Showing posts with label U.S. Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Military. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Now MEN are victims of Military Sex Assaults.. Male on Male attacks up since repeal of Dont Ask, Don't Tell... by Bob Unruh

Now men are victims of military sex assaults

Male-on-male attacks up since repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

rss feed Subscribe to author feed
While the full picture remains far from clear, signs of the ill effects of the Democrat-initiated law allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military without hiding their sexual preference are beginning to appear.
The newest reports, for Fiscal Year 2011, have just come out, and Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, immediately noted that sexual misbehavior is on the rise.

She has completed an analysis of the the reports, including the overall military assessment of sexual assaults as well as the
army’s Gold Book report, and it cites 515 rapes, 414 aggravated sexual assaults and 349 forcible sodomies documented by just the Criminal Investigation Command in 2011.
“Pentagon officials regularly praise their own work and proclaim undeserved ‘success,’ even though evidence of sexual misconduct, both consensual and non-consensual, continues to accelerate, year after year,” she said.
“It is time to reconsider and change flawed policies that are weakening the culture of the only military we have.”
In December 2010, Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy established by President Clinton that allowed homosexuals to remain in the military on the condition they not make a public issue of their sexual lifestyle.
The new law, for first time in U.S. history, allows homosexual members to openly acknowledge their sexual choices.
Among the details in the reports: While, since 2006, 5 percent of the violent sexual assaults have been against men, recent reports now put that figure at 12 to 14 percent.
The Army said it is “currently monitoring same-gender sex crime for a potential increase in forcible sodomy and other sex offenses related to the disassociation of homosexuality from the crime itself.”
Non-consensual sodomy attacks for fiscal 2011 totaled 7 percent of the nearly 2,500 attacks cited on one military report.
In several cases “the victim ceased cooperating with the military justice proceeding and the subjects were given no judicial punishment for consensual sodomy.”
Other case descriptions from the Department of Defense included:
  • “Male victim alleged that male subjects groped him through clothing and attempted sodomy with a broom handle.”
  • “Male victim alleged that male subject performed oral sodomy on him in bar bathroom while he was passing in and out of consciousness from drinking.
  • “Male victim alleged that the male subject, National Guard soldier, took out his penis, and straddled his thigh in the motor poll while in Iraq.”
One of the reports said 9 percent of the victims claimed to be victims of “non-consensual sodomy.”
The more than 700 pages of the compiled reports, however, did not mention homosexuality.
Donnelly told WND that the statistics show a more than 20 percent increase in reported sexual assaults on males.
And she said researchers specifically announced plans to track numbers to monitor the increase, since “this category of homosexual conduct no longer is illegal.”
“It’s way too soon,” she said, to come to definitive conclusions. But she said the “numbers have gone way up.”
She said the military’s efforts to deal with the complications of women in the ranks, which have been around for years, as well as the new issues of open homosexuality, are failing.
“What they need to do is get rid of gender-integrated basic training,” she said. “That conclusions was drawn that it did [increase] and still is increasing disciplinary issues.”
“If you don’t learn the basics of discipline [in basic training], it won’t happen later,” she said.
Donnelly’s organization just released its policy analysis drawing information from the Army “Gold Book” report on wartime personnel stress, the most recent annual report of the Defense Department Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office, and a 2010 report on ship captain firings from the Navy.
“Both the Army ‘Gold Book’ released in January and the Defense Department SAPRO report released last Friday hid the bad news in plain sight. Instead of reconsidering social policies known to increase disturbing disciplinary problems, the Pentagon is pressing ahead with costly, time-wasting programs that are not working,” she warned.
Take a guided tour into the future of the U.S. military once homosexuality is welcomed with open arms. Read Whistleblower’s special issue, “DROPPING THE ‘H’-BOMB.”
She said teams of professional sexual assault response counselors, untold hours of mandatory training, preemptive punishments, bureaucracy, conferences, meetings and feel-good gimmicks have produced:
  • A hike of 22 percent since 2007 in the sexual assaults in all branches
  • A doubling since 2006 of the number of violent attacks and rapes in the Army, from 663 in 2006 to 1,313 last year
  • A “chilling trend” of violent sex crimes rising at the rate of 14.6 percent annually, “and the rate is accelerating”
  • A 28 percent increase in the offense rate and a 20 percent increase in offenders from 2006-2011 in sex crimes in the active-duty Army
  • A jump in male sexual assault victims from 10 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in confidential reports for 2011
  • The need to fire senior enlisted Navy officers at the rate of nearly two per month because of sexual misconduct.
Donnelly explained the problem has been developing for some time. She cited the 1997 recommendation from the Kassebaum-Baker Commission for the Army to end the gender-integrated basic training, because it was “resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training.”
But the advice was ignored, she said.
And Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, even while noting that the military branch experiences three sexual assaults every day, called for observance of a “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” that included “adult interactive plays.”
“Despite tangible evidence of failure, the same officials expect free-rein to implement policies that would worsen the situation. On Feb. 9, 2012, Pentagon briefers announced their intent to promote ‘diversity’ by incrementally implementing controversial recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” she said.
