluke wrote. “It guarantees that women will be able to get birth control without a co-pay, while ensuring that the rights of religious organizations are respected.”
The policy's critics say it amounts to an accounting gimmick and still tramples on the religious liberties of religious employers in the private sector, such as Hobby Lobby. Fluke addressed them in her e-mail.
“Despite the president's accommodation of religious organizations, powerful voices are still fighting to take this basic health care away from women,” she wrote. “It comes down to this: nobody – politicians, bosses, or anyone else – should be able to block your access to essential health care. Nobody has the right to deny you power over your body and your future.”
The e-mail routes its readers to a form e-mail from PPAF that reads, “I strongly support President Obama's plan for accessible and affordable birth control.”
“Personalize your message,” PPAF instructs.
Fluke's e-mail has already drawn opposition within the pro-life movement. Sarah Crawford of Texas Right to Life said, “Pills that induce abortion are not health care and Americans who oppose the use of these drugs should not be forced to pay for them simply because the most pro-abortion president demands it.”
“Abortion and abortion-inducing drugs are not health care. They are not a necessity and they are certainly not essential to the well-being of American women,” she said.
The re-emergence of Sandra Fluke shows she intends to build her brand, fueling speculation that she intends to run for political office in the future.
Fluke became a heroine of the feminist Left after being excluded from a House Oversight Committee hearing on religious freedom, because she intended to address a different topic altogether. The Democrats’ other witness, Barry Lynn, was invited but refused to come, a turn of events that led Virginia Democrat Gerald Connolly to charge the clergy who attended with being “complicit in the trampling of freedom.”
In her e-mail, Fluke writes that in the ensuing weeks, she was “smeared” by Rush Limbaugh and “shameless political operatives...They deny us a hearing, they shout us down, they call us names.”
The notoriety fed her public rise.
She spoke during prime time at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. During a campaign that largely focused on an alleged “war on women,” she became a surrogate for President Obama's re-election. A campaign stop in Reno, Nevada, last October at the height of the campaign season drew 10 people.
The e-mail is an attempt to make herself relevant on the issue yet again.
The Department of Health and Human Services is taking comments on the proposed “accommodation” for the next month. Those on both sides of the controversy have promised to make their voices heard.
“Pro-Life women have a few words for you, Sandra,” Crawford said. “We have always been here and we will forever fight for the real rights of women and the unborn to be protected.”
Today Congress is holding hearings on sexual assault in the military. I know we will hear plenty about male on female sexual assault, but am wondering since homosexuality is a politically protected sexual behavior, if the numbers of same-sex sexual assault will be revealed.
Here is the latest from World Net daily on that.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/military-suffers-wave-of-gay-sex-assaults/
Published: 05/21/2013 at 9:03 PM
A recent military report on sexual assault in the military shocked many in Washington and around the nation, but a leading expert on military personnel revealed the prevalence of men assaulting other men is one of the major headlines in this study.
The extended analysis of the report first appeared in Monday’s edition of the the Washington Times.
The Defense Department survey of sexual assault in the military during fiscal 2012 estimated 26,000 assaults took place in the armed forces. Nearly 3,000 of them were formally reported. Just more than 6 percent of women reported being victims of assault and 1.2 percent of men said the same. Given the much larger number of men in the military, those numbers suggest 14,000 of the assaults in the Pentagon study happened to men.
Among the assaults formally reported, 88 percent of reports came from women and 12 percent from men. The numbers are getting dramatically worse.
“The number of reports of sexual assaults among military personnel have actually increased by 129 percent since 2004,” said Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, who pointed out the number of formal reports of sexual assault jumped from 1,275 to 2,949 in just eight years.
She told WND when factoring in civilians working for or around the military, the increase in that time is 98 percent.
Women are identified as the attacker in just two percent of all assaults, meaning most men who suffer assault are targeted by other men.
“So we’ve got a male-on-male problem here. The Department of Defense doesn’t want to comment on this. They know that the numbers are there. They say that they care, but all the attention is usually given to the female members of the military who are subjected to sexual assault,” Donnelly said.
