Terrible Destruction is Being Done to Our Armed Forces

And to Our Country by Modern Liberalism

© O. R. Adams Jr. 2013

[Back to Articles]

General George Washington Praying at Valley Forge

This country became the United States of America through the efforts of armed forces led by General George Washington. Had it not been for his efforts and dogged perseverance, we probably would never have gained our freedom from Great Britain.

Neither women nor homosexuals were allowed in our military forces at that time. The reasons for not having women were quite obvious. The hardships and living together in close quarters to survive was a men only situation. And, even today, there are many combat situations that are still the same. Homosexuality – engaging in sodomy – was a crime in the military services and in all of the colonies, as well as in all of the states, when our country was formed. In some of the states, the penalty was death. Washington worked continually to instill Christian morality in the members of our armed forces. Even profanity was discouraged. Washington obtained chaplains to perform Christian religious services for the troops, and having chaplains in the military has continued until this day, although it has become pretty much of a joke in the last ten years.

Our country largely came about through the efforts of our forefathers to find a place where they could freely practice true Christian religion, without the restrictions of the Church of England. For the first two hundred years of its life, this country had a strong Christian heritage. That Christian heritage has disintegrated in the past fifty years, and with it our American moral values.

Sodomy was a crime that was strictly enforced in our military services, until the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy of the Clinton administration allowed closeted homosexuals into the military forces. Under President Barack Hussein Obama, men and women who openly engage in sodomy were welcomed into the service. Men and women in the services, who did not believe in the vile acts of sodomy, were muzzled, and prohibited from speaking out about it.

Now it has been announced that women will be allowed to serve in combat, along with men. This will greatly reduce the effectiveness and power of our military forces.  It will also greatly reduce the morale and morality in our armed services. We probably already have abortion clinics for pregnant military women in our military hospitals, along with facilities for the treatment of AIDS and HIV. If not we will have, and this as well as the activities going on with women and homosexuals, will continue to be kept from the public as much as possible.

Women did not become more suited to combat because of modern times nor because of the feminists' movement. They still have the same physical and mental characteristics and differences. The reasons why women are not suited to be in trenches, foxholes, and in close combat quarters with men, have not suddenly changed. What has changed is that our Commander in Chief, and the Chiefs of Staff under him, have succumbed to radical liberalism with its "politically correct" "diversity." This always trumps facts, experience, and common sense, which are all against such absurdity.

How do you think a football team of women would fare against a football team of men? How do you think women boxers would do against men boxers? It would be ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous to put women in mortal combat with men. Also, the immoral conduct between our service men and women would greatly increase. This has been a big problem in the past 20 years, because of closer contact between the two – and that is nothing to what it will be.

Radical feminism is an evil thing when used in the manner that it has been in this country. It is not only destructive to morality – it is working to destroy freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It works to destroy objective thinking and objective science. Everything must conform to what is "politically correct," regardless of whether or not it is true and based on facts. It will wreak havoc in our armed forces, and it already has.

When we get out of the make-believe world of feminism and modern liberalism – into the realm of common sense; we should realize the women should not be in combat units of the military services. They are not physically suited to it. It will help destroy morale in our armed forces, it will result in immoral misbehavior between men and women in close quarters, and it will greatly reduce the effectiveness of military combat units. The acts of President Obama indicate to me that he intentionally wants to bring our military down to the level of third world countries.

Below are some thoughts from syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, from her article, Women Simply Aren’t Designed for Vicious Combat Roles,^[1] in the Albuquerque Journal, 1/28/13:

… Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.

… Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication. Most women are equal to most men in all these categories and are superior to men in many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate. Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots.

But ground combat is one area in which women, through quirks of biology and human nature, are not equal to men – a difference that should be celebrated rather than rationalized as incorrect.

... Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males – no small point in the field.

The argument that women’s performance on de facto front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved concerns about combat roles unwarranted is false logic. Just because women in forward support companies can return fire when necessary – or die – doesn’t necessarily mean they are equal to men in combat.

Unbeknownst perhaps to many civilians, combat has a very specific meaning in the military. It has nothing to do with stepping on an IED or suffering the consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means AGGRESSIVELY ENGAGING AND ATTACKING the enemy with deliberate offensive action, with a high probability of face-to-face contact.

If the enemy is all around you – and you need every available person – that is one set of circumstances. To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding. This is not a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued against women in direct combat for reasons that haven’t changed.

The threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, obviously, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal.

We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create? And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men.

It will kill us in the end.

A WorldNet Daily article on 1/28/13, WILL 'EQUALITY' MEAN LOWER STANDARDS?,[2] by Bob Unruh, sheds further light on the situation. It is particularly interesting because of the information from the Center for Military Readiness. The article states in part:

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said the move compromises the aim of having the most trained, most skilled and best-performing military.

 “Career pressures to make this ‘work’ will vitiate core values, because the military’s honorable tradition of recognizing individual merit will have to yield to pressures for ‘diversity metrics,’” she said.

