Appendix . Consequences of homosexuals in the US Military . . . New military policy allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces has been a disaster. Despite efforts of the Obama administration to correct very serious problems -admitted by just about everyone- obviously no solution is feasible. This was predicted long before Barack Hussein decided to homosexualize the military, both by independent analysts of the armed services and by various generals. . As expected, Right-wing commentators have made much of "I told you so," but even the New York Times has expressed serious concern; this is not how the transition to a homosexualized military was supposed to go. . Of course, as you might guess, the Times focused its attention not on the cause of an epidemic of homosexual rapes in the armed forces, but on available treatments and legal remedies after the fact. This is discussed in a Helene Cooper story of May 1, 2014. As the article said, however, a "Pentagon study released Thursday showed a sharp increase last year in reports of rapes and sexual assault — they were up by 50 percent — but the study immediately came under fire for what critics said were significant limitations." . Well, of course; the rapes are far less important than how current statistics are gathered -and if reader attention can be directed at flaws in the enforcement system and the need for better data, all will be well. No problems with Obama policy, no problems with homosexuals, excuse everything possible with diversions that fail to address the real issue, incompatibility of homosexuality with military service. . Still, the Times felt obliged to report some damning statistics so that its readers would know what the controversy was all about. In 2012, for instance, the first full year of Obama's policy, "a confidential Pentagon survey estimated that 26,000 men and women were sexually assaulted. Of those, 3,374 cases were [actually] reported." One year later the number was up to 5,061." And this was not good news. . Note, however, how the Times skewed the facts. Given the paper's relentless coverage of the problem of rapes of women in the services until then, you might suppose that these new cases, likewise, were all about women. However, almost all of the increase in new cases involved homosexual rapes of soldiers and sailors, etc., which in total number was greater than rapes of women. . To be sure, it would be helpful if a better system for investigating and of adjudicating cases of sexual assault was in place. But the article was completely misleading in saying that the "new statistics show a military struggling to deal with an issue that has gained political attention as more women and men have come forward to say that they do not trust their commanders to properly handle accusations of sexual assault." There is no acknowledgement of the severity of the problem of homosexual rape per se; in fact, it is ignored. . For one, I dislike the phrase "liberal bias" in reference to the press and other news media. John Stuart Mill was a liberal; so was Samuel Gompers, Walter Rauschenbusch, Herbert Croly, Ida Tarbell, Samuel Lubell, Reinhold Niebuhr, John L. Lewis, Walter Reuther, Seymour Martin Lipset, Richard Hofstadter, Lionel Trilling, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John H. Sengstacke, FDR, Truman, Adlai E. Stevenson, and JFK, to name some of the best known. . It may be that journalists and government officials and many others have limited time horizons -if it isn't current, who cares?- but that kind of outlook is indefensible. It takes our heritage away from us for the sake of historical illiterates. Besides, liberals have contributed enormously to American achievement. It may be expedient to smear a political faction, some factions may deserve to be smeared, however, the tactics of Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and Lee Atwater, in bestowing this form of corruption of the English language upon us, has been worse than unfortunate. It is time to correct that mistake. . And mistake it is. Although the public generally bought into the new definition of "liberal" as negative in character, it must be said that few people were thoroughly convinced. There were (and are) too many positive associations of the word. There are the Liberal Arts, foreign liberal groups (Liberal parties in Europe, etc.), and helpful popular usage of the term, viz, anyone and probably everyone is more "liberal" on some issues than others, and the same for "conservative." In a way, being anti-liberal is like being "anti-hot" or anti-broccoli. Logically it makes poor sense. . And to sustain the idea is a losing proposition. Libertarians, including fans of Thomas Jefferson who are not really libertarians, want it understood that their views have at least some "classic liberal" roots. Moreover, the 'liberal' Leftists of the 1980s simply slithered out of reach and morphed into "progressives," in the process corrupting another perfectly good word made much of by one of America's greatest presidents, Teddy Roosevelt. . No-one bothered to think this through. . There is also the problem that "liberal" misnames the phenomenon that is the target of one's ire. . It isn't easy to find the right