Don't Ask Don't Tell - A Behind The Scenes Look

Until now I have been silent on the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (DADT)debate.  I guess I figured that sanity would prevail.  Now we know that is not the case.  As a continued act of betrayal, eight Senate Republicans stood with 53 democrats and 2 independents to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, a policy which has been in place since 1993. 

The eight Republicans were: Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts (newly elected with the help of the Tea Party), Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (re-elected as a write-in candidate), newly elected Mark Kirk of Illinois, liberal retiring lame duck George Voinovich of Ohio took one last opportunity to betray his party, newly reelected Richard Burr of North Carolina, John Ensign of Nevada (who is up for election in 2012), Susan Collins of Maine (who is up for reelection in 2014) and Olympia Snowe of Maine (who is up for election in 2012).

I will go into the moral side of this discussion later, but let us address first the consequences and real agenda of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  

4063262439?profile=originalIf you are foolish enough to believe that the anti-American, anti-military factions that are pushing this agenda are doing so because of their love and admiration for the homosexual community, you are dangerously naive, far too gullible to be in a position of leadership, or your family tree stopped forking a few generations back. This will do to the military what a computer virus does to a hard drive.  More on this later, but let me start with where I stand on the issue. 

I am not a "seek and destroy Christian zealot" who believes the government should reside in the bedroom of American homes.  I don't believe that what goes on between a man and a woman is any of government's business.  Nor is it the business of the community unless it affects the community.  If you turn your home into a brothel, you are making my neighborhood unsafe for my family by bringing in a criminal element and potential sexual predators.  You will have my full attention at that point in time. 

4063262476?profile=originalLikewise, I am not interested at all in the private consensual behavior of the homosexual community.  If you live in my neighborhood and I hear whispers about these "guys" who live in that house on the corner, I am forced dismiss such rumors because under the law that I honor, Biblical law, unless there are two eye witnesses, no charge cannot be brought against anyone for anything.  However, the minute you start having raucous parties where public indecency is displayed, you have made your lifestyle my business.  Further, when one begins parading up and down the city streets of major cities in America (see: San Francisco Gay Pride Parade) naked, flaunting one's sexuality, and demanding special rights, you and I will find ourselves on opposite sides of the sexual divide … no ifs ands or butts about it.   

4063262401?profile=originalLikewise, when you join the military and demand special rights to accommodate your sexual lifestyle, you have crossed the line.  If we, as a nation, have to make special provisions to accommodate your sexual proclivities, where does it end?  Should we not then have special provisions for polygamists?  How about people that love their animals in that "special way" … shouldn't they have special protection?  If homosexuality is "natural human behavior," isn't bestiality as well?  After all, didn't God make us all the way we are?

And, of course, everyone knows we need special protections for those who love little boys, like NAMBLA.  They are so misunderstood and hated, but didn't God make them that way?  Why should they be punished for "natural human behavior"?

And how about other groups like necrophilias?  Do you have any idea how difficult a public relations task selling this life style is?  It’s just so hard to find understanding for these poor folks.  Their outlook is so grave that I believe Harry Reid should sponsor a bill yet today just for them.  Who knows … in this lame duck congress (that for the bestiality folks), even a bill for necrophilias may not be dead on arrival, which would probably leave necrophilias with mixed emotions. 

4063262499?profile=originalBack to Don't Ask Don't Tell.  There are some good sides to having openly gay men in the barracks with straights.  First, it might stimulate the economy.  I mean, if we have a couple million soldiers all buying soap on a rope, it is bound to boost the economy of soap on a rope makers.  And I think serving in a forward position with an openly gay man would have a tendency to keep one awake in the foxhole … or anywhere else for that matter.  Awkward isn't it?   Being in forward position while fighting a rear guard action?  But I digress.  There are, in reality, serious health issues at stake.    

A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime; approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners; 17% claimed 250-499 partners; 15% claimed 500-999 partners, and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners according to Wiki.answers.com.

