Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

PETER SPRIGG - "A TRANSGENDER MILITARY IS A WEAKER, COMPROMISED MILITARY"

The Hill published Peter Sprigg's article (with which I agree) today: 
Donald Trump’s election as president, and the reelection of a Republican House and Senate, have created an opportunity for America “to rebuild our military” — a pledge that Trump made during his campaign.

While increasing the number of ships, submarines, and aircraft will cost billions of dollars, there is one change that would not cost a cent — ending President Obama’s use of the military to engage in liberal social engineering.

At President Obama’s urging, the law against homosexual conduct in the military (colloquially referred to as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) was repealedby a lame duck Congress in 2010. However, the Obama administration’s latest effort to deploy the military in the sexual revolution was the June 30, 2016, announcement by Defense Secretary Ash Carter that “transgender Americans may serve openly” in the military.

Carter also announced that by July 1, 2017, “the military services will begin accessing transgender individuals.”

Congress did not address the issue this year in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed the House on Dec. 2 and should see Senate action soon. However, Congress and the new administration should reconsider this policy next year.

Previous policy had prohibited military service by those who identify as transgender.

An April 2010 Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction regarding “Medical Standards” listed a “change of sex” as a disqualifying physical condition. This regulation was justified by the concern “that transsexuals would require medical maintenance,” and that “complications which may stem from the hormone therapy” could cause service members “to lose excessive duty time and impair (the) ability to serve in all corners of the globe.”

Under the same DoD Instruction, one of the disqualifying “Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral” conditions was:

“Current or history of psychosexual conditions including but not limited to transsexualism … (and) transvestism.”

A recent review of the scientific literature by psychiatrists Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh notes that:

“Adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes.”

In a reversal, the DoD has now issued an Instruction on “In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members.” It requires the military to provide “all medically necessary care and treatment” to facilitate the “gender transition” of service members.

 

USMC vs. HUMAN NATURE

Is there no end to  egalitarian folly?

QUICK TAKES

 

   ** New York Times:  "An Earthling's Guide to Black Holes"

   ** Rod Dreher links to major article - "How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got a Leading Sex Researcher Fired."     Gender dysphoria clinic head gets canned because he is not politically correct enough and because of intellectual and moral cowardice of his superiors.  

   ** Caroline Glick - Israel's defenses in dire straits over Russian deployment of the S-400 and the projected purchase of the fatally flawed F-35.   Israeli air superiority now ended.

   ** Charles Murray - Explaining Trumpism: the white working class has legitimate reasons to be angry at the ruling class.  

   ** David French - Stop Using Israel's Example to Justify the Barbaric Practice of Drafting Women into Combat

MILITARY HOMOSEXUAL ASSAULTS WAY UP

Unless I misunderstand what Defense Secretary Carter is reporting, homosexual assaults in the military are way up and basically out of control!  What utter foolishness to have opened our armed services to behavior that we now find destroying the confidence and cohesiveness of fighting units, a phenomena  widely and repeatedly predicted.  Political correctness won -- as usual.  We are reaping the results.  

 The Family Research Council summarizes:

In a talk to ROTC cadets Wednesday, Secretary Carter -- who inherited this mess after almost seven years of Obama's social engineering -- admitted that the military has a long way to go in cleaning up its act. Last year, he explained, thousands more men (10,400) were sexually assaulted than women (8,500) -- proving once again how misguided the crusade for open homosexuality was. "...[A]ltogether, that's 18,900 too many," Carter said. "No man or woman who serves in the United States military should ever be sexually assaulted."

A little over four years ago, Congress ignored the warnings of several leaders and charged ahead with its repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" against the military's advice. Under pressure from the White House, the Pentagon downplayed the effects of open homosexuality when it was implemented in 2011 -- something it's having a tough time doing now, with the rate of male-on-male abuse. And even Carter believes that's a low estimate -- in part because men are so reluctant to report abuse, especially from other men.

NAVAL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DESTROYING CHAPLAIN CAREERS

From Family Research Council:  (After reading FRCs report below, go over and look at a short video of Lt. Commander Wes Modder for yourself)

 . . . In the Navy, the message is clear: get on board with political correctness or lose your job. Like most Christians, Lt. Commander Wes Modder knew the military was changing. But he didn't know how much until the battle landed on his doorstep. For years, Modder had served some of the most elite fighting forces in the military: Navy SEALs.  [bolding mine throughout]

I say "had," because the 19-year veteran has been stripped of his duties for sharing the good news he was hired to share. In a stunning turn of events, the chaplain was sabotaged by one of his own men, who secretly gathered enough information on Modder's beliefs and private counseling sessions to file a formal complaint. Believe it or not, he was targeted by his own assistant -- who Modder didn't realize was gay. Looking back, the chaplain says the young officer asked a lot of questions about homosexuality, which Modder answered as most would expect: in accordance with the Bible's teachings.  

CHRISTIAN MILITARY CHAPLAINS SOMETIMES CENSORED

From Chuck Holton of CBN News:

 

FORT BENNING, Ga. -- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was once a term used to refer to homosexuals in the military. Now, however, the term is more often being applied to Christians in uniform.

Military chaplains are feeling the pressure to conform to the new reality, as some label biblical values "hate speech."

Chaplains have been an integral part of the military throughout our nation's history, bringing hope to the living and comfort to the dying.

Now some chaplains are coming under fire from official government policy and must choose between their consciences and their commander's orders.leave the military."

AARON RODGERS SURPRISES KIDS WHO LOST PARENTS SERVING IN THE MILITARY

I love this.  (HT: ba)  I don't follow professional football much these days, but I'll now be watching the Super Bowl to see the Green Bay Packer's quarterback Aaron Rodgers play after seeing him with these kids who lost their dads in the military.

 

BUSH PREDICTED EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN IRAQ

Former President Bush has every right to say to President Obama:  "I told you so!"  No one takes pleasure in that fact.  It's disheartening that America acted so foolishly as to elect a "community organizer" not just once, but twice!  

 

Mark A. Thiessen writes in the Washington Post:  (HT: Wintery Knight)

. . . In the summer of 2007, Bush warned of the dire consequence of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq against the advice of our commanders on the ground. All of Washington was telling Bush that the surge he had launched would fail and that the time had come to withdraw from Iraq and accept defeat.

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

. . .  In 2010, Obama did precisely what Bush warned against and withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — overruling his commander on the ground, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who had recommended that Obama keep 24,000 troops. And since then, everything that Bush warned would happen has come to pass.

Bush warned that withdrawing against the advice of our military commanders would result in “mass killings on a horrific scale.” Check. We’re now seeing mass killings on a horrific scale — summary executions, women and children buried alive, people being crucified, the attempted genocide of the Yazidis and two American journalists beheaded.

KRAUTHAMMER - U.S. STOOD BEHIND EUROPE MILITARILY; NO ONE STANDING BEHIND U.S.

 

From NRO:

The United States will “pay a high price” under the Obama administration’s plans to drawdown the army by nearly 70,000 soldiers, and is all part of an effort for the president to fulfill his ideological goals, Charles Krauthammer warned on Friday’s Special Report.

He compared President Obama’s approach to that of European governments shifting resources from their militaries to social welfare after World War II. The key difference now being that the U.S. will not have an ally with the capacity to defend them as those European states have relied on the American military in recent decades.

“It’s robbing the military to inflate the entitlement state,” said Krauthammer. “Europe had us behind them in the last 50 years when it had no military; there’s nobody to back us up if we strip our military and neuter it as we do now.”

D-DAY REMEMBERED

Update:  I very much like Wintery Kinght's post featuring Ronald Reagan's Normandy speech and  WK's reflections on what D-Day means to Christians

 

** Following is a link to a special series of interactive photographs taken before, during and after D-Day.  Click on each of the pictures and find that same scene today.  You won't be sorry!

