I watched the testimony of both Donnelly and a former Army Ranger Sgt. Major Jones regarding the homosexuals in the military issue which came up recently when they went at the Congressional hearing that was revisiting this issue. Members of Congress and the press clearly “demonize as morally repugnant (bigoted, homophobic, or worse) anyone who dared disagree with the Democrats’ and homosexual activists’ point of view.”

The response from the homosexuals who are trying to shove their deviant behavior into our military culture was hysterical, but it always has been, as this article at WND attests.

A Washington Post smear of Elaine Donnelly

I noticed that the IrishTimes came up with an equally inflammatory article:

Crusader’s dire warnings about gays in US military backfire on grand scale

I don’t see how as the warnings have “backfired” on a grand scale. What I see is homosexual activism that is putting our entire military at risk by trying to insert spreaders of disease into military culture calling anyone who disagrees with it ‘homophobic’. What is “homophobic” about pointing something out that activists themselves have said?

The response to the very reasoned arguments against homosexuals in the military actually proves the points that Elaine and made.

Military ‘gay’ ban supporters demonized by Congress
‘Show hearing would have made Stalin proud’

members of Congress clearly intended to “demonize as morally repugnant (bigoted, homophobic, or worse) anyone who dared disagree with the Democrats’ and homosexual activists’ point of view.”

These were Donnelly’s points. If the 1993 law is repealed:

“The new policy will be forced cohabitation with homosexuals, 24/7, in all military communities, including Army and Marine infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and all the ships at sea, including submarines. This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men in intimate quarters, 24/7, with no recourse but to leave or avoid the military all together.

“Taking the ‘civil rights’ argument to its logical, misguided conclusion, the military will be required to give special rights to professed (not discreet) homosexuals, and enforce a corollary policy of ‘zero tolerance’ of anyone who disagrees. The military does not do things halfway. Commanders will not be able to improve the situation, since they might be accused of ‘intolerance’ themselves.

“Current incidents of sexual misconduct involving men and women will be increased three-fold, to include male/male and female/female issues.

“To make the new policy ‘work,’ valuable training time will be diverted to ‘diversity’ training reflecting the attitudes of civilian gay activist groups. This training will attempt to overcome the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters – a quest that is inappropriate for the military and unlikely to succeed.

“Any complaints about inappropriate passive/aggressive actions conveying a homosexual message or approach, short of physical touching and assault, will be met with career-killing presumptions about the motives of the person who complains: bigotry, homophobia, racism, or worse. As a result, untold thousands of people to leave or avoid the all-volunteer force.”

Tommy Sears, the executive director for the center, agreed.

– Video-Statement of Elaine Donnelly

[youtube]19sLj2zK3qM[/youtube]

– Video-Statement of Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, US Army, (Ret.)

[youtube]uIxY4cyINpY[/youtube]

Induction forms used to have the question “are you homosexual?” on the form. This is about eligibility.

The law is there to promote order and discipline.

Tommy Sears at the Tank:

The object of the hearing was to demonize as morally repugnant (bigoted, homophobic, or worse) anyone who dared disagree with the Democrats’ and homosexual activists’ point of view. It was a replay of the treatment received by the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace. Sadly, Republicans were unprepared to respond in their statements or questions. The lack of apparent support for our position made it possible for the Democrats to be brutal, and matters were made worse by AWOL Republicans.

A Lady Under Fire

CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears described the atmosphere of the hearing on National Review Online: Show Hearing for Gays in the Military

A Summary of Elaine Donnelly’s Testimony and the statement of Brian Jones on CMR’s website, here: http://cmrlink.org/problemgays.asp

The full-length statement, which includes footnotes and links to documents cited, is posted on the website of the HASC: http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/MilPers072308/Donnelly_Testimony072308.pdf

ED:

Throughout the hearing, none of the opposing witnesses or members showed a single reason why repeal of this law would improve military readiness, morale, and discipline. It was all “hearts and flowers,” focusing on the individual stories of opposing witnesses, rather than the needs of the military.

Tommy Sears at the Tank:

The irony is that the pre-judgments about Elaine and Sgt. Maj. Jones proved her point. If the law is repealed, when people are subjected to passive/aggressive behavior that sexualizes the intimate no-privacy atmosphere, especially in close combat units and submarines, their motives will be questioned. Unlike women complaining of harassment, the presumption will be bigotry, homophobia, or worse (again, the defamation of General Pace last year shows the pattern of serial demagoguery here). So no one will complain. They will just leave — or avoid the military in the first place. As a result, the military will lose thousands of good people.

