are Destructive to Our Military Forces
O. R. Adams Jr., 2010
(BACK TO ARTICLES)
I consider Barack Hussein Obama the very worst president that this country has ever elected to office. He not only wants to change our country into a socialized welfare state, but he continues his efforts to reduce the effectiveness of our military forces. He is now doing one of the most destructive things that can be done to our armed forces. He is trying to get congress to make the military accept openly practicing homosexuals. He is also proceeding on his own and trying to bring this about by his authority as Commander in Chief, which, in my opinion, is unlawful.
For a person to make an intelligent decision on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed into the military, he or she should fully understand the exact nature of homosexual acts, and the homosexual mindset. A brief summary of the most common acts by which homosexuals get their classification are:
If research statistics are correct, 100% of male homosexuals engaged in oral sex. Approximately 93% engage in anal sex, inserting the penis into the anus of the partner. 92% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus. 47% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the anus of the partner. 29% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other. 17% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, or rubbing of feces on each other, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited. It is not uncommon for a homosexual person to declaw and defang a mouse or other rodent to be inserted into the colon.
People who engage in such acts have no place in our military service. However, there are a number of other things that should also be considered, and that is the extreme promiscuity of many homosexuals, and the kinds of places in which they engage is these vile acts, such as public restrooms, public parks, bath houses, and on the streets in public. For example, people should be aware of the sick homosexual activities that took place in restrooms at Harvard University. Anyone who is the least bit interested in this subject, or has any real concern for our country's armed forces should read all of the article on this website, The Depraved Excesses of Homosexual Lifestyles. Are these the kinds of things we want going on in our Armed Forces? And are these the kinds of things we want our young men and women in the military to be exposed to and compelled to tolerate?
Homosexuals should not be allowed in our military forces at all. Those who engage in sodomy are not people of good character. Also, people in the military often live in very close quarters, and they use common latrines and showers. Homosexuals should not be put in close contact with those to whom they are sexually attracted. Long experience has shown that homosexuals are quite destructive and disruptive to our military forces. Men who are accosted by homosexuals often rebuke those approaches with violence, which is quite understandable. Accosts by homosexuals have been violent, and homosexual rape has often occurred. All we need to do is look back at past experience with homosexuals who managed to slip into the military, even when they were not allowed by law. Comprehensive information on acts engaged in by homosexuals in the military was given at length in the book, As We Sodomize America, available on this website. The following is from that source:
When William Jefferson Clinton took office as president in 1993, he immediately commenced a two-pronged assault on the military.
He at once tried to open the services to homosexuals, by executive order; and he began trying to get women mixed in with men in the military—in training and in combat situations—and even having men's and women's quarters in the same barracks.
There was immediate and strong opposition to removing the bar to homosexuals in the military from the the military, the people and from Congress. Opposition to the president's feminist thrust was slower and less effective.
It has now been well established in recent years that the close mixing of men and women in military services results in impermissible sexual acts, including sexual relations between unmarried service members, fraternization, pregnancies of unmarried women, assaults and rape. It is much more so when homosexuals get into the services, because they are in the barracks, the showers, and restrooms with the men and women with whom they wish to have sexual relations. Added to this is the fact that those with natural sensibilities and instincts tend to violently react to homosexual advances—particularly men. This has led to the death of some homosexuals, and severe beatings of others, as shown by the studies referred to below.
The dissension between Congress and the administration over allowing homosexuals into the military led to various studies on the effect of homosexuals in the military in prior years. A few homosexuals, by deceit, had always been able to get into the military, so there was information about the problems caused. And, considering the few that had been able to infiltrate the services, the problems were indeed serious.
The Gay Nineties – What the Empirical Evidence Reveals About
Homosexuality, by Dr. Paul Cameron, Adroit Press,
I consider this information important from several aspects. It shows the promiscuity of homosexuals and their apparent inability to control their perversion—even in the military—and it gives us further insight into to the terribly depraved acts of homosexuality.