 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/ng-interactive/2014/jun/01/d-day-landings-scenes-in-1944-and-now-interactive

 

** Also, here is the story of one of the veterans who stormed the participated in D-Day  - Andy Andrews.

 

 

From an interview: . . .     Andy Andrews, 90 , in his own words/As told to staff writer  David Perlmutt

. . .  I was drafted with 250 boys out of my class at Central High in Chattanooga, Tenn. That was in June, 1943. We used to joke that we went through the graduation ceremony and out the back right into a GI truck.

I had four brothers. All of us were drafted. All of us went to war and thankfully all of us came home. God was good to us.

I was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division, the Big Red One, 16th Regiment, H Company. We were sworn in at Fort Oglethorpe (near Chattanooga) and sent to Fort McClellan in Alabama. They told us, ‘You guys are going to be machine-gunners. You understand that?’ None of us had a clue about what we were doing.

After the best original song nomination for "Alone Yet Not Alone" was rescinded, "Schindler's List" producer Gerald Molen rips the Academy for "faith-based bigotry" (VIDEO)

Here is a sequence of stories over Joni Eareckson Tada's singing "Alone Yet Not Alone" in a movie of the same name:

-- Joni Eareckson Tada  is surprised and delighted at the song's nomination

-- Academy strips "Along Yet Not Alone" of its Oscar nomination

-- Oscar winner pens letter accusing Academy of Christian "bigotry" in song flap

Joni Eareckson Tada, in the first link above, makes the following inspiring statement:

What message do you want to leave with the song’s listeners?

Years ago I wrote a mission statement for my life, and the mission statement is simply “I want to be God’s best audio-visual aid of how His power shows up best in weakness.” And, I see this opportunity as just another example of God answering that mission statement. God seems to delight in taking the ill-equipped, untrained, unskilled, and unprofessional and placing them to do a job so that the whole world would know that God is God. And, if people watch that video link [see above], that’s the message I hope they’ll get.

THE AMERICAN LEFT DISLIKES "LONE SURVIVOR" MOVIE

I haven't seen the movie yet but I've read reviews of both the movie and the book.  I think David French's response to leftist criticism particularly trenchant.

. . . Lone Survivor tells the story of a SEAL mission gone wrong and the resulting firefight where a small band of SEALs displayed remarkable courage under fire. But they showed more than courage. An act of humanity sealed their fate — the decision to free Afghan civilians that stumbled into their path. With their own lives on the line, they obeyed American rules of engagement, obeyed the laws of war, and conducted themselves with honor (with one SEAL posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor). 

So how do some in the left-wing press write about this movie? Here’s L.A. Weekly:

These four men were heroes. But these heroes were also men. As the film portrays them, their attitudes to the incredibly complex War on Terror, fought hillside by bloody hillside in the Afghan frontier with both U.S. and Taliban forces contributing to an unconscionably high civilian body count, were simple: Brown people bad, American people good.

Really? You say that after the film shows how Americans actually gave their lives rather than kill an innocent “brown” person? Make no mistake, this is an accusation of the most vile racism, and it slanders these SEALs. Indeed, it slanders more than the SEALs involved in that firefight. Friends of mine died in Iraq — including, and this will be a news flash to L.A. Weekly (which apparently views our forces as all-white), “brown” friends — because of their concern for and respect for the lives of local citizens. We erred on the side of saving local lives, to the point where people very dear to me paid the ultimate price.

RESTORE MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM COALITION (RMRF)

I just learned of the RMRF Coalition which attempts, as the title indicates, to "restore military religious freedom."  I have put up many blog posts in the past detailing egregious incidents curtailing religious freedom in our military.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On September 12, 2013, Members of the Restore Military Religious Freedom Coalition (RMRF) met with senior U.S. Air Force officials at the Pentagon to discuss the escalation of religious liberty infringements not just in the U.S. Air Force but across the military.

Air Force officials also accepted over 170,000 petitions appealing to Secretary of Defense Hagel to protect the religious liberties of service members. A second petition with nearly 50,000 signers appealed to the U.S. Air Force to stop the persecution of and possible legal action against Senior Master Sgt. Philip Monk at Lackland Air Force base. The officials also received a copy of the coalition's report documenting dozens of other religious liberty violations of service members.

See the website for more information.

WOULD AN AMERICAN ATTACK ON SYRIA BE A "JUST WAR"?

John Stonestreet of the Colson Center discusses the issue and concludes:

On the whole, my sense is that an American attack on Syria probably would not meet the standards of just war.

WAS IT VALERIE JERRETT, OBAMA'S ADVISOR, WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO STAND DOWN IN BENGHAZI?

WOW.    This is big news if it turns out to be true.  Rush Limbaugh devoted a segment of his radio program to Doug Ross's post, "Benghzi Bombshell: Valerie Jarrett, Commnder in Chief."

Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows:   [more...]

MILITARY CENSORS CHRISTIAN CHAPLAIN, ATHEISTS CALL FOR PUNISHMENT

See what you think of the following news report.  If it doesn't make you angry, you don't have an appropriate appreciation for  the role of chaplains in the U.S. military or the free speech protections afforded by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  What is particularly galling is the collusion between the Defense Department and President Obama in kowtowing to militant atheist groups.   Can anyone imagine Ronald Reagan kowtowing to atheists?   Ken Klukowski writes:  (HT: Drudge)

A Christian chaplain in the military is being officially censored for engaging in free speech, and anti-Christian activists are demanding he be punished.  

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base’s website called “Chaplain’s Corner.”

Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: "I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes."

As reported by Fox News’s Todd Starnes, when Reyes referenced this famous line in his essay, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) contacted the base commander, Col. Brian Duffy, demanding he take action on Reyes’s “anti-secular diatribe.”

MRFF’s letter says that by Reyes’s “use of the bigoted, religious supremacist phrase, ‘no atheists in foxholes,’ he defiles the dignity of service members.” They accuse him of violating military regulations.

PENTAGON MAY COURT MARTIAL SOLDIERS WHO SHARE THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH

- Note:  See Update below

- Has it come to this?  Ken Klukowski reports:    (HT Drudge)

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. 

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith. 

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military. 

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:

It’s a matter of what do they mean by "proselytizing." ...I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 60,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.

**Update: 5/2/13 - From Family Research Council

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 2, 2013
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866)-372-6397 

FRC Gathers Nearly 110,000 Petitions in less than 72 Hours Urging Defense Secretary Hagel to Disavow Demands by Anti-Christian Activist

WASHINGTON, D.C. -  Family Research Council (FRC) announced that almost 110,000 petitions have been gathered - all within the last 72 hours -  in response to last Friday's Washington Post report stating that anti-Christian activists had met with senior Pentagon officials to press for the court martial of Christians in the military who "promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion."  According to the Post, the activists were given assurances that an instruction booklet on proselytizing would be forthcoming within the next few weeks.

On Monday, the Pentagon followed up on The Washington Post report by releasing this statement: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.  Court martials and non judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases."  Today the Pentagon released another statement claiming to have made "reasonable accommodations" for religious practice and that "service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization)."

General Jerry Boykin, Family Research Council's Executive Vice President made the following comments:

"We are deeply concerned that senior Pentagon officials not only met with an extreme anti-Christian activist but reportedly provided assurances to him that Christians in the military could face court martial for 'promoting their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates.' 

"Both the Pentagon and Mikey Weinstein can't be right.   The Pentagon must set the record straight about what Mikey Weinstein was assured in his meeting with Pentagon officials.  The Pentagon should categorically disavow Mikey Weinstein and any assurances made to him regarding court martials of chaplains and service members who share their faith.

"Today, the Pentagon released a statement that claims to have provided 'reasonable accommodations' for religious practice. However, the statement is not supported by the reality of recent incidents of religious hostility in the military.   This religious incoherence is not limited to the Air Force, but has become widespread under the Obama Administration."