Donnelly warned that Marine and Army field commanders “who desire promotion will be compelled to pursue gender-based quotas by ordering women into direct ground combat (infantry) battalions.”

The Pentagon, under Barack Obama’s direction, this week said virtually every ground-combat job now will be opened to women.

The decision came even though the military itself concedes men have physical advantages over women that are relevant to carrying out basic tasks. The average women, the military acknowledges, for example, has lower upper-body strength than the average man, and women are hospitalized at a rate 30 percent higher than men.

Even the left-leaning Time acknowledged accommodations for women are forthcoming.

“Integrating women into the combat arms – primarily infantry, armor and artillery – is going to be a balancing act,” the magazine said. “Standards must be met, but there will be pressure to ensure enough women qualify so there’s not only one or two in a 150-troop company.

“Before long, commanders will have to implement various types of double standards involving women, known as DSIW. And to avoid soaring injury rates in tough training, challenges for men will be dropped and forgotten, weakening the finest fighting force in the world.” …

She noted Panetta decided to exclude Congress and the American people from the decision “and imposed a radical ‘diversity’ agenda on our military without disclosing the data and results of extensive research on the subject of women in land combat that the Marine Corps conducted last year.”

Congress now should insist on seeing the results of the Marine research, Donnelly urged, and “conduct immediate oversight hearings before the harmful policies imposed by the outgoing secretary of defense become de facto law.” …

Earlier this week, Donnelly’s organization released a new report on a U.S. Marines plan to put women in “tip of the spear” combat positions.

It argued females are not “equal” when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. The report warns America’s social experiment with the members of its military may become costly. …

The report cites 30 years of studies in the U.S. and allied countries showing that “in a direct ground combat environment, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers survive,” Donnelly says. …

President Obama was never in the military service, and has no experience as to what actually goes on in combat with enemy forces. Also, I believe he hates guns and actually loathes the military. While turning the United States into a welfare state, he wants to reduce our military power down to that of European countries. It always irked him that this country was considered the super power of the world.

It seems that liberals, like Obama, are so blinded by their make-believe ideologies that they have lost all common sense and ability to understand the lessons of the past. This has been going on with our military services since the radical left became prevalent in the 1960s, and we have factual history of its failures. I covered it at some length in my book on this website, under Books, As We Sodomize America – The Homosexual Movement and the Decline of Morality in America. Below is some relevant material from that book. Any of it can readily be found by a word search in the book.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­---------------------------------------------------

Judge Robert Bork, in his great book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, (Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., New York, 1996) had much to say about the feminist movement.  

Chapter 11 [of Slouching Towards Gomorrah], “The Politics of Sex,” describes the harm done to our culture, to our schools, and even to our military by radical feminism.

Instead of useful education, many schools are furnishing an indoctrination of false and radical ideologies. 

Judge Bork considers modern feminism to be the most fanatical and destructive of the radical movements coming down to us from the Sixties (p. 193).  Perhaps this is so, particularly in light of its melding with the homosexual movement.  Now they continually work together and are intertwined.  This is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the successful indoctrination of the teachers' union, the National Education Association, with the activist homosexual views. 

[Material included in the book goes at length into the damage done to our schools, to science, and to our country, as well as to our military by the feminist movement. Due to length, I will not cover it in this article, but it is all something people would do well to know.]

Judge Bork explains that the havoc wreaked by feminists to the military services is similar to that to our educational systems. (p. 218)

Instead of using the military to defend our country, it is being used to reform our society.  Contrary to the propaganda fed to the public, both our training and capability standards have been lowered to accommodate women and to give the false appearance that they are on a par with men in military combat roles. (p. 218-219) (This program is not only ridiculous and false, but is highly dangerous to the women involved, and even more importantly, to our military capability.  This is only one of the ways in which Clinton is doing great harm to our military forces and to their ability to defend this country.)  One example resulted in the death of Navy Lieutenant Kara Hultgreen and the destruction of the fighter plane she was trying to fly in October 1994.  (It was fortunate that when she crashed her plane, it went into the ocean instead of the aircraft carrier on which she was trying to land.)  She had failed the landing phase of her training in April, but the Navy let her take it again, and she finally passed it once.  (She was given the same help in passing that "minorities" are often given in colleges and universities.  What results is a detriment [and in this case highly dangerous] to the individuals involved, and to society.)  Lieutenant Hultgreen was allowed to continue although (in training sessions of simulated flight) she recorded seven crashes in combat conditions.  A male pilot with her record would have been grounded.  Although a public cover-up was made of the true results of the Navy investigation, the private Navy conclusion was that her death and the loss of the plane were due to pilot error.  Feminist Colorado Congresswoman Pat Schroeder tried to make the accident look like it was caused by engine failure.  This was of course false.  The real story was how little interest the liberal media (and our liberal representatives) had in trying to determine and let the public know the true cause.  (pp. 219-220)  It was not a "politically correct" result. 