terminology. The United Stares is not Europe nor is it the same country it was in 1980 or 1970 or 1950. Hence, while there undeniably is Left-wing bias in the news media things are not so simple. Noam Chomsky, whom I generally detest, has nonetheless made the telling observation that the press and TV are captive to corporate interests. You can't miss that, either, hence the destruction of television news, which has become a platform for selling products, news content guaranteed to be as non-controversial as possible, critiques of Capitalism disallowed on principle. About the only exception concerns sound bites from Bernie Sanders. . But this fits another paradigm well enough... . The news media is not guilty of "liberal bias," it is guilty of "Cultural Marxist bias." For that is where we have gotten. It may be that the press and broadcast news media are uncomprehending of just how biased they now are, but the facts cannot be denied. They are as biased as Rush Limbaugh on the Right, or Michael Savage, or any other deep-end hyper-conservative you can name. Its just that, as Marshall McLuhan once pointed out, when it is your bias it is invisible; when it is someone else's bias it is as evident as the Devil's horns and pointed tail. . Isn't is plain as day? This is to speak of values issues, setting aside other issues where there is at least a little diversity of opinion, and in a few instances actual differences of opinion. But today's Left assumes business dominance as normal in society. It may be conceded that business needs reforms, a few people are outraged that distribution of wealth in American is as lop-sided as it is, but generally there is only low level concern about the economy. What matters most to the Left are social issues. And on that subject there is no debate possible: Journalists are overwhelmingly Left-wingers. . This fits nicely with Cultural Marxism. Which is also understandable given the fact that the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry is now an instrumentality of the political Left. Only Christian media offers any kind of alternative and there is no size comparison at all. To use one example, numbers of music albums sold in 2104, the statistics for Christian music came to roughly 20 million; for all major genres of popular music excluding Country since that sometimes has Christian themes, the total was about 150 million albums. The disparity is similar for movie ticket sales and everything else. . The advantage of characterizing the media as Cultural Marxists is that this puts the onus on journalists to get out from under a very accurate descriptive phrase. Marxism, to the clear majority of Americans, is sinister and alien; what most people know about it is unacceptable to their professed ideals and values. The disadvantage is that you need to really know what you are talking about when you say "Cultural Marxism" because it is variegated, there are different emphases by different Leftists, and some Marxists are not Cultural Marxists at all. Yet the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and this has a seriousness that using "liberal" as synonymous with "evil" does not begin to have. And, objectively, that is what most news people actually are even if they never call themselves any such thing. . . What is also undeniable fact is the extent to which Leftist views in the news media are presented as "centrist," "moderate," or "mainstream," -because, for journalists, nothing else is thinkable and everything else is reflexively viewed as aberrant, extreme, deviant, oddball, and not-to-be-taken-seriously. . This is a reflection of the political biases of people in the news business, it is as simple as that. This bias is as strong as it is because it is rooted in an ideology -namely, Cultural Marxism- which, by its nature, is subterranean, it operates in disguise as intrinsic to normative society. Cultural Marxists appear at home in a traditional way to be American, but which is compromised by the fact of their being alien to that traditional political institution. . High on the list of priorities of Cultural Marxists is the homosexualization of American society, there isn't the least question about this even if there are other objectives like discrediting normal families. . . Journalists vote Democratic, as everyone knows, but do you have any idea just how titled the proportions are? . As reported at the Freakonomics website on August 8, 2011, the difference is staggering. And the source isn't some kind of disgruntled Right-wing looney, it is Tim Groseclose, author of a then-new book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind. About whom it should be noted he is a professor of political science at a very Left-leaning university, UCLA. . The envelope, please. . And the winner of the Which Party is Over-Represented in the News Media Contest is (drumroll)..... . The Democratic Party, with 93 %. . And you wish to tell me that newspapers and TV news services are centrist in their outlook? That they represent the American middle? Surely you jest. . To make sure, consider the amount of money journalists contributed to political candidates in the last election. The Wikipedia article on the subject of media bias (and Wikipedia