• In 2011, Air Force General Schwartz issued a stern warning that proselytizing would not be tolerated in the Force. Instead, Gen. Schwartz urged 'neutrality'--which has since turned to hostility--on faith.
• Air Force suspended a 20-year-old class on 'Just War Theory' because it included scriptural references.
• Next came the stripping of 'God' from the Rapid Capabilities motto and the purging of Bibles from Air Force Inn checklists.
• At Christmas, the Academy ordered cadets to stop promoting a Christian charity for needy kids. Leaders even removed an article from a Squadron Office School curriculum for referencing chapel.

• A Fort Leavenworth War Games scenario identified Christian and Evangelical groups as potential threats
• The U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center released a study linking pro-lifers to terrorism
• Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer service
• At the National Cemetery in Houston, Christian prayers were prohibited at the funeral services for military veterans
• Distribution of Bibles was banned for a time at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
• Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions
• Catholic chaplains were prohibited from reading a letter to parishioners from their archbishop regarding the Obama HHS mandate.

"Nearly 110,000 people have signed this petition because they know if Christian chaplains and other troops are censored from offering the full solace of the Gospel, there is no religious freedom in the military," concluded General Boykin.

The petition to Secretary Hagel can be accessed here.

** Previous related posts:

    -  HAVE SEGMENTS OF THE U.S. MILITARY TURNED ANTI-CHRISTIAN?

   - AIR FORCE CENSORS EXPRESSIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH

    - EFFORTS TO STRIP CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE IN THE U.S. MILITARY CONTINUE TO SUCCEED

    - A GENERAL LOST HIS JOB FOR OPPOSING CHANGING "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"

    - TIMOTHY DALRYMPLE - "FAITH AMIDST THE BATTLE"

    - HOW PACIFISM VIOLATES THE COMMAND, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" (CHARLES WILLIAMS)

HAVE SEGMENTS OF THE U.S. MILITARY TURNED ANTI-CHRISTIAN?

Carefully ponder the following FRC collation of recent actions of the U.S. military.  Unless our Senators and Representatives step in and call a halt to this trend, the future look ominous for Christians in the United States.  

What are America's biggest threats? Hamas? Al Qaeda? According to recent statements by U.S. military officials--including an Army briefing on "religious extremism," the military should be just as concerned with Evangelical Christians and Catholics as threats to America.

In another example, it was discovered that Lt. Col. Jack Rich of the U.S. Army highlighted FRC and American Family Association (AFA) as specific groups who do not share "our Army Values." Rich warned his subordinates "When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values--don't just walk by. Do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem." The 14-page email goes on to smear FRC and AFA by name, lumping us in with the real extremists of the Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, and neo-Nazis--as labeled by the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which was connected in court to the terrorist shooting at Family Research Council's headquarters on August 15.

This type of inflammatory rhetoric is not isolated. As Fox News correspondent Todd Starnes reported this week, these incidents follow a long line of recent military missteps:

• A Fort Leavenworth War Games scenario identified Christian and Evangelical groups as potential threats
• A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memo identified Evangelicals and pro-life groups as potential threats to national security
• The U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center released a study linking pro-lifers to terrorism
• Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer service
• At the National Cemetery in Houston, Christian prayers were prohibited at the funeral services for military veterans
• Distribution of Bibles was banned for a time at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
• Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions
• Catholic chaplains were prohibited from reading a letter to parishioners from their archbishop regarding the Obama HHS mandate.

A number of lawmakers, led by Congressman Doug Lamborn (R- Colo.) are demanding answers. In a letter to the Secretary of the Army, he and other Members of Congress are calling on the Army to apologize for attacking Christians and labeling them as extremists.

Join us in standing by these lawmakers by co-signing the letter to the military and show these officials that Evangelicals and Catholics should not be marginalized as "extremists."

"SKYLARK" - ISRAEL'S AMAZING LITTLE DRONE

Julie Stahl and Chris Mitchell report:  (Video at the link)

NEGEV DESERT, Israel -- Many Americans worry the U.S. government could use drones to spy on or attack its own citizens.

By contrast, the Israel Defense Forces is using a relatively new type of drone, developed by Elbit Systems, to save Israeli and Palestinian lives.

It's called Skylark -- one of the world's smallest drones. It's the kind of tool becoming increasingly crucial to the global war on terrorism.

"It's a game changer. It really is," IDF officer-in-training Noam Goldstein told CBN News. "Once they [troops] didn't know what was behind this house, what was behind this mountain. You know now, in two seconds you know and you can act accordingly."

The IDF gave CBN News a private look at this mini unmanned aerial system, or UAS, in the Negev Desert.

Soldiers carry the 13-pound Skylark to the field in a backpack.

"Its goal is to assist the ground forces with live intelligence from the next field, the next corner, in the next alley," Lt. Ori Edry, with the IDF's Artillery Corp Skyrider Unit, explained.

The unit can assemble and launch the Skylark within eight minutes, giving Israeli troops a new and potentially life-saving advantage in the field.

"The unique thing is they are actually working inside the field like every [all] ground troops and they're using a really, really advanced technology," Edry continued.

Soldiers launch this hi-tech drone into the wind from a bungee cord. It doesn't take long before it's out of sight.

The Skylark can fly up to 15,000 feet in the air for three hours at a time at about 50 mph -- and even faster if there's a good tailwind.

SHOULD WOMEN BE IN COMBAT?

The Family Research Council offers important commentary, some sentences of which I have highlighted.

In another triumph of political correctness over common sense, the Pentagon is lifting its ban on women in combat and direct combat units. Senior officials leaked the news yesterday during the House's Benghazi hearings, making the timing even more suspect. If Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was hoping to distract the country from Hillary Clinton's Libyan testimony, he succeeded. According to leaders, even Congress wasn't warned. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of the many politicians taken by surprise, was stunned by the policy's lack of vetting. "Congress should be consulted about that," he said. "I think that's a historic policy of the Department of Defense. There are physical differences of the sexes... It's a major decision and I'd like to see how they came to it, what their recommendations are, and who makes it."

No one is suggesting that women are not capable or have not served their country with distinction. They are and have. But much like the plan to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the risks of this integration (physical stamina and injury, emotional stress, sexual assault, pregnancy, adultery, unit readiness, family breakdown) seem secondary to the administration's liberal agenda. How much national security is our President willing to forgo to promote this kind of progressive feminism? While liberals celebrate the decision--and the military's desk workers advise it--some active-duty women insist the change wasn't something they asked for. "Who is driving this agenda?" asked Marine Captain and combat-tested Katie Petronio. "I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly this isn't even a congressional agenda." In fact, she said, "it's very surprising to see that none of the [decision-makers] are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change."

In an incredibly compelling article for the Marine Corps Gazette, Capt. Petronio says that while she was extremely successful during both combat tours, she is a shell of her former self. (And based on the nightmarish conditions Ryan Smith shares in the Wall Street Journal, it's no wonder.) "Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was," (including a diagnosis of deployment-induced polycystic ovarian syndrome), "and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion... that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females." Like us, she appreciates what the Pentagon is trying to do but believes that diversity is not a military necessity. "Let's embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps' success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda," she pleads.

Senior officials said yesterday the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." But as America's defense, shouldn't the goal be to have the most lethal fighting force in the world? The military isn't--and should never be--the great societal equalizer. Under this administration, Pentagon bureaucrats have engaged in social experiments with our troops on a massive scale--and risked the lives of countless soldiers in the process. And what of the young girls who don't want to go to war? Will they have a choice? Joe Carter, a Marine veteran and former FRC employee, lamented this on First Things.