Our career military officers are intimidated and are in justified fear of losing their careers if they express disagreement with the feminist approach of the Clinton administration as to the proper role of women in the military.  An example is Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Carkhuff. "On July 26, 1994, Carkhuff's superior officer recommended him for early promotion ahead of his peers because he was an 'extraordinary department head,' a 'superior officer in charge' with 'unlimited potential destined for command and beyond.'"  Six weeks later he stated, in a private conversation with his commanding officer, that his religious views made him doubtful about putting women in combat, although his views also required him to lead them into combat if ordered by his superiors.  His overall performance was then downgraded to unsatisfactory and he was discharged from the Navy. The matter (which amounted to a performance in stupidity by the Navy) was summed up by his superior:  "A bright future has been lost and otherwise superb performance completely overshadowed by this glaring irreconcilable conflict with Navy policy." (p. 220) (Now our "Commander in Chief" is not only requiring absurdity in our military services, but he is requiring brainwashing of our officers who have some common sense, and the elimination from the armed forces of those who have the temerity to display any, even in private conversations.  Our country is most fortunate that such "enlightened" leadership did not exist during the Second World War.  Otherwise, we would probably now be under the rule of some foreign power—either Germany or Japan or both.) 

Performance in our military academies has been downgraded to accommodate the women cadets.  For example, men are no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons, because the women are not able to do that.  Women cannot perform nearly as well as men in the training programs. (p. 221)

"Pregnancies due to sex during the preceding phase, Desert Shield, were the primary reason the non-deployability rate of women was many times higher than that of men when the troops were called to battle in Desert Storm."  "Three 'Top Gun' flight commanders had their careers destroyed because they were present at or performed in the Tom Cat Follies, which included a rhyme denigrating Pat Schroeder. President Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle were also lampooned, but only parodying a fierce feminist congresswoman was considered a grave offense."  (p. 221)

In Air Force Academy physical fitness tests, very few women could even do one pull-up on a horizontal bar, so the women were given credit for the time that they could merely hang up on the bar.  Female cadets averaged about four times as many visits to the medical clinic as males.  At West Point, the injury rate of women in field training was fourteen times that of men, and 61 percent of the women failed the complete physical tests, as compared with 4.8 percent of the men.  "During the Army basic training, women broke down in tears, particularly on the rifle range." (p. 221)

It has been reported that ships have been recalled from missions because of pregnancy of female sailors. (p. 221) (This appears to be one immutable difference between women and men that not even Pat Schroeder and United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, together, could change.)   

"A male and a female sailor on the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, both married to others, videotaped themselves having sex in a remote part of the ship.  There had been thirty-eight pregnancies since the crew went aboard the Eisenhower, fourteen of them after the ship was deployed.  The Navy said that there was no indication that any of the pregnancies resulted from sex on board the ship.  Those who wish to may believe that." (p. 222) 

In the Gulf War, a female American pilot was captured, raped, and sodomized by Iraqi troops.  She declared that this was just part of combat risk.  (Certainly this is true, and just one of the many cogent reasons that women should not even be in zones of direct combat.)  "The Israelis, Soviets, and Germans, when in desperate need of front-line troops, placed women in combat, but later barred them.  Male troops forgot their tactical objectives in order to protect the women from harm or capture, knowing what the enemy would do to female prisoners of war.  This made combat units less effective and exposed the men, also, to greater risk. (p. 222)

A little common sense would tell us what the Israelis, Soviets, and Germans learned, besides the fact that knowledge of their experiences is available to us.  This country seems to have lost all sense of reason in cowering before the radical movements that have beset it.

The Clinton administration has been able to do more harm to the military forces by its feminist views than by its homosexual agenda, because congress fortunately curtailed the homosexual agenda to a substantial degree.  However, as noted above from disclosures in Judge Bork's book, the feminist movement has wreaked great havoc to our armed services.  Of late, serious charges of everything from rape to sexual harassment have been rocking the military forces.  As previously noted, this was certainly predictable and is only a small part of the damage to the military capability of the armed forces that has been caused by the mixing of young men and women together in situations that are contrary to the common sense of any experienced military personnel. 

Columnist Suzanne Fields wrote an excellent article on this subject, "Pressures of Unisex Military Weakening Armed Forces," which was published in the Albuquerque Journal on January 20, 1997.  It states in part:

   ... maybe it takes James Webb—a twice-wounded veteran of the Vietnam war and secretary of the Navy and an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan—to sound the most eloquent warning yet that the most dangerous military experiment in the history of our country threatens to destroy the nation's defense.  ...

  In our rush to assimilate women throughout the military, we're destroying leadership, encouraging officers to lie about the most crucial elements of command, and lowering morale of both men and women in the ranks.  Cynicism blossoms.

 ... talented women as well as men lose in a Faustian bargain.  Writes Webb in The Weekly Standard:  "This cynicism feeds a backlash, which increases tensions, even in areas where women perform well and where their presence is not counterproductive to the military's mission."