Homosexuality seems to be a highly lustful lifestyle with the average homosexual having hundreds of sex partners during their lifetime.  How is that going to play out in the barracks?  Are the barracks going to become a hedonistic brothel filled with Caligulan scenes of sexual romp and lust?  And if not, how about "tender moments" of hand holding and "cuddling" … is that going to be allowed in the barracks?  And if such behavior is banned, how long will it be before the ACLU is suing the Army and the federal government on the grounds that the gay community is being singled out and discriminated against for only exercising "natural human behavior" already condoned by both the military and the federal government, when they revoked the DADT policy. 

Then there is the privacy question.  We do not allow men to live with women in the barracks.  Experience has taught us that a separation of the sexes prevents a lot of potential problems, like inter-barracks relationship problems, interpersonal conflicts created by jealousy, breakups, pregnancy (which probably won't be an issue in this case), and other "natural human behavior". 

4063262609?profile=originalThen there is the problem of inappropriate sexual behavior.  We avoid the potential problems which can be created when a few good men have been out partying for a few too many hours coming back to the barracks to join a vulnerable Private Jane Doe in the co-ed showers.  But even the innocent appearance of an obviously amorous male in the co-ed shower area might well be, or at least should be, an affront to the modesty of the female soldiers or now after the repeal of DADT, male soldiers.

How are straight men going to respond when they walk from the shower to their bunk and the scene turns to a "B" flick lewd prison backdrop complete with catcalls and whistles?  How will that affect training, discipline, and self confidence?  Will the barracks become “us” against “them” ... straights against gays? 

Perhaps homosexuals should be separated from the rest of the troops to avoid the possibility of sexual harassment.  But that is akin to asking men and women to bunk together isn't it?  So what does one do with openly gay individuals in the military? 

As stated earlier, the homosexual lifestyle for over 75% of gay men is all about sexual encounters, hundreds of them.  How does that affect hygiene in the military? 

  • Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). 60% of all positive HIV tests are found in homosexual men. This contrasts with just over 15% of all positive HIV tests which are due to heterosexual contact. (Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. November 2004).

  • Dramatic increases in syphilis in many large cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, but also in London and Manchester, UK are in the majority observed in homosexual men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in primary and secondary syphilis and HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR 2004; 53: 575-8. and Nicoll A. Are trends in HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis worsening in Western Europe? BMJ 2002; 324:1324-7.)

  • According to "Gay author Gabriel Rotello the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'" This reinforces my point earlier concerning their demand for equal sexual rights and the glut of court cases that would result in any attempt to limit what to them is "Natural Human Behavior."

    4063262640?profile=originalFinally, I know that its passé to remind anyone of moral standards, but morals are no small part of the argument.  What liberals in America have forgotten is that those of us who hold Judeo Christian values are the norm and that dissenting voices, pushing homosexuality, are the contrarians.

 We, as traditional Christian America, have rights too.  The left does not have a right to inflict their religion of liberal one world humanistic theology on us. Their religion is humanism and their theology, which sees intellect as Divine Spark, is anathema to millions of Americans who hold a Judeo Christian understanding of life.  The left tells us that we have no right to force our religion and morality on them, but they have no problem erasing over four centuries of Judeo Christian heritage and morality on this continent and imposing their vulgar religion of humanistic licentiousness on us.

Every belief system is religious by its very nature.  It determines both the course and correction of a society.   History is replete with nations which have traded Christianity for the humanistic religion of the left and history is replete with the stories of failure, collapse and finally the replacement of freedom with the despotism of Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler.

4063262566?profile=originalSo what will it be America the religion of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, who has really gotten behind the repeal of DADT, or the religion of our Creator who saw our forefathers through the impossible victory over the invincible British Empire?  Was their confidence in themselves or their military prowess?  Hardly!  Their faith was this:  “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." 

