Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination into DADT

    THE GAYING OF AMERICA

    Officer won't sign order for troop indoctrination

    Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of 'gay' ban in military


    Posted: December 24, 2010
    7:40 pm Eastern
    By Brian Fitzpatrick
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    President Obama's repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already damaging the U.S. military.

    An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.

    Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo "behavior modification" training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.

    Discover what's causing modern America to disintegrate. Read "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"

    The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:

    Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy

    1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.

    2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it."

    "I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers," the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.

    The officer said he's aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.

    "These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can't do this job once they begin to implement this policy," he told WND.

    Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.

    "Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service," said the officer. "I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey," referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.

    "I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don't believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They're going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle."

    Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military's ban on open homosexuality.

    "I don't believe the steps they're taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit," the officer told WND. "DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they'll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody's face and commanders won't be able to do anything about it."

    The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:

    "I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you'll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don't believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution."

    As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.

    The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.

    "One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation's defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That's when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation."

    Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military's ban on open homosexuality.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243213
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    WorldNetDaily Exclusive

    Fury over 'gay'-ban repeal

    Reader comments on open homosexuals in the military


    Posted: December 24, 2010
    7:40 pm Eastern
    By Brian Fitzpatrick
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Numerous service members, veterans and concerned citizens have written WND to express their fury about the repeal of the military's ban on open homosexuality. We encourage readers, especially those on active duty, to let us know what you think about allowing open homosexuality in the military and how you plan to respond to the new policy. Following are excerpts from selected letters arranged by topic:

    Sexual assaults

    • I was in the military from 1955-59 and joined the U.S. Navy when I was 17. My first assignment after boot camp was on a large Navy base where I knew nobody except a friend that joined with me. Within a week we were both approached, separately, by a non-commissioned officer who was large in stature. He propositioned both of us on separate occasions and was quite aggressive. To receive unwanted sexual advances by another male was both repulsive and sickening And this was back when the military did not allow homosexuals to serve. … Nevertheless, I was physically threatened by disgusting advances from this person. My friend and I compared experiences and agreed to go up the chain of command and report the incident. Unknown to us was the fact that the "chain of command" consisted of other homosexuals of higher rank who quickly buried our complaints. It was less than a week later that we were both re-assigned to another base. I don't know if you are a homosexual and I don't care. That is not my concern. But allowing homosexuals in the military is just plain WRONG. … During my navy enlistment, I experienced the tension that exists between people of different sexual orientation and it was a very unpleasant experience for me. I sincerely hope that you will change your mind on this matter. If the existing policy is changed, I couldn't in good conscience recommend anyone to join the military.

    • In 1958 I was stationed aboard the destroyer U.S.S. Eaton. I was sent to the paint locker to obtain paint from the 3rd class petty officer that was in charge of the paint. As I climbed into the hatchway, I was confronted by the P.O. that quickly put his hand on my privates and said "Do you want to have a little fun before you leave?" Being just 18 years old at the time, and not really realizing exactly why he touched me in that way, I knew instinctively that it was wrong. I told him to keep his hands off of me, but he insisted. I found it necessary to defend myself, and although he was my superior, I hit him several times and got out of the hatchway. Ultimately, I was cited to have a Captain's Mast for assaulting a superior. The Captain's Mast was very fast, and when I explained why I hit the petty officer, my case was dismissed. Sir, this was in 1958. How many times do you think this has happened to young men in the military since?

    • I entered the Navy when I was 17 years old. I was very naive at the time and was molested twice within the first year by other "gay" sailors. Homosexuals by their very nature are promiscuous and aggressive and will take every opportunity they have to make advances on straight heterosexuals. It is their stated goal to see how many straight individuals they can subvert. I can't imagine what it will do to our military readiness if they are allowed to serve openly.

    Unit cohesiveness

    • In combat in Vietnam many lousy commanders were shot in the foot or leg and a new lieutenant was assigned. If the commander has a lover in a small group of men and the 'lover' never pulls a rotation on point do you think a fragging will happen? To one or both? Every decision will be questioned because of sex happening between the two.