"Of course when the government begins to draft our daughters for combat roles--and that day will certainly come--the children and grandchildren of the egalitarian elite will be the ones to get deferrals. Most of the men and women championing a woman's right to choose combat have never served in the military and would certainly not want their own daughters to join the infantry. They are concerned only with choice and equality in the pristine abstract, rather than in the bloody, concrete world of warfare... Men were created to be self-sacrificial protectors of the family, and by extension, of the nation. Forcing women into that role will not lead to more freedom but rather to less equality, more violence toward women, and a general degradation of humanity. As C.S. Lewis said, battles are ugly when women fight. But societies that send their women off to war are even uglier.

In the last thirty years, we have watched as the world has desperately tried to redefine the genders, gender roles, and even marriage. But in the end, nothing humanity does--through medicine or policy--can alter that fundamental truth: "male and female He created them."

AIR FORCE CENSORS EXPRESSIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH

The Family Research Council (FRC) makes extremely sobering observations.  I have always held our military in high regard and felt we were blessed by its traditional values of virtue and self-discipline and faith and its ability to resist political correctness eating away at so many of our culture's foundations.  But as FRC reports, things are no longer well, especially with the Air Force.  

Air Force Rejects Faith--Plane and Simple

In the U.S. Air Force, the one thing leaders are throttling back is faith. When President Obama took office, his policies had a chilling effect on religion across the military--but no branch has taken Christian censorship to extremes like the Air Force. To most people, the turning point came last year after a service-wide memo from Gen. Norman Schwartz. It was a stern warning that religious favoritism and proselytizing would not be tolerated in the Force. Instead, Gen. Schwartz urged "neutrality"--which has since turned to hostility--on faith.

Assaults on religion have come in almost daily waves since then, and service members are still struggling to cope with the changes. One by one, officers started flushing God out of their everyday routines--an overcorrection that has left several airmen confused about their rights. First, the Air Force suspended a 20-year-old class on "Just War Theory" because it included scriptural references. Next came the stripping of "God" from the Rapid Capabilities motto and the purging of Bibles from Air Force Inn checklists. At Christmas, the Academy ordered cadets to stop promoting a Christian charity for needy kids. Leaders even removed an article from a Squadron Office School curriculum for referencing chapel. FRC started to notice a change in 2010--before Schwartz's memo--when Andrews Air Force Base rescinded my invitation to speak at a prayer breakfast.

"When viewed individually," Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said, "any of these actions is concerning. But taken together, they highlight an alarming pattern in the Air Force that we do not see in other branches of the military." The tension is so significant that the Air Force Times published a long expose about the new climate of political correctness and how it's affecting morale. Several servicemen emailed the paper anonymously, many concerned that believers are being forced into the closet. "Christian airmen say they're constantly walking on eggshells at work to avoid offending their non-believing colleagues." Another said, "I don't think the Air Force pushes religion on anyone. The only thing I have seen is the push to take any reference to Christianity out."

So far, Gen. Schwartz's strategy seems to be having the desired effect. In a Military Times poll, Air Force members were less likely than those in any other branch to say that "religion plays a larger role in their lives today than it did when they joined the service." In other words, the Air Force is systematically driving a wedge between the troops and their greatest source of solace and strength. What a tragedy. Our military was designed to protect religious liberty--not impair it. As Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said, "When our sons and daughters join the military, they are not signing away their First Amendment right to religious liberty." He and 65 other House members are so outraged by the Air Force's pattern of religious hostility that they're calling on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to conduct a full investigation. "Censorship," they write, "is not required for compliance with the Constitution and should not be required for compliance with military directives." We applaud the dozens of Congressmen who signed on to this letter to support the troops when they need it most.

EFFORTS TO STRIP CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE IN THE U.S. MILITARY CONTINUE TO SUCCEED

From the Family Research Council:

The greatest threat to national security isn't global terrorism or Iran's nuclear program. No, according to one organization, one of America's biggest threats is the Word of God. That's what Mikey Weinstein is telling the U.S. military as part of his push to ban Bibles from base exchanges. And not just any Bibles--but military-themed editions. Fox News's Todd Starnes broke the story, which started when the Military Freedom from Religion Foundation complained that LifeWay publishers was selling Army-, Navy-, Air Force-, and Marine-specific Bibles to troops.

Apparently, it's irrelevant that the Bibles were sold at no cost to the government, and service members voluntarily purchased them. At no point were military members coerced or encouraged to buy the books. Yet Weinstein insists that their mere presence in base shelves constitutes a religious endorsement by the Department of Defense. "If their logos are being placed on a particular version of Christianity... when we are engaged in a war with fundamentalist Muslims--it's a security threat."

When Starnes called LifeWay, a spokesman said the government contacted them last year and said they were no longer authorized to use the branches' insignias. The Pentagon was quick to call it a "trademark issue" that had nothing to do with religion. I'll bet. Just like the Walter Reed Bible ban had nothing to do with the Bibles.

This is all part of the progression that started exactly 50 years ago in schools--when society started purging God from the classroom. Just consider how far we've fallen. Months before the start of World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt actually wrote the prologue to the Gideon Bibles given to the Armed Forces, encouraging them to draw courage from its contents. "As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries, men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength, and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul."

Now, the march of humanism is at our military's doorstep. And once it falls, the rest of America is vulnerable. When Jesus instructed us to pray in our closet (Matthew 6:6), who knew it might be all we'd have left?

Previous post:

A General Lost His Job for Opposing Changing "Don't Ask, don't Tell"

See also: Army Tries Camouflaging Its Agenda on Marriage

REMEMBER - Memorial Day Tribute 2012

Three years ago I posted the following photo, which continues to moves me deeply:

May our debt to the brave men and women who gave their lives on behalf of the United States of America grow ever more acute, and may we ourselves be faithful to preserve and defend this Republic and its freedoms in the face of all encroaching threats, both foreign and domestic.

Update:  The late Charles Colson published the following in 2010, and Breakpoint has republished it today. 

Memorial Day is when we honor the men and women of our Armed Services who have made “the supreme sacrifice;” who gave their lives for their country.

Especially these days, when Memorial Day seems nothing more than a time for cookouts and swim parties, we cannot be reminded often enough about how great a debt we owe our war dead.

They gave up their hopes and dreams, families and friends. They submitted themselves to rigorous discipline — something I understand as a former Marine — 24-hour a day duty, and placed their lives in great peril. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Their sacrifice should inspire in us a profound sense of gratitude. Gratitude for the freedoms we enjoy, bought with a price. And that gratitude should compel us to lives of service as well. Serving Christ, our neighbor, and yes, our nation.

I can’t help but recall the brilliant film Saving Private Ryan. James Ryan, now in his seventies, has returned with his family to the military cemetery in Normandy. He visits the grave of Captain John Miller, the man who, a half a century before, led the mission to retrieve — to save — Private Ryan. At the end of the mission, Miller was fatally wounded. As he lay dying, his final words to Private Ryan were, “James. Earn this...earn it.”

We then see Ryan kneeling at Captain Miller’s grave, marked by a cross. Ryan, his voice trembling with emotion, says, “Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me.”

Red-eyed, Ryan turns to his wife and says, “Tell me I’ve led a good life...tell me I am a good man.”

With great dignity, she says, “You are.”

With that, James Ryan salutes the grave of Captain Miller.

I tell this story in greater detail in my book The Good Life, which you can purchase at ColsonCenter.org.

You see, Private Ryan, out of gratitude for Captain Miller’s sacrifice, did all in his power to live a good life.

And Memorial Day is a great time for each of us to look into the mirror...to examine our own lives. Are we living good lives in gratitude for all those who have sacrificed for us — including our men and women in the military, our families, our friends, and most of all Christ?

Are we, like Ryan, kneeling before the cross — Spielberg, a master cinematographer had to realize the power of this imagery. Are we, out of gratitude, doing our duty for Christ, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ministering to those in prison, in whatever harvest field to which the Lord has called us?

Examine your life.

And this Memorial Day, at the very least, thank those who have sacrificed for you and those you know who have served in our nation’s armed forces. Maybe you’ll do what I do when you see a guy or gal in uniform...at the airport, at the store, wherever...walk up to them and thank them for their service.