The report said, “More than 20 years ago, male and female naval aviators partied wildly at the 1991 post-Persian Gulf War Tailhook convention in Las Vegas. The highly publicized scandal ruined the careers of hundreds of officers.”
Now, “we are starting to see a military resembling Jenga Blocks – a table-top tower constructed of smooth wooden planks,” the report continued. “Players remove planks from the bottom of the tower and load them on the top, destabilizing the structure until it buckles and falls. In the same way, severe budget cuts combined with social burdens loaded on top could irreparably weaken the culture and strength of our military.”
The report said the next White House administration, to minimize damage and reverse course, should “put the needs of the military above ‘diversity metrics.’” And the military should reinforce core values and policies that are known to reinforce personal discipline, it said.
Basic training also needs to be separate for genders, women should be exempt from direct ground combat units, and military policies should be “based on reality, not ‘social fiction.’”
CMR has reported previously on the manipulation of government data that contributed to the Obama campaign to remove the ban on open homosexuality. It cited an inspector general’s report marked “For Official Use Only” that said numbers were combined to present the image that members of the military approved of Obama’s plan for open homosexuality.
It was the military’s original and now-suspect report that famously was quoted as affirming “70 percent” of the nation’s military members believe the repeal of the long-standing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” practice of allowing homosexuals to serve as long as they kept their sexual lifestyle choices to themselves would have either “a neutral or positive impact on unit cohesion, readiness, effectiveness and morale.”
However, the IG in documents uncovered by Donnelly revealed the actual figures for military members were: those who believed the change would impact units “very positively” (6.6 percent), “positively” (11.8 percent), “mixed” (32.1 percent), “negatively” (18.7 percent), “very negatively” (10.9 percent) and “no effect” (19.9 percent).
The only way the 70 percent figure can be reached is to combine “very positively,” “positively,” “mixed” and “no effect.” But this combination counts people with “neutral positions” as favoring the change, Donnelly argued.
Donnelly explained that taking the same figures and lumping them on the other side with “negatively” and “very negatively” would produce a total of almost 82 percent of the soldiers who believe the results of the change would be “negative or neutral.”
The IG report uncovered by Donnelly said exactly that:
We considered that the primary source’s likely pro-repeal sentiment was further demonstrated by his/her inclusion of the key 70 percent figure in the information provided to the Washington Post. … Had [the source] desired to further an anti-repeal bias for the article, he/she could likewise have combined four results categories from that same survey question to conclude that “82 percent of respondents said the effect of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy would be negative, mixed or no effect.”
The Thomas More Law Center announced a federal FOIA lawsuit against the Navy, seeking to obtain records that are expected to show intentional deception by the Pentagon “to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
The lawsuit is based on the IG report obtained by Donnelly, “which suggested that a distorted Pentagon study of homosexuals in the military was produced and leaked solely to persuade Congress to lift the ban on open homosexuality.”
Erin Mersino, the attorney handling the blockbuster case, said the organization already has tried to obtain information.
“The Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have failed to produce a single document despite numerous FOIA requests over the last two years for information to uncover the truth surrounding the congressional repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” she said.
In one side effect that rebounded on the White House, a Senate committee, in an attempt to ensure the law conforms to the new policy, voted to repeal the ban in the military on bestiality, an issue that White House press secretary Jay Carney didn’t consider a serious question.
The Senate quickly backtracked when its vote was revealed.
WND previously reported on CMR’s uncovering of the Inspector General’s report.
That documents how the co-chairman of the commission working on the assessment of the impact on the military, Jeh Johnson, “read portions of ‘an early draft’ of the executive summary … to a former news anchor, a close personal friend visiting Mr. Johnson’s home” three days before service members even were given the survey.
“Contrary to most news accounts, the ‘Comprehensive Review Working Group’ process was not a ‘study,’” Donnelly told WND. “Its purpose was to circumvent and neutralize military opposition to repeal of the law.”
She described the study “was a publicly funded pre-scripted production put on just for show.”
“The … report, completed on April 8, 2011, reveals improper activities and deception that misled members of Congress in order ‘to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress following the November 2, 2010, elections,’” she wrote.
Donnelly explained that days before the survey was distributed, Johnson “was seeking advice from a ‘former news anchor’ on how to write the report’s executive summary more ‘persuasively.’”
Further, “The DoD IG report concluded that someone who ‘had a strongly emotional attachment to the issue’ and ‘likely a pro-repeal agenda’ violated security rules and leaked selected, half-true information to the Washington Post,” she explained.
Within days of the military’s repeal of its ban on open homosexuality, two members of Congress pointed out that the Department of Defense had failed to fulfill its obligations to prepare for the change.
The letter was from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., the chairman of the personnel subcommittee.
It was addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, whose media office declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Like it or Not: Mexico is America's Next Afghanistan.. Posted by Labor Union Report.. Sunday Dec. 12, 2010

