'Out and proud' in the armed forces?

I continue to be among the seriously diminishing number of subscribers to both the Washington Post and the New York Times – because, as I jocularly explain to my talk radio audience:

"I have to keep an eye on what the enemy is still up to!"

I also ask: Can anyone remember any week going by in which there are no pro-sodomy acceptance news stories or editorials in both of these sexually left-wing daily newspapers?

On the op-ed pages of the New York Times in January 2007 and the Washington Post on June 19 of this year were columns promoting the idea of accepting self-pronounced homosexuals into the U.S. armed forces.

Retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, did not so advocate during those years, because, he wrote:

TRENDING: SCOTUS can end big tech tyranny – and should

"I believed that implementing a change in the rules at that time would have been too burdensome for our troops and commanders. I still believe that to have been true."

In neither of his Times or Post articles, in which he now calls for enlistment for self-announced sodomists, does he ever mention one of the most serious problems in such an armed forces policy revision. For Centers for Disease Control reports continue to reveal that the AIDS rate among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals.

Given the fact that the armed forces physical examinations for all enlistees could detect all such candidates with AIDS (and I presume that Gen. Shalikashvili would not want such AIDS or syphilis cases to be enlisted), why does he imagine that such AIDS-clear enlisted homosexuals would refrain from sodomist relations with civilians while on leave?

In the Washington Post, Gen. Shalikashvili wrote:

"Last year four retired flag and general officers studied all available evidence and found that allowing gays to serve posed no risk to force readiness."

Shalikashvili That was last year that Gen. Shalikashvili was joined by these four fellow general and flag officers. Consider that in view of the fact that March 31 this year, 1,100 other retired flag and general officers delivered an open letter to Congress opposing any bill that might seek to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy from military procedure.

"We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership on all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service and eventually break the all-volunteer force. … Forcing soldiers to live so closely with openly gay troops for months at a time does hurt morale and cohesion," the petition said.

Note that statement's stipulation that "forcing soldiers to live so closely with openly gay troops for months at a time does hurt morale and cohesion."

If any homosexual who wishes to serve will do so without advertising his sexual orientation, he can be enlisted, but if (as the militant sodomy lobbies are demanding) he insists on parading it – or practicing it in the barracks, on shipboard, in submarines or on planes – he will – and he should be – discharged.

That applies to other sexual alternatives, such as bestiality – if ever practiced by any member of Fort Myers' Old Guard Horse Cavalry Detachment.

President and Command and Chief Barack Obama has expressed agreement with Gen. Shalikashvili's now-changed point of view.

He sanctioned June as "Gay Pride Month" and promised those hundreds of homosexual activists he invited to a party at the White House on June 30 that he would repeal "don't ask, don't tell" – because, he declared: "It doesn't contribute to our national security."

Yet he did not provide any specific time in which he will try to get this repealed, and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, declared that the president believes that "the only and the best way (to overturn it) is through a durable and comprehensive process."

Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress declared that the president should repeal "don't ask, don't tell" to "enhance military readiness."

But Tommy Sears, executive director for the Center for Military Readiness, told the Washington Times:

"Congress passed the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service to maintain good order, discipline, unit cohesion and morale. All of these purposes remain as vital today as they were when the law was passed 16 years ago.

"Forced cohabitation in military conditions that offer little or no privacy would oblige people to live with persons who may be sexually attracted to them.

"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 standard of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

"Reversing 'don't ask, don't tell' and allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the armed forces is tantamount to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men in intimate quarters.

"The military sets eligibility standards that differ from those found routinely in civilian employment. Individuals can be discharged for weight violations, health reasons or other personal circumstances that would never be a consideration for termination in civilian jobs. These standards are required for the unique conditions and requirements of military life, [including] extended periods away from home and mandatory assignment to quarters with individuals regardless of personal preference.

"Despite Mr. Korbs' statement, these standards are in place for particularly good reasons: to maintain the utmost good order, discipline and morale that is crucial for military readiness," Mr. Sears said.

Gen. Shalikashvili also wrote: "Israel and Britain join more than 20 others nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems." But he did not explain how these foreign powers' armed forces deal with militant homosexual officers, or with noncom basic training and boot camp homosexual sergeants who use their complete power over trainee recruits for purposes of homosexual rape or seduction.

Suppose another kind of sexual extremists were to demand that our armed forces eliminate any housing of our troops in which females are separated from males?

Would the parents of most female enlistees want their daughters sleeping in the same barracks rooms with a large numbers of males?

With the almost certain "no" response to that question, why should we believe that most parents of our armed forces enlistees would have no concern at all about their sons being under the rigid discipline of militant self-announced homosexuals or officers – or who are noncoms who live in the same barracks as recruits?