And then go and remember Whom it is you serve.

(This commentary was originally aired on May 28, 2010).

Further Reading and Information

U.S. MILITARY DEVELOPING SPYCHIPS FOR SOLDIERS

Bob Unruh writes:  (HT: Drudge)

The U.S. military wants to plant nanosensors in soldiers to monitor health on future battlefields and immediately respond to needs, but a privacy expert warns the step is just one more down the road to computer chips for all.

“It’s never going to happen that the government at gunpoint says, ‘You’re going to have a tracking chip,’” said Katherine Albrecht, who with Liz McIntyre authored “Spychips,” a book that warns of the threat to privacy posed by Radio Frequency Identification. 

“It’s always in incremental steps. If you can put a microchip in someone that doesn’t track them … everybody looks and says, ‘Come on,’” she said. “It’ll be interesting seeing where we go.”

According to a report at Mobiledia, the U.S. military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has confirmed plans to create nanosensors to monitor the health of soldiers on battlefields.

The devices also would report data to doctors. But privacy analysts have expressed concern that the implants could be used not just to monitor health but to keep track of and possibly control people. . . [more. . .]

Me: The attempt to track civilians won't be long.   Any bets?

TWO REVIEWS (ED MORRISSEY & KEVIN MCCULLOUGH) OF NEW FILM, "ACT OF VALOR"

Ed Morrissey, whose opinion I respect, says,

Americans love military and action films, as box office returns show. But what if filmmakers eschewed ridiculous plot lines for actual missions fought by American commandos, along with realistic depictions of terrorism, violence, and weapons fire?  And what if most of the actors on screen aren’t actors at all, but actual Navy SEALs?  Act of Valor tells those stories and uses those fighting men — and the result is an excellent action movie that keeps viewers riveted to the action until the very end.  [more . .]

 

Kevin McCullough, in his review, "Ignore the Haters... Act of Valor is a great piece of film making," said "the film is a breathtaking action movie, the likes of which comes along once in a generation," and "the story has more heart than any movie made about our military in the last twenty years."

McCullough said the "primary motivation for making this apolitical movie about the life of Navy Seals was primarily to pay honor and tribute to the sacrifice these extraordinary individuals make in order for all the rest of us to walk around free."    Further:  "It is difficult to put into words how important this film is. It is even harder to put into words how GOOD this film is.

OBAMA REIGN - SUBVERTING AMERICA'S GREATNESS

I view President Obama as undermining America's uniqueness and greatness.   Two examples (conscience and religious freedom, and undermining military preparedness) appear in today's Wall Street Journal.

--  See Timothy Dolan's article - "ObamaCare and Religious Freedom."  Dolan appropriately subtitles his article, "How about some respect for Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease?" (Dolan is archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. conference of Catholic Bishops.)

--  See also Margaret Eaglen - Defense Cuts and America's Outdated Military   Her concluding paragraph reads:

 What the Obama Pentagon will lay out this week is the final nail in the coffin of our national contract with our all-volunteer military—that if they fight, they'll have the very best to win. It marks the beginning of the end of America's unquestioned international military dominance. Our soldiers will increasingly go into combat with aged equipment, lacking assurance that they'll prevail against any enemy.

Update 1/27/12 : - Arthur Herman - "Obama's Strategy for Disaster"
    Me: One weeps at the self-destructive forces at work in the United States.  It seems God has given us over to delusions, a way of bringing destruction on ourselves through ourselves.

VIDEO: "I SERVED FOR YOU"

It's a couple days after the official "Veteran's Day" commemoration, but this video is timeless and a great reminder of the debt we owe to those who gave of themselves to preserve our freedoms.

 

IS THE MILITARY FULLY PREPARED TO EMBRACE RAINBOW WARRIORS SEPTEMBER 20TH?

It looks like a rush job for politically correct reasons.  The Family Research Council reports:

Members of Congress are still waiting for answers to their questions about religious freedom, conscience exemptions, and same-sex partner benefits. And that's not all. Congress doesn't even have copies of the rule changes itself! "We find it unconscionable that the policies and regulations that provide guidelines and procedures to be used by service members and their leaders to implement repeal... remain unpublished." Meanwhile, there are rumblings that this administration twisted the arms of a certain high-ranking military officer to get him to change his congressional testimony. "The episode--confirmed by the Daily Beast--is the latest in a string of incidents that have given Republicans sudden fodder for questions about whether the Obama administration is politically interfering in routine government matters that affect donors or fundraisers." Is this what happened in the DADT debate? Congress should hold hearings to find out.

At least two members of Congress tried to slow things down but to no avail. 

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) are making one last effort in persuading Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to postpone. In a letter, they call on Panetta to wait. "The department is not ready to implement the repeal, because all the policies and regulations necessary for the transition are not yet final." They urge the DOD to "take immediate action to delay the implementation of repeal." No such luck. In a statement, Pentagon officials insist that it's full-steam ahead. "The repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (DADT) will occur," officials said, "in accordance with the law and after a rigorous certification process, on September 20."

A GENERAL LOST HIS JOB FOR OPPOSING CHANGING "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL"

Here's the story of a genuine hero in my book.  He lost his job over his conviction that revolutionizing military policy to a politically correct "gay-friendly" stance was unwise.  He continues to speak out as a post-military civilian. From The Family Research Council (FRC):

Lt. General Benjamin Mixon may have left the Army, but that doesn't mean he'll stop fighting for the U.S. military. On May 1, the 35-year veteran hung up his boots after a three-star career. But his service to the country didn't end when his tour of duty did. Less than two weeks into his retirement, the Army's Pacific Commander is picking up where he left off in March of last year. In the heat of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) debate, Gen. Mixon was one of the few active-duty officers to speak out against the military's coming out party. Knowing the criticism could cost him his job, Mixon took the chance and published an open letter in the Stars and Stripes newspaper.

It is often stated that most service members are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate. I suspect many service members, their families, veterans, and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen's desire to serve and acceptable conduct. Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy. --March 8, 2010

The response from the Pentagon was swift and severe. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who had heavily lobbied for repeal, ripped into Mixon for not keeping his objections to himself. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, furiously phoned the Army brass and called for Mixon's resignation. A three-star general, he said, should never use his influence to buck the President. "The answer," Mullen fumed, "is not advocacy; it is in fact to vote with your feet." In the months after Gen. Mixon's rebuke, military leaders fell silent. "After folks saw the reaction to my letter," Mixon said later, "there was no chance of anyone else speaking up." That chilling effect reverberated through the Force--most of whom wouldn't dare to answer the Pentagon's anonymous survey on repeal. Now that General Mixon has called it a career, he intends to do everything he can to pull back the curtain on repeal and help our troops from the outside.

Today, in an exclusive interview with the Washington Times, the former Army Commander held nothing back. "There's no doubt in my mind that this is driven by politics and not military necessity. Pushing this kind of social agenda in the military, especially during a time of war, is not appropriate. We're taking a great risk." After the policy was railroaded through Congress, Mixon was left to pick up the pieces. Like other officers, he felt the training materials "left [more] questions than answers." "There's a good number of people in the military, who, whether for reasons of religious faith or moral conscience, view homosexuality as unacceptable. How do we protect those folks' right to serve?"

Good question--one that Congress should take very seriously as it weighs our next steps. Mixon, meanwhile, has nothing to gain from speaking out on this issue. As a high-ranking retiree, he has everything to lose in the way of prestigious board positions and other post-service opportunities. Out of his concern for the military, Mixon risks cutting himself off from consideration for a whole range of honors. Yet he still takes that chance--not because it's the popular thing to do but because it's the right thing to do. America owes the General a debt of gratitude for his courage over the last 35 years--and his continued leadership for our troops. Tomorrow, the House Armed Services Committee will vote on Restore Military Readiness Act of 2011, which would give service chiefs a voice in the repeal process before it's implemented. Help Rep. Duncan Hunter pass the measure by urging committee members to support it today!