She is now a member of a trade organization (union, anyone?) – calling itself “The American Association of Publishers”, which lobbied before congress in 2004 to make sure that ‘updated’ – read ‘revised’ – read ‘revisionist’-freshly pumped with more propaganda text books are fed to our nation’s schools as the ‘most current’ available.

I’m not sure where the poll came from, what size the sampling was of people polled, or what their political persuasion was, but it was interesting to read at Newsmax that Pat Schroeder came out and announced that Liberals read more books than Conservatives do.

That practically made me laugh out loud, as I recall that Ann Coulter had said-”Liberals don’t read books – they don’t read anything,” she said. “That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.” I would call that EMOTIONS. They base a lot of their decisionmaking in Congress as a result of EMOTIONS, which is the precise reason why Pat Shroeder’s caterwauling after tailhook gained some traction. She used the inverted rhetoric that sexual harrassment at tailhook was unacceptable, so the only way to prove women are equal to men is to expose them to combat. So…as long as a woman is being raped by the enemy, it’s perfectly okay.

In fact, the only part about the conflict in the Middle East that liberals are in support of is women abandoning their traditional role- wife and mother-in order to take an active role in our nation’s defense, which has morphed into little more than social workers on the streets of Iraq. God forbid anyone should try to kill a terrorist…that’s ‘inhumane’, according to libs. Turning a nurturer into a killer is what Schroeder has been a part of – the social engineering that has brought us new ‘heroes’ of a sort – the ones who are against spousal abuse directed at women; the feminist kind which doesn’t want us to value the role of a mother raising her children; instead, let the state do it. Because after all, as Hillary has said, ‘it takes a village’. Right?

The liberal media spews headlines that liberals swallow up because they don’t read books. They’re not all that bright; which also punctuates the point that you have to be dumbed down to accept socialism, and Schroeder is actively working for it, as are other people who seem to be missing a few brain cells, like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the tank humping Jane Fonda of yesteryear.

I have piles and piles of books here, which tell all kinds of interesting stories that will never hit the airwaves, and I oftentimes talk about them, refer to them and even quote them here. Being well-read means being well-versed on all sorts of topics, so when those wet-behind-the-ears- journalism students decide to pull the wool over my eyes, I’m not all that willing to a) fall for it, or b) think of it as journalism. Today, it’s partisanship that seems to matter in writing–particularly out of the media, which is why I probably do more reading than the average Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama loving citizen.

And by the way, Feminism has lost their war. Feminists like Schroeder, for all their shrill talk about society and it’s lack of progress, -that society is discriminatory against women, that attitudes and behaviors are societal constructs, science has proven otherwise.

The differences between men and women are not social constructs-they are the product of biological differences. No amount of government intervention is going to change that. No amount of government intervention is going to create the feminist utopia, and government is a poor replacement for a sugardaddy. If gender differences are natural, then the feminist idea of progress isn’t progress at all. The feminist agenda makes men and women worse off by driving them away from their biological preferences in pursuit of a fantasy that will never be reached.

And people like Schroeder are pushing for it to go further down the tubes than it has already.

From a study in 2000 examining the effect of affirmative action on police hiring, a comparison of male and female public safety officers found that female officers had 32 percent to 56 percent less upper-body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower-body strength than male officers.(Lott, 2005)

The point can be applied to the women in combat argument. The proponents of women in combat can’t seem to-or what’s worse, are unwilling to- connect the dots, unfortunately.

They featured a man and his daughter, who between them lost a tremendous amount of weight because they did it together.

The representative from weight watchers said that men and women view weightloss in different ways, and that a woman carries less lean muscle mass than a man, so a man could be making progress while eating the same thing that a woman does who isn’t making any progress with weight loss.

This goes back to my previous posts on women in combat and why it’s a bad idea.

Women are not completely interchangeable with men because they carry less lean muscle mass. There is no way that this inherent fact can be altered. And that is why on physical training tests, women can’t keep up with the men. In a situation such as the battlefield, or flying an airplane, adjusting scores to help women pass couldn’t possibly help them succeed; in some cases it’s completely setting them up for failure.