Category Archives: military

Rutherford Institute Defends Military Intelligence Whistleblower Against Government’s Retaliatory Efforts to Revoke Bronze Star Medal

The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a retired U.S. Army whistleblower who is being stripped of his Bronze Star Medal, allegedly in retaliation for his disclosure of intelligence and military failures that may have contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and prolonged the war in Afghanistan. Retired Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Anthony Shaffer was awarded a Bronze Star Medal in 2004 for his “meritorious service” as a high-level Army intelligence operative in combat zones within Afghanistan. In addition to initiating a procedure to strip Shaffer of his Bronze Star, the Army has also charged the decorated veteran with misconduct and stripped him of his military clearance, also allegedly in response to concerns he made public about systemic U.S. intelligence failures. In coming to Shaffer’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys are calling on the Army to cease its retaliatory actions, which not only threaten Shaffer’s First Amendment rights but, given the lack of specifics relating to misconduct provided by the Army, infringe on his right to due process.

“This is the latest attempt by the government to suppress free speech,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. “If we really want transparency in government, then this is our chance to stand by our convictions. Punishing Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer for raising legitimate concerns about systemic problems within our government that are endangering our safety as a nation is reprehensible.”

A high-level Army intelligence operative who was deployed in Afghanistan during the early years of the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, LTC Shaffer planned and participated in some of the most daring, dangerous and important operations of the war. In April 2004, Shaffer was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for “leadership, selfless service, and commitment to mission accomplishment under the most extreme circumstances [that] greatly contributed to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom.” Soon after being awarded the medal, however, Shaffer was charged with misconduct and stripped of his security clearance, allegedly because he had attempted to reveal U.S. intelligence failures that ignored or suppressed information, including the identities of four of the 9/11 airliner hijackers, uncovered by a project code named “Able Danger.” After separating from the military, Shaffer began working on a book about his service with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which criticized policies followed in the Afghanistan war that failed to recognize the connection between the Taliban and the Pakistani intelligence agency and failed to target the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistan. Although Shaffer’s book, Dark Heart, was reviewed by the Army and initially granted clearance for publication, the DIA threatened action to stop publication just a month before it was to be released and censored substantial portions of the book. In the latest government action against Shaffer, in which the Army has alleged misconduct and announced its intent to revoke Shaffer’s Bronze Star, no specifics detailing the alleged misconduct were provided. In demanding that the Army cease its retaliatory proceedings, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that the lack of notice violates Shaffer’s fundamental due process rights and assert that “the proposed revocation is a continuation of attempts to punish, defame, and otherwise harm LTC Shaffer for his exercise of his right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Navy Sued For Records Aimed at Exposing Deception of Congress Over Repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, whose mission includes restoring America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and promoting a strong national defense, announced Tuesday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of the Navy. The lawsuit seeks to obtain records that the plaintiffs believe will 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.”

Prompting the lawsuit was a Department of Defense Inspector General’s report 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 in the military (Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”).

Erin E. Mersino, the Thomas More Law Center attorney handling the case, explained the reason for the lawsuit, “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.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of Plaintiffs Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR). Plaintiffs are seeking information to determine the extent to which the Department of the Navy engaged in a campaign of deception as suggested by the Inspector General’s Report.

The Plaintiffs are also seeking the information to determine the extent to which the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy fulfilled the requirements mandated by Congress for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to become valid law. Congress required specific regulations and procedures be implemented to protect national security prior to the repeal taking effect. [See lawsuit here]

CMR is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that concentrates on military issues. CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, has done extensive reporting on and analysis of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, and the consequences of repealing that law.

Plaintiffs first submitted their FOIA requests on August 31, 2011 requesting all records, documents and e-mails concerning the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” shared among the military Chiefs of Staff, various combatant commanders, and political appointees at the Pentagon and White House. To date, the Department of the Navy has failed to provide any of the requested documents.

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s President and Chief Counsel, commented, “ Ever since the beginning of the Continental Army of 1775, homosexuality in the military has been prohibited. President Obama changed all that at the expense of our future national security merely to curry favor with his radical homosexual supporters, and Congress went along with him. The purpose of our Armed Forces is to win on the field of battle. This new law will eventually have a devastating impact on unit cohesion and the fighting effectiveness of our combat branches. That’s why we must undo this ill conceived law, and the first step is to discover what went on behind the scenes.”

Contrary to media headlines based on selective misleading leaks about the survey, the actual survey numbers show that nearly 60% of those in the Marine and Army combat units, and among Marine combat arms the number was 67%, thought repealing the DADT law would harm their unit’s ability to fight on the battlefield.

Concerns of Senior Military Leaders Disregarded

During 2010 hearings prior to the rushed lame-duck vote for repeal, both the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James T. Conway, and the incoming Commandant, General James Amos, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that their best military advice was to keep the ban in place. Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey told the Senate Committee that he had serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force engaged in two wars.

However, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, muzzled other combat commanders from publicly expressing their opinion opposing repeal of the ban. Three-star General Benjamin Mixon, Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific Command, was publicly reprimanded by both Gates and Mullen for publicly expressing his objection to repeal.