 Soldiers traditionally have little privacy, but, says the soldiers' newspaper Stars and Stripes, they're skilled at finding places for furtive sexual encounters.  This may require a study of positions from the Kamasutra, to adjust to the back seat of a Humvee, a latrine, a corner of a group tent or even an underground bunker with three inches of water on the floor

  ... on average, an American servicewoman turns up pregnant every third day.

 The jokes about "love boats" and pregnant soldiers provoke laughter in the mess hall, but elsewhere they're no laughing matter.  By placing young men and women in close sleeping quarters on ships at sea in the Middle East and under tents in Bosnia, away from a conventional social life and the easy, everyday affections of friends and family, the Army is begging for trouble.  Trouble, like a good soldier, obliges on cue. ***

During the Second World War, and since then, until the feminist movement destructively gained a foothold in the military, women served honorably and effectively in all services.  They were separated from the men, and they were assigned to duties that were reasonable under the circumstances, and that they were capable of performing.  But there are rather obvious emotional and physical differences between men and women, and there are combat and other roles to which women should not be assigned.  Never should women and men be mixed together in the field in military activities, and never should they be mixed in living quarters on a base.  They should not undergo physical training together.  Such things are worse than absurd.   Women should be trained with women in physical training which they are reasonably capable of performing.  They should never be mixed with men in physical training, and thereby drag down the standards that would otherwise be required of the men.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not know how President Obama could be completely ignorant of these things that have happened in our military forces in the past. It certainly appears that he has intentionally set out to destroy the power of our armed forces, as well as to eliminate Christian morality from them.

Putting women in combat reduces the capability and effectiveness of our armed forces. Putting young men and women in close contact with each other for long periods, as is required in combat zone situations, encourages and increases sex between them, increases pregnancies and venereal diseases, and reduces combat ability and deployability. There are no separate toilet facilities, and often no facilities at all. When men are in combat together, they often, of necessity, urinate, defecate, and conduct their necessary toilet needs in close presence with one another.  Putting young men and women together in these close conditions destroys morality, and morale. To think that you could have top-notch combat forces under such circumstances belies reason. 

The drive to allow homosexuals into the military service began many years ago. It had its first United State President behind it when William Jefferson Clinton was elected. At that time, General Norman Swarzkopf, along with most of our other high ranking officers, opposed it. An article on this is: Gulf war hero opposes gays: General Schwarzkopf tells senators military is 'not the place for social experimentation'.[3]

General Norman Schwarzkopf

However, Clinton, with the help of the more liberal members of congress got the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy enacted. Openly practicing homosexuals were still not allowed, but enlistment applicants were not asked about their "sexual orientation." This was a poor policy, but it was nothing compared to what has occurred under Obama. Allowing homosexuals – men and women who engage in acts of sodomy – in the military service is very destructive.  It is also wrong and unfair to force our decent young men and women in the service to closely associate with such people. It necessitates considerable brainwashing of the straight members, for them to consider the filthy, vile, and depraved acts of homosexuals as normal and acceptable. Obama even considers it commendable, and wishes to bless the union of sodomites with the holy sacrament of marriage.

As to this homosexual brainwashing, it has been going on in our country for some time. In As We Sodomize America – The Homosexual Movement and the Decline of Morality in America, considerable information was included on it. The following is a sample:

Schools, state and local governments, and even large corporations have surrendered to the homosexual intimidation and onslaught.   The very worst thing that they have done is to even require "sensitivity" training for those who retain or express any semblance of traditional morality.  Under President Clinton, the federal government has even invoked sensitivity training to promote homosexuality.  "Sensitivity training" is merely enforced brainwashing which teaches that homosexuality and other such deviant behavior is good and wholesome, and that ideas to the contrary are ignorant and "bigoted."  It is subversive thought control.  How could a once religious and moral country have slipped down into such slime and depravity?  Apathy and cowardice have played a great part.

After openly practicing homosexuals, both men and women, were allowed in our military forces, this same brainwashing has been forced on our military men and women.

I have previously written some articles, which are included under Articles on this website, on the problems and destructiveness of allowing homosexuals into our armed forces. I think the one below should be repeated in full.

------------------------------------------------------------

Destroying Morale and Morality in Our Armed Forces

and Exposing Our Troops to AIDS

© O. R. Adams Jr., 2010

Marine Corps. General Peter Pace, Retired. General Pace was forced out of his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because he spoke out against homosexuality and allowing homosexuals in our military services.

While he still has a strong Democrat majority in congress, President Barrack Hussein Obama wants to act, contrary to the wishes of the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and of the Joints Chiefs of Staff of our military forces, to repeal the law on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and allow openly practicing homosexuals to serve in our military. He and the other homosexualist Democrats want to push this through before a report is completed by the Department of Defense, which is investigating the effect on our military of such action.