In considering the case studies presented, we should keep in mind that, because they were legally barred, there were very few homosexuals in the service—when compared to their percentages in the general population. Because the services attempted to bar homosexuals, and because sodomy was a criminal offense, there is no way the services could accurately estimate the number of homosexuals who gained admittance. I do know that in my more than three years of active duty during World War II, I never personally knew one person that was identified as a homosexual, nor of one homosexual incident. Yet the studies show that there were many heinous and foul acts committed by homosexuals in the service—both women and men.
In other parts of
this book information will be presented about the opposition to homosexuals in
the military, and the reasons for the opposition.
I would like to point out here that because of the control of the
administration, and because the Democrats were in control of Congress in the
first term of the
The strategy of the General Accounting Office, which was supposed to be conducting a study of the effect of homosexuals in the military, was to rely on information from organizations that were already known to favor homosexuals in the military, such as the ACLU (which had a Gay and Lesbian Task Force), the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association.
Fortunately, there were some reputable and empirical studies made that bolstered and supported the continued opposition of Congress to open homosexuals in the military. Two of these studies are of primary importance, because they contain information on actual acts committed by some who were able to deceive the military in gaining admission to the services.
There were also recent news reports on incidents relevant to the question. The following are two such incidents referred to in The Gay Nineties, (pp. 180-181):
September of 1992, fourteen soldiers from Ft. Hood
were discharged from the service after they were videotaped engaging in
homosexual acts in a public restroom. Nine
were separated under "other than honorable conditions." Three received "general discharges," and therefore may receive
benefits. Two received honorable
discharges after a hearing revealed "mitigating circumstances." Small wonder that with the consequences so light, there should be fourteen
involved in this particular incident, which resulted in charges ranging from
indecent exposure to sodomy. (New York Native,
June of 1993, the press reluctantly and curtly reported the conviction of two
One interesting thing which I have observed and commented on many times in this book is that the mind of a person advanced in homosexuality seems to lose the ability to even determine or distinguish what is right and wrong—and what is vile and degrading from what is good and decent.
Dr. Cameron, in The Gay Nineties, gives us one more good example of this homosexual phenomenon of lack of logic and understanding. Homosexual Congressman Gerry Studds and Mary Ann Humphrey worked to promote the allowing of homosexuals in the military. (As explained later in this book, Studds was censured for his relations with a seventeen-year-old male congressional page.) Mary Ann Humphrey was forced to resign as a captain in the Reserve because of her lesbianism. Studds promoted a book— My Country, My Right to Serve: Experiences of Gay Men and Women in the Military, Word War II to the Present, Harper Collins, New York, 1990—edited by Ms. Humphrey, containing a collection of testimonials by homosexuals who had gotten into the military. The following are two examples of the many incidents in that book:
A 52-year-old male said that he had always fantasized about enlisting in the Army in order to engage in homosexual acts and lied about his predilections in order to gain entry. About American society he is quoted as saying: "From what I have ascertained, our culture says you can do anything you like as long as you don't get caught. (p. 7) (He subsequently died of AIDS.) ...
A female, 57 years of age, lied about her lesbianism in order to enlist: "But, by God, when I got into basic, I thought I had been transferred to hog heaven! No damn kidding! Lordy!" (p. 11) [The Gay Nineties, pp. 189-191]
This and other examples Dr. Cameron relates from the Studds and Humphrey book distinctly show the fallacious reasoning of homosexuals. Never should such people be allowed in the close proximity of decent young people in the service. To think that such people will not prey upon the young men and women, and violate the code of military conduct, is indeed absurd. But then people like Studds and Humphrey seem to see nothing at all wrong with this—this is what they want. Perhaps Gerry Studds felt that he was in "hog heaven" when he was around the page boys in Congress.
Speaking generally of the incidents disclosed in the Humphrey book, Dr. Cameron observes:
... It was obvious from these accounts that homosexuals, rebels by definition, find themselves doubly challenged in the Armed Forces. The rules and constraints they so despise are infinitely more authoritarian in the military than in civilian life and the consequences of disobeying them far more devastating. ...