To overcome these constraints on active duty senior officers to honestly express their opinion, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, 51 of them former four stars, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress expressing great concern about the impact that a repeal would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness.

An Anti-Christian Policy

Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of America’s Armed Forces are Christian, the Pentagon brushed aside the religious and moral objections to homosexuality by service members. The Department of Defense recommended elimination of longstanding military laws prohibiting consensual sodomy and adultery to go along with repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. Moreover, recognizing that a large number of military chaplains believe that homosexuality is a sin and are required by God to condemn it as such, the Pentagon claimed that their objections, based upon deeply held religious beliefs, could be overcome through education and training. Ongoing controversies about the Defense Department’s attempts to circumvent the Defense of Marriage Act by authorizing same-sex “ceremonies,” which are simulated marriages on military bases, remain unresolved. Documents obtained by this FOIA lawsuit will improve public understanding of what happened during the lame-duck Congress in 2010, and what must be done to repair the damage.

Memorial Day, Remembering

By Daniel Downs

On this Memorial Day, the victories, tragedies and sacrifices of war remain fresh memories to many Americans. Each soldier who made it home alive and whole is certainly one victory celebrated by family and friends. Another was the Navy Seals accomplishment in executing justice to Osama bin Laden.

The tragedy of 9-11, of loved ones killed in battle, and even the collateral damage of a seemingly unjust military action in Iraq that led soldiers like Timothy McVey to perpetrate the Oklahoma City bombings are all remembered anew today.

Amidst the feelings of sorrow, the honorable sacrifices of those who willingly gave their lives to serve their country, their loved ones, their God, and the ideals of liberty, justice, and peace cannot be forgotten. For sacrificial service is the path to a better life.

America was founded by those who not only exemplified this kind of sacrificial service but they followed the one who made it possible for them to do so. God was their leader in the battle for liberty, justice, and peace. After the war for Independence has been won, General George Washington gave God the providential honors for the rag-tag militia’s final victory. That was also the reason why America celebrated the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution until after the Civil War era.

It is right that America honors all of those men and women who have devoted their lives to protecting and to serving us. Yet, it would not be right to regard their military service as the sole means of our collective protection. The war against injustice is waged by all of those involved in our system of justice whether police, intelligence services, lawyers, judges, and even private sector advocates. Just as George Washington confirmed our national covenant, the protection of a free nation such as ours ultimately is realized through God’s actions. It may also be said that by our collective honor of and obedience to God we become better equipped to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our nation.

American founders like Thomas Jefferson envisioned America as a kind of new Israel. Their model is found in the Bible. As depicted in the second book called Exodus, God may have delivered Israel from the enslaving power of the Egyptian government, but it was the liberated men of Israel, empowered by the presence of God, who defeated all of their enemies in Canaan; that is, when they were following the instructions and strategies revealed by God. The founders similarly viewed American liberty. They viewed the victory of the war for independence as God delivering them from the Pharisaic power of the enslaving British imperial military in the colonies. It was won through divinely empowered colonists who willingly sacrificed their lives to liberate and protect their families, communities, their colonial states.

Therefore, in the tradition of remembering those who devote their lives to the divinely ordained sacrificial service of liberty and justice, thanks is offered to God first and secondly to all of those men and women whose service honors that tradition.

And yet, in light of the expansion of America’s empire from 50 federated republican states to world dominance, can it be said of America that it is still the champion of life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness? More importantly, can it still be said that the tradition of sacrificial service to defend life and liberty is still honored while millions of unborn Americans are not allowed to live to enjoy the same? Does not this tragedy of our unabated cultural war cast a dark and heavy shadow over the past shining examples of liberty and justice, duty and honor?

Yes, a more fundamental and more important war has yet to be won. If won, life will be better and a greater measure of peace will be realized. The right to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness will no longer be threatened. For without the absolute right to life, all other rights and privileges are empty words in the mouths of tyrants.

Senate’s Christmas Gift, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” To Gay Lobby

By Col. Bill Spencer

The steady, incessant drumbeat of the homosexual lobby won’t be silenced by the repeal of the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision. It seems the drums finally got to the American people — 65 of your senators voted to end the ban this weekend. The homosexual activists’ fight for cultural acceptance of a particular behavior will go on. You’ll need some earplugs because the drums will continue.

Since the advent of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1993, no idea or position forwarded by homosexuals has been tied to improved mission readiness and effectiveness — none. The media’s sound bite that there would be a loss of skilled personnel if the policy remained was nothing more than a smoke screen. The political reality is that we have a commander in chief who has never served in the military who had promised repeal to a special-interest support group. And Democratic majorities in the House and Senate could make it happen, regardless of the fact that the 111th Congress has fewer veterans than any Congress in history.

What can change this now? Sadly, I think only a future war will have us rethink how we best organize our troops to fight and win wars. At that time, cooler heads will prevail, and we’ll determine who best should be fielded to defend us. The social curiosity that will have been the openly gay service experience will vanish as the nation — at great cost — rediscovers the real purpose for having a military.