The Washington Times article also includes analysis from Aaron Belkin, who heads The Palm Center. He said the rise in male-on-male sexual assault does not reflect the increase of homosexuals in the military but, rather, those assaults are ”somewhat similar to prison rape.”
“Well, that’s a great slogan to use for recruiting young men into the military, isn’t it? It’s outrageous. And yet, the Department of Defense doesn’t quite know what to do with these figures, and so they just sort of put them in there and hope nobody notices,” said Donnelly, who points out The Palm Center is a homosexual activist organization.
While Donnelly fiercely opposed repealing the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military, she said it’s important to keep monitoring the numbers to determine how much that policy change specifically contributes to the problem. She said the increase in sexual assaults against female service members should not be diminished, either. Donnelly said a lot of work lies ahead to reverse this trend, but the military and the federal government are kidding themselves if they don’t think some major policy decisions aren’t contributing to the rise in sexual violence.
“I think we have to start with the basics, and that means basic training. Back in 1998, unanimously, the Kassebaum-Baker Commission came out with recommendation to separate basic training for Army, Air Force and Navy trainers, (to) do it like the Marines do. The Marines train basic training separately, male and female at Parris Island. That’s a good thing to do. It’s a good first start,” Donnelly said.
“Second, they should stop pretending that sexuality does not matter. You cannot solve a problem by extending it into the combat arms. The big push is for women in combat, this argument that we have to have women in the infantry so they’ll be respected more and they won’t be assaulted,” said Donnelly, who noted that the strategy for women in combat that started more than a generation ago from then-Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., has been thoroughly discredited.
“Respect for women in the military today is higher than ever, but the sexual assault numbers keep climbing up,” she said. “I think before we start implementing a theory that’s been discredited. The members of the Pentagon and the people who make policy in Congress as well, they need to stop. They need to assess where we are, what has happened in the last two decades and they need to stop pretending that a lot of sensitivity training or highly paid consultants, that that is going to make a difference in the sex problems we’re seeing right now,” said Donnelly.
In 2012, Donnelly told WND that the statistics showed a more than 20 percent increase in reported sexual assaults on males.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/military-suffers-wave-of-gay-sex-assaults/#AEQJSr4fAttGFwbb.99
August 13, 2013
According to Fox News, the U.S. Air Force confirmed a well-known drag queen group was invited to perform on base during "Diversity Day" because drag is a "symbol of gay pride and unity." But the performance sparked outrage among some airmen who called the drag show "totally offensive and inappropriate."
Jewels and the Brunchettes performed to a small crowd at the Los Angeles Air Force Base on Aug. 8.
The Diversity Day event also featured a speech by Brigadier General Tammy Smith and included booths representing and honoring a number of ethnic heritages as well as an LGBT booth. Smith became the first openly gay general after the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell."
An airman, who asked not to be identified, said it was ironic that the Air Force is cracking down on Christians being able to openly share their faith but they would allow individuals to dress in drag. "We can't even have Bibles on our desks," he said. "This base is not a platform for political agendas. It is a military installation. The (Diversity Day) display was totally inappropriate and offensive."
Last week, your AFA requested a meeting with Secretary of the Air Force Eric Fanning to discuss the Air Force's recent string of anti-Christian hostilities against chaplains, officers and enlisted men who publicly share their faith. ---------------------------------------------
“Diversity Day”! The slippery slope of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The US Air Force ain’t what it used to be.
I sent this article to 4 of my brothers who were in the Air Force.
They said it's not the Air Force nor the country they served. But they are oldies and "out of touch" with the "anything goes" mindset today. Bob Hope's comedy routines were sufficient entertainment back then. Times are definitely DIFFERENT today, but no where near better.
Chad Groening (OneNewsNow.com) Friday, August 16, 2013
A conservative military watchdog is blasting the Pentagon for a recent decision to grant benefits to the same-sex spouses of military service members, saying it’s going to end up costing the taxpayers an enormous amount of money.
The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that it will make healthcare, housing, and other benefits available to same-sex spouses of military members by September 3. The Pentagon it reached the decision after consulting with the Justice Department following the Supreme Court's ruling in June on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
"It is now the department's policy to treat all married military personnel equally," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in memo to senior Pentagon officials. The benefits will be made available to same-sex spouses as long as the service member provides a valid marriage certificate.