A second problem revealed in the Humphrey book was to be found in the compulsive sexuality of homosexuals. It is abundantly clear from these narratives that the great majority of homosexuals find abstinence impossible. Indeed, many obviously seek military service because of the sexual opportunities it affords. These people have no intention of obeying the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or else they soon discover that obedience is impossible or too difficult to consider seriously. They seem driven to engage in illicit conduct despite the severe penalties imposed. ... (pp. 197-198)
However, as detrimental as the accounts given in the Humphrey–Studds book were to their own argument for homosexuals in the military, they still seemed to realize that there needed to be omissions of important homosexual conduct in order to make the accounts somewhat less revolting. Cameron explains that in this regard the book omitted any accounts of sex with children or violent rape. (p. 212) In my opinion this could only have been done to give a deceitful and slanted argument in behalf of homosexuals.
As to the omissions from the Humphrey book, Dr. Cameron makes the further statement:
So the case histories offered in this book provided the "best possible scenario" for homosexual service in the Armed Forces. 130 homosexuals were interviewed. Only 42 were chosen—28 men and 14 women. Make no mistake about it: this was a book with an agenda. Yet to many normal, objective readers, the 42 interviews provided dramatic and conclusive proof that homosexuality and military service are incompatible. (p. 190)
Other more accurate and definitive studies were made on the question of the effects of homosexuals in the military.
In late 1992, after
the election of Clinton, Family Research Institute (FRI), then in Washington
· Respondents reported three murders, two of them "fraggings."
· Fifty-three incidents (or 22 percent) included beatings.
· Nineteen incidents (or 8 percent) involved homosexual rape.
· Fifty-six (or 23 percent) involved molesting a sleeping or drunken comrade.
· Fifty-four (or 22 percent) involved "fraternization"—that is, a superior engaging in sexual relations with a subordinate.
· Fifty-one (or 21 percent) involved a "pass"—i.e., a sexual approach, either verbal or physical.
· Nine (or 4 percent) involved children.
· Six of the incidents (or two percent) took place in showers.
· Two of the incidents involved transvestites.
· One service member was knifed, another was pushed in front of a car, two were thrown out of windows, and yet another was hurled down a flight of stairs.
The survey resulted in information over a period of many years. Several of the homosexual acts included in the many testimonials gathered in the FRI study are given for the purpose of showing the pitiful sickness of homosexuality (pp. 203-208):
· 1938: "I was with a S/Sgt [staff sergeant]. He said he had to pee so we stopped and I started to join him. Immediately he clamped his mouth on my penis and told me that he would bite it off unless I discharged into him. I was afraid and 18 and just avoided him from then on." ...
· 1957: "I noticed my clerk (a blue-eyed blonde) began to smell rank of sweat and seemed nervous and inattentive after 3 days on the job after transfer in. . . . I had another female clerk who I knew talk to her—but it took her 5 weeks on the job to [tell me] of her 1st day at Barlsdale female barracks and being raped in the shower. Yes, I helped her and worked with base authorities to trap her lesbian barracks chief and female officers to be put out of service . . . many others came forward after we caught them." ...
· 1955: (Tripler Army Hospital, Honolulu) "Gay hospitalman, in a ring including ships cook on my ship, took a 10 year old sick male child and performed oral sex on him. This was the same ward our children would be patients in while we were at sea with no communications (I was a submariner)."
· 1965: (Storeroom aboard ship) One E, was unable to extract a bottle from his rectum, which led to a medical evacuation problem." ...
Another important study was made which should have been highly accurate because of the source and nature of the information obtained.