But for today, I fear that our military members in the field are left with these thoughts: “Does my country not think of me that much? Does the country think it should hobble its forces in the field with these distractions during time of war? Does the country require us to deal with this, as well? Am I indeed a patriot without a country? What moral madness awaits us next? When bullets are flying at me, and everyone back home is apparently just thinking about themselves and their own private behaviors, it’s too much to ask of me to sacrifice my life.”

I ask you, fellow citizen, after Saturday’s vote, would you give your life for our Senate? Would you give your life for our president? Or, would you go home to your family? Sadly, you know the answers already. If you never made a phone call or never entered the debate on this issue, it’s too late to care now. You have just received a 2010 Christmas present from the United States Senate. Inside, please find some really good earplugs, for the drumbeat will continue. Whether you choose to put them in your ears is entirely up to you.

Col. Bill Spencer (Ret.) served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 29 years. He is now a family policy council representative at Focus on the Family.

First published by the title “With ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ It’s Too Late to Care Now” by Focus on the Family, December 20, 2010

Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen Willing to Sacrifice Military Effectiveness to Fulfill Obama Campaign Promise

One message was loud and clear from the Senate Armed Services Committee’s two-day hearing on the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law: Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen care very little about what our combat troops think about the repeal of the law or its immediate harm to our national defense.

The actual survey numbers of the Pentagon study show that allowing gays to openly serve in the military would be a national security disaster. According to the survey and study, titled “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (Report):

* Nearly 60% of those in the Marine and Army combat units thought repealing the DADT law would harm their unit’s ability to fight on the battlefield.

* Up to a half-million service members may not reenlist should the ban be repealed (A disaster for our all–volunteer army that would require re-institution of the Draft).

* 91% would reject homosexual leaders.

* 71% would not share showers with homosexuals.

Senator John McCain spoke out on behalf of our combat service members. He continued his strong opposition to repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, and questioned Gates and Mullen on why they were not paying more attention to the negative impact a repeal of DADT would have on our combat troops.

Three Reasons Not to Repeal DADT

1) Senior Military Leaders are Opposed to Repeal

During today’s hearing, three of the four major service chiefs — Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos, Army Chief General George W. Casey, and Air Force Chief Norton Schwartz — informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that their best military advice was to keep the ban in place. Earlier in the year, General Casey told the Senate Committee that he had serious concerns about the impact of the repeal on a force engaged in two wars.

It is important to note that Gates and Mullen have muzzled other combat commanders from publicly expressing their opinion opposing repeal of the ban. Both Gates and Mullen publicly reprimanded three-star General Benjamin Mixon, Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific, for publicly expressing his objection to repeal.

To overcome these constraints on active duty senior officers to honestly express their opinion, 1,167 retired flag and general officers, 51 of them former four stars, signed an open letter to President Obama and Congress expressing great concern about the impact that a repeal would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness.

2) Health Risks are Perilous

AIDS would increase in the military once homosexuals were openly admitted into the military and restraints on their sexual behavior are removed. Heterosexual service members would be more likely to contract AIDS through injuries and battlefield transfusions. Drug abuse and suicides would increase as well, resulting in a dramatic increase in medical care costs. Ironically, the repeal would come at a time when Secretary Gates is seeking to cut and contain health costs in military.

3) A Radical anti-Christian Policy

To go along with repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, the Department of Defense recommended elimination of longstanding military laws prohibiting consensual sodomy and adultery.

An overwhelming majority of America’s Armed Forces are Christian. Yet the Report brushed aside the religious and moral objections to homosexuality by service members. Admitting that a large number of military chaplains believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and are required by God to condemn it as such, the Report argues that their objections can be overcome by education and training (brainwashing?).

Source: Thomas More Law Center, December 3, 2010

Rasmussen Reports Memorial Day Tribute

This Memorial Day, nearly three-out-of-four Americans (74%) have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 12% hold an unfavorable opinion, and 13% are not sure.

These figures have held steady for the past two years.

Thirty-five percent (35%) of adults say they have a relative or close friend currently serving our country in Iraq or Afghanistan, down nine points from a year ago.

Forty percent (40%) also say they’ve lost a relative or close friend who gave their life while serving in the military. Fifty-two percent (52%) have not lost a relative or close friend in the line of duty, but eight percent (8%) more are not sure.

Just 14% of adults say they have served in the military. Eighty-four percent (84%) have not. Men are nearly five times as likely to have served in the military than women. Americans age 50 and older have a much higher level of military service than those who are younger. Republicans are slightly more likely to have served than Democrats and adults not affiliated with either major party.

Republicans also view the military more favorably than Democrats and unaffiliateds.

Commentary: Even though 84% of American have never served in the military, over 74% are supportive view because friends and loved ones are serving or have served. In spite many who have lost loved one because of military conflict, most Americans still highly regard that service. The high level of support then must be related to the positive views of those who service to our military are reflected by most Americans. As noted above, the variations of approval and esteem are not so much the military and its service but partisan politics and related ideologies.

Rasmussen Reports, May 29, 2010.