Thursday, December 30, 2010

One Man's Opinion Of The Repeal Of DADT.

Comrades, Colleagues, and Patriots:

I urge you to read the excellent report by Eugene Koprowski entitled "Vets Protest Plan Opening Military To Homosexuals," on the Lame Duck Democrat Congress' destruction of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" in favor of open homosexuality in the armed forces:

As a former enlisted man who joined the Army at the age 17, as do many recruits, I know about the enormous power of non-commissioned and commission officers over the lives of those in the enlisted ranks. I think it is unconscionable for members of House, Senate, and the White House to congratulate themselves on voting to compel young enlisted men and women to serve under openly practicing homosexual non-coms or officers, including predatory homosexuals, who may have a sexual rather than military interest in them, and who have enormous power to retaliate if their advances are rejected.

Just how does a young man or woman subject to military discipline, culture, and control, protect himself or herself, and seek redress, from unwanted sexual interest, advances, or assaults? A member of the military in the ranks is often at the mercy of non-coms or officers, including in duty assignments which can not only be the worst of unwanted duties but assignments which can put them in harm's way at risk of loss of limbs or life.

Simply stated: Military life is not civilian life. A victim of "sexual harassment," predation, or actual assault in the military cannot respond to such sexual abuse as can a person in civilian life. Enlisted personnel cannot, without great fear of retaliation, report a non-com or officer for homosexual misconduct. A member of the military cannot respond to an advance by a homosexual non-com or officer with crude language, or threats of physical action that would be used in a civilian situation. A member of the military cannot physically ward off unwanted homosexual contact by a non-com or officer without risk of court martial for a major crime, i.e., "assault on an officer." A member of the military cannot file a complaint with local police, or with local, state, or federal agencies enforcing anti-discrimination laws. A member of the military cannot sue a homosexual molester, or the predatory homosexual's employer, i.e., the military branch in which the victim serves. A member of the military cannot simply "quit and get another job" if subjected to unwanted homosexual attention by a superior, as a civilian can if harassed by a supervisor. Military personnel are in the their military branch for the duration of their period of enlistment, even if a homosexual clone of Chester the Molester is their platoon sergeant, First Sgt., or an Officer. One can't "resign" from the military because of unacceptable working conditions, including predatory homosexual superiors.

Consider: Just what does a 17-year-old heterosexual recruit, male or female, do when a 35-year-old same-sex predatory non-com or officer decides to join that 17-year-old in the shower, or bed, or latrine, or field tent, or common area, and not only "tell" about but act out his or her homosexuality?

For one personal example of homosexuality in the military, even when it was forbidden, when I was stationed at Ft. Bliss in Texas, I was dating a bright, young, woman as young as I was, who joined the Womens Army Corps because she grew up in extreme poverty in the South and thought the WAC would provide her with opportunities. Instead, she begged me to marry her to get her out of the WAC, which was possible then, and quickly divorce once she was out. Why? Because, even though she was not personally a victim -- she visibly had a man to protect her -- she couldn't take the almost nightly attacks on young WACs by older lesbian non-coms. In the barracks of Ft. Bliss in that Vietnam-era, such attacks were not silent affairs. Anyone who served in such barracks will understand what I mean about the acoustical effects of sexual activity.

I didn't marry that fine young woman as she asked, so she could escape from predatory homosexual female non-coms, but I have never forgotten her, or her anguish, anxieties, and disgust, at being caught in a situation in which she was under the control of predatory homosexual WAC non-coms and could not extricate herself from that situation. We even strolled about the WAC area arm-in-arm to make a display of our relationship and her heterosexuality, making it clear that she was attached to a man, if not engaged. She informed me that she deliberately told the other women that while I was a nice guy to her generally, I had a violent temper and was wildly jealous about her. Who knew what I might do if she was molested?

Truth was, at 17, she wasn't making it up. Like many others coming to the Army from some very rough streets in a Midwest steel town, I was a wild man; resistant to orders and barely controllable even under military discipline, which I admit I often observed in the breach. My one stripe was pulled off so often I stopped sewing it on and attached it with velcro--easier for the sergeant to pull off. Had I been advanced upon or assaulted by a homosexual in the Army, including a non-com or officer, at that still-wild age, there would have been mayhem, the consequences be damned. What are young heterosexual men and women in military service to do now that open homosexuality is not only not forbidden, it is approved?

I reflected much on the memory of my relationship at Ft. Bliss with that decent young WAC from the South who abhorred the homosexual reality she was trapped in, when my own elder daughter elected to follow in the footsteps of her great- grandfather, her grandfather, and her father (me) and join the military at 17 , right out of high school, in order to serve her country in this time of war against terrorism. She is the fourth generation in America and all four generations have served. Had the military by Act of Congress made acceptable and even advocated as a norm the kind of homosexual conduct I had witnessed pertaining to my WAC girlfriend described above, I would have done my best to dissuade my daughter from joining the service rather than risking that kind of homosexual degradation.

Does any one of those liberal "progressives" who voted to impose open homosexuality in the military seriously believe that homosexual predators can be kept out of the military, or controlled in it? Have the female members of House and Senate considered the impact on young women who will be exposed to predatory lesbian non-coms and officers, of which there is no shortage? Does anyone seriously believe that predatory homosexuals, male or female, will not be attracted to the armed forces, or remain in, with all those young "targets of opportunity" in the ranks, and Congress approving of open homosexuality?