There could be nothing more destructive to morale and morality in our armed forces than allowing such deviants in our military. Our "President" is a man who is doing everything he can to destroy the traditional American and Christian values upon which this country was founded. As one who has served in the military in time of war, I am sure that the vast majority of the members of our armed forces are very strongly against having to put up with these perverts in our military services. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons for pushing this legislation prior to the completion of the report.

On April 28, 2010, the Chairman of the House Armed Services committee wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael J. Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, asking for their views on repealing the "so-called 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' statute" relating to not allowing avowed practicing homosexuals in the military services. On May 30, 2010, Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates submitted a joint letter to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on the matter. (See a copy of the letter.[4]) The letter urged Congress not to repeal the statute until a thorough study had been made of the matter, and ended with the paragraph:

Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process. Further, I hope Congress will not do so, as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct impact and consequence for them and their families.

For a person to fully understand the "direct impact and consequence" this would have on the service men and women, he or she has to fully understand the acts by which homosexuals get their classification, and the kinds of things that decent men and women would have to put up with around them. These acts are so vile, depraved, destructive, and degrading to human beings that many people do not even wish to learn about them. They would rather talk about these things in the abstract, and not burden their minds with the vile realities of what takes place. For this reason, when I write a paper on these things, I make it a point to at least briefly outline the most common of these homosexual acts. The following is such an outline:

If research statistics are correct, 100% of male homosexuals engaged in oral sex.  Approximately 93% engage in anal sex, inserting the penis into the anus of the partner.  92% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus. 47% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the anus of the partner. 29% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other. 17% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, or rubbing of feces on each other, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.  It is not uncommon for a homosexual person to declaw and defang a mouse or other rodent to be inserted into the colon.[5]

However, it can get even more gross and dangerous than the above. There was a Reuters news article in July, 2005, about a Seattle man who died from having anal sex with a stud horse, resulting in perforation of the man's colon and other internal damage. I believe that such depravity can only come from an extremely sick mind. A later article on the matter may now be found on the internet. This last article explains that the farm where it happened was being used by a bestiality ring. It states: "A cache of hundreds of hours of videotaped man-on-beast sex sessions was found hidden in a field. ... The animals kept at the farm included ponies, horses, goats, sheep and dogs, according to the police commander. Images of the flock of offerings on the bestial dude ranch were relayed over the internet and records indicate men had come from throughout the United States, according to police."[6] This is not only extreme sexual depravity, but it is also heartless cruelty to animals.

These sick acts described are by no means the worst things engaged in by homosexuals, and I urge you to more fully inform yourselves by reading the articles on this website, The Depraved Excesses of Homosexual Lifestyles, and Homosexuals are Destructive to Our Military Forces. There are things going on in this country that I do not believe could possibly be happening if enough of our citizens were fully informed on what homosexuality really is. People should be aware of the degrading things that have already taken place in the military by homosexuals who have lied to get into the service. They should become aware, as described in the articles, of the things that went on at Fort Hood. And the things that went on at Harvard University and other places that homosexuals have been allowed to congregate. To force such things on our service men and women is a disgrace to America.

The Family Research Council article, Homosexual Assault in the Military[7], by Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., states in part:

FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling finding was that over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers. ...

[I consider the above statistics "that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals" to be very substantially less than what they really are, because a figure of 3% was used for homosexuals in the military, which is the figure that was used because homosexuals "admit that less than 3% of Americans are homosexual." It cannot reasonably be expected that that many practicing homosexuals slipped into to our armed services during a period when they are not allowed by law. I would hazard a guess that homosexuals during that period would be less than 1%, which would make the ratio of homosexual assaults much higher. Also, I would point out that one of the reasons that heterosexual sexual assaults are so high is that our liberal politicians have managed to force young men and women in our armed forces to live and work in much closer proximity than they did before the liberals, with their inherent lack of conventional morality, gained so much influence. It was much different when I was in the service in World War II.]

FRC and other supporters of the current law have pointed out the risks involved in having service members share living quarters with persons of the same sex who may be sexually attracted to them. This concern is borne out by many of the case synopses reported by the Pentagon. Consider the following cryptic case descriptions of on-base assaults, quoted directly from the Pentagon’s report:

“Victim #1 awoke to Subject touching his genitals.”11

“Victim awoke in his rack to a hand moving up and down his leg and touching his groin area.”12

“Asleep in his rack, Victim #1 felt a hand grab his genitals and Subject’s wrist. Subject then fled the room. Victim #2 woke up to Subject grabbing his inner thigh area and he confronted the Subject.”13

"Victim awoke in BEQ to Subject kissing his neck and trying to put his hand in his pants to touch his genitals.”14

“Victim reported that Subject touched his crotch on three occasions as he slept.”15

“Subject groped Victim #1’s genitals in their room and groped Victim #2’s genitals when he was asleep.”16

“Victim and Subject were off base at a bar and Victim got highly intoxicated. Subject said he would take Victim back to his barracks room but instead took Victim to his (subject’s) barracks room. Subject orally and a—lly sodomized Victim while he was in and out of consciousness. Subject’s computer was seized and numerous images of child porn were found.”17

