Posted on 04/16/2010 9:42:53 PM PDT by Neil E. Wright
Yesterday the Center for Military Readiness issued the following News Release to Pentagon officials, congressional contacts, and the media presenting the first comprehensive analysis of the Obama Administration’s new “Don’t Report, Don’t Act” regulations regarding homosexuals in the military. We thought you would like to review our analysis and take a look at the editorial cartoon that summarizes the ultimate effect of the administration’s determined effort to weaken or repeal the law. Feel free to forward this and to express your opinion to your own members of Congress.
|
For Immediate Release
|
April 15, 2010
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
New Defense Department Policy: “Don’t Report, Don’t Act”
DoD Elevates Political Promises Over Principle
|
|
|||||
|
|
The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) has produced the first comprehensive analysis of recently released Department of Defense regulations that redefine and weaken enforcement of the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., which states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.
The concise four-page CMR Policy Analysis explains the consequences of regulatory changes that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen announced on March 25:
The CMR Policy Analysis states that under the new rules, current law (usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) has been rendered virtually unenforceable for political reasons, just to please gay activists who consider the law to be “unfair.”
CMR President Elaine Donnelly has dubbed the Gates/Mullen policy “Don’t Report, Don’t Act” (DRDA) because “It encourages local commanders to look the other way, pretend ignorance, or decline to act on credible information indicating that a servicemember is not eligible for military service.” The “Don’t Report, Don’t Act” policy does this by:
1) Requiring any inquiry into homosexual conduct by a servicemember to be initiated by a one-star general or admiral (O-7), without providing written instructions directing subordinate commanders to forward credible information up the chain of command; and by
2)
Imposing unusual loopholes and restrictions that will have the effect of excluding otherwise valid information by challenging the motives of “third party” sources, even in cases involving domestic violence.
The CMR Policy Analysis provides examples of actual and hypothetical situations that demonstrate the insufficiency and folly of the Gates/Mullen DRDA regulations. It also questions the Defense Department’s peculiar omission of “hand-holding and kissing” from examples of bodily contact that may be reasonably considered an indication of homosexual conduct.
An editorial cartoon by Chuck Asay, forwarded to CMR by USNA-At-Large, satirizes a scenario that should give Congress pause:
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
The CMR Policy Analysis concludes that the DRDA regulations, taken as a whole, create an inefficient “Catch 22” by limiting investigations to one-star generals or admirals who are far removed and unlikely to receive credible information from subordinate commanders.
Donnelly noted, “By setting up gratuitous barriers to responsible enforcement, and treating ineligible homosexual personnel as if they are a special class, the new directives essentially redefine the purpose of the law as ‘fairness,’ rather than military necessity. This abrogates the first finding in current law, which recognizes that the U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress authority over military policies, and the second finding: ‘There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.’ ”
She continued, “Military men and women are about to be used in an involuntary social experiment, paying a high and possibly irrevocable price for the president’s political promises to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered activists of the LGBT Left. Responsible congressmen and senators of both parties should step forward to clarify the situation and to reaffirm support for the 1993 law.”
To schedule an interview on this subject, call Elaine Donnelly or CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears
at 202/347-5333 (Washington, D.C. office) or 202/330-1390. (cell)
* * * * * * *
The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues. More information on this and related topics is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.
|
|
|||||
FREEDOM!
Whats next the U.S.S. Barney Frank?...
Same plan they used for Terrorist (and friend of Obama)Hasan.
Why doesn’t anyone ever approach this issue from the angle of bringing AIDS into the military? It’s always presented as a question of equality and protecting one’s rights, and naturally a lot of Americans fall for it and don’t want to come across as unfair. But if you approach it as a safety issue-—how many Americans would want to crawl into a submarine with an AIDS carrier?-—I think public opinion would change. Gates should be hounded with this question every time he’s in front of a camera: “Why do you want to bring AIDS into the military?”
And I haven’t even brought up the issue of the costs of their medical care.
Seriously, Google it. Globally, AIDs is the leading cause of death for women ages 15-44. In the United States, AIDs is the leading cause of death for black straight women ages 25 to 34. There are whole groups of people who now claim that reporting these facts are another way to discriminate racially so it's not covered in the media, just in biology classes. The data is free on the Internet, though.
In college, it was a big enough deal that I knew people who refused to date anyone who was African American because they represented 12.4% of the population but 44.1% of new HIV infections. Health class scared the hell out of a lot of people.
The theory goes that these women are typically poor and uneducated. They think that HIV and AIDs are a "gay, white, male" disease and so it never occurs to them they could get it. Somewhere in the past 10 years, a tipping point was reached. The scariest part is most of these people have no idea they are infected.
I've gone on record as saying I don't get the whole gay thing or why people are so obsessed with it, which is probably just my generation (just like I don't get people who are vegetarian, but it's their life). But from a purely strategic position, if I were going to support Don't Ask Don't Tell, I think the best argument would be that allowing openly gay soldiers would be akin to males showering with females. The privacy argument is going to be far more effective with the generation that is serving in the rank and file. AIDs and HIV aren't gay diseases in the younger generation's mind anymore. They are black diseases due to biology and health classes. At least they are in the private universities of America.
A quick search brought these up (I don't know anything about the source but they are roughly comparable to what I remember from college because I recall being amazed at the almost total LACK of infections in the Asian population):
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.