is itself Left-leaning) informs us that of journalists surveyed a little over $1 million was given to Democrats while Republicans received approximately $100,000. The ratio is 10:1 if you are a little slow in math. . As the article explained, " the large majority of journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including issues such as abortion, affirmative action, social services and gay rights" -which is exactly what you would expect if they were Cultural Marxists. . As one study suggested, out-of-balance reporting is "a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality, a variation of confirmation bias." Which is very true, but which begs the question, where do these Leftist values come from? About that, there is no secret. . Another study found that, according to outside observers, reporters at the most well known major newspapers, etc., "who...thought [they] were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view" Moreover, this (1) primarily refers to liberals since there are so few conservatives, and (2) in hardly any cases of news reporting where the politics of a group is given a label, -is classified- do journalists say "this is a liberal organization" or "these people are Leftists in outlook." But if a group is conservative you know about it immediately, and there may be context or insinuation that tells you that the group is bad. "Liberal" needs no comment because it is normal, standard, mainstream, the-way-things-should-be, and OK by definition. . As for self-awareness, while some journalists realize that their views are on the leftward side of the political spectrum, this applies to just 30%. Most of the rest, approximately 2/3rds, think that they are 100% moderate or middle-of-the-road. For them the Left is so normal that any other political persuasion is beyond the pale. . None of which has been kept secret from the news media, far from it. Important studies of media bias have been published with some regularity since the 1970s, especially since the 1990s. The press and TV news organizations have shrugged it all off, or almost all of it off, there are a few token non-Leftist journalists here and there, but otherwise nothing has changed. . The New York Times is the prime example of exactly this. . I had heard about homosexual rapes in the military previously and decided to see what current information was available. Although I strongly object to the use of the word "gay" to identify homosexuals, -that world also plays havoc with American history, not to mention repeated uses of the word in Christmas carols- in doing any kind of Web search that term "gay" needs to be employed for an overview. So, I looked for "gay rapes in the military," as well as "homosexual rapes in the armed forces," and similar phrases and, sure enough, there are a good number of sites with that kind of information. But the New York Times did not come up. I had to look for it with euphemisms. For the Times -and in all likelihood this applies to most other mainstream newspapers- there cannot be a problem like this because they would need to admit how wrong they are. Which they are not about to do. And so, the Times falsifies the news, it lies, and it tries to sell its lies as truths. . There are actual truths to discuss, however, and they are sickening to think about. . This is not to endorse any other political views that may be promoted at the following sites. My opinion of Right-wing opinion is approximately as negative as my opinion of Left-wing opinion. Nonetheless, on this issue the Right-wingers had it essentially right, again and again. . This is from New American for May 23, 2013; the story was written by Dave Bohon under the headline: Homosexual Assaults Becoming a Problem in U.S. Military, DoD Survey Finds . Some quotes from the article: . "...of the estimated 26,000 service members who were victims of sexual assault in 2012, roughly 14,000 of the victims were men, while some 12,000 were women, according to a scientific survey sample released by the Pentagon."
. "A 129 percent increase in sexual assaults among military personnel since 2004 has prompted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to launch a campaign to deal with “unwanted sexual contact,” among the troops. But the project has become more complicated by the fact that an inordinate number of the assaults are apparently being perpetrated by male homosexuals — close on the heels of their high-profile welcome into the ranks." . "Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, noted that the number of formal reports of sexual assault in the military annually skyrocketed from 1,275 to 2,949 in just eight years, and the numbers of same-sex assaults appear to be one of the factors. Donnelly said that women are identified as the assailants in just two percent of all assaults, which means that almost all of the 14,000 or so men who have been assaulted sexually were targeted by other men. “It appears that the DoD has serious problems with male-on-male sexual assaults that men are not reporting and the Pentagon doesn't want to talk about.” . . The rest of the article is similar; there are no right-wing rants, just reportage that meets any reasonable standard for objectivity. Which, however, is