“Victim was sleeping and awoke to find Subject performing oral sex on him without his consent.”18

“Victim was asleep at his computer station when Subject videotaped himself (Subject) touching Victim’s head with his (Subject’s) genitals.”19

“Victim claimed Subject (his roommate) slid his hand under Victim’s boxer shorts and caressed his buttocks and attempted to grab his p---s. Victim awoke while the touching was going on and engaged in a physical altercation with Subject.”20

“After a night of heavy drinking, Subject got on top of Victims #1 and #2 as they slept and kissed face, neck, and stomach before being told to stop.”21

“Subject groped Victim’s crotch several times when helping Victim, who was intoxicated, into his bunk.”

 [The article goes on to explain the risk of homosexual assaults in bathrooms and showers, and gives many specific examples. Such assaults are common wherever homosexuals are allowed to mix with themselves or others. It has gone on in our colleges and universities, in our airports, in our parks, and any other such places these perverts are allowed.]

[The article also explains how consensual sex in the barracks leads to violence. These are the kinds of things that decent men will not long put up with.]

One of the most shocking cases did not involve a servicemember as victim, but a civilian minor. Air Force Major Rickie J. Bellanger was charged with sexually abusing two minor boys—one of whom had begun corresponding with Maj. Bellanger when he was in the fifth grade ... .

[[Another part of the article is on Exploiting Rank and Using Alcohol and Homosexual Pornography to Manipulate Victims.]

The above article concludes, as any honest and decent article would, that our military forces are no place for homosexuals.

If practicing homosexuals are allowed in the military, not only will sexual assaults by homosexuals increase tremendously, but assaults on homosexuals by heterosexuals will also greatly increase. There are a lot of decent men in the service that will not put up with their perverted advances, or the engaging in acts of sodomy in their presence. To try to overcome this, our servicemen and women will be subjected to a terrible kind of brainwashing called "sensitivity training." They will be force-fed false propaganda that there is nothing wrong with the acts of sodomy that constitute homosexuality, and punished if they do not "correctly respond" to the false manure they are fed. This has gone on in our government agencies, in our schools, including our colleges and universities, and in large private corporations, in promoting homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. This brainwashing has long been an integral part of the homosexual agenda. It is supported by our liberal media, academia, and various organizations such as the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association.

Too many who are and have been in the military service know of the propensities of homosexuals, and the trouble and strife caused by them. Polls and research show that the vast majority of our service men and women oppose allowing homosexuals to openly serve in our military forces. Less than one-third (30%) would be favorable to the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell law. A group of "1,167 retired military leaders who have strongly reaffirmed current law and urged its retention based on their long and distinguished military experience."[8] If any different polling results turn up in the Department of Defense investigation, it will undoubtedly be because of the pressures being brought upon the military by our so-called "Commander in Chief" (Obama), and other liberal politicians. Even our top Generals and Admirals are under constant pressure from our Commander in Chief, who controls their positions and promotions.

Also, the power of the homosexual lobby is tremendous. In March, 2007, Marine General Peter Pace, who was then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his opposition to allowing homosexuals in the military services. He also said:

I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.

General Pace's statement of the truth brought a firestorm of criticism against him from all angles. Freedom of speech is far from safe in this country, no matter how true it is, if it is not "politically correct" and consistent with liberal and homosexual dogma. General Pace was effectively forced to resign as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retire from the service. "Anticipation of a 'contentious' confirmation process on Capitol Hill prompted the decision to replace Gen. Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when his term ends in September, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday."[9] General Pace was a highly decorated four star general, who served his country with distinction for more than forty years. If this can happen to General Pace, can you imagine the pressure that there is on Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the other Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all of the other officers and enlisted men in the military service, to toe the homosexual line while Obama is their Commander in Chief? It is indeed amazing that 70% of the military personnel had the courage to state that they were against open homosexuals in the military under these conditions. Things like this not only destroy the moral fiber and the morale of our military services – they destroy the moral fiber of our whole country.

The following are excerpts from the Summary Statement from Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness, In Support of Section 654, Title 10, the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military,[10] in the House Armed Services Committee:

If Congress repeals the 1993 statute stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in uniform, and the military is ordered to accommodate professed (not discreet) homosexuals, the culture of the military will be radically changed. Recruiters will be directed to accept and even seek out professed homosexuals for induction in all branches of the military.

This means that heterosexuals will be required to live in forced cohabitation with professed (not discreet) homosexuals, on all military bases and ships at sea, on a 24/7 basis. Such a policy would impose new, unneeded burdens of sexual tension on men and women serving in high-pressure working conditions, far from home, that are unlike any occupation in the civilian world.

The real-world issue here is not superficial. Nor is it a Hollywood fantasy portrayed for laughs in a television sitcom. We are talking about human sexuality and the normal, human desire for personal privacy and modesty in sexual matters.

