Welcome to Americans for Truth, a newly reorganized national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda.
OK for Denmark, but not for the United States of America
[Note to AFTAH readers: click HERE to watch the Congressional testimony of Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness]
Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is shown here training with the Danish Home Guard (59,000 strong). Unlike Denmark, America’s armed forces (1.43 million active duty members; 1.46 million in reserves) protect freedom the world over — and cannot afford the problems and distractions caused by politically correct social experiments like open homosexuality in the military.
By Jack Roeser
I’m a business owner now, and I was a private in the Combat Engineers, having volunteered in 1942 and served over three years at the bottom of a big army in a big war.
All this patty cake about “don’t ask don’t tell” or of just accepting homosexuals in the army doesn’t take into account how that affects military life.
First of all, the army is not a democracy, it is all about accepting orders without a vote. Promotions or assignments are the prerogative of sergeants and officers. This power must be used with some restraint and fairness or the cohesiveness of the unit suffers. As a soldier you have to work together, perhaps with a lot of gripping, but you know there are unpleasant or dangerous things to do that someone must do, hopefully not you. Put a homosexual into that mix and you get trouble when he or his homosexual buddy get into the command structure. Thereafter promotions and assignments will be seen as affected by weird sexual influence. Fairness and respect suffer. Retribution of a very unfair sort may result.
I have heard from many friends who missed the live CSPAN broadcast of the testimony I gave before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on July 23. Those who did see the program recognized that my opening statement, concentrating on the consequences of repealing the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, confronted the committee members with serious issues that they did not want to hear. My fellow witness, retired Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, also talked about concepts that he knows well as a former Army Ranger and Delta Force soldier. Those matters seemed beyond the understanding of liberal members who berated us with absurd questions and diversionary insinuations that were repeated in hostile news reports.
Please take the time to read carefully this superbly crafted column by my friend (and former boss) Bob Knight of the Culture & Media Institute. Bob is an expert in dissecting the lies of the Left, but I particularly enjoyed this piece setting the record straight on the Democrats’ and the Washington Post’s shameful mistreatment of Elaine Donnelly, a national leader in keeping radical sexual agendas out the military.
Post columnist Dana Milbank’s snideness is answered below by Bob’s classy — and very instructive — piece. As you know, AFTAH has been on the receiving end of a mountain full of cheap, spurious and ad hominem attacks of the sort leveled at Elaine — who deserves our thanks for decades of faithful service to the nation. — Peter LaBarbera,www.aftah.org
TAKE ACTION: Spread the word by asking your family, friends and contacts to call their Congressman and U.S. Senators to voice their opposition to homosexualizing the U.S. military. Call 202-225-3121 (House) or 202-224-3121 (Senate); or go to www.congress.org.
A Washington Post columnist claims a supporter of the ban on gays in the military exhibited “rage” in Congressional testimony — but The Hill reveals that the rage was on the other side.
Elaine Donnelly reported for duty Wednesday. She went to a battlefield where most men who agree with her were AWOL.
Like her mentor, Phyllis Schlafly, she did not let others’ cowardice or indifference interfere with what she needed to do. Mrs. Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, told the truth at risk of ridicule or worse, keeping the faith that telling the truth matters no matter what.
The number of sites that come up on a Google search of “gay military pornography.”
The arrogance of the pro-homosexuality-in-the- military forces has escalated to unbelievable levels — a product in part of the huge political mobilization by anti-Don’t-Ask/Don’t-Tell forces compared to their pro-family opponents. Once again we see the play for sympathy based on the false and unproven idea that people are “born gay.” Get out your violins: the homosexual victims are coming … to Capitol Hill to demand more “rights” based on their aberrant sexual inclinations. Straight soldiers’ rights? Forget it! And no need to hire a PR agency for the “gay” side: the liberal media is taking care of that (more on Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s hit-piece against Donnelly later).–Peter LaBarbera
For the first time since Congress beat back Bill Clinton’s effort to bring homosexuals into the military in 1993, there was a hearing on the topic yesterday on Capitol Hill, which FRC’s Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg and several Witherspoon Fellows attended. The Democrats in Congress are laying the groundwork for action next year, when they hope [a Democrat will be] president … to overturn the law which codified the military’s longstanding policy excluding homosexuals. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, and Sgt. Major Brian Jones, a veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force, ably defended the law in the face of shockingly disrespectful and even abusive questioning by members of the House Military Personnel subcommittee. Particularly egregious was the behavior of Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), who said that Donnelly’s concern about the impact of HIV-positive soldiers was “dumb” and that her testimony about behaviors common among homosexuals was “bonkers.” Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) used the silly line, “When did you decide to be heterosexual?” The false assumptions that people are “born gay” and can never change, and that homosexuality is equivalent to race, permeated the questioning. Yet no one explained how it would benefit the military to recruit service members who plan to commit acts which are criminal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the July 23 Congressional hearing on homosexuals in the military was the effort to read 21st-century political correctness back into American history.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) insisted, “We’ve had gays in the American military from the first unit that was ever formed.” Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) echoed this astonishing claim, saying that “gays have served in every conflict, every war” this country has fought.