completely missing from the New York Times. . . Here's another version of the same kind of news, this from a site called Patriot Action; it was posted by "RAMJR" on June 16, 2013 under the title : Homosexual Rape Is Now The Number One Sex Crime In America's Military... . Most of the information is about the same as in the New American article but there is an editorial statement that surely speaks for a majority of US citizens, which, of course was the furthest thing on anyone's mind at the New York Times: . "Clearly the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell has failed. Nobody, whether male or female, should suffer sexual assault as the price of enlisting in the military. But clearly the Obama Administration doesn't want you to know how their policy change directly resulted in male-on-male homosexual assaults of thousands of military victims last year. It will only get worse." . . An article by J. D. Longstreet with the title, "The US Military Finally Destroyed," expresses the writer's grief and outrage: "What the heck did they expect??? I mean, of course, the so-called experts who insisted that adding women to combat units within the military [would not cause major problems] and then -to really set the entire experiment up for failure- adding homosexuals openly serving in the military to the mix." . "Since its founding America has taken great pride in it's military. But no longer. The pride is lessening as each day passes and Americans become more aware of what has happened to our military, to our soldiers, to our boys." . Longstreet went on to cite the Daily Beast: " ... male-on-male sexual assault. In the staunchly traditional military culture, it’s an ugly secret, kept hidden by layers of personal shame and official denial. Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “ military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from just over 30,000 in 2003. For the victims, the experience is a special kind of hell—a soldier can’t just quit his job to get away from his abusers. But now, as the Pentagon has begun to acknowledge the rampant problem of sexual violence for both genders, men are coming forward in unprecedented numbers, telling their stories and hoping that speaking up will help them, and others, put their lives back together. “We don’t like to think that our men can be victims,” says Kathleen Chard, chief of the posttraumatic-stress unit at the Cincinnati VA. “We don’t want to think that it could happen to us. If a man standing in front of me who is my size, my skill level, who has been raped—what does that mean about me? I can be raped, too.” The context should not be forgotten; also unjustifiable was Obama's decision to approve women in combat duty. That led to an article by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. which pointed out the obvious: "It is impossible as a practical matter to provide for separation of the sexes in frontline positions. That guarantees a loss of privacy and greatly increases the chances of pregnancies and harassment that: profoundly affects the personnel immediately involved; causes degrading of their units' warfighting capabilities; and traumatizes their families..." The article expressed alarm at these developments: "The military is not a place where one conducts social experiments. Its a place where men go in harm's way to protect the nation." . Obama, by his reckless policies, is jeopardizing the security of the nation and it is all abetted by Democratic Party leadership that hates the US military. This should have been clear enough when Clinton and his staff went out of their way to show disrespect to military officers who visited the White House. It should have been clear when Barbara Boxer dressed down an army general for politely saying "mam" when speaking with the senator in a hearing on Capitol Hill. There have been other incidents. . But don't tell this to Democrats; even if their party hates the US military, rank-and-file Democratic voters prefer not to see any such thing, prefer not to hear any such thing, and refuse to discuss any such thing. . After all, they, the party's stalwarts, are as loyal as anyone else. However, Democrats remain transfixed by their messiah, and whatever he has done that is wrong -presto- in no time at all it gets blamed on Republicans. . I'm still bemused at an incident of a few years ago. This has little to do with sodomy in the armed forces but illustrates the process in question. I asked a woman I know who is smoker how she likes paying an additional 60 cents per pack for her favorite smokes given the fact that she had voted for Obama. I was unprepared for her reply: "Obama didn't do any such thing, it was the Republicans!" . The woman ordinarily is quite smart, there is no question about that at all. But about politics she is the Left wing version of a Right wing naif. Replete with conspiracy theories for special occasions. All of which is completely oblivious to her. . Actually, of course, you can look up "Obama cigarette tax" and get 344,000 entries, all of which identify the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 as an Obama initiative. This was widely publicized at the time, no-one could miss it. Republicans, including