Voting With Their Feet (Oliver North on DADT)

Creators Syndicate ^ | December 3, 2010 | Oliver North

[jazusamo]

WASHINGTON — Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo tried and failed. Mao Zedong, Nikita Khrushchev and Ho Chi Minh couldn't do it. But commander in chief Barack Obama may well succeed where others could not. If he has his way, he will demolish the finest force for good in the history of mankind — the U.S. armed forces. And he wants to make it all happen before the end of the year. On Nov. 30, Defense Secretary Robert Gates released the much-leaked "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" Only the Pentagon could come up with a title like that. The "report" — 266 pages long — purports to provide military and civilian leaders in Washington with "a comprehensive assessment" and "recommendations" on changes in Defense Department regulations if Section 654 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code is repealed. The 17-year-old law states: "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Importantly, the phrase "don't ask, don't tell" appears nowhere in the law. Supposedly, the "conclusions" and "recommendations" proffered in the "report" are based on a "survey" of currently serving soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines. Though nearly 400,000 questionnaires on changing the law were circulated, only 115,052 responded. Of those who did reply, 27 percent indicated that allowing open homosexuals into the ranks would adversely affect unit cohesion. Thirty-five percent of service members in deployed combat units said such a change would have a negative impact on combat effectiveness. Sixty-seven percent of Marines and more than 57 percent of soldiers in U.S. Army combat units believe changing the law would hurt combat efficiency, unit cohesion, readiness and retention. Notably, military chaplains — from all denominations — overwhelmingly oppose changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In a statement, Obama argued that for the first time, "both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly endorsed ending this policy." Yet the stunning numbers cited in the report substantiate the "military capability" clause in the current law and directly refute his claim that the law can be changed in the midst of a war "in a responsible manner that ensures our military strength and national security." This week, in pressing Congress for urgent action to change the law, both Defense Secretary Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, once again raised the canard that Section 654 must be repealed immediately because it "forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." In fact, current law does no such thing. The law simply says that those who commit certain acts should not be permitted to join the armed forces. It's not about "who they are." It's about what they do. Apparently unmoved by the concern expressed by well over half of our soldiers, sailors and Marines deployed in war zones, Gates and Mullen now argue that Congress must repeal the law immediately or the courts will intervene. That, too, is a phony argument. Section 654 has withstood more than a dozen legal challenges since it has been on the books. The case now pending in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is but the most recent test. The Obama administration's "legal eagles" need only dust off old files going back to the Clinton administration to see how the law has been upheld in the past. Obama's push to have the law repealed by this lame-duck session of Congress has been seconded by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But the full-court press may yet produce the political equivalent of an elbow in the face for the O-Team. In his testimony Dec. 2, while urging the Senate Armed Services Committee to act immediately on changing the law, Mullen told the solons that service in the military is a "meritocracy" based on "what you do, not who you are." That, of course, is the very argument many of us have been making against allowing active homosexuals into the ranks. Concerns about repeal — on readiness, retention and recruitment in the brightest, best-educated and most combat-experienced military force in history — are not assuaged by the report. Nearly 25 percent of those now serving — and as many as 32 percent of Marines — said they are likely to leave the service rather than be assigned to live with and serve beside active homosexuals. This potential attrition — while more than 150,000 troops are serving in harm's way — hasn't diminished the O-Team's zeal for repeal. When Sen. John McCain confronted Mullen with this consequence from allowing homosexuals into the military, the admiral replied, "We'll deal with that." Gates, ever sympathetic to the needs of our troops, observed, "They can't just up and leave." No, they can't. But when they come home, they can vote with their feet. Is wrecking the world's finest military the price we have to pay for a campaign promise? Only this lame-duck Congress knows the answer.

[Shamrock-DW]

I personally don’t like the word “gay”. I prefer “genetically defective”.

[Fred Hayek]

And many good people won’t re-enlist.

Thus the armed forces would be purged without the messy executions like Stalin had used. Ingenious!

Any left over that later get labelled as “homophobes” (word in quotes since it is yet another Marxian corruption of the language) would then get dishonorable discharges?

[Freddd]

Pervert works for me.

[Teflonic]

I wouldn’t use genetically defective as it implies their argument of being born gay holds weight.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Normal men and women do NOT want to associate in close quarters with homosexuals. A personal testimony from Red Steel. I've seen plenty of others. Plus the links I'm going to post in a minute are more evidence - homosexuals do NOT belong in the military.

[little jeremiah]

Ten Reasons to Oppose an “LGBT Law” or Policy for the Military
The Center for Military Readiness ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608259/posts

Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
The Center for Military Readiness ^ | 3/22/2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608228/posts

Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
FRC ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts

In Support the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military
CMR ^ | July 23, 2008 | Elaine Donnelly
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608370/posts

[conservativeimage]

Sexuality of any kind distracts an otherwise functional army. This tolerance thing is going to get people killed.