Under orders from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Richard H. Black investigated homosexual acts in the Army, and compiled a list of 102 punitive separations from the Army during the fiscal years 1989 through 1992 that involved court-martialed cases. (p. 211) Cameron estimates that this number would have been about one-seventh of the total homosexuals discharged (based on figures on the number discharged for a 1989-90 period compiled by the General Accounting Office). Unless serious violations of public order were involved, commanders usually got them out with honorable or general discharges, without specifying homosexuality, as a matter of expedience—just to get them out of the service. (p. 211) [Keep in mind that all of this was at a time when homosexuals were not legally allowed in the military, and had to get in by false representation.] Col. Black gave his synopses of the cases with specific case numbers, which are shown is parentheses. Most of them were summarized in The Gay Nineties. The ones set forth below were selected to show further incidents exemplifying the utter sickness of homosexuality and the acts engaged in by such people (pp. 212-222):
· (57) (child molestation) A private first-class, who was AWOL, kept the two male children of his sister's friend. The boys were 10 and 7. While babysitting he anally sodomized both boys. He also had both boys put their penises into his anus. Anal sodomy occurred ten times over these months. [2 victims]
(58) A staff sergeant, divorced from his wife, brought their
children to his home on post at
· (59) (child molestation) A staff sergeant fondled the genitals of his son and placed his penis in his son's mouth while the boy slept. [Guilty, 1 victim]
· (32) (child molestation) A specialist first class admitted that he engaged in sex with his own sons and had engaged in sex with boys in other countries for money. He also said he had used his rank to gain homosexual favors from junior soldiers. He committed indecent acts with his 13-year-old nephew and had sex with his 14-year-old adopted Korean son. [Guilty, 3 victims]
· (33) (Boy Scout Master) A sergeant, while a Boy Scoutmaster at Fort Hood, Texas, committed oral and anal sodomy on Boy Scouts aged 9 to 12 years. He used leather straps, dog collars, a dildo, and a dildo attached to the end of a policeman's night stick in the performance of these acts. The sergeant videotaped these acts, which lasted between 30 and 50 minutes. Among the acts: anal sodomy of a male child while he screamed: "Oh God, please stop. You're hurting me. Please, please, stop." The sergeant stuck his penis into this boy's rectum six times in a ten minute period, telling the boy to "Relax." [9 victims] ...
(16) (rape) A private was in his barracks room in
· (98) (rape) A staff sergeant, on three separate occasions asked three different subordinates to "suck your dick." This sergeant also molested sleeping soldiers and exposed himself to civilians. [Guilty, 4 victims]
Col. Richard H.
Black (now retired) wrote a recent article, Black:
Danger to Discipline - Why we
must keep ban on homosexuals, published in the Washington
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
was tasked by Mr. Obama with implementing the change [allowing open practicing
homosexuals into the military]. But that task has proved difficult. On Jan. 15,
The Washington Times reported, "Adm. Mullen was unable to get the full
backing of other senior leaders during an unusual meeting of the top officers
from each branch of the military." There are good reasons why top officers,
including current Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, oppose the
From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army's
Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton
ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit
known homosexuals into the military. ...
Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton's proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. [Emphasis added.] Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank. . [And this was all in just one restroom on one military base in only seven days. And think about the decent servicemen who also needed to use this restroom – it was Harvard University all over again.]
The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the chief
of public affairs referred to it as a "potentially explosive issue."
It was "explosive" because it contradicted the administration's
campaign to portray gay GIs as "perfect gentlemen - a boon to the
At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that
party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being
committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren't the
only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration's proposals would have
placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions
invite serious trouble. ...
Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits
had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep
him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a
second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was
discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating
manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Marine Corps Base
Quantico, Va., a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer
candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out
the comparatively few homosexuals that were able to slip into the services by
misrepresentation can cause that number of known criminal and disruptive incidents at
that time, think what will happen if those who are openly practicing homosexuals
are allowed to freely enlist. If we want an effective military made up of men
and women of good character and discipline, there is no place in it for
 Homosexuality: Good and Right in the Eyes of God?, by F. Earle Fox and David W. Virtue, Emmaus Ministries (2d Ed. 2002), p. 198 (This book and information may also be found online at http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=%22homosexuality:+good+and+right+in+the+eyes+of+god%3F%22&source=bl&ots=aDYac0Y-Ht&sig=CgQAnfsWr5ELlYaBk8qiLzKza7U&hl=en&ei=wsppS6G-BpXKsAP79MGdBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false);