    • When I was in boot camp (Nov. 1941) one element of conventional wisdom was the proposition that "liars, thieves, and queers" were to be driven from the company of normal men. The methods for driving were not specified. I assume that same attitude prevails today. You just can't have that kind of corruption infesting a close knit group like a squad of Marines.

    • Well, President Obama has succeeded in bringing back what we called the “blanket party
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    THE GAYING OF AMERICA

    Vets protest plan opening military to homosexuals

    Officer requests command relief over scheduled 'behavior modifications'


    Posted: December 22, 2010
    9:43 pm Eastern
    By Eugene J. Koprowski
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Veterans and active duty personnel alike are reacting harshly to the news that Barack Obama has signed the repeal of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, and one much-needed leader already could be lost to the military.

    A lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army has confirmed to WND that he is asking to be relieved of the command of his squadron because of the new policy. And former combat personnel are telling WND that they are continuing to keep the pressure on Congress to reverse itself.

    "I have already requested through my chain of command that I be relieved of command of my squadron prior to new policy implementation on grounds that my personal beliefs don't permit me to force the coming 'behavior modifications' training and other inevitable policies on my soldiers," the officer, whose name has been withheld, wrote to WND.

    The statement highlights the question of whether soldiers themselves are ready to go along with the controversial social experiment imposed by Congress, or whether they'll carefully withdraw from command positions and troop ranks, pack their bags and leave the military.

    Members of the military or veterans who have concerns about the policy change can send their stories to WND.

    Earlier, during congressional debate over the radical Obama plan to make the military more "gay"-friendly, officials reported that 12.6 percent of the personnel, some 264,600 soldiers, said they would leave sooner than planned because of the change. Another quarter of a million said that would be among their options when considering their careers.

    The survey, done by the military itself, said nearly one-third of Marines would leave sooner than planned and another 16.2 percent would consider that – hitting possibly half of the members of the corps.

    Another member of the military, whose name also is being withheld, warned that group showers, lack of doors on bathroom stalls and no doors in dressing areas now become issues.

    "Who do I sue if I feel harassed? The drill instructor? His commanding officer? The post/base commander? Or does my harasser suffer a fall going down the stairs? Or from a high point in the obstacle course? How many harassment complaints until the pervert is washed out? How many witnesses to the event are required?" he asked.


    "I presume our military are no longer welcome in Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is a capital crime," he suggested.

    With Obama's signature today on the law that had been approved earlier by Congress, the protests are surging. America's leading veterans groups are helping lead the charge.

    "The members are making their sentiments known," Marty Callaghan, a spokesman for the American Legion in Washington. D.C., said. "They are making comments."

    Sometimes the comments appeared to go into a black hole.

    "I just wrote my Republican Sen. Richard Burr, who voted for this bill," William R. Bridgeman, who served in Vietnam with the 1st Cavalry Division, said.

    He also served in the first Gulf War.

    "I suppose a decadent society with decadent politicians is more than comfortable with a decadent military," he added.

    But Burr was not responding.

    His office declined to respond to phone calls and e-mails seeking comment for the WND story.

    Callaghan said the veterans organization had urged patience and a thorough review.

    "We sent a letter asking them not to rush through repeal of DADT," he said.

    The policy was created about 17 years ago when the nation's law read that it is illegal for homosexuals to be in the military. The accommodation to those who choose an alternative sexual lifestyle was that if they did not publicize their choice, the military would not inquire.

    A wide range of combat veterans say the law simply substitutes political correctness for military readiness, and that already is harming U.S. national security and morale.

    "This further increases the political correctness syndrome within the military," said Brian McDowell, a former U.S. Air Force intelligence analyst who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 and is now a chief investment officer with FBR Wealth Management Group.

    "Loss of attention equals mission failure."

    McDowell, who earned 18 awards and medals in the military and graduated from a number of leadership and command programs, warned soldiers need to concentrate on "weapons cleaning, physical fitness, strategy, tactics, potential threat responses, and operational multipliers, to name a few. Anything that takes attention away from these things increases the chance of not succeeding."

    "HOW EVIL WORKS: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"

    Social experimentation and political correctness were not among the priorities he cited.

    "While our combat troops continue to focus on their mission on the war-front throughout the world, Congress can't focus on funding those very service members," said Tim Tetz, director of the Legion's legislative division.