In fact, Shays was even more specific, noting a patriotic event in his district at which they read the names of “everyone who lost his life in the French and Indian War–some of whom were gay.”
“Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines?” — Elaine Donnelly positing the common-sense poll question that liberal media polls refuse to ask.
_________________________________
Open homosexuality will undermine military morale. Straight soldiers should not be forced to cohabitate with people who define themselves as sexually attracted to the same-sex.
The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released on July 19, 2008, is typical of recent polls of civilians on this issue. Surveys such as this both reflect and help shape public opinion, as part of a relentless perception management campaign that has been going on for years.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll is less than persuasive because it includes two questions that demonstrate how misinformation and diversionary questions can affect the results of polls. Question #33 reads:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 78%, No, 18% No Opinion, 5%)
Question #34:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 75%, No, 22%, No Opinion 3%)
These two inquiries do not frame the real issue: Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines? Instead, the questions use confusing double negatives, which end with the phrase “or not?” It is difficult to find a clear statement in the poll on which to state an opinion.
The questions suggest that the main issue is being “undisclosed” or “disclosed” as a homosexual in the military. On the contrary, the true key issue is eligibility to serve, not disclosure of homosexuality. Inquiries also use the permissive word “allowed,” not the more accurate term, “required,” as in “Should members of the military be required . . . ?” Instead, the poll focuses only on the desires of homosexuals who want to serve in the military. The issues of military discipline, morale, and readiness are not mentioned at all.
MILITARY MEN AS HOMOSEXUAL SEX OBJECTS? Above is an ad for one of the many “gay” military-oriented porn websites: American male soldiers do not bunk and shower with women; should they be forced to shower and bunk with men who identify themselves as sexually attracted to other men? TAKE ACTION: call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or contact your U.S. Representative and Senators online to voice your opposition to opening up the military to homosexuality. Read below about how homosexual men with their same-sex attractions compromised the Catholic practice of priestly celibacy.
Allyson Smith of AFTAH sends along this compelling essay with obvious parallels to putting homosexual men in the military. Rev. James Haley’s logic presumably would extend to (public) restrooms — not just for the “transgendered” but for all suffering from what some are calling “same-sex attraction disorder.” Rev. Haley of The Roman Catholic Faithful writes in “The Real Story about Celibacy”:
…By assigning religious men to live only with men, and religious women to live only with women, the bishop or abbot is apparently also following the tradition and moral prudence, or one can more properly say, the moral necessity, of keeping religious men and women separated from one another – a very prudent practice because, in the words of an honest speaker concerning human nature and Christian love: “There is nothing more naturally attractive for a Christian man in love with God, than a Christian woman in love with God.”
But that same-sex living assignment quickly and clearly runs seriously afoul when the sexual orientations and desires are reversed from their norm and, even more so, when those sexual orientations remain hidden from the outside world – that leads to the very improper, imprudent and secret situation that the Church was trying to prevent. In other words: There is nothing more “naturally” attractive for a homosexual man in love with God, than another homosexual man in love with God.
So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests….
Building public acceptance of homosexuality is coincident with a general moral unraveling of our society, with all its destructive consequences
Star Parker makes a great point here: the undeniable reality that momentum is on the side of the homosexual activists does not make their agenda a good thing for America. Historically, societies in which sexual immorality flourishes are unhealthy, declining societies, so don’t buy the Left’s definition of “progress.” — Peter LaBarbera
For the first time since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was enacted in 1993 by President Clinton, the House Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings to review it. The law disqualifies gays from serving in the military.
Individuals are deemed gay, according to this ruling, if they publicly state so. However, the military is prohibited from asking. Thus, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Activists are now pushing for change to allow gays to serve openly.
We can anticipate a technical discussion. Does the presence of openly gay soldiers undermine cohesiveness of units, morale, and discipline? How would retention rates of troops or enlistments be affected?
We can be sure, though, that a discussion about the general moral implications of such a policy will not take place.
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is shown here training with the Danish Home Guard (59,000 strong). Unlike Denmark, America’s armed forces (1.43 million active duty members; 1.46 million in reserves) protect freedom the world over — and cannot afford the problems and distractions caused by politically correct social experiments like open homosexuality in the military.
