Repealing DADT: A Serious Risk to America’s National Security
As the Obama Administration and the U.S. military work to implement the Congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and force open homosexuality upon our armed forces, it is imperative to know who some of the players are and why this sick social experiment must abruptly be halted. The fact World Net Daily put its current issue of its long running Whistleblower print publication online for the first time ever and for free speaks volumes as to how critical it is that policy be reversed and those who voted for it unquestionably must be removed from office, no matter how solid they are on everything else. You can see how they voted by going here for the House and here for the Senate.
There was no public outcry to repeal the 1993 measure. In fact, public outcry was why President Clinton retreated when he sought to remove limitations on open homosexuals serving in the armed forces. Then Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn and General Colin Powell (both which have since changed their positions) were among public leaders at the time to urge to keep the then total ban in place. The Clinton Administration did end up modifying it to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they didn’t mouth off about their preferences.
The current outcry came heavily from leftist lawmakers and homosexual groups like the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network (SDLN) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), there was no public outcry for its rescission. Nonetheless, the 111th Congress decided to take action on it to placate the homosexual lobby and gave it what it wanted, ignoring heavy military opposition to it. Pro-life Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen joined the chorus of avowed homosexuals and their gay friendly alllies by issuing an unusually terse statement as to her hatred for the law and essentially military policy.
What Congress failed to note (and no doubt deliberately so) was just half a century ago when this writer was born, Washington declared that not only were avowed homosexuals verboten to serve in the armed services, they were banned from federal employment. In fact, federal law frowned on homosexual conduct from as late as the early to mid 1970s.
During the 1960s, a time that some call the “make love, not war” generation, an avowed homosexual activist by the name of Frank Kameny and his Mattachine Society began to pave the way for the removal of DADT. He likely didn’t know he would be the father of the law’s repeal but given whom he is and what he sought to achieve early on, he now wears the repeal as his personal badge of honor.
However, Old Frank has done America a great service by posting letters from federal officials and other materials that show how private homosexual behavior was not only forbidden as a condition of serving the military but in any area of federal employment.
On his website, Mr. Kameny posted a damning letter (page 2 is here) from the U.S. State Dept. that every Congressman and senator supporting repeal should have read. Had they done so, it’s possible a few of them would have changed their minds and voted to keep current policy. It likely would have had no effect in the U.S. House, given the 75 vote margin of favorability but it could have led to a successful filibuster in the Senate and thus a defeat for repeal.
In his letter, John Hanes, a State Dept. official during the homophobic Eisenhower Administration, told Mr. Kameny (among other things):
So long as this is the attitude of our society – and you are well aware that it is, as expressed both formally in laws, regulations and ordinances, and informally in the average reaction of people toward homosexuals – the homosexual is automatically a security risk because of social and emotional pressure to which he is subject from society and because of the ever present risk that such pressures can be utilized by hostile elements to coerce him into activities other than those which he would undertake of his own free will. Also because of the prevailing mores of society, the homosexual frequently becomes a disruptive personnel factor within any organization.
Who in Washington today would daresay the homosexual is disruptive and a security risk? If Mr. Hanes was working in the Obama Adminstration today and word leaked out of his writing, there would be mass calls for his resignation and he’d be run out of town.
But perhaps if the likes of Pentagon Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen had listened to Mr. Hanes, the Wiki Leaks scandal involving the avowed homosexual servicemen Bradley Manning might have never occurred.
Another public official with guts not so many decades ago was John Will, Director of Personnel during the first term of the Nixon Administration. In a letter (page 2 is here) to Kameny, Mr. Will recounts a matter of homosexual incest (explicit descriptions) among two federal employees and why such conduct reflects adversely on government agencies employing them as well as homosexuals in general. One paragraph goes like this:
”The employment of individuals who engage in acts of sex perversion and other homosexual acts of the type described will lead to lack of respect, not only for the individuals concerned but also for other employees and for the agency which employs them.”
It should also be pointed out in Mr. Will’s letter that homosexual conduct was criminal in the state of Maryland less than 40 years ago, perhaps even more so since cousins were involved. Now the state is poised to enact same sex marriage against the laws of nature, let alone of Almighty God.