Donnelly
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, believes the associated cost to American taxpayers will be enormous.
"Nobody has estimated the cost of what this will be – and it's not just a static cost,” she explains. “The Pentagon will have to start with extending very costly benefits, especially medical benefits, to same-sex couples if they get a marriage certificate in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal."
It is blatantly unfair to heterosexual service members, she argues, that military personnel in a same-sex relationship who are stationed in a state that does not permit same-sex marriage will be allowed to take extra leave for travel to a jurisdiction where they can marry legally.
"If special leave is granted to same-sex couples, how can the Department of Defense justify denial of the same amount of time to opposite-sex couples who want to have a nice wedding?” she asks. “You see the disparity continues, but it's always called ‘equality.’"
Donnelly believes this was a fully predictable consequence following the imposition of the pro-LGBT law on the military. Robert Maginnis with the Family Research Council made a similar comment last week regarding the then-proposed plan for military benefits.
“It was predictable; and it's radically unfortunate – but that's the direction this administration is going,” Maginnis told OneNewsNow. “... Unless somebody on the Hill or someone files a lawsuit against them, they’ll proceed in their own bizarre way.”
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com//national-security/2013/08/16/military-benefits-for-same-sex-spouses-%E2%80%98nobody-estimated-the-cost%E2%80%99#.Ug5UPzbD-po
PART OF The AFTERMATH...
Chad Groening (OneNewsNow.com) Tuesday, August 20, 2013
A 19-year U.S. Air Force veteran is speaking out after he was allegedly punished by a lesbian commander at Lackland Air Force Base for his personal views on same-sex "marriage."
Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk says he returned from a deployment to discover his new training squadron commander, Major Elisa Valenzuela, is a lesbian.
The senior master sergeant says he and the major disagreed over the issue of same-same marriage, when Monk was told to punish a staff sergeant who had shared his own religious views in a classroom setting with trainees.
Major Valenzuela wanted the staff sergeant to be severely punished for expressing religious objections to homosexuality, and in the course of that discussion Monk admitted to his commander that he also has a moral objection to same-sex marriage.
“And I was being essentially evaluated as if I had to agree as a condition of employment,” Monk tells OneNewsNow. “I was weighed. I was measured. I was found unfit for my position. And for all intents and purposes, she punished me."
Monk told Military Times that he and Major Valenzuela had a “very, very contentious” discussion over the issue, with his commander pressing him to agree with her that opposing "gay marriage" is discrimination.
Monk’s response to her: “I cannot answer your question because of my convictions,” he told the military newspaper.
A spokeswoman for the training wing told Military Times that Monk was “not removed from duty,” and said he has been reassigned to another position elsewhere on the Texas air base.
Monk told the Times that he was due for a reassignment but said the disagreement with the lesbian major forced him to be abruptly removed from his leadership position on July 26. He had to seek permission to return to his unit to retrieve personal items, he said.
“I was relieved of my position because I do not agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” he told the military newspaper.
A religious liberty law firm, Liberty Institute, is representing the airman.
Berry
Attorney Mike Berry of Liberty Institute says the military branches have reached a point where there is a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military for Christians who support traditional values.
Liberty Institute, quoting Monk, reported that the lesbian major once referred to a base chaplain as a “bigot” because he preaches that homosexuality is a sin.
“We are apparently now at the point where a Christian is not allowed to vocalize his Christianity,” says Berry. “And that's in direct violation of Defense Department and Air Force regulations. That's what's happened in this case."
Monk has been transferred to a medical wing at Lackland AFB and received a letter of counseling, an official notice of infraction, Military Times reported.
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com//legal-courts/2013/08/20/i-cannot-answer-your-question-air-force-sgt-says-lesbian-commander-booted-him-from-unit#.UhOXgTbD-po
GET THIS.....Bradley or Chelsea Manning, Obama and DADT...perverts!