Nor did our founders believe that humanism could lead a nation.  "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  John Adams          

Will the law of the Creator, whose Triune God-head our fathers celebrated in the creation of a tripartite government, be our guide or will we desert that safe harbor for the humanistic worship of intellect and power preached Marx, Lenin, and the American Left? 

Unfortunately, what most Americans don't realize is that the religion of George Soros and his ilk, and their minions like Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, is the religion of power.  Their goal is not to raise up America to a new enlightenment.  Their agenda is to collapse America and level the playing field with the rest of the world. They believe that our power and influence is what stands in the way of their NWO.  Their constant piling on of debt to the nation isn't about doing good for the poor, it is about caving in the economy causing panic and confusion, from which only they will be able to lead us to safety.  The goal is always destruction that they might rebuild the world in their image of what it should be and under their wise leadership. 

Finally, if they are to be successful in their quest to build this New World Order, the strategy has to include the control of every aspects of society.  Among these are the economy, the media, education, government, the courts, and the military.  One of the remaining two obstacles is the media the other is control of the military. 

General degradation of the military can be accomplished through the appointment of socialist generals by a lackey of the NWO, which Mr. Obama (despite the constitutional restriction under Article 1 Section 8 which reserves to the states the appointment of general officers) has already done.  The other is to generally degrade the capability of the military.  That, my friends, is the real purpose of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  This move alone will do more to disrupt the military than any other single move that could have been made. 

4063262579?profile=originalSure, we have fought endless wars to tax our military, extended them beyond human endurance, and created impossible rules of engagement for them to follow. But, our soldiers are the best in the world.  And despite these brutish tactics they have stood tall and exceeded even these draconian demands placed upon them.  They are nothing short of heroic.  But injecting the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell into the military is akin to inserting a computer virus into a hard drive.  It begins chipping away at programs and the registry and then begins causing such chaos as to make the device unusable.  For the military, that virus is Don't Ask Don't Tell.   Through disease, social disruption, breakdown of military order, legal chaos, and the destruction of morale, this may well do what no Fabian bureaucrat or no army in the world can do ... beat the American military.

So, now that our weak kneed politicians have gotten all mushy and politically correct on the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, think about the ramifications and the unintended consequences (or perhaps more properly, intended consequences) of what we are doing and the potentially catastrophic cause and effect this repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will have on the defenses of America. 

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comments

  • Drill Sergeant Lee,

     

    I appreciate the reply.  We simply have differing opinions.  I recognize you as the SME and wish you the best of luck during the integration process.

     

    Very Respectfully,

    Roman Clark

  • Dr. Baker,

     

    -As a heterosexual, I maintain the right to confess my sexual preference while in the military. Saying that affording homosexuals the same right is allowing them a “special right” is splitting hairs.

    -If you were attacked solely because of your religion or sexual orientation, that would constitute a hate crime.

    -I don't think anyone is asking to carry a neon sign.



    -Homosexuals, as well as nudists and cross-dressers, are expected to conform to uniform codes. Nudists may, however, profess their love of being naked without being discharged. Jews and Muslims in the military are also expected to obey uniform restrictions.



    -I can't tell you why homosexuals want to broadcast their orientation, but that won't stop me from believing in their right to do so.



    -Men and women in the military do not quarter together, because of their sexual orientation; I would not consider it a special right to afford homosexuals the same arrangement.



    -To my knowledge, only fish are allowed in the barracks. Sheep-lovers will need to quarter their stock elsewhere or live off-base. I personally find bestiality much weirder than homosexuality.



    -I never asserted that no moral code should be observed in government; simply no code of religion. Representatives we elect can legislate as we prod them, as they have on this issue.



    -I appreciate your response, but resent your classification of me as “the problem” and downfall of our country; I wake up every morning thousands of miles away from my family, chasing the Republican dream I was brought up to aspire to, and I find time in the evenings to post my civil and respectful opinions on your blog. At least I am reading it, and at least I care to have an opinion. I respect your right to do the same, contrary to mine as it may be.