And this is what a Congressional Democrat posted in the Congressional Journal regarding a fundraising license given to Mr. Kameny’s Mattachine Society. Had he spoken this to the current Congress, he would be run out of the party. He wrote back then saying:
“The Mattachine Society is a group of homosexuals. The acts of these people are banned under the laws of God, the laws of nature and are in violation of the laws of man. I think a situation which requires them to be permitted a license to solicit funds for their sexual deviations is a bad law and should be changed forewith.”
There’s no doubt that Rep. John Dowdy would have been run out of today’s Democrat Party. There’s no room for moral conservatives among today’s Democrats.
The question that has to be asked is this – if the repulsive nature of homosexual acts were condemned and even punished under federal law nearly a half century ago, how it is such behavior is not only about to be endorsed in today’s military but in an administration that has more homosexuals in it than all previous ones and more than Presidents Bush and Clinton combined? The Obama Administration’s personnel director is one of them.
The homosexual is indeed a security risk on so many fronts and is putting our men and women in uniform in grave jeopardy. And we thank Frank Kameny for showing us proof.
If the entire military and its massive opposition to repeal (not reported by the incompetent lame stream media) were the price paid to “compensate” Mr. Kameny as well as the pro-homosexual groups like HRC & SLDN, then this is something that Rep. Buck McKeon, Chairman of the House Armed Services, and his committee members must investigate. I would not put it past the Obama Administration that something tangible (a potentially impeachable offense) may have been given to Mr. Kameny, either by Mr. Berry or Obama himself, given their virulent condemnation of the previous enforcement of a ban on homosexuals in the military and government in general. Perhaps that’s had something to do with Kameny getting a handshake from Obama and front seat to the repeal signing.
So how is it that actions once viewed by the federal government and described as immoral, perverse, and disrespectful; behavior which was said to bring “hatred, ridicule and contempt” on an agency of the federal government; behavior that is repudiated by every religion of the world, now be celebrated and publicly honored?
If you’re Barack Obama, you simply chalk it up to “personal (not military) experience”. If you’re Congressman Barney Frank, who claimed he “owns” the agenda and for which the “two down” quote all but certainly includes open homosexuals in the military, ditto. If you’re Congressman Jared Polis and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, both of whom, like Rep. Frank, voted for repeal of DADT, dittoes as well.
But how does one account for Republicans like Sen. Mark Kirk, one of 8 Republicans who voted for repeal. Sen. Kirk has served in the U.S. Navy, despite not being entirely truthful about his service? Doesn’t he know (or care) from experience about the risks of putting open homosexuals in military service? He is suspected of being one himself, despite being previously married.
Why did Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam vet and staunch defender of keeping DADT, decide after the vote to repeal to support its implementation? Is it because his wife and daughter support same sex marriage? Or is it because he has no fixed principles? Or both.
What about Sen. Scott Brown who, like Sens. Kirk and McCain, served in the military? It is well documented of his support for repeal after promising to support the then current policy. He was bought and paid for as well by the homosexual lobby.
Why did generally reliable social conservatives like Sens. John Ensign and Rich Burr back repeal? Is there something here as well? Did they not see the logic inference from repeal, that instead of homosexuals being silent about their preferences, they could now be upfront and outspoken about them?
It appears Washington lawmakers are a different breed than the rest of America.
Why did Congressman Ron Paul vote to repeal DADT, not once but twice? Almost anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Texas Congressman Paul recognizes him for his fiercely libertarian streak and strong defense of constitutional liberties for all Americans. He is known in some circles as “Dr. No” for voting no on almost every bill that comes his way. However, the fact he was a doctor prior to his time in Congress has to raise a few eyebrows why he would vote for a law that permits unhealthy and repulsive sexual acts in the armed forces. He was the sole Congressional physician to vote this way.
If Dr. Paul doesn’t see the medical risks of permitting open homosexuals in uniform, then his supporters should ask themselves if he has the judgment of being a capable president, his otherwise strong constitutional stances notwithstanding.