August 27, 2013
Obama presides over security meltdown
By Cliff KincaidCNN's story "Chelsea or Bradley Manning: Addressing transgender people" ignores the other alternative – he/she is simply a pervert who should have been booted out of the service years ago and should never have received a security clearance. The key question – not pursued by the media – is why Manning was allowed to remain in the Army when he was acting in violation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy.Manning will pay a price in prison, but those who permitted this to happen have still not been held accountable.In our August 1, 2010, article "Military Homosexual Scandal Tied to WikiLeaks Treason," we noted reports that Manning, the U.S. Army Intelligence analyst who leaked classified information to WikiLeaks, was not only a homosexual but was considering a sex change.Adding insult to injury, this traitor is now making this official, hoping the taxpayers pick up the bill.We asked at the time, "Who in the Obama Administration – and the Department of Defense – was aware of his conduct and looked the other way? Was Manning given a pass because his 'lifestyle' was considered to be in favor and acceptable under the Obama Administration?"Manning claimed connections into the Pentagon and the White House. Our media never followed up.We noted that "The revelations of Manning's openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way."These are the important questions – far more important than whether Manning should now be called he or she.The buck stops with President Obama, whose announced desire to overturn the homosexual exclusion policy was undoubtedly a factor in Army officials' looking the other way on Manning.In our August 20, 2010, article "Accused Army Traitor Cruised Gay Bars," we noted that, according to information then developed by CNN, Manning had been cruising the homosexual subculture for several years, under the noses of his military superiors, and even went to gay bars.Despite this homosexual scandal, Congress voted to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy.In our article "Pentagon Celebrates Gay Pride During Treason Trial," we noted that Obama's Defense Department hosted a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month event which failed to include any mention, pro or con, of the most celebrated homosexual soldier in American history, Bradley Manning, then on trial for treason.It was a strange omission. Why weren't they proud of their gay solider?Homosexuals marched on his behalf in gay pride parades.My article quoted conservative columnist Ann Coulter as saying that Manning's homosexuality was critical to understanding the case, and that foreign intelligence services have traditionally exploited sexual perverts.In Manning's case, it was not a foreign intelligence service per se, but WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who went to work for Moscow's RT propaganda channel, where he conducted interview with Islamists and Marxists.Coulter wrote, "The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called the 'Magnificent Five:' Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB. The only one who wasn't gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union."We don't know everything there is to know about NSA leaker Edward Snowden, who supposedly has a girlfriend that he abandoned in order to flee to China and then Russia. But his handler, Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald, is an open homosexual with Marxist links whose "partner" was detained on his way through London and had his laptop, camera, memory sticks, and DVDs confiscated by authorities.The media won't remind us of this fact, but two previous NSA defectors to the Soviet Union/Russia, Bernon F. Mitchell and William H. Martin, were also perverts.Mitchell confessed to "sexual experimentation with dogs and chickens," according to the 1962 report "Security Practices in the National Security Agency." Mitchell, who had "associations with members of the Communist Party," was "sexually abnormal," had "posed for nude color slides perched on a velvet-covered stool," and had "homosexual problems."The report said Mitchell and Martin "had supposedly gone through the most rigorous of loyalty and security checks prior to and during their employment with the most sensitive and secretive of all agencies" – the NSA. Issued by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the report recommended ways to improve background checks of potential NSA employees.At that time, the government frowned on employing homosexuals and "deviates." In fact, a 1950 congressional report was titled "Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government" and said that the FBI, the CIA, and the intelligence services of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces were all "in complete agreement that sex perverts in government constitute security risks."Can you imagine a government report nowadays referring to "perverts?"Today, the NSA has "Special Emphasis Programs" in place for various groups, including the "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT)." Examples of recent presentations NSA has sponsored include "Can We Talk: Gay and Straight Issues in the Workplace."Back in 2000, Reed Irvine and I wrote an article about homosexual Rep. Barney Frank, who was reprimanded by the House over a sex scandal, after he was invited to speak to CIA employees. "Down the road," we said, "the CIA and the National Security Agency, which also sent open gays to hear Barney Frank, may recruit men who