How are things in the post 'don't ask don't tell' world?

[gsvol]

That may be according to whom you are addressing the question.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7225988
Military chaplains: Bigotry rampant vs. Christians!

It’s been about a year since the U.S. military adopted the Obama administration goal of open homosexuality in the ranks, and NBC recently reported on a study from an organization that openly promotes sexual lifestyle alternatives in the ranks saying there has been no negative impact from the change.

That would mean that the study by the Palm Center of the Williams Institute at UCLA apparently would not consider it a “negative” that two airmen were publicly harassed in a post exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns.

Nor would a situation where a chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy” be considered a negative.

And not considered a “negative” would be a commander’s refusal to take disciplinary action over a male service member “sexually harassed” another male service member, “through text messages, emails, phone calls and in person confrontations, insisting the two would ‘make a great couple.’”

Because those are just a few of the results of the change from the previous practice in the military in which homosexuals were allowed to serve as long as they did not make a public issue of their sexual lifestyle choice, to a free-for-all in the barracks in which open homosexuality is protected.

According to officials with Chaplain Alliance, there have been those negative results, and others.

“The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not as social experiment lab in which our troops serve as human subjects,” said Chaplain (Col. Ret.) Ron Crews, the executive director of the alliance. “While many will ignore the negative impacts, or pretend that they don’t exist, threats to our troops’ freedom are mounting.”
-------------------------------------

The Center for Military Readiness also previously reported on a “chilling trend” in sexual assault in the military, documenting that the military itself confirmed that violent attacks and rapes, which includes male-on-male rapes, “have nearly doubled since 2006, rising from 663 to 1,313 last year.

The center, an independent public policy group specializing in the military and social issues, also has documented the misleading information distributed by some members of the Obama administration in order to push for open homosexuality.
---------------------------------

“If the Navy can punish a chaplain for participating in a pro-life event or a Marine participating in a political rally, it stands to reason that DOD should maintain the same standard and preclude service members in uniform from marching in a gay pride parade,” he said.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said the decision to allow an in-uniform protest parade participation must have come from the White House, as officers in public affairs units would not have such authority.

“It’s coming from President Obama, and he doesn’t seem to understand you don’t have special interest pressure groups in the military,” she told WND. “Groups that set themselves apart to advocate a special interest agenda.”

She continued: “In the military you don’t get to express yourself in your personal way, with dress or behavior. There is a set of regulations, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Many things that are legal for civilians are not legal in the military for a good reason. You have to wear a uniform. You don’t get to choose how you’re going to wear your hair.

“The Pentagon is on thin ice,” she said. “They’re showing favoritism to LGBT activities in the military, and that is not helpful to the armed forces as a whole. This looks like a presidential response to a political faction. The LGBT left expects this.”

Further, a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Navy over the manipulation of “gay” data used to convince Congress to overturn the centuries-old ban in the U.S. military on open homosexuality.

The manipulation of the data was confirmed by the government itself, which in an inspector general’s report marked “For Official Use Only” said numbers were combined to present the image that members of the military approved of Barack Obama’s plan for open homosexuality.

It was the military’s original and now-suspect report that famously was quoted as affirming “70 percent” of the nation’s military members believe the repeal of the long-standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” practice of allowing homosexuals to serve as long as they kept their sexual lifestyle choices to themselves would have either “a neutral or positive impact on unit cohesion, readiness, effectiveness and morale.”

However, the IG documents uncovered by Donnelly revealed the actual figures for military members were: those who believed the change would impact units “very positively” (6.6 percent), “positively” (11.8 percent), “mixed” (32.1 percent), “negatively” (18.7 percent), “very negatively” (10.9 percent) and “no effect” (19.9 percent).

The only way the 70 percent figure can be reached is to combine “very positively,” “positively,” “mixed” and “no effect.” But this combination counts people with “neutral positions” as favoring the change, Donnelly reported.

Donnelly explained that taking those same figures and putting them on the other side, that is, lumping them with “negatively” and “very negatively,” would produce a total of almost 82 percent of the soldiers who believe the results of the change would be “negative or neutral.”

