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.
federal recognition of homosexual “civil unions”; and
using the president’s bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption and other homosexual activist policy goals.
I’m sure we’ve missed some homosexual agenda items. But if you are a Christian and/or consider yourself pro-natural-family — and you voted for Mr. Obama — perhaps it’s time to start contacting him to urge him NOT to pursue these misguided policies. (We assume that many strongly religious Obama voters were at least partly — and perhaps willfully — ignorant of his liberal-left plank on the moral issues of homosexuality and abortion.) We don’t know if the messages will get to him, but here’s a contact page for the Obama transition team: http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
The Citizenlink story is below:
________________________
‘Gay’ agenda not raised in three presidential debates — but don’t just blame the media …
By Peter LaBarbera
OK, now it’s official. In three presidential debates to help us decide which man – John McCain or Barack Obama – will lead this nation, the critical issue of homosexual “marriage” didn’t even come up.
Add to that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal “hate crimes” bill and Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), homosexuality in the military, how “gay rights” laws threaten religious and other freedoms, and homosexual adoption of children.
On each of these issues, Obama and McCain strongly disagree, but we never (or barely) got to hear them explain their positions on the same stage – in contrast to Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church debate where at least “gay marriage” was discussed. The only time that homosexuality was raised in the four official debates, including the vice-presidential debate, was when moderator Gwen Ifill asked a poorly constructed question about same-sex benefits and then “gay marriage” to Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden.
The issue of judicial appointments did come up but certainly has received far less attention than it deserves since judges are setting now policy in this country.
Do you feel as gypped as I do by the combination of media bias, campaign jingoism and political correctness that resulted in one of the most important issues facing our nation — whether marriage should be radically redefined to accommodate “rights” based on homosexual behavior – not even being mentioned in the official debates?
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.