Like it or Not: Mexico is America's Next Afghanistan


It's time to 'man up' and face a fact that most politicians know, but few care to admit.

With the exception of, perhaps, Texas governor Rick Perry, no public official wants to publicly admit an obvious fact: The United States of America will likely be forced to invade Mexico. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.  The question then becomes: What to do with Mexico after we invade it and wipe out the drug cartels (as much as can be). Does the United States merely return Mexico to a nation state of corrupt politicians, failed economic policies, and lawlessness, or do we annex Mexico and turn it into the 51st state?

For many of us, there is a certain false security in believing that, since most of America's streets are not filled with the murder and mayhem that is going on just South of our borders, we have nothing to worry about. The feeling that most Americans likely have is: Well, it's their problem, not ours. However, that illusion of security is quickly being eroded with the stories of American police officers being threatened by Mexican drug cartels, of kidnappingsand drug murders in Arizona and Texas, of control of certain parts of Arizona and forays into New Mexico and Colorado by drug cartels, of teenagers being turned into hitmen, and American tourists being kidnapped or killed while on vacation in Mexico.

Mexico, with its kidnappings and more than 28,000 murders in the last four years alone, is being terrorized. Now, instead of economic refugees coming across our borders in search of jobs and income, humanitarian refugees are fleeing Mexico in order to stay alive. However, despite all of that, if one thought that only certain parts of Mexico are under the control of the cartels, that illusion was shattered on Tuesday when this map (see upper right) was presented on a heart-breaking post on RedState that shows that almost all of Mexico has been taken over by drug cartels.

Mexican Authorities Are Impotent, Unable to Control the Chaos

One of the cables that the much-maligned Wikileaks exposed was the concern over whether or not the Mexican government is even capable of undertaking the cleaning up of its own nation.

Another embassy cable sent in October 2009 quotes a senior Mexican official as saying his government was worried it was losing control of some regions to the drug gangs.

"We have 18 months," Geronimo Gutierrez, at the time Mexico's under-secretary of the interior, is quoted as saying.

"And if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognisable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain this confrontation into the next administration."

"It is damaging Mexico's reputation, hurting foreign investment, and leading to a sense of government impotence." [Emphasis added.]

That cable was 14 months ago and the violence is still raging. The Mexican government has, so far, been unable to curtail the violence and it is likely that, without intervention, the country will become far more deadly than Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Worse, Islamic terrorists have been long suspected of using Mexico as a gateway into the U.S.

While America's national interests are certainly being threatened, not just by the flood of illegal immigrants, but by the violence that is beginning to spill across our borders, the Obama administration chooses to pander to special interests pushing amnesty, while ignoring repeated requests for troops along our Southern border. Moreoever, the administration claims about the level of deportations in 2010 have come under scrutiny, leaving many to wonder if the administration is even remotely serious about secure borders, or just playing games for the media.

Like it or not, Mexico's problems are our problems. For decades, politicians in Washington have cowardly turned a bi-partisan blind eye to the economic refugees (i.e., illegal aliens) that have transgressed our borders until it has become an unbearable strain upon our economy. Then, rather than securing our border and addressing the problem, the immigrants are now being used as political pawns in order to create a huge pool of 8 million progressive voters.