The IG report uncovered by Donnelly said exactly that:
---------------------------------------

It was the Thomas More Law Center that announced a federal FOIA lawsuit against the Navy, seeking to obtain records that are expected to show intentional deception by the Pentagon “to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

The lawsuit is based on the IG report obtained by Donnelly, “which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality.”
-------------------------

“The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” she said.

The case was launched in U.S. District Court in Washington on behalf of Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness. It seeks information to determine the extent to which the Navy engaged “in a campaign of deception as suggested by the Inspector General’s Report.”

In one side effect that rebounded on the White House, a Senate committee, in an attempt to ensure the law conforms to the new policy, voted to repeal the ban in the military on bestiality, an issue that White House press secretary Jay Carney didn’t consider a serious question.

The Senate quickly backtracked when its work was revealed.
---------------------------------

Further, “The DoD IG report concluded that someone who ‘had a strongly emotional attachment to the issue’ and ‘likely a pro-repeal agenda’ violated security rules and leaked selected, half-true information to the Washington Post,” she explained.

Oh wait, you aren't saying Barry would lie to us are you?

DUH!

There may be an historic precedent for our present situaion.

The Pink Swastika

In this atmosphere the purposeful stride of Captain Ernst Roehm (pictured above) seemed out of place. But Roehm was accustomed to being different. A homosexual with a taste for boys, Roehm was part of a growing subculture in Germany which fancied itself a superior form of German manhood. A large, heavy man, Roehm had been a professional soldier since 1906, and, after the war, had temporarily lent his talents to a socialist terror organization called the Iron Fist. On this night Roehm was on his way to meet some associates who had formed a much more powerful socialist organization.

At the door of the Bratwurstgloeckl, a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks and bully-boys, Roehm turned in and joined the handful of sexual deviants and occultists who were celebrating the success of a new campaign of terror. Their organization, once known as the German Worker’s Party, was now called the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, The National Socialist German Worker’s Party — the Nazis.

Yes, the Nazis met in a “gay” bar.
----------------------------------

The SA Brownshirts or Stuermabteilung (“Storm Troopers”) were largely the creation of another homosexual, Gerhard Rossbach (Waite, 1969:209). Rossbach formed the Rossbachbund (“Rossbach Brotherhood”), a homosexual unit of the Freikorps (“Free Corps”). The Freikorps were independent inactive military reserve units which became home to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed World War I veterans in Germany. Rossbach also formed a youth organization under the Rossbachbund, calling it the Schilljugend (“Schill Youth”) (ibid.:210). Rossbach’s staff assistant, Lieutenant Edmund Heines, a pederast and murderer, was put in charge of the Schilljugend.

The Rossbachbund later changed its name to Storm Troopers (in honor of Wotan, the ancient German god of storms. - Graber:33). Rossbach seduced Hitler’s mentor, Ernst Roehm, into homosexuality. It was under Roehm’s leadership that the Brownshirts became notorious for brutality.
-------------------------------

The attack on the Sex Research Institute is often cited as an example of Nazi oppression of homosexuals. This is partly true, but as we shall see, the “oppression” fits into a larger context of internecine rivalry between two major homosexual groups. Magnus Hirschfeld, who headed the Institute, was a prominent Jewish homosexual. Hirschfeld also headed a “gay rights” organization called the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee (SHC), formed in 1897 to work for the repeal of Paragraph 175 of the German legal code, which criminalized homosexuality (Kennedy:230). The organization was also opposed to sadomasochism and pederasty, two of the favorite practices of the militaristic, Roehm-style homosexuals who figured so prominently in the early Nazi Party.
-----------------------------------

One such advocate was Adolf Brand, who formed the Gemeinschaft der Eigenen (“Community of the Elite”) in 1902. The Gemeinschaft der Eigenen inspired the formation in 1920 of the German Friendship League, which changed its name in 1923 to the Society for Human Rights. The leaders of this group were instrumental in the formation and the rise of the Nazi Party. Adolf Brand published the world’s first homosexual periodical, Der Eigene (“The Elite” - Oosterhuis and Kennedy:cover). Brand was a pederast, child pornographer and anti-Semite, and, along with many homosexuals who shared his philosophies, developed a burning hatred of Magnus Hirschfeld and the SHC. When Hirschfeld’s Sex Research Institute was destroyed, the SA troops were under the general command of Ernst Roehm, a member of Brand’s spinoff group, the Society for Human Rights.