As noted earlier, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen was a big supporter for repeal. Along with Rep. Paul, she was one of only three current Republicans (the other is Rep. Judy Biggert) to vote twice for it in the 2010 Congressional session (the other two supporters were the only Republicans unseated at the ballot box in November). Notwithstanding that she represents a district in Miami Beach with an influential homosexual lobby, she is well known for her pro-life views, a position that frequently conflicts with homosexual adherents. But it is perhaps because of this lobby that she virulently defends her pro-homosexual votes – she also has voted for hate crimes legislation, (something Dr. Paul staunchly and thankfully opposes) as well as a myriad of homosexual causes.
And there are others but the question must be asked is why Washington lawmakers are willing to put our men and women in uniform at risk with this repeal. Are they that utterly clueless on what constitutes homosexual behavior. Sure, we expect that from Democrats but since some Democrats did not support repeal, it stands to reason that something led the 15 House Republicans (second vote – first vote here), and 8 Senate Republicans to vote to put our troops at risk.
We now turn to Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen and Secretary Gates. Fox reports that training from top brass to allow open homos to serve will begin (probably already has) this week. I can’t imagine what this “training” will entail – who knows, maybe one of them will attempt to explain or even engage in a perverted homosexual sex act and then tell other troops to be very sensitive with those inclined to commit such acts.
You may think this is funny but if you think about it, or even try to think to, you will automatically envision one or more sexual acts. And then if you are a rational human being, you will then say, “Why are we going to allow this to occur in our military?”
Besides this tragically stupid and utterly bankrupt and immoral policy change, I have a question for Mr. Mullen, Secretary Gates and any other current military leaders: Knowing that we have troops on the ground in Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Iraq and knowing what some neighboring nations like them do to known homosexuals, regardless of your personal feelings about this matter, do you really think it’s a good idea to put our troops harm’s way because of this social engineering experiment?
This is a question the press won’t ask. But they should.
Frankly, every commandant in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard should be unanimous in their response and if they were, every last one of them would tell Obama, “Hell no, we won’t implement sexual perversion on our troops and under no circumstances will we allow embracers and practitioners of such activities in our ranks”.
But folks like Mullen, Gates and clueless senators like Kirk, Brown Burr and Ensign wouldn’t give time of day to listen to those on the front lines who have sense enough to oppose such idiocy. So we must do so. And without delay.
And so now we must ask Sec. Gates and JC Mullen the following in an open letter:
“You obviously are aware of the soldier behind scandal involving Wiki Leaks, Bradley Manning. You were aware that he was an avowed homosexual, right? You were aware that his young history contained numerous issues pertaining to his sexual identity that could have posed a major problem for the military, right? Now you’re supporting a policy that will create more Brad Mannings and likely have greater repercussions on our troops, not the least of which is a possible mass exodus of men and women in uniform because, despite all the attempts from the left to normalize homosexual behavior, it is still viewed as repulsive by sizable numbers of men and women in and out of uniform.
Have you checked Manning’s Facebook page, which is laden with love for this agenda? Can you not see the risks of what may well reoccur if you allow this change in policy to continue?
Had you taken some time to study U.S. history and read government correspondence on homosexuality and its incompatibility with government and military service, you would have found that throughout our first 200 years of history, from Washington to Ford, such behavior was never viewed with even a faint trace of approbation. Why then do you wish to sacrifice the futures and even lives of our men and women in uniform for the sake of perverse political correctness that America’s putative president chooses to embrace? Did you not learn a lesson from this scandal?”
There is one point in the whole DADT repeal debate that has been ignored by Sec. Gates, JC Mullen and the 300+ members of Congress who voted to approve this trash. It’s also ignored by all the homosexual activists, groups and allies. It’s the one thing that not only debunks the repeal debate but the entire same sex agenda as well. The public has been told that homosexuals like Pvt. Manning, Congressman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, actress Ellen DeGeneres, singer Elton John and others cannot help who they are; that it’s part of their makeup (orientation). The gay identity is unchangeable in the same way that one cannot alter their skin color or gender (there are those who claim to be able to change their gender but that’s a can of worms to be opened another day). This is what we’re being told. This is what has been sold as a bill of goods to us.
But that bill is now officially rejected. And we can thank Frank Kameny for it.
You see, Mr. Kameny has done the public a great service by posting many of the documents he has accumulated over the years to his website. From Eisenhower to JFK to LBJ to Nixon, we’ve seen evidence that courageous federal officials rightly rejected homosexuals for government and military service because of the pressures and problems faced due to the lifestyle embraced. From John Hanes to John Will to John Dowdy and many others not mentioned, such individuals refused to succumb to political correctness in order to placate those embracing repulsive behavior.