The Politics at Play: A Humanitarian Request vs. 'Just Do It'

Whether the Obama administration lacks the desire to keep the nation's borders safe or is merely playing politics with people's lives remains to be seen. In either case, though, it is highly unlikely there will be any stopping the violence on our borders between now and 2013 unless something catastrophic occurs on the U.S. side of the border, or violence ramps up significantly with many more Americans being kidnapped or killed. Further, even with something disastrous occurring, it is doubtful that the Obama administration wouldever have the cojones political will to put troops into Mexico as unilateral action as it would alienate the Latino community his party has become reliant on for votes in the Southwestern states.

On the Mexico side, however, politics also come into play as Mexican authorities will be unlikely to ask for humanitarian assistance due to that country's presidential election in 2012.

The PRI, which ruled Mexico for 71 years as a semi-dictatorship, has been in opposition for a decade after it lost power in an historic 2000 election to the PAN. It is gearing up for a comeback in 2012 with its young rising star, State of Mexico Governor Enrique Pena Nieto.

With a feeble economy and raging drug gang violence dogging Calderon's ratings, many analysts are already putting their money on a PRI return, but Sunday's results suggest many voters in Mexico are still skeptical of a party with a reputation of ruling with a mixture of corruption and authoritarianism.

The PAN and the PRD are unlikely to join forces again for the presidential race and either party on its own may have a hard time beating the PRI, which controls large blocks of voters from unions to farmer organizations in rural Mexico.

"The alliance was a successful bet, the results prove that," Jose Gonzalez, the PAN's deputy leader, told Reuters. "But for the presidency, frankly, it would be impossible."

State-level voting in Mexico tends to focus on local, rather than national issues, yet the PRI is keen to capitalize on Calderon's sinking popularity as a slow economic rebound and out-of-control drug killings weigh on morale. [Emphasis added.]

With the presidency of Mexico at stake in 2012, Calderon's party is unlikely to ask for help as it would give the PRI a campaign issue to capitalize on ahead of Mexico's election. As a result of the political ramp up to elections in both countries and using the number of killings in Mexico over the last four years as a predictor, another 10,000 to 14,000 Mexicans and an unknown number of Americans will die before either country takes decisive action.

In 2013 and beyond, though, all bets are off. If the Mexican government cannot contain the violence in that country, or more bloodshed occurs on the U.S. side of the border, either the Mexican government may request humanitarian aide, or the U.S. would be justified in acting unilaterally to go into Mexico to end the drug cartels' brutal terrorism (it's not like it hasn't happenedbefore). In fact, if the violence on the U.S. side of the border does not cease, or escalates further, whomever is sitting in the oval office will be hard pressed not to go into Mexico.

Nation Build or Annex Mexico?

The question then become what to do afterward. Is the U.S. ready for another protracted foray into nation building? Or, in the alternative, does Mexico enter the United States as the 51st state?

Now, this should not be considered an 'endorsement' of either idea (see note below). Rather, it is more of a cost-benefit analysis that requires much more study:

Rather than nation building, which would be much more costly to the U.S. treasury (which can ill afford it), a case can be made for statehood (albeit, not without controversy), given the amount of Mexico's citizenry that is already residing in the U.S., as well as Mexico's historically mis-managed economy and resources (i.e., oil, farmland, beaches, ports, etc.). Moreoever, as so many illegal immigrants work already in the U.S., but send their earnings back to Mexico, by having Mexico become the 51st state, the money exported would not leave the U.S. but would stay in "our economy" and could offset the costs of an invasion/humanitarian mission. Most importantly, by assimilating Mexico into the U.S., with the Constitution it would solve the the issue of immigration reform in one fell swoop.

Note: Being well aware of the tin-hat/NWO conspiracy theories, this is not a CFR/TC conceived idea. Instead it is an examination of current events caused by a bunch of narco-terrorists and illegal immigration, as well as an attempt to figure out what do we do about it?

Irrespective of what happens farther down the road, the violence that is occurring today in Mexico and spilling over into the U.S. is something that cannot continue to be ignored by the administrationregardless how weak it may be. If things do not change in Mexico (or if the President refuses to secure our borders), sooner or later, the U.S. will likely have to send a large amount of troops into that country to wipe out the drug cartels. Mexico, today, poses as significant (or more significant) threat to the United States than Afghanistan and, as a sovereign nation, America has the right to defend itself and its time the White House (and other politicians) get honest with the American people about what they intend to do about it.

In the meantime, the Obama administration should stop playing politics with people's lives along the border, 'man up' and get Rick Perry and the other Republican governors the troops they need to keep Americans safe along the border.

_________________

"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776