dress as women, and vice versa. After all, the transgendered also want their rights."It has all come to pass, under America's first gay president, as Newsweek called Obama. The magazine thought this was great. With Manning, we are seeing the results.Now the Wall Street Journal reports in a story, "NSA Officers Spy on Love Interests," that National Security Agency officers on several occasions have channeled their agency's enormous eavesdropping power to spy on "love interests."Clearly, it would be a mistake to assume this eavesdropping has involved just spying on heterosexuality.Rather than focus on over-hyped "revelations" of wrongdoing by the agency in its terrorist surveillance programs, we need to know who is being hired by this agency and why. That investigation could lead to more Edward Snowdens.Again, the Wall Street Journal broke the story, noting that the company that performed a background check on Edward Snowden is now under investigation itself. USIS, which describes itself as "the leader in federal background investigations," says, "we provide services around the globe to the government under 100 contracts. We work closely with numerous departments of the federal government, ranging from State, Homeland Security, and Defense to Justice and intelligence agencies."USIS, a subsidiary of Altegrity, Inc., acknowledges an "ongoing civil investigation of USIS," but claims it "is unrelated to any background investigation of Edward Snowden."If it is not related to the Snowden matter, then clearly we need another investigation of this firm.In response to the Snowden disclosures, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing, "Safeguarding our Nation's Secrets: Examining The Security Clearance Process," which has resulted in a new piece of legislation, the Security Clearance Oversight and Reform Enhancement (SCORE) Act. It won't do anything to stop NSA catering to sexual special interest groups.The Senate version is sponsored by Democratic Senator Jon Tester, with six co-sponsors: Senators Max Baucus, Tom Coburn, Ron Johnson, Claire McCaskill, Bill Nelson and Rob Portman.Referring to Snowden, Tester asked, "...how in the world does a contractor, who had been on the job for less than 3 months, get his hands on information detailing a highly classified Government program that he subsequently shared with foreign media outlets?"Of course, President Obama himself has access to the same information and never went through a process to get a security clearance.Former FBI agent Max Noel told me the Bureau used to investigate candidates for federal employment by analyzing "Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty" to the United States. The first letters in those words make up the acronym CARL.Noel said Obama could not have been elected president if he had been subjected to the CARL test. But members of Congress also evade the security clearance process.Tester said, "We have spent hundreds of billions in this country trying to keep classified information classified and to keep people from outside coming in. And what we see here is that we have a problem from the inside."Yes, indeed. And it starts at the top, with a president from Tester's own political party.© Cliff Kincaid
CWN - September 19, 2013
The archbishop responsible for the US armed forces has stated that Catholicchaplains cannot be obliged to participate in weddings, in counseling forhomosexual couples, or in other events that would suggest approval ofhomosexual activities.
In a September 17 statement, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the head of theArchdiocese for the Military Services, sets out guidelines for Catholicmilitary chaplains. Noting that policies recently enacted by the Obamaadministration have caused some confusion about the chaplains’ role, thearchbishop encourages chaplains to uphold the teaching of the Church. “A cleardisservice is rendered if the truth of the Gospel is confused by the actions ofthose ordained to disseminate that truth,” Archbishop Broglio writes.
Specifically, the archbishop states
No Catholic priest or deacon may be forced byany authority to witness or bless the union of couples of the same gender. NoCatholic priest or deacon can be obliged to assist at a “Strong Bonds” or other“Marriage Retreat”, if that gathering is also open to couples of the samegender. A priest who is asked to counsel non-Catholic parties in asame-gendered relationship will direct them to a chaplain who is able toassist. Catholic parties will, of course, be encouraged by the priest to striveto live by the teaching of the Gospel.
…
While the tradition of the Catholic Church always tries to find reasons tobury the dead, a priest may not be placed in a situation where his assistanceat a funeral for a Catholic would give the impression that the Church approvesof same sex “marital” relationships….
Obviously, anyone who is known to be in a sinful relationship is excludedfrom ministries in the Catholic community. While this list is not intended tocover every situation, lectors, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion,altar servers, catechists, and members of the Catholic Council immediately cometo mind.
Archbishop Broglio also addresses the problems facing Catholics who exercisecommand in the armed forces, and are now required to implement programs thatrecognize same-sex unions. Citing an analysis from the National CatholicBioethics Center, he says that officers may carry out those policies if theyhave voiced their objections and if there is no avoid involvement withoutjeopardizing their own positions.