  • Roman, you are so right...that opinion was strictly confined to the military.  In almost any other setting I would have found your statement to be one of sound, rational content.  I thank you for a speedy and timely reply to my rant.  As for the blacks serving in the military...they have served back at least to the civil war...and, in the very beginning they had a harder road than others in earning the due respect of their peers.  Roman, we are not talking about a race.  We are talking about a very controversial subject.  Not controversial only because of the time, not because of a race or religion.  This topic has been controversial since the beginning of time.  It's not a debate on the right or wrong of homosexual practice.  It will always be controversial, whether it is in the military, in the church, in the government, in the grocery store or wherever.  It will be controversial.  That is the big rift here.  The military is not, above all other environments, the place to impose such a controversial behavior.  As for my disclaimer:   What people do in the privacy of their own homes, in their personal lives, I could care less.  It is in my opinion, their right as an american citizen to live and do as they choose.  And, how they live and the choices they make are none of my business.

     

     

     

     

  • Roman:

    You have defeated your own argument.  You said, "Until they commit a crime, a homosexual is just as American as you or I and deserves the same right (not a special right) ..." The very right of Don't Ask Don't Tell is a special right.  Since when did heterosexuals demand the special right of identifying themselves as heterosexual like their homosexual counterparts do?  So, what you mean is that you don think they should get any more special rights that the one they just demanded, that is the right to tell the world that they are homosexual.  Other than that, they don't get any special rights.  What about the special protections homosexuals get under law, like the hate crimes prosecution.  As a heterosexual Christian, I get no such protections.  Your logic, sir, is sophomoric at best.  You also say that they should have the right to serve in the military.  No one was trying to stop them. There was simply a rule that they didn't get to carry a neon sign saying, "I'm Gay!" 

    Further, you say government has no right to set moral standards.  Let's say I have just changed my religion to nudism.  I demand the right to serve in the military.  Are you going to be hypocritical enough to tell me I have to put on clothes?   Just because clothes are an accepted norm doesn't mean you have the right to make me conform to someone else's norm.   Further, let's say that I am not a normal heterosexual, I am a libidinous heterosexual and I demand the right to live in the woman's barracks because I like to wear women's clothes and look at women.  I'm not comfortable unless I get my daily dose of notoriety by telling those around me that I am a cross dressing womanizer.  I really don't care if these women are creeped out by my constant drooling and ogling, it is my sexual preference, and what right do you or the government have to tell me I can't be fulfilled in my lifestyle?  After all, God made me that way.  If they are distracted ... that is their problem, not mine. 

    Why is it that homosexuals feel that they must tell someone that they are homosexual?  I'll tell you why. It is about power.  I have the power to make you accept me no matter what straight boy.  How many soldiers are going to find it distracting or disgusting to be ogled by a homosexual in the bunk next to theirs?  If we are going to maintain discipline, there are some norms that have to be met Roman.  You can't just do what you want in life ... there are boundaries.  Cross dressing soldiers are a problem. 

    Why do you  think we don't put a bunch of hormonal young men in women's barracks?  We don't do it because it is stupid.  It is equally stupid to put a bunch of libidinous homosexuals in with other men.  It is just stupid.  It disrupts order.  Fine, one might say we will give them separate quarters.  Another special right and don't forget the lawyers.  Homosexual lawyers would make mincemeat of that argument.   Separate is not necessarily equal.  They will demand the right to be housed with all other men because segregation is humiliation.  And from my perspective, why should they be allowed a special right to live with the object of their sexual young men desire if I can't live with young women?  If they get to live with the object of their desires, I demand the same right.  What if I have this pet sheep that I am fond of and I want it in the bunk house with me.  It's no more weird than homosexuality.  I demand special rights too.  It is baaaaad legislation to keep me from my sheep.