leaders of the party, fought against the cigarette tax increase. And Obama wants to increase the tax even more, as other entries add. But to the woman that was impossible, her savior was Barack Hussein and he would never do anything like that. . Empirical proof does not matter to true believers of any stripe, it can effect Republicans just as much as any Leftist, but this is brought to your attention for the benefit of Democrats who, it has been my experience, are adamant that they are immune to psychological denial and mental displacement and are wholly rational -in contrast to emotion driven irrational conservatives. . In point of fact, about psychological malfunctions, if anything Democrats are worse. So that this is made clear... . Of course, if you get all your hard news from the New York Times -or the San Francisco Chronicle, or Los Angles Times, or the Miami Herald, or the Portland Oregonian, or still other Leftist publications- maybe there is a reason. . Another incident: Same woman.This time the issue was the Tea Party, a subject that, while I have not studied it, I have certainly paid attention to. And in the course of several years I surely looked at well over a hundred pictures of Tea Party people at various events. A fair characterization would seem to be "little old ladies in tennis shoes." That, and middle aged men who like to express themselves with signs that tell the government to get off their backs. Quite a few of the photos show whole families attending rallies together. Strictly -for the most part- Norman Rockwell types. Like some Tea Party people I have met locally. . But not to the woman, O no! Somewhere in San Francisco where she once lived, she saw a photograph of a Tea Party gathering in which someone was carrying a gun. Not much of a surprise, of course, even though I had never seen that picture. A significant percentage of Tea Party people, as a guess 30 %+, support the NRA or, in any case, have strong sentiments in favor of the 2nd Amendment. And Thomas Jefferson -every liberal's Model Liberal- left no doubt about his views on the subject: If you don't arm yourself you are crazy. . Regardless of my dim view of Jefferson's opinion on that issue, OK, it is in the Constitution and it should be accepted as such. We can reform that later. . This was not how the woman saw the situation. For her all Tea Party people were armed to the teeth, the whole phenomenon was fascistic in character and proof that Republicans are a threat to American democracy. In case it matters, though, for elite Republicans the Tea Party is a threat to the GOP, and in any case the incident the woman referred to was atypical of the movement. Regardless, her impression was what it was, pure Left wing propaganda, internalized and transformed into Unassailable Truth. . What we have is a Democratic Party that has become an anti-American party. And we had better face this fact for what it is. Just as we had better face the fact that the Republican Party won't do a damned thing about the mess we are now in, not unless someone can invent a clever means to enrich the bank accounts of the already wealthy in the process. And if taking action for reasons of conscience costs something, you can't be serious. . Lastly, to cite Longstreet's article again, think about the new, Obama-influenced military brass. As the article noted : On September 16, 2010, Lt. General Thomas P. Bostick, Deputy Chief of Staff in charge of personnel matters, made a speech regarding the pending repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell". He was reported as saying, "Those serving who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda are no longer welcome." . If you are not apprehensive about this kind of mentality in the ranks you should be. . At any time in America's history until now this kind of statement would have been regarded as treasonous. . . Next let us look at a blog called "Start thinking right." for some date in December of 2013. About this site my opinions are very mixed, indeed. The writer certainly expressed legitimate grievances with moral clarity and aplomb; his analysis of the deterioration of the US military is on target. And there is a refreshing, candid attitude. However, comments here cover only the first half of his lengthy article. Toward the ending it deteriorates into Right-wing diatribe that is unnecessary and sometimes wildly inaccurate. But the first half is worth citing here. . The material begins with an extended quotation from the Los Angeles Times from an article by David S. Cloud for December 30, 2013. The LA Times, even as it sought to "spin" the story in some way to minimize damages to the Democratic Party, at least reported some salient facts: . . * 6.1% of women and 1.2% of men are victims of sexual assaults...