Houston is a "military town": thousands of serving citizen soldiers, active duty families with parents, sons, and daughters serving around the world; various Reserve component headquarters, a major Veterans Affairs hospital, Bush Intercontinental Airport as a major thoroughfare of military personnel, and an absolute multitude of military veterans.
Tuesday the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proclaimed that service members should not be forced to "lie about who they are." It's time to repeal the military's 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gay troops to serve openly for the first time in history, the nation's top defense officials declared.
However, both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen asked for a year to study the impact before Congress would lift the controversial policy. Several Republican senators said they would oppose any congressional effort to repeal the policy.
Senator Hutchison last year delivered $1.592 Billion for Texas Military Projects and Veteran Programs. U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), is also a ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee.
If Obama succeeds, it would mark the biggest shake-up to military personnel policies since President Harry S. Truman's 1948 executive order integrating the services. Homosexuality has never been openly tolerated in the American military. It should NOT be tolerated.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee panel, told Gates he was disappointed in his position and suggested the Pentagon was usurping Congress' job.
"Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not," McCain said. "But it has been effective." “All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staffs and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can. Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy – Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell: No openly gay people in the military – is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it is WORKING.” Nov. 28, 2007 John McCain
This is a debate about soldiers being required to defend their country while living and rooming in close quarters with each other. It is a fact that their effectiveness depends on mutual trust and uncomplicated camaraderie. Sexual relations or tension between soldiers, of whatever gender, undermines this bond.
A genuine worry is that not all gay applicants for the military will be driven by a vocational calling. The high concentration of individuals of one gender within a military unit make it a fruitful source of sexual partners, and will provoke a disproportionate gravitation of gays, lesbians and bisexuals towards application. This in turn will provoke even more homophobia among heterosexuals as these motives become clear.
The armed forces are a special case, putting their employees into life-or-death situations where any mental distraction could be fatal. Men and women aren't sent into combat together, why should gays and heterosexuals?
Closeted homosexuals run the risk of blackmail, which could have implications for national security if they were privy to military secrets.
The problem is not so much the concept of a ban, but the half-hearted enforcement. If a ban is well-publicised and it is understood that the peculiar and intense living conditions of the army, navy etc. make in inappropriate to encourage sexual interest between staff, then gays are not being misled.
The issue is not with the homosexual’s ability to perform the tasks, it’s with the unit’s effectiveness, as impacted by the knowledge of the teammate’s homosexual proclivities. Much of military operational policy and procedure is aimed at reducing friction, so that individuals and units can fight at their maximum potential effectiveness. Friction also undermines morale and unit cohesion.
United States Army: Houston Recruiting Battalion: 1919 Smith Street, Suite 1529 Houston, Texas 77002
If you are interested in joining the Army, call 1-800-USA-ARMY,
ext. 181 or visit www.goarmy.com.
If you are interested in the Army Reserve, call 1-800-USA-ARMY,
ext. 182 or visit www.goarmyreserve.com
Houston Freedom Fest: http://www.houstonfreedomfest.org/
Stand strong for conservative values: Take an active part in America!
I would also like to respond to the MANY e-mails I received from the readers of my last post:
Hearing Underway for Obama to prove his citizenship First, I want to thank you all for your readership and participation in the accuracy of the article which raised more questions than may ever be answered. I WILL retract the court hearing date in California as “Mark” correctly points out:
Mark: That post is an outright falsehood. There is no hearing going on. Judge Carter dismissed that case on October 29, 2009. Now let's see if you have an ounce of journalistic and/or personal integrity and print a retraction and a mea culpa. I won't hold my breath.
Mark, I do express my mea culpa and would also like to express my hope that Mark is still holding his breath as days have now passed.
Other readers brought up some very good points:
Robert: So why not go after someone much more vulnerable in order to either get the desired result, or to raise enough of a ruckus that Congress can no longer ignore the issue? That person would, of course, be Nancy Pelosi. From my understanding of the process of nominating a candidate to run, Pelosi had to sign a paper stating either that Obama is a citizen of the United States, or that he is qualified to be president, or both.
I don't understand why some person or group, doesn't require Pelosi to produce the information she used to determine Obama's qualifications to be president. Can't she be hauled into court and required to provide the information and answer questions under oath, if she was, for example, ordered by some individual to sign the qualification papers without proper supporting information ?
Bumpkin: Thank you for a fine informative piece. We know that we can't seem to 'shake' OBAMA to be truthful to those who voted him into office so we'll go to the next door....Doesn't our Constitution state that no one who has a history of being a "...DUAL CITIzEN..." MAY REPRESENT OUR COUNTRY AS POTUS! Regardless of where OBAMA was born - his father was a Kenyan and due to his mother's young age, the child 'must' follow the citizenship of the father. Thus he is an 'admitted' Dual Citizen. They are a no! no! for president!
Loretta: And there is no birth certificate or any vital records of Stanley Ann Dunham being a American citizen. Other than Obama's books who say she was born in Kansas, there are no records to prove this.
As you can see Mark, you ARE correct with the Oct. 2009 ruling in California. Where you are making a MAJOR mistake is being under the impression that the AMERICAN people are NOT convinced your Kenyan-Muslim representative whom you have put into office to bow to all other heads of state and force our grandchildren into financial poverty are willing to forget this sham of political injustice. Enjoy your government controlled Socialism.