But most of all, we thank Mr. Kameny for telling, rather showing, us that homosexual conduct was not a matter of one’s sexual orientation. See for yourself.
There you have it, folks, sexual preference, not orientation, is irrelevant to federal employment and military service. Ouch! Thank you, Mr. Kameny, for telling us the truth that homosexual practices are by one’s choice of sexual partner and not innateness. The nation owes a huge debt of gratitude for your courage to display the revealing (no pun intended) letters, pamphlets and brochures.
Mr. Kameny states on his website that the compilation of all his papers is unrivaled anywhere, be it a library, government office or via the Internet. The 70,000 documents he claimed to have in the attic of his Washington, DC home is now at the Library of Congress with his protest signs at the Smithsonian Natural Museum of American History. That’s good to know. Members of Congress, particularly those voting for repeal, must examine the history of homosexuals in government employment and military service in light of the Kameny papers. The House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Buck McKeon of California, should subpoena the LOC for copies of Mr. Kameny’s documents. What he has on his website is no doubt helpful but having the entire stack may shed some additional knowledge as to the reasons for the DADT repeal.
It is now not in doubt that this move by Obama, Mullen, Gates and those voting for repeal was not only political in scope but in appeasement of those who want to pervert the military. Because perverting and poisoning it is precisely what they want, though they will deny it until they are blue in the face.
Rep. McKeon and his committee should further subpoena court documents on the cases involving Mr. Kameny and his Mattachine Society. It would also be useful to get copies of all federal correspondence over the last 50 years relative to the issue of homosexuality in government employment and military service.
The left, and particularly its homosexual allies like the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network, the ACLU and many others will cry foul and claim this effort is a witch hunt designed to end in a scorched earth policy. However, the homosexual infiltration in government and military, from the past Kameny days to the current Wiki Leaks scandal involving Cpl. Manning, appears to have octopus-like tentacles in that it appears to have pervaded all aspects of federal government over the last 30 years. The unprecedented numbers of homosexuals currently in the Obama Administration and in leadership capacities only adds fuel to what I will now call the DADT repeal scandal. That particular matter should be investigated by the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, chaired by California Rep. Darrell Issa.
And perhaps this question should also be asked by these committees. If homosexuals were unable to obtain security clearance for federal employment or military service because of the behaviors they practice, how is it that America’s commander-in-chief (putative as he may be) was not vetted in this capacity, given the actions claimed to be attributed to him (and which have not been denied by Mr. Obama)?
If no other reason serves a good purpose for hearings and an overturn of the repeal, this certainly qualifies. Congress should also seek the resignations of Mullen and Gates. Their acquiescence to Obama and the left is doing grave damage to the nation’s moral fiber.
If this article goes viral, and I hope it does, there will be a backlash of anger because the public will have a pretty good idea what the repeal of DADT has done. The people will know who was responsible and the consequences of implementation (if not reversed). It is, at least in this writer’s view, the straw that broke the camel’s back. Or better put, it will have been the drop of boiling water that scorched the supporters of this trash. The report by former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt thoroughly rebuts the backers as well as this excellent April 2010 report by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Both were ignored by party leaders in the 111th Congress as well as Obama.
Congress has a solemn responsibility to impeach and remove Obama for forcing unnatural and immoral sexual misconduct on our finest and all America. And if any serviceman or woman (homosexual or not) ends up being maimed or killed because of this change of policy, knowing what some Muslim nations do to homosexuals, their blood will be on Obama’s hands as well as everyone that voted for repeal. The public has an obligation of voting out or recalling (if such provisions exist in their respective state constitutions) each such lawmaker at the earliest opportunity. It should be utilized.
And if you don’t think there won’t now be advocates of concerted efforts to murder our men and women in uniform (be they heterosexual or homosexual), think again.
The homosexual activists will lash out at the truth here. However, they can’t blame this writer. Frank Kameny has paved the way for its “frank” revelations, not to mention those revealed by the other Frank, Barney. The sordid details are there for the world to view.
Shoot the messenger if you must. But after the messenger goes, the truth won’t.