Repealing the 1993 law would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men in intimate quarters, on all military bases and ships at sea, on a 24/7 basis. Stated in gender-neutral terms, forced cohabitation in military conditions—which offer little or no privacy—would force persons to live with persons who might be sexually attracted to them.

Inappropriate passive/aggressive actions conveying a homosexual message or approach, short of physical touching and assault, will be permitted in all military communities, to include Army and Marine infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and cramped submarines that patrol the seas for months at a time.

The ensuing sexual tension will hurt discipline and morale, but commanders will not have the power to improve the situation. Individuals whose beliefs and feelings about sexuality are violated by the new policy will have no recourse. The only option will be to avoid or leave the service.

We keep hearing that in the brave new “Will & Grace” world, none of this matters. And yet, it was only a year ago when the nation reacted with universal disapproval of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and 39 others who were arrested for inappropriate behavior in a public but transient place at the Minneapolis airport over a period of three months.

Columnist Michael Medved asked a fair question: “If preventing public sex in airport men’s rooms is important enough to justify the deployment of undercover cops, isn’t it similarly important to deter the sexualization of private facilities in the military?” ...

I encourage you to read the letter from Cynthia Yost, a former Army medical corpsman, who suffered a physical assault by a group of lesbians. Yost wrote that she did not report the assault because she did not want to be accused of racism, which would have derailed her military career.

Yost predicted that if professed homosexuals serve in the military, “An assault like the one I endured would be "de-criminalized," on the grounds that the victim is a “homophobe” if they won't just "relax and enjoy" being sexually assaulted.

Ms. Yost made an additional point. After the sexual assault, one of the lesbians began taking surreptitious photos of her and other female soldiers in the showers─running off and laughing when the victims turned to look. In these days of digital cameras and camera phones with Internet access, such photos could be sent anywhere and everywhere in the world in seconds. ...

The London Telegraph also reported that a British Army officer was severely disciplined just for stating a negative opinion about gays and lesbians in the British military. Is this what we want in our military? Accusations and penalties could become common if gays in the military are given full civil rights status. [Decent service men and women are forced to make-believe that there is nothing wrong with the vile acts of homosexual sodomy.]

I ask again, How would all this turmoil improve readiness, morale, and discipline? ...

[The report is replete with actual cases in the military of homosexual assault, pornography, and homosexual assaults by "gays" that had HIV, and knew it. This is typical homosexual conduct. To save space, I am only listing a few of the examples.]

Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Lee, a 42 year-old Catholic priest, is a Navy chaplain who tested positive for HIV in 2005. The Washington Post reported on December 7, 2007, that Lt. Cmdr. Lee pleaded guilty to several serious charges: consensual and forcible sodomy with several men, including a Naval Academy midshipman, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, and a Marine corporal. Lee’s misconduct involved indecent acts, aggravated assault for not informing at least one victim of his contagious HIV status, and conduct unbecoming an officer that was all the more reprehensible because of the betrayal of trust associated with Lee’s status as a priest and chaplain. ...

In another disturbing case reported last year, Pfc. Johnny Lamar Dalton, 25, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon — the HIV virus. The soldier reportedly failed to tell an 18 year-old teenager about his HIV-positive status before they had unprotected, consensual sex. The unnamed young man previously had been HIV-negative. ...

Issues of health and deployability must be considered. Congress has recognized that all soldiers serving in a combat environment are potential blood donors for each other. Therefore, persons found to be HIV-positive are not deployable, but once they are in uniform they must be retained for as long as they are physically able. [Emphasis added.] ...

If the 1993 law is repealed, the armed forces will be pressured to follow the example of Britain in creating some sort of legal/social status for same-sex couples, and providing quarters for same-sex couples in family housing. ...

Air Force Captain Devery L. Taylor was convicted and sentenced to twenty-eight to fifty years in prison for raping four men, allegedly with date-rape drugs. According to a report in Air Force Times, an investigator interrogating Taylor, now a convicted serial rapist, said that he would not ask any questions about the man’s sexual practices because such questions are not allowed. This statement demonstrated how misunderstandings about the 1993 homosexual conduct law help to create volatile conditions that undermine good order and discipline. Such misconduct should not be considered “off limits” to questioning just because it happens to occur between persons of the same sex. ...

Finally, advocates of gays in the military have vilified retired Marine Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who expressed his personal views regarding gays in the military and personal morality during an interview on March 11, 2007. A wave of name calling and demands for an apology ensued, but Gen. Pace had no reason to apologize for a law duly enacted by Congress. ...

D. Recommendations and Conclusion

1. Enforce the 1993 Homosexual Conduct Law ...

---------------------------------------

Forcing Extreme Danger of HIV and AIDS on Our Military Men and Women[11]

The United States Center for Disease Control states:

Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM) — of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing. ...