[and] 53% of the estimated 26,000 troops who were raped or forced into sex last year were men. . * Only a fraction of those alleging rape or sexual assault file complaints with military police or prosecutors, as a rule, so the Pentagon’s most recent estimates are based on a confidential survey of service members . * Fully 53% of the rape cases in the military are men getting raped by other men. . . With this information to think about the writer became enraged: ..."you'd better stay the hell out of Obama’s military unless you’re a guy who likes being the girl during your rape." . ..."remember that when they bend you over, you’re sacrificing your “ virginity” for Obama’s glory." . "I just wonder when Newsweek will rightly put Obama on the cover as “the first buttrape president.” . Maybe you get the idea. . The writer also reminded his readers of what he had been saying since 2008. Remember when Obama said: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” In fact, he said it just prior to his election that year so that voters would understand his "true beliefs." You do remember that, don't you? . As the writer added, Obama said what he did "to make sure we all heard him lying and then said the EXACT OPPOSITE THING when it was convenient for him to do so." . The author was also unhappy about his local Congressman who had recently said the following: 'The military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals,...therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve." . This, said the writer, is ludicrous. "What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “relations” with them. There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives." . It should have all been so totally obvious. My tour with the Navy was short and, as a civilian, military discipline did not effect me except insofar as I was determined to play by all the rules and do my best. Yet, civilian or not, it was impossible not to see the facts for what they are, with servicemen at close quarters at almost all times, rationed privacy, and with absolute need to obey chain-of-command orders. That kind of system cannot work unless you share the same values with others, are able to talk about shared dreams, and have the same loyalties. Since 2010 this has ended. . "In my “day” in the Army," said the writer, "soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers." Now they are forced to, and most do not like it at all. . . The LA times story included a vignette of one case of homosexual rape so that the reader would understand what might be involved. David Cloud's article described things this way: . Shortly after he arrived at Ramstein Air Base in Germany in March 2012, Air Force security guard Trent Smith was at an off-base apartment when, he says, a male sergeant touched him and pressed him to go into the bedroom for sex. . "I said,‘No, I don’t want to spend the night,'” Smith recalled. But Smith, 20, says he felt he had no choice. “I went along with it.” For Smith, the encounter —which he reported up the chain of command three days later— began an emotional ordeal. As the months passed, his doctors say, ...[Smith] suffered bouts of anger, guilt and depression so severe that he contemplated suicide several times....." . ..."Smith's attempts to get help only worsened his troubles. After a lengthy investigation, the military decided that no crime had occurred, and it later moved to discharge Smith on medical grounds...." . After a six-month criminal investigation, Brig. Gen. Charles K. Hyde, then commander of the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein, decided the sex was consensual, according to case records. The sergeant was admonished for an “unprofessional relationship” with a lower-ranking airman, the lightest punishment possible." . Such was military justice in this case, at least until Congress finally acted and began its own investigating, the results of which remain to be seen. . . . There are many more accounts than the story of Trent Smith. The LA Times used that story because it could be told with a minimum of graphic description, so that readers would be less likely to blame homosexuals for anything and thereby treat the controversy as not as bad as it first may have seemed. Yes, the LA Times also lies -and lies for the sake of protecting homosexuals. . . Who has no no interest in lying on behalf of homosexuals is the Family Research Council -which publishes Insight magazine. Highlights from its May 2010 edition were posted at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. The report, written by Peter Sprigg, is entitled "Homosexual Assault in the Military." . The purpose of the paper was a desperate attempt to convince people in government not to implement Obama's new policy. No-one listened. They did not listen despite abundant evidence from the precursor to the 2010 drastic change, Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of 1993. That policy, while its effects would be dwarfed by the damages Obama wrought, was bad enough. There was one horror story after another which the Republicans, although they had gained control of the Congress after the 2004 elections, did nothing to remedy. . . . The Family Research Council analyzed a number of "publicly available documents" -such as military court appeals, including a 2009 internal Pentagon study- that showed a 15 year record of sexual assault. particularly "homosexual misconduct" in the military. The key document is: . Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, March 2010. Online at: http://www.sapr.mil/media/pdf/reports/fy09_annual_report.pdf . The officers who worked on the official report concluded that "the problem can only become worse if the current law is repealed and homosexuals are openly welcomed (and even granted special protections) within the military, as homosexual activists are demanding.". . The Obama administration ignored these findings. . Despite the fact that, even though homosexuality was still forbidden in the services and theoretically not a factor in military discipline, it was clear that with no more than 3% of the general population as a benchmark, of all 1, 643 reported cases in one study, over 8% were committed by homosexuals, viz, homosexual rapes. That is, calculating on the basis of known information it was obvious that, proportional to their numbers, "homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals..." . There were also a large number of case synopses available and these showed that some types of homosexual attacks on others consisted of rape or molestation of a sleeping soldier or sailor although there also were many incidents involving alcohol off base. Also found in the Pentagon's numbers was a fact that the military did not want to admit publicly: Many discharges in the Clinton and "Bush 43" years were classified as non-sexual criminal conduct without openly revealing that, instead, such descriptions were bogus and assaults were sexual in nature, that is, consisted of homosexual rapes. . The Pentagon pointed out that: . "The military already has a serious problem with sexual assault by homosexuals. If the current law against homosexuality in the military is overturned, the problem of same-sex sexual assault in the military is sure to increase." . • "If the law is overturned and open homosexuals are welcomed into the military, the number of homosexuals in the armed forces can only increase—leading to a corresponding increase in same-sex sexual assaults. . • Removal of the threat of discharge from the military for homosexual conduct will reduce deterrence, likely leading to more cases of sexual assault. . • If homosexuals become a protected class within the military, victims will be afraid to report incidents of homosexual assault and commanders will be afraid to punish them, lest they be accused of “discrimination” or “homophobia.” . Finally, there was no military justification for the new policy: . "Allowing open homosexuality in the military would do nothing to enhance the readiness or effectiveness of our armed forces. On the contrary, it would clearly damage them—in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military." . The study also said, in language similar to a 1993 report prepared for William Clinton, that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." And "allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would likely result, for the first time, in heterosexuals being forced to cohabit with those who may view them as a potential sexual object. It is almost inevitable that such conditions of forced cohabitation would result in an increase of sexual tension within the ranks." . Obama apparently regarded these warnings as meaningless inasmuch as he proceeded with this policy overhaul without even one concession to America's top generals and admirals. . Here are a selected few case examples of what everyone knew to expect after 2010 -multiplied many times: . “Victim #1 awoke to Subject touching his genitals.” “Victim awoke in his rack to a hand moving up and down his leg and touching his groin area.” “Asleep in his rack, Victim #1 felt a hand grab his genitals..." “Victim awoke...to subject kissing his neck and trying to put his hand in his pants to touch his genitals.” “Victim reported that Subject touched his crotch on three occasions as he slept.” “Victim was sleeping and awoke to find Subject performing oral sex on him without his consent.” “Victim claimed Subject...slid his hand under Victim’s boxer shorts and caressed his buttocks and attempted to grab his penis..." “[Female] subject grabbed [female] Victim as she was returning from shower, threw her on the bed and fondled her.” “Victim reported being pulled from his rack by Subject #1 and #2 and taken to the shower, stripped naked with his feet bound. Subject #1 (naked) waved his genitals in the Victims’s face and told Victim to suck on it.” “After a night of heavy drinking with the Subject, Victim awoke believing he had been sodomized by Subject while he slept. Subject admitted he had performed oral and anal sex on sleeping victim." . Here is a question to ask all veterans of the US military: . Did you actually believe any of the crap you were told in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, or 2012? . . Here is a question to ask any veteran of the Armed Forces who voted for George W. Bush: Granted that you may have had what seemed like plausible hope that Mr. Bush would act to undo the damages caused by William Clinton, what do you think of your vote now? Are you satisfied that Bush did everything in his power to correct a terribly ill-advised military policy or do you think that you were badly duped? . . Here is a question to ask any veteran of the Armed Forces who voted for either William Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama: . How in the hell can you live with yourself? -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