COMBAT TROOPS TO GET GAY SENSITIVITY TRAINING ON THE BATTLEFIELD RIGHT AWAY

Soldiers currently on the battlefield, fighting an enemy, are to receive special training to develop "sensitivity to gays?"  A normal, logical, intuitive response would be:  "You've got to be kidding.  That is bizarre!  I don't believe it!"

A less reactive response could only be the product of politically-correct brainwashing that has left one's brain circuits mangled and useless.      Story here.  (HT: Drudge)

IN ADDITION:  It seems brain circuits were also mangled when it came to rescuing Americans from Libya. 

Team Obama Botches Libya Evacuation, Charters Wrong Boat

Virtu Ferries

By Oliver Tree, Daily Mail

The U.S. government came under fire today for chartering a rescue boat for Americans stuck in Libya that is too small to cope with the rough Mediterranean sea.

Hundreds of American citizens were finally set to depart Tripoli harbour aboard the Maria Dolores, a small passenger ferry chartered by the U.S., trapped there by rouigh seas.

At the same time larger Greek and Turkish vessels have transported thousands of their own citizens to safety, crossing the choppy water to mainland Europe.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/libya/2011/02/25/obama-charters-wrong-boat-botches-evacuation-americans-libya#ixzz1F2C1hPX1

RHETORIC ON DADT WAS OVERBLOWN

So says writer Stephanie Gutmann, author of The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars.  In other words, the biased media produced predictable propaganda to pressure the repeal of DADT.   Gutmann starts off with a powerful paragraph:

My award for schmaltziest lede of the year goes to the New York Times for kvelling in an editorial yesterday that “More than 14,000 soldiers lost their jobs and their dignity over the last 17 years because they were gay, but there will be no more victims of this injustice.” Can we have a little reality here, please?

She goes on to note:

A few years ago, Charles Moskos, the late military sociologist who drafted the DADT language, went back to study discharges under the policy. He found that about 80 percent were voluntary, meaning they had been initiated by the soldier.

In other words, a guy or girl had gone to his or her CO and said something to the effect of, “You know, I’m gay.” This earned the serviceperson an honorable discharge — and maybe a relatively painless end to what might have been an inconvenient service contract.

In a study a few months ago, the Pentagon affirmed Moskos’s research, finding that “approximately 85% of discharges for homosexual conduct have been made on the basis of statements by the Service member.” It also noted that “approximately one quarter of these discharges have occurred in the first four months of a Service member’s service,” which would seem to back up the notion that DADT was widely used as way to get out of contracts.  (more. . .)

The Family Research Council is disgusted by the repeal of DADT:

When the Senate repealed 17 long years of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" this weekend, they didn't do it because our service members demanded it. Or because America 's mission would be aided by it. They did it, because it endears them to one of the greatest sources of campaign dollars in America : the homosexual lobby.  (read more)

FRC notes:

Other outlets, like the New York Times, waited until after the vote to do the real reporting. In a stunning article yesterday, the paper printed dozens of quotes from soldiers about how this change would affect their ability "to get the job done." Private Carias feels strongly that homosexuals "shouldn't be allowed to serve in front-line combat units."

The NY Times article is well worth reading.  Why wasn't it published before the Senate voted on repealing DADT?   Wait, don't tell me.

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL CRITICIZES SENATE FOR PUTTING SOCIAL AGENDA AHEAD OF MILITARY MISSION

The Family Research Council released the following press statement today at 12:20 PM.  I am in entire agreement with the statement, and consider the ramming through of political legislation in a lame duck session to be not only regrettable, but disgusting and against the spirit of a democratic society.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) today criticized the vote by the U.S. Senate to pass cloture for a bill that sets in motion a repeal of the 1993 law on homosexuality in the military, commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which codified the prohibition on homosexual conduct in the armed forces that has existed since the nation began.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins issued the following statement following the vote:

"Today is a tragic day for our armed forces. The American military exists for only one purpose - to fight and win wars. Yet it has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda. This may advance the cause of reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality, but it will only do harm to the military's ability to fulfill its mission.

"It is shameful that the Democratic leadership, aided by Republican Senators, has forced through such a radical change in a lame-duck session of Congress. The 1993 law which is to be repealed was adopted only after months of debate and at least a dozen Congressional hearings. The repeal has been forced through only eighteen days after the Pentagon released a massive report, which raised more questions than it answered on the impact the overturning of this policy will have on our nation's military.

"It is clear why this was done: not to enhance the military's ability to accomplish its mission or to enhance national security. Rather, it is a political payoff to a tiny, but loud and wealthy, part of the Democratic base. They knew that the Congress elected last month would never adopt such legislation - certainly not without a more thoughtful and deliberative process.

"We thank Senators John McCain, James Inhofe, Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint, as well as all of those who voted to support our troops over advancing a liberal social agenda. These senators fought hard for our men and women in uniform, and their efforts will not be forgotten."

QUICK TAKES

I consider all of the following important reading:

- Ann Coulter - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Call Our Troops Homophobes"  [She makes crucial points not made elsewhere.  A MUST READ.]

- John Hawkins - "The 10 Biggest Conservative Stand-Outs of 2010"  [An excellent list, including the "honorable mentions."]   (HT: Atlas Shrugs)

- Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Birth Control Pill 50 years later  [The destructive path of a hurricane and the "New Feminism" taking root]

And from Jim Loft's Gateway Pundit: 

- "Michele Bachmann: New Congress Should Defund Planned Parenthood"

- Obama Officials Now Referring to Hezbollah Terrorist Organization As the “Armed Resistance"

REMEMBERING OUR VETERANS WITH GRATITUDE

VETERANS DAY   Nov. 11, 2011

(Photo from Drudge)

I appreciated the video tribute to fallen heroes here.

TIMOTHY DALRYMPLE - "FAITH AMIDST THE BATTLE"

Timothy  Dalrympel - "Faith amidst the Battle: An Interview with Michael Yon."

Michael Yon is a former Green Beret who has become the premier independent combat journalist of our time. . . Now embedded in Afghanistan, Michael has spent more time on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other reporter. . .

Yon: One thing seems to be true as a general rule: people of strong faith tend to be stronger individuals overall. Their faith gives them strength in many ways. That's just a generalization, of course.  (more...)

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL (FRC) COLLATES VALUABLE ESSAYS AND ARTICLES

The Family Research Council is launching The Social Conservative Review.  An e-mail states it will constitute

"a unique summary of news of interest to social conservatives. The focus of this comprehensive collation of stories, journal articles, and op-eds is the intersection of moral  concern and public life, the issues that reflect and shape not only events and legislation, but the nation's very soul.

FRC will send the Review out twice monthly.

It will feature important pieces from the country's leading newspapers, magazines, journals and conservative Web sites. FRC's goal is to help keep you informed -- and ready to act -- about the policies and proposals, research and reports that bear directly on life, liberty, family and Christian faith.

Me: I have reproduced the e-mail below, complete with links.  It looks to me like a fabulous service.