Consider, especially, those troops in combat zones, and their parents and loved ones back home worrying about them. Just how much confidence can they have that their lives and limbs will be equally valued and defended if their officer or non-com, or fellow troop, is having a homosexual affair with one or more of the other troops? Can they have confidence that they are not at risk if some of the troops are in homosexual relationships with each other, or with non-coms or officers? Will non-coms and officers, or troops, who have a homosexual interest or relationship with one or more of the troops, not act to save their "significant others" before other troops? Can anyone say with confidence that a homosexual in a sexual relationship with a troop will not act to save that troop first, or otherwise favor that troop so as to keep him or her out of harms way as much as possible? In that regard, do men and women, no matter how decent, not act first to save their own spouses or children, rather than someone else's spouse or child, in a disaster, accident, or other life-threatening situation? Why would anyone think homosexuals would not act in the same way when the object of their homosexual love is the one at risk?

Liberal "progressives" are great at imposing on American citizens policies which cannot affect them. DA/DT is a prime example: Most in Congress modernly have not served in the uniform of their country. The present President of the United States never deigned to serve. He is only the second president of the modern era not to serve, other than liberal progressive Bill Clinton. Ironically, it was Clinton who in fact established DA/DT in his regime. Clinton never served, and distinguished himself, it should be remembered with disgust, by chatting on the phone with a member of Congress about troop decisions while being serviced below by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Why should anyone be surprised that such liberal "progressives" as Obama, the President Who Bows From the Waist, and Clinton, President Fellatio, would be in favor of elevating anal and oral intercourse to a norm in the military

We are told by the same Democrat Liberal Progressives who have destroyed DA/DT that open homosexuality in the military will not be a problem, including as to unit cohesion, putting enlisted men and women at risk, and that they can control homosexual predators. Really? Just look at Liberal Progressive Portland, the Principality of Political Correctness, which reportedly strongly supports abolition of DA/DT. Portland could not even keep its predatory homosexual Mayor Sam Adam from preying on a 17-year-old male intern in the City Hall Mens Room in the now infamous Beau Breedlove affair. What a field day such a homosexual predator would have in the closed military circumstance now that open homosexuality is to be the military norm.

Those voting for abolition of DA/DT and for the norming of open homosexual conduct as acceptable in the military, all those politicians in House and Senate and the President-Who-Never-Served, are preening in their self-righteousness in establishing a military policy which will never affect them, and is unlikely to affect their sons and daughters, since the progeny of those liberal "progressive" legislators are unlikely to have an economic incentive to join the armed forces.

I believe that the incoming 112th Congress should repeal this Lame Duck Democrat Liberal Progressive destruction of DA/DT. Such fundamental changes in the military culture, and the Military Code of Justice, and leave it to the military to decide what to do and how to do it. The the most important voice in the ultimate decision should be the members of the military most immediately affected, -- combat troops.

The ultimate decision should not be made by liberal self-defined "progressive" politicians, bureaucrats, self-interested predatory homosexuals like Portland's Progressive Mayor Sam Adams, or military personnel far from combat and unlikely to have to depend on a homosexual with a sexual interest in him or her or in some other troop with whom they may have a homosexual crush or be a bedmate.

Further, unless and until the action of the Lame Duck Obama-Reid-Pelosi 111th Congress is repealed, every member of the House and Senate, as well as Obama, He Who Bows From The Waist, and his White House gaggle of liberal "progressives" creating their Brave New Homosexual Military World, should be compelled to shower daily with the homosexual Barney Frank in the Congressional gym. If they won't do that, then they should not inflict a similar fate on members of the American military, and their families.

Indeed, Americans should repeal the Lame Duck Democrat DA/DT destruction in the 112th Congress, and repeal of them in House and Senate who voted for it, and real him who so gushingly signed it, in the 2012 election.

In support thereof, I urge you again to read the report in by Eugene Koprowski on the growing response of troops and veterans to open homosexuality in the military:

(Life Member and Judge Advocate, Riverside Post 79; Past Commander District 21 (Cal.); Director and Attorney, Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of The American Legion Department of California.*) [*For purposes of identification only. The views expressed herein are solely those of Rees Lloyd and not any person, organization, or entity he may otherwise represent.)

1 comment:

  1. It is unusual to see two pastors battling openly ... especially when those pastors are father and daughter. According to OneNewsNow, that is exactly what is happening at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA..
    The row began when the current head pastor, Robert Schuller's daughter, Sheila Schuller Coleman, asked members of the choir to agree to a covenant which asked them to refrain from living an overtly homosexual lifestyle.

    Robert Schuller strongly opposes the covenant saying that it went against the message of tolerance and acceptance he believes in and has preached at the Crystal Cathedral for years. He added he is "too well-educated to criticize a certain religion or group of people for what they believe in."
    While I appreciate Pastor Schuller's honesty and his devotion to his position it should be noted that the Word of God -- and not how well a pastor is educated -- should be the judge of the sins which are condemned and the Redeemer's blood-bought salvation which is offered.

    Like every seminary teaches, we don't make it up as we go along. We preach the Word ... all of it, in season and out of season.
    It's because we have a Savior who gave His life, from beginning to end, to rescue us from our sins. If we don't speak God's truth, then we make the Savior's sacrifice meaningless and unnecessary.