    Finally to your point that the constitution does not allow the mixing of morality, moral judgment, or religious tenants and government ...  are you insane?  Are you telling me that only immorality is allowed in government?  That, my friend, is also a religion.  It is called the religion of anarchy.  That is what this argument is all about.  It is about replacing the Christian religion and Christian world view of our founders with the religion of the New World Order, which is anarchist secular humanism. 

    You, my kind hearted friend, are the problem and you will be the very reason this country will eventually be destroyed.  You have replaced judgment and morality with the toxic opiate of politically correct flotsam.  Government is commanded by the constitution  to make rules for the governing and training of the army.  If you remove all Christian influence from the military, you will have left only a godless military.  Is that really what you want?  Please sir, stop and exercise the gray matter between your ears before you let words slide off your pen, or keyboard as it were.  If we are not going to set moral standards, that leaves only one other option, the setting of immoral standards. That, sir, is anarchy and will be the end America.

     

  • Drill Sergeant Lee,

     

    I appreciate your rebuttal, as eloquent as it was.  I'm certain that your implication of my questioned sexuality due to my decision to serve my country's Navy will be well-received.  Despite the nature of your retort, I was a little hopeful in seeing your disclaimer; at least your opinion might not extend beyond the military.

     

    You brought up a couple of great points, though rather disrespectfully.  Ignoring that, I understand your challenge as a leader to implement the inevitable new policy.  The Armed Services, however, pride themselves in training the absolute best leaders and problem solvers.  The military has always been a stepping-stone in civil rights-before African-Americans were considered more than 3/5 of a human being, they were allowed to serve in the military.

     

    I fully understand the provisions of my contract, and rightfully oblige to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and the officers appointed over me.  I am proud to serve and simply believe that other law-abiding Americans deserve the same privilege.

     

    In conclusion, I do not profess to know more than Dr. Baker here.  As I pointed out, he is obviously well-learned and well-spoken.  America, though, is a nation of people who are not all doctors but who still maintain an opinion.  Again, thank you for your response, as any dialogue of opinion is better than none at all.

  • Dr. Baker, as ususal we are in total agreement...and as for you Roman, if we weren't talking about the military, then I may be only a little more in agreeement with you.  But Roman, we are talking about the miltary and I can certainly say that you statement to Dr. Baker was, oh....how can I say..."Spoken like a true sailor".  However, we in the U.S. Army my friends of the U.S. Marines would most definitely, without any candy coating have to totally disagree with that line of horse shit you spewed.  As a U.S. Army Drill Sergeant I am the one that has to contend all the initial conflicts that will certainly arise with this liberal goose shit that our socialistic, goose stepping government is piling on.  No Roman, somehow you are missing the reality and further more, as any member of the armed forces is aware, YOU DON'T HAVE THE LUXERY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  That is part of the sacrifice that a soldier or sailor makes when you sign on the dotted line.  I Have to agree with Dr. Baker, someone that genuinely knows what he's talking about.

  • Dr. Baker,

     

    I admire your fervor. As a Navy Sailor, however, and a heterosexual, I have to disagree with you.  Though I personally do not condone homosexuality, I also think it unconstitutional to allow religious views-such as that of Christians demonizing homosexuality-into our government.  It is downright unconstitutional.  Every man and woman has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit, excepting that they infringe on the rights of others.  This is not legislation allowing rapists or deviants into the military.  It is allowing law-abiding homosexuals to serve a country they love.  I see that you are a very intelligent and well-spoken man, but I am disappointed that you think the Constitution would allow for such tyranny-sexual orientation, like religion, is an individual choice.  This is not to say I think that homosexuality is natural- I don't.  I just recognize that our government was not put into place by our Founders to be merged with any one religious belief or to persecute any one group of people for their beliefs.  Until they commit a crime, a homosexual is just as American as you or I and deserves the same right (not a special right) to serve alongside those of us who enlisted to protect the freedoms this article suggests we encroach upon.

This reply was deleted.