---

The Social Conservative Review: The Insider's Guide to Pro-Family News

April 29, 2010

Educational Freedom and Reform

• "The ACLU: Unwelcome Schoolyard Bully?"
  Cynthia Hill, Family Research Council
• 2010 April School Reform News (full text pdf)
  Edited by Ben Boychuk, The Heartland Institute
• "Making Men without Chests: The Intellectual Life and Moral Imagination"
  R. J. Snell, First Principles Journal
• "Are There Harms of Home Schooling?"
  Christopher O. Tollefsen, The Witherspoon Institute
• "Expulsion may await campus pro-lifers"
  Bill Bumpas, OneNewsNow
• "Teach Social Justice-Or Else"
  Mark Bauerlein, Students For Academic Freedom
• "Education Spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Stimulating the Status Quo"
  Lindsey Burke, The Heritage Foundation

Environmental Issues

• "How a Climate Change Treaty Threatens You, Your Nation and Your Church"
  Dr. Cal Beisner, FRC Family Policy Lecture
• "My Tribute to Earth Day"
  Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council
• "Titles You Can't Make Up: Cleaner Air Could Speed Global Warming"
  Tom McClusky, Family Research Council Action
• "Creation and Man"
  Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship
• "Getting Into Hot Water: Evangelicals and Global Warming"
  Benjamin B. Phillips, Acton Institute, Journal of Markets and Morality
• "Polls on the Environment and Global Warming"
  Karlyn Bowman, Andrew Rugg, American Enterprise Institute
• "Celebrate Earth's Best Friend"
  James M. Taylor, Heartland Institute
• "The Green Shepherd: The White House Wants Churches To Advance It's Climate Change Agenda"
  Meghan Clyne, The Weekly Standard
• "Environmentalism is now a religion, and being overtaken by extremism"
  Robert H. Nelson, The Catholic Thing

Faith and Policy

• "Fiscal Conservatism Is Not Enough: What Social Conservatives Offer the Party of Lincoln"
  Robert W. Patterson, The Family in America Journal
• "Prophet Jim Wallis and the Ecclesia of Economic Ignorance"
  John Couretas, The Acton Institute
• "Living Under God"
  Ken Blackwell, Family Research Council

Health Care

• "States Face Their First ObamaCare Test"
  Grace-Marie Turner, The Wall Street Journal
• "Hospital Visit Horrors? Here's the Rest of the Story"
  Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council
• "Ten Ways Consumer-Driven Health Care Is a Proven Success"
  Greg Scandlen, The Heartland Institute
• "The Separation of Health and State: What happens when all medical decisions are political"
  Opinion, Wall Street Journal
• "Krugman Admits Rationing (Death Panels) From Obamacare"
  Wesley J. Smith, First Things
• "The Tea Party Spirit and Lawless Health Care Reform"
  Charles R. Kesler, Claremont Review of Books
• "Bad Medicine: The Public Square"
  Joseph Bottum, First Things
• "US Is Turning Into Dependency Society"
  Lee Edwards, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation
• "Where's the Administration's Cost Estimate?"
  James C. Capretta, National Review

Homosexuals in the Military

• "FRC's Tony Perkins Condemns Franklin Graham's Rescinded Invitation" to participate in Pentagon prayer event.
  FRC Press Release
• "Sex Matters in the Military"
  Peter Sprigg, The Washington Times
• "Homosexuals in the Military"
  Mackubin Thomas Owens, The Ashbrook Center
• "The Real Anti-Christian Bigotry"
  Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice

Judiciary

• The Judicial Review
  Family Research Council Action's Constitutional and Legal Commentary
• "The Coming Constitutional Debate"
  Judge Stephen Markham, Imprimis
• "Koh Fails the Democracy Test"
  John Fonte, Hudson Institute
• "Delegitimizing the Roberts Court"
  David Marion, The Ashbrook Institute
• "ADF on striking down the National Day of Prayer Statute"
  Alliance Defense Fund
• "More Prayer than Protests"
  Tobin Grant, Christianity Today

Marriage and Family

Family Economics

• "The Family GDP: How Marriage and Fertility Drive the Economy"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council
• "The Economics of the Family Household"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council Family Policy Lecture
• "Family Policy Lecture: The Crushing Burden of Student Loans on Family Formation for Generation X+"
  Dr. Allan Carlson, The Howard Center, Family Research Council Family Policy Lecture
• "Obamacare Update: About That Only Tax the Rich Thing . . ."
  Tom McClusky, Family Research Council Action
• "The VAT's in the Fire"
  Ken Blackwell, The Patriot Post

Marriage

• "Facing the Bad News (on out-of-wedlock births)"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., The Catholic Thing
• "Culture Clash: Monogamy vs. Polyandry"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council

Pornography

• "The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community"
  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D., Family Research Council
• "Standing for Truth"
  Daniel Weiss, Citizen Magazine
• "Pornography and the Muslim World"
  Carson Holloway, The Public Discourse
• "Public urged to take action to prevent .xxx web domain"
  Erin Roach, Baptist Press

Religious Liberty

• "Wall of Separation Between Church and State: Myth, Reality, Results"
  Dr. Kenyn M. Cureton, FRC Lecture
• "High Court Says Mojave Cross in California Can Stay"
  Robert Barnes, The Washington Post
• "Supreme Court Protects War Memorial Cross"
  Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice
• "Texas students see religious bias with 'year of Our Lord'"
  Casey Curlin, The Washington Times
• "Homeless in Binghamton"
  Faith J.H. McDonnell, Front Page Magazine
• "Western Civilization on Trial"
  Paul Marshall and Nina Shea, National Review Online Symposium
• "Hastings Case Tests Religious Freedom on Campus"
  By Newt Gingrich, Jim Garlow, The Washington Post

Sanctity of Life

Abortion

• "Post-Abortion Suffering: A Psychiatrist Looks at the Effects of Abortion"
  Dr. Martha Shuping and Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., Family Research Council
• "Virginia Cuts Funding of Abortions"
  Jeanne Monahan, Family Research Council
• "Abortion Isn't Painless"
  Editorial, The Washington Times
• Oklahoma Senate overrides governor's vetoes to pass abortion laws
  Joe Sterling, CNN
• Legal status of induced abortions around the globe
  CBC News

Adoption

• "A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life"
  Family Research Council Publication
• "Louisiana Senate panel rejects gay adoption expansion"
  Bill Barrow, Times-Picayune
• "Visits to mission result in adoption"
  Rob Hedelt, Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star

Cloning

• "UK Scientists Clone 3-Parent Embryos"
  Dr. David Prentice, Family Research Council

Bioethics

• "Obama Administration Eyes a More Active Role in Genomics"
  Rachel Lehmann-Haupt, BNET
• "Panel to take broad view of bioethics: President Obama appoints commission to advise on stem cells, clinical trials and more"
  Brendan Borrell, Nature
• "The First Christian Voices Against Euthanasia"
  David W.T. Brattston, The Weekly Standard
• "Euthanasia Bill turned away, but work goes on"
  Charlie Butts, One News Now

Stem Cell Research

• Family Research Council's major adult stem cell initiative, "Adult Stem Cells Saved My Life" ("Stem Cell Research Facts") features compelling video stories of persons whose lives have been transformed through adult stem cell implantation. The site also contains leading-edge information on this dynamic, transformative and entirely ethical type of stem cell treatment.
• "Vatican Funds Adult Stem Cell Research"
  Dr. David Prentice, Family Research Council

Other Articles of Note for Social Conservatives

• "Apologist in chief"
  Ken Blackwell, World Magazine
• "A Crisis Republicans Should Not Waste"
  Hadley Arkes, Weekly Standard
• "After Virtue: Localism and the Restoration of Character and Community"
  Austin Lipari, First Principles Journal
• "How America became a 'secular-socialist machine'"
  Newt Gingrich, The Washington Post
• "Schumer: Obama's 'counter-productive' Israel policy 'has to stop'"
  Ben Smith, The Politico
• "The Foreign Policy of Self-Abasement"
  Mona Charen, National Review
• "When Free Speech Wins"
  Eric Giunta, Front Page Magazine

HONORING THE U.S. MILITARY VETERAN

This came to me via e-mail.  It moved me.  It states the truth..

'It's the Veteran, not the reporter, who has 
given us the freedom of the press.' 
  
'It's the Veteran, not the poet, who has given us the 
freedom of speech.' 
  
'It's the Veteran, not the community organizer, who 
gives us the freedom to demonstrate.' 
  
'It's the Military who salutes the flag, who serves 
beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the 
protester to burn the flag.' 