Additional sourcesfor this story
What's going on at Fort Bragg, NC?
A former Navy chaplain calls it "an absolute abomination to almighty God" that one of the nation's most prestigious military installations would open its base chapel to same-sex ceremonies.
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is home of the Army's famed 82nd Airborne Division and the Green Berets. But recently Major Daniel Toven and Johnathan Taylor exchanged vows in the base chapel after being "married" in Washington, DC, in August.
The ceremony at Fort Bragg wasn't a wedding; North Carolina law prohibits same-sex unions. But the event, which drew more than 100 people, is believed to be the first for a same-sex couple at the Army post.
Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain who runs The Pray In Jesus Name Project, expresses his dismay about the ceremony.
"This is an abomination to almighty God," he tells OneNewsNow. "And even if they had a thousand people attend the wedding, they would not be able to obtain the blessing of almighty God on something that God has called sin."
According to the Christian activist, the Fort Bragg ceremony also desecrated God's holy altar.
"They're violating the constitutional rights of all of the soldiers on that base who worship in that chapel, because they have desecrated the Christian altar," he explains, "and that deprives the other soldiers on the base of a sacred worship space."
Klingenschmitt favors legislation that would protect military chapels from being used for same-sex ceremonies.
- See more at: http://onenewsnow.com/national-security/2013/12/26/ft-bragg-chapel-ceremony-labeled-a-desecration-of-gods-holy-altar#.Ur2vWel3s5s
SAW THIS HAD TO POST IT HERE!
by Dustin Siggins
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 2, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- One of the nation's top military officials says President Obama told the heads of the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and Air Force to back his repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) or "resign our commissions and go do other things."
In a video published by Buzzfeed, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp told Coast Guard Academy cadets on January 8, 2014 that President Obama called in the five service heads in 2010 to let them know of his decision to focus on repealing DADT. That policy, which was repealed in 2011, had been enacted in 1994 with bipartisan support, including President Bill Clinton's signature. It allowed homosexuals to serve in the military as long as homosexual relationships and attractions were not made known, though discretion was given to company commanders.
Papp was speaking to the cadets about how officers should handle policies that they are required to uphold yet disagree with. Papp, who said getting rid of DADT was the right choice, described the president's words as saying "this is what I want to do." The commandant said he could not "divulge everything [President Obama] said to us...but if we didn't agree with it -- if any of us didn’t agree with it — we all had the opportunity to resign our commissions and go do other things."
In 2008, then-Sen. Obama told The Advocate that he "would never make [DADT] a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff." The presidential candidate said, "Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe."
He also said, "What I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology."
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, who served as a senior military aide to Clinton from 1996 to 1998, said, "[President] Clinton tried this same threat in the 1990s, but he ran into Colin Powell, who headed the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time." The compromise that was created became DADT.
"I've heard from military contacts that President Obama did indeed make this threat," said Patterson, who said he would reach out to sources to verify Papp's claims.
Retired Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu told LifeSiteNews that "if [Papp's statement is] true and verified, that's almost a form of command intimidation and blackmail, which seems very unprofessional to me."
Cucullu, who served in Vietnam and was a Green Beret, said there was an enormous difference between a president giving an ultimatum "us[ing] the military as a Petri dish for social experimentation" and "a critical aspect of national security."
"There really wouldn't be dissension in the ranks, even if someone disagreed with the policy. As long as they were wearing the uniform, they would defend the policy," says Cucullu. "But when it comes down to social engineering, what you're doing, in effect, is diminishing the role of Commander-in-Chief in terms of responsibility for national security, and delving into the kind of experimentation that really should not be the responsibility of the military."
According to Cucullu, "The military is designed for one purpose -- national security. Anything that detracts from that must be weighed on a cost-benefit analysis, as to the risks to the esprit de corps and the professionalism of the military itself." Cucculu also said he believes "that with this administration in particular the professionalism is often ignored, but social experiments are acutely focused on. Including women in combat, DADT -- there does seem to be a degree of intimidation that I think is at best unseemly, and at worst illegal, with these kinds of threats to careers if you don't support a social policy."
President Obama repealed DADT in the face of strong resistance among many service members.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account