Saturday, January 08, 2011

Repealing DADT Violates UCMJ

The UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice) strictly forbids "same sex" engagements. For Congress to repeal DADT is to pass a law that directly violates the UCMJ that all US military personnel serve under.

This is insanity.... and places the US military under 2 conflicting rules of law. Which is one to follow?

An Army National Guard Officer is stepping down from his command position rather than confront the order to go through training that forces the acceptance of "gay" encounters in the military life. He is saying that this is not punitive... but it in fact is a dramatic demotion in responsibility... and he knows it.

I thought we would all benefit from reading his letter to WND... well written... and helps explain exactly what is at stake with our civilian congress running rough shod over our United States Military and it's time honored Military Justice system.

World Net Daily exclusive
The Army National Guard officer who refuses to cooperate with the Obama administration's plan to force open homosexuality on the military is not being punished.... On the contrary, the lieutenant colonel, whose identity is being protected at his request, is getting exactly what he asked for: transfer from a command to a staff position so he will not have to order troops to undergo the Pentagon's pro-'gay' indoctrination.

"Today is my last day in command," said the career Army officer. "From now on I'll be a staff officer without a bunch of people working under me, so I won't have the moral conflict with having to enforce this new policy on them.

"It's not punitive, the state is actually standing by my position. I've worked with some really good commanders over the years and we have a good rapport."

The officer, who formerly commanded a battalion-sized unit, has strongly held religious beliefs that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and he thinks the military will be damaged severely if it implements the Obama administration's plan to allow homosexuals to serve openly. He said many of the men under his command share his views...


The officer sent WND an email explaining his position in detail. Excerpts follow:

"Commissioned officers take the following oath: 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.' Notice that the oath demands allegiance – not to one's commander, not even to the president or to a government administration – but to a set of ideas, embodied in a document called the U.S. Constitution. This is not by accident. The oath omits allegiance to men because our founding fathers recognized that some men would go astray due to lust for power, and the logical outcome of a military force with allegiance to a man is eventually a dictatorship. If anyone doubts this truth, I encourage them to read the Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler or his oath for public servants.

"Loyalty must be subordinate to that allegiance to the Constitution, and must be tempered by one's conscience. To be a good commander, one must exercise loyalty both up and down the chain of command. This demands the ability to internalize command decisions, orders, and policies, and at the same time, to stand up for one's soldiers within the context of mission accomplishment. As soon as the DADT policy repeal became law, I realized that I wouldn't be able to show loyalty to my chain of command in this one area as the new policy is forced on the military. I have the greatest respect for my chain of command, so I forwarded my request to be relieved prior to the change so I would not have to be disloyal. To those who simply think soldiering is about blindly following orders without consulting conscience, I recommend that they educate themselves about the case of a man named William Calley, the former Army lieutenant convicted on 22 counts of murder in the My Lai massacre.

"Let me be very clear that in a combat situation, I would risk and even forfeit my life if necessary, for ANY American soldier, regardless of race, gender, national origin, or even what my religious beliefs designate as an immoral lifestyle choice. At the time of this writing, the practice of sodomy is a violation of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and is therefore considered an immoral lifestyle choice. Contrary to the assumptions of many in the pro-homosexual camp, those who share my sentiments do not hate homosexuals, but we do, just as ALL prior generations, recognize the homosexual lifestyle as counter to natural law and immoral, and destructive to good order and discipline, which are crucial in a combat unit.

"Contrary to the assumptions of many in the pro-homosexual camp, those who share my sentiments do not hate homosexuals, but we do, just as ALL prior generations, recognize the homosexual lifestyle as counter to natural law and immoral, and destructive to good order and discipline which are crucial in a combat unit.

"There are those who see this as purely an issue of discrimination, which they believe is unfair in any segment of our society. 'Discrimination' has become a word that always connotes something bad. I would say to them that discrimination is not only necessary, but crucial in our military. The military has always discriminated and if we are to remain the world's premier military, we must continue to do so. Currently, the Army discriminates against those who are, by regulations, too old, too weak, too fat, too slow, too short, colorblind, asthmatic, diabetic, and a whole host of other disqualifiers. …

"True, there are certainly closeted homosexuals already in the military. There are also definitely closeted child/spouse abusers, pedophiles, adulterers, rapists, and I would guess even murderers in the military at this instant. Should we also change the UCMJ to make those activities legal? The truth is, the answer that most would give to that question is also the answer that most would have given to the question of allowing open homosexual service a generation ago. Do we continue to allow our moral compass to drift just because loud 'progressive' minorities that support immoral behaviors convince us that those behaviors should be considered 'mainstream?'"

The US Warrior is now fighting battles on several fronts... and the battle against the US Congress is now the US Warriors greatest enemy... and most dangerous battle ground.

xtnyoda, shalomed

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Locutisprime said...

IMO, he should resign his commission. If he truly serves the 'great commission.'

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) How is being gay/bi/lesbian immoral?

2) What MAKES something moral or immoral? Right or wrong? "As for me, I find homosexuality to be neither a positive or negative for society. I consider homosexuality to be like bisexuality and heterosexuality...a neutral. No victims, no suffering, no handicap to have a successful and happy life (except for homophobics, of course), so really there's no valid reason to call homosexuality immoral." ~ Endorse Freedom

3) "too old, too weak, too fat, too slow, too short, colorblind, asthmatic, diabetic, and a whole host of other disqualifies" Different from being psychically fit.

5:50 PM  
Blogger XtnYoda said...

Hello Anonymous. :-)

Of course your opening of question #2 is the crux of the issue, "What makes something moral or immoral?"

As you then explain, to make moral judgment on the basis of personal opinion is always fraught with conflict because there are quite a lot of persons with opinions. :-) Why is one opinion any more weighty than another's opinion?

Is this the basis of moral judgment, one person's opinion cast against another person's opinion?

The word "homophobics" is of course a term used for derision and scorn.

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be to question why and when the "state" ever assumed the right to determine who could or should marry who, to begin with? Why does the "state" tell people that they must come to the "state" to get a marriage license?

That is a good question to research.

God Bless!

7:28 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page