[ElkGroveDan]

The next Congress can prohibit the use of funds by the U.S. Armed Forces to pay any “persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts...” Problem solved. You want to join the army sissy boy? You’ll be doing it as a volunteer without pay.

[babyfreep]

How do they propose to keep all these homosexuals from having sex with each other in the barracks? Why else do they want to “come out” and let everyone know who they do? I see no purpose in this entire thing except to attempt to lower the morale of our current brave men and women.

FUBO!

[liberalism is suicide]

Me too. Also sodomite, degenerate and queer.

[Smokin' Joe]

I personally don’t like the word “gay”. I prefer “genetically defective”.

That would give them the status of being 'born that way'.

I firmly believe they make a choice. Nothing more, nothing less.

Aside from DC crawling with homosexuals, I wonder if a few of the people directly involved in this either are or have been 'compromised' by encounters or threatened with 'revelations' of encounters which did not happen, which would have the same effect in the MSM of ending their careers.

[Ann Archy]

This DISGUSTS me!! WHO wants to shower with openly GAY people??? Who??? Mullen and Gates must have some gays in their family! DRAFT will be next....INCLUDING GIRLS!

[Ann Archy]

It will be Males AND FEMALES that have to register AND be DRAFTED in the future!

[hershey]

A few years back there was a comment from Nato forces that The Netherlands military was a joke because of drug use and homosexuality. So everyone knew they wouldn’t fight and couldn’t be counted on. Evidently we can’t wait to copy them. Dumb and dumber.

[Jumper]

Obama signed a Presidential declaration in June 2009 that JUNE is LBGT Month, Appreciation of Gays.

The US Department of State, under Hillary Clinton has prmoted "Diversity" by making gay partners "members of household" eligible for Family Member Employment via Human Resourses, and rewrote the Foreign Affairs Manual, along with the Foreign Affairs Regulations, to support this implementation. Under the SecState guidance, a man cannot have a girlfriend as a Member of Household, but can have a gay lover and that lover's children permitted to be supported by the Department of State as "Dependents".

The US Military had better get ready for implementation of the Secretary of State's GLBT regulations being rewrote into the DOD Regulations.

Is there an actual earmark or line item expenditure authorized for the Secretary of State's actions, or is this an unfunded expenditure manadated by the Hillary and endorsed by the President himself? Is this legal to spent appropriated funding to give travel allowances, dependent COLA and other pay to support non-spouse "Members of Household" at the Department of State?

Ollie North should be alerted to what the Department of State has already implemented, as well as members of the Congress, the Senate and Armed Forces.....

[xzins]

Though nearly 400,000 questionnaires on changing the law were circulated, only 115,052 responded.

That methodology alone -- completion of the survey by those who feel like it --tells me that this was not a controlled study, and that is not scientific, and that it is not worth the paper it is printed on.

[Vigilanteman]

That's about a 29% response rate. The response rate from spouses was about the same. It would also be interesting to see where the responses came from-- combat troops or desk jockeys.

No knock on any in the armed forces who are in support roles. I had such a job in a previous life.

But I did get enough of a taste to know that the world of front-line troops and rear echelon support is as different as night and day.

Working with homsexuals in what is essentially and office environment is an entirely different ballgame than working with them on a front-line high stress situation.

I'm not sure what the ratio is now, but even during World War II, there were three military people in support roles for every one on the front lines. I suspect the ratio is much more skewed in favor of support troops now.

Still, even if we accept this survey at face value, the obvious question the pro-homo crowd should be asking is this:

Where are you going to find enough homos to replace the roughly one in four military people who have a very negative view and will likely leave the armed services at the earliest available opportunity if this nonsense is made law?

[jazusamo]

Absolutely right...To have a survey on an issue of this importance with less than a third of them filled out tells me that many knew their supposedly anonymous replies could be traced back to the individual filling it out.

Then there were probably many who read the questions and knew that it was skewed to get the result that Obama, Gates and Mullen were looking for. Those people promptly threw it in the trash because they couldn’t express their true views anyway.

For Mullen to sit there and say that anyone in the military that doesn’t like the repeal of DADT can go find another job is not only disgraceful but shows he has no business being in the top military slot in the country.

[jazusamo]

I’ve no doubt if DADT is replealed that the military will will incorporate a program similar if not identical for the poofters, they will demand it.

I believe Ollie and elected officials should be contacted with that info.

The only contact info I know of for Ollie is through War Stories at Foxnews.com and Ollie’s page at Townhall.com.

[Bob]

And many good people won’t re-enlist.

And many more good people won't enlist at all.