[T]he rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM [homosexual men] in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other [heterosexual] men ... .[12]

The deadly HIV virus, and resulting AIDS, can be contracted in a number of ways. Established ways are through the contact of saliva or blood of a contaminated person, as well as through sexual relations. A very common way is through blood transfusions. Not all of the ways that this deadly virus may be contracted are known. There are established cases where people have contracted the disease, and the way in which it was done was not determined, but the common ways named were ruled out. A great many homosexuals have intentionally infected others with HIV. In any event, our service men and women should not be forced into the close relationship with homosexuals that comes through military life, particularly in the field, where many have had do such things as share small tents and shelters together.

Homosexuals introduced the deadly AIDS virus into this country and spread it among themselves and to innocent people. They have done a terrible damage to themselves, and to innocent people who are not homosexuals. They contaminated blood supplies, sometimes intentionally, and were the cause of many completely innocent people dying of AIDS. Thousands of their victims were innocent children with hemophilia, who had to have blood transfusions to live, and who had done nothing to deserve the terrible death inflicted upon them. I know of no other time in history when such devastation has been caused by such intentional vile and despicable acts. Yet, instead of being given the condemnation they deserve, they have been praised by our liberal news media and politicians.

A very high percentage of homosexuals, today, are infected with HIV. And there is no way to even tell for sure whether a person has HIV. The statistics of the Center for Disease Control, referred to above, are therefore conservative. This presents an extreme and deadly danger that would be particularly incurred in combat situations, where a person immediately needs a blood transfusion from an available comrade.  Actually, in the usual case there would be no time for testing for HIV, even if there were dependable tests.

There has always been a "negative window" of time in which a person contracts the HIV virus, and can pass it on to others, and no test will determine with any certainty whether or not the person has the virus. This window of time has been assessed at anywhere from three months to three years. Even now there is no test that can positively detect the HIV (AIDS) virus. The Federal Food and Drug Administration states: "Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions." For that reason, under federal regulation, homosexuals are prohibited from donating blood.[13] However, the homosexuals are continually fighting to have that regulation removed. All you have to do is do a Google search (use: homosexual +blood donor), and you will find many articles by homosexuals advocating that this be changed, and calling it "discrimination." The intent of these people is criminal. They want to drag everyone down to their level, including having everyone as disease contaminated as they are. Homosexuals who want to do things that they know will give AIDS to innocent people are worse than just mentally sick – they are evil and criminal.

I also consider it criminal for our President Obama and the Democrat congress to force this danger on our men and women serving us in the armed forces of this country.

Conclusion

It would be a terrible disgrace to America, and very destructive to our military services, if the immoral conditions and inherent dangers of open homosexuals in the military are forced on our young men and women in the service of this country.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now it has happened, and even worse. Obama and the liberals have deliberately increased the danger of AIDS to our country generally, and specifically to our service men and women. Prior to Obama, people with communicable diseases were not allowed in our military forces, and were not allowed to immigrate into this country. And people with the deadly HIV virus were not even allowed to travel in this country. But Obama and the Democrats, to please their activist homosexual supporters, have changed all of this.

In October, 2009, Obama lifted the ban on travel into the United States by HIV carriers. An article on it is the New York Times article, Obama Lifts a Ban on Entry Into U.S. by H.I.V.-Positive People.[14] It states:

President Obama on Friday announced the end of a 22-year ban on travel to the United States by people who had tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS, fulfilling a promise he made to gay advocates and acting to eliminate a restriction he said was “rooted in fear rather than fact.” …

Under the ban, United States health authorities have been required to list H.I.V. infection as a “communicable disease of public health significance.” Under immigration law, most foreigners with such a disease cannot travel to the United States. The ban covered both visiting tourists and foreigners seeking to live in this country.

He also lifted the ban on our policy that banned HIV carriers as immigrants. Obama Lifts HIV Immigration Ban:[15]

The Obama Administration's new rule will eliminate a clause in the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) that denies admission to those with HIV. In 1993, a clause specifically designed to reduce the spread HIV/AIDS into the United States was added to the INA; it was passed by the Senate with a vote of 76 to 23. It reads:

"Any alien who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance, which shall include infection with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome…is inadmissible." (8 USCS § 1182)

For all practical purposes, the ban on "gays" in the military service ended when Obama was elected and became Commander if Chief of our Armed Forces. He was far more interested in getting rid of the ban than he was in enforcing it. It was officially ended on July 22, 2011.[16]

Homosexuals are infected with the HIV virus by a much greater percentage than heterosexuals. They are the only ones who originally had the disease in this country. They are the ones who introduced HIV and resulting AIDS into this country and spread it around to others – sometimes intentionally.[17] But just forcing our military men and women to closely associate with those who engage in sodomy; and who, because of that activity, are infected with HIV by a very high percentage, was not enough for Obama and the activist homosexuals.

Now, under Obama's orders, homosexuals with HIV are allowed to stay in the military services and continue endangering others.[18] This forces a great and unnecessary danger of contracting AIDS on our service men and women.