QUICK TAKES

-- Admiral Merrill A. McPeak (Air Force Chief of Staff from 1990-1994 - Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Change [Outstanding op-ed in the New York Times.  A MUST READ.  Big question: How did it get in the NY Times?]

-- Caroline Glick - Why Biden Will Fail   [Biden arrives in Israel on Monday for high level talks.  Glick is a terrific journalist.  She brings readers up to speed on the current political situation in Israel].

-- Washington Times - Senators ask FDA to lift gay blood donor ban.  [Is this nuts or what?!]

-- Indonesians hurl their footwear at images of President Obama.  [Obama???  Wasn't that supposed to be Bush's problem only?]

- Wintery Knight Blog:

        - Nebraska legislature introduces bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks [What a great idea!!]          

        - Mandatory curriculum in Ontario schools promotes homosexuality   

Students begin to explore “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in grade 3, as part of an expectation to appreciate “invisible differences” in others.  A desired response has the eight-year-old student recognizing that “some [families] have two mothers or two fathers.”

In grade 5, a student is expected to recognize that “things I cannot control include … personal characteristics such as … my gender identity [and] sexual orientation.”

Grade 7s are expected to be taught about “using condoms consistently if and when a person becomes sexually active.”   

HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY? MILITARY LEADERS EXPRESS "SERIOUS CONCERNS"

From the Family Research Council:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 24, 2010
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS

Military Leaders Express 'Serious Concerns' Over Effort to Overturn Military Law on Homosexuality
February 24, 2010

Washington, D.C. - This week, several senior military leaders came forward to oppose repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military until a one-year study can be completed. This opposition contrasts significantly with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen's expressed "personal belief" that the current policy should be overturned.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway expressed his fear that the repeal effort will distract from the military's mission of protecting the nation. He explained, "My concern would be that somehow that central purpose or focus were to become secondary to the discussion."

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey agreed, saying, "I do have serious concerns about the impact of a repeal of 

WHY OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS SHOULD NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY

Chuck Colson explains  in one of the clearest, most cogent, brief explanations I have read:  (my emphases)

Seventeen years ago, General Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped formulate the policy that has come to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the armed forces, provided that they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

Today, Powell is in favor of repealing the policy he crafted and advocated. Well, he was right then, but wrong now.

According to Powell, “attitudes and circumstances have changed” since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was adopted.

Sure, attitudes toward homosexuality have changed in the culture at large. But what hasn’t changed is the need for “order and discipline in the ranks,” to use Powell’s own phrase, and the possible impact of allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces.

That impact was the subject of a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Mackubin Thomas Owens, a “marine infantry veteran of Vietnam.” Owens begins by stating what should be obvious: “Military organizations exist to win wars.”

I say “should be,” because the arguments for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are all about the status of gay men and women in American society and have nothing to do with military necessity.

Peter Sprigg - "Everything You’ve Heard About 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' is Wrong"

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council says:

One thing I have noticed in the debate over homosexuals in the military is that roughly 99.5% of the American public, including 99.5% of long-time Washington political reporters and 99.5% of members of Congress, believe three key things about the issue.

1. The current policy regarding homosexuals in the military is governed by a law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
2. Under current law, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military as long as they are not open about their sexual orientation.
3. Doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Each of these three statements is false.

PETITION CONGRESS AGAINST REPEALING THE "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" POSITION ON HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE MILITARY

I've just signed the Family Research Council Action petition to members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.  The petition reads:

In 1993, after extensive public debate, Congress adopted and President Clinton signed a law (Public Law 103-160) which declared 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."

Nothing has changed since that time regarding the needs of the military or the nature of human sexuality that would justify any change in that conclusion. Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge you to oppose any legislative efforts to repeal, or administrative efforts to evade, the military personnel eligibility provisions of that law.

Do not let our military be used to advance a radical sexual agenda.

If you agree, sign the petition here.

- Update: Though I think signing the petition a good idea, I also think Jonah Goldberg offers wise counsel.  He predicts Democrats won't be pushing this before the 2010 elections, and it could be a mistake to get super-vocal about it prematurely.  Read Goldberg's take.

THE STORY OF TAPS (Click through to "continue reading...")

From an e-mail:

  "This is interesting...I did not know this. 

 

ANOTHER MEMORIAL DAY POST

I was tremendously moved by the following photo:

And I thank Nice Deb for posting the video,"The True Meaning of Memorial Day."  She also includes a link to a list of the brave men and women who have given their lives in American wars:

MEMORIAL DAY

Our debt knows no bounds.   We are grateful to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice that we might be free.  May God be with our heroic men and women still serving in our nation's armed services.



It is the Veteran

It is the VETERAN, not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the VETERAN, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the VETERAN, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the VETERAN, not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the VETERAN,
who salutes the Flag,

 

It is the VETERAN
who serves 
under the Flag, 
 

 

ETERNAL REST GRANT THEM O LORD, AND LET PERPETUAL LIGHT SHINE UPON THEM.

Ed Morrissey says,

You can read more about the men and women who received our nation’s highest honor for their sacrifice at the US Army’s Medal of Honor archive.  Keep all of them, and all who have given their lives in war and peace to protect this nation, in your prayers and thoughts today.

For my previous posts related to the military, click here.  Included in the listed posts is How Pacifism Violates the Command, "Thous Shalt Not Kill" (Charles Williams).

NRO's SYMPOSIUM ON GREAT WAR BOOKS

 Since this is an area in which I know very little, I am grateful to National Review Online (NRO) for providing bibliographic help.  One of the symposium contributors, Victor Davis Hanson, recommends John Keegan's The Face of Battle.  VDH explains why:

LETTER FROM A SOLDIER IN AFGHANISTAN

Michael Ledeen says, "one of the best I've seen."  I agree.   Excerpt:

We are not your sons and daughters, whom you must protect and defend. We are your sword and your shield. We are men and women who volunteer to place our lives on the line so you do not have to. We do not decide when or where we will be sent. We go. You are our advocates, not our parents. (Sarah Albrycht)

Read the whole thing.

A WOUNDED NAVY SEAL POSTS A MESSAGE ON HIS HOSPITAL DOOR

A heroic Navy SEAL, Lieutenant Jason Redman, penned the following note (below) on his hospital door to warn visitors, doctors, and anyone else who might have a sorrowful or negative attitude, that they should go elsewhere.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified to being "lifted up" by the wounded he visited, including Lt. Redman.

AN AMERICAN HERO IN AFGHANISTAN (CAPT. BRUNO de SELENI) LEAVES A LETTER . . .

Talk about military valor.  This letter describes the thought processes and actions of a heroic man.  One should be very proud and humbled to know such a man. 

Update 9/25/08 - Click here.  More here and here

HOW PACIFISM VIOLATES THE COMMAND, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" (CHARLES WILLIAMS)

Does that sound like a contradiction?  It did to me . . . until I read something by Charles Williams (1886 - 1945), the esteemed friend of C.S. Lewis, and a member of the famed "Inklings."  A couple of weeks ago I happened to dip into Williams' book, The Forgiveness of Sins, and came upon these shocking words:

Must we, for example, consent that men, the other men, shall be killed and maimed?  The answer to that is simple-- we must.

Williams explains: 

We may do it by ourselves inflicting death and torment on others (by bombs or however), or we may do it by abandoning others to death and torment (in concentration camps or wherever), but one way or the other we have to consent by our mere acts.  To call the one war and the other peace does not help.

He goes on:

This--whichever it is--is certainly, in part, the result of what we do.  Is there any direction?  Even to quote "Thou shalt not kill" does not finally help, for we have been taught that consciously to abandon men to death is, in fact, to kill.  To hate is to kill; to kill is to kill; and to leave to be killed is to kill. . .

Me:  I am still pondering these words.  Do  others have responses to offer?  

(The quotes above are from chapter VI,   "The Technique of Pardon.")