| CMR Sitrep |
 |
|
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Virginia Attorney General Defends Military Votes
As we noted in an October 16 SITREP article titled "DoD Must Not Tolerate Disenfranchisement of Troops," we need to guarantee to our men and women in uniform the opportunity to cast their vote and to have it counted. CMR applauds the action of Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell, who issued an October 27 opinion defending the rights of military voters.
McDonnell's opinion overruled a decision of the Fairfax County, Virginia, registrar who had claimed that state law required the disqualification of absentee ballots that did not display the signature of a witness. AG McDonnell's opinion found that federal law governing overseas military voting took precedence over the state law cited by the registrar. Federal law does not require a witness for military absentee ballots. The Virginia State Board of Elections subsequently advised the local elections officials to abide by McDonnell's opinion.
CMR commends the efforts of the National Defense Committee, which played a crucial role in bringing this issue to light. Retired Rear Adm. Jim Carey, his son Bob Carey, and Sam Wright, Director of the Military Voting Rights Program, are dedicated volunteers who have done a great job protecting our servicemen and -women's votes, and ensuring that they are counted.
We hope that as the election enters its closing days, the Department of Defense will match the vigilance of the National Defense Committee and other like-minded organizations and citizens. More than any other group, our brave men and women serving in harm's way deserve the opportunity to cast their votes and to have them counted on Election Day.
* * * * * * *
Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Obama's Gay Activist Supporters Threaten Society And The Military
An October 20 commentary by Linda Harvey on WordNetDaily.com, titled "Gay Pedophilia & Obama", profiles Kevin Jennings, founder and long-time head of the radical homosexual group GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Jennings is now the Obama campaign's fundraising co-chair for the "LGBT" (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. Harvey describes Jennings' promotion of a radical homosexual agenda through the vehicle of the public school system. In calling for Obama to remove Jennings from his position with his campaign, Harvey enumerates several questions that arise from Jennings official association with the Obama campaign.
Many of these same questions apply to the radical homosexual agenda with respect to the military. Once the gay activists' achieve their goal of open homosexuality in the ranks, the arguments against imposing the same upon civil society, such as in the public schools, become greatly weakened. That is the whole idea. If the homosexual agenda is acceptable for the military, one of our nation's most conduct-restrictive public institutions, why would it not be acceptable in all civilian institutions?
If anyone doubts the intent of Sen. Barack Obama to push the gay agenda to the limit, be sure to click on the box highlighted in Ms. Harvey's piece as "LGBT Left," and then on the "More Videos" section of Obama's rainbow-decorated web page. The only mystery is, why has the McCain campaign declined to draw distinctions between McCain's position and the radical LGBT agenda?
* * * * * * *
Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Should Generals Confer With Gay Activists?
The UK Telegraph reported on October 12 that the chief of the British Army's General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, "made history" by addressing the Army-sponsored Fourth Joint Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Matters. The Telegraph quotes General Dannatt, who is described as a Christian, saying that his "Equality and Diversity Directive for the Army sets the standard that we must live by, and, importantly, it communicates that standard to everyone in the chain of command."
General Dannatt's Directive mandates "respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers," as a "command responsibility" that is vital for "operational readiness." To demonstrate "tolerance," the UK Ministry of Defense also hosts an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) Forum on its website.
Since Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama, it is fair to ask: Should American Army generals have to go to gay activist conferences in order to show support for professed homosexuals in the military? If we follow the lead of Britain, such meetings and consultations with gay activist groups are very likely, in order to make the new policy "work." (CMR President Elaine Donnelly mentioned this type of "sensitivity training" in her testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on July 23. See page 10 of the Summary, linked here.) And what about those who disagree with the new policy on personal, moral, or religious grounds? As CMR President Elaine Donnelly stated in her July testimony before Congress, under such "directives" or policies, the presumption of guilt of harboring "anti-homosexual" attitudes would strongly deter anyone who disagrees with the new policy from filing a complaint. (See testimony summary, pages 6-8).
General Powell is certainly entitled to support the presidential candidate of his choice, but his personal political preferences should not result in greater strains on unit cohesion, morale, and discipline in our military. Surely Gen. Powell knows that conditions of service for our volunteer men and women are already demanding enough.
* * * * * * *
Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
DoD Must Not Tolerate Disenfranchisement of Troops
This OneNewsNow.com article titled "Complicated process deters soldiers, dependents from voting" quotes John Fund, Wall Street Journal columnist and author of the recent book, Stealing Elections. Fund expressed concern that the ability of deployed troops and sailors to vote will be compromised "because of bureaucratic red tape."
A recent Military Times poll on support for the presidential candidates shows a strong majority of support for Senator McCain. Given the intensity of the race and the close margins reflected in polls of the civilian population, it is vital that our men and women in uniform are guaranteed the opportunity to place their vote and to have it counted. The National Defense Committee is taking the lead on this issue, and we believe their effort on behalf of our military deserves unqualified support.
* * * * * * *
Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.
Dutch Case Suggests Risks Posed by Gays in the Military
An October 15 report from a court in Groningen, The Netherlands, illustrates the elevated risk that open homosexuality would pose to our servicemen and women. According to Breitbart.com, several gay men who attended "sex orgies" in that country told a judge that a "three-member gay gang" tried to deliberately infect them with the AIDS virus.
Consider that the individuals involved in this heinous case chose to be in the situation that led to the alleged assaults. Under military conditions, servicemembers have no choice with whom they are assigned.
The military routinely denies induction to individuals whose weight, height, eyesight, prior injury and other health factors it determines disqualifying. It does so in order to maintain the most able and ready force possible. The induction of persons known to be at higher risk of HIV infection would force the military to compromise that principle. Persons testing positive for HIV are not eligible for induction, but if they become infected, current law requires that they must be retained but classified as non-deployable. There is no reason why the military should assume additional risks and non-deployability costs by recruiting or retaining men who engage in homosexual conduct, who are known to have far greater rates of HIV infection.
CMR President Elaine Donnelly made this point and more while testified on the issue of gays in the military before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee. A summary of her statement described several incidents in which homosexual servicemen infected others with the HIV virus. (See pages 6-9) Congress must consider these issues seriously before taking any action with regard to the law excluding homosexuals from military service.
* * * * * * *
Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.
|
|
|
Home