    He said Congress clearly didn't "take whatever time is necessary to understand the nuances a repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' would have on our nation's fighting forces."


    The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, and the leaders of the Army and Air Force have voiced similar analysis. They agreed in testimony earlier this month before the Senate Armed Services Committee that repeal would be a distraction upon those in combat now.

    Robert W. Spanogle, a past national commander of The American Legion, is taken aback by the lame-duck session's actions.

    "Count me in with the commandant and those soldiers and Marines in the mud on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tip of the spear," said Spanogle. "Nearly 60 percent of those surveyed said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit's effectiveness with a repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell.'"

    While advocates for promoting homosexuality are awash in good cheer over their work, people with military experience fear the harm that is developing.

    "This is a volunteer force with honorable men and women volunteering to give up their lives if needed in order to achieve the objectives of their country," McDowell said.

    "If this attitude of valor is not respected by our policy makers we will see a degrading in the general order and discipline of our forces, by both soldier and commander," he said.

    The soldier who raised concerns about privacy suggested to WND the military course of action now is filled with pitfalls that have yet to be considered.

    "I presume now that all public bathrooms in America are unisex and all doors on the stalls will be removed? What's great for the military is great for society right? Isn't that what the lefties are telling us? So women using the toilet will have men watching them. Hey, we are all adults right? We won't peek and pedophiles won't sneak cameras into public bathrooms," he wrote.

    "The real issue will be unequal treatment of men if you stop them from showering with women. Isn't the very nature of sexual attraction and the normalcy of it the point here?

    "Why let one class of people shower with their muses while denying the majority the very same privilege? Otherwise won't we have to make lesbians shower with hetero men?

    "So they aren't making the women in the shower uncomfortable? Ditto for gay guys. Will gay men only shower with hetero women? What do we do with the transgendered or bisexuals?" he said.

    The reaction was moving far beyond the ranks, too. Leading traditionalist civil rights attorneys were dismayed by the law's enactment, but vowed to join veterans and active duty servicemen in the fight.

    Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, said the military now will be under the microscope by those who watch for rights violations.

    "The Thomas More Law Center will review cases of discrimination against Christian service members as a result of this repeal, and where appropriate, defend at no charge those service members penalized for resisting this abhorrent new 'morality' being forced upon them."

    He noted during George Washington's command of the Continental Army, he approved the sentence dismissing an officer from the service for attempted sodomy in 1778.

    Washington ordered the officer drummed out of camp and never be allowed to return.

    "Service in the United States military is not a right," Thompson explained. "The fact that someone wants to serve in the military has never been the sole standard by which to allow service. The military has historically been selective about who can join, imposing restrictions based on age, weight, physical fitness, health, drug usage, and more. "

    He charged that Obama and Congress had no thoughts other than to "curry favor with homosexual groups.

    "It betrays our combat troops who overwhelming spoke out against it. And in time, it will destroy the religious foundations and the high moral standards that are characteristic of our military. It was those religious and moral standards, and not the sophistication of our military hardware, that made the American soldier the best in the world," he said.

    WND previously reported that under the specification of the language in the law, the policy must remain in force until the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that the change will not impair combat readiness.

    Before that happens the military must rewrite laws and regulations that could affect same-sex relationships, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice ban on sodomy and also indoctrinate soldiers, sailors and airmen to tolerate open homosexuality. The transition period is expected to take a year.

    "It's important for people to know that this is not over," said Robert Knight, a leading opponent of the homosexual political agenda. "There are no permanent victories or defeats in politics. And this can be reversed at some point, in a more conservative Congress."

    Demonstrating that the repeal will not adversely affect the military could prove a great challenge for the president.

    "We think it's going to be very damaging to readiness and recruiting," said Tommy Sears, executive director of the Center for Military Readiness. "You're going to have people currently serving, valuable, experienced individuals, refusing to continue. On the flip side, people who would have considered serving will not because this policy is going to say you must accept this open homosexuality policy. The military will not do things halfway. They will impose a zero tolerance policy for the full range of preferences and rights for homosexuals."

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243033
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    What I would hope is that the US military will judge each of its members on their skills, abilities, hard work, accomplishments and achievements.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •