The numbers game of "Don't ask, don't tell"
The Washington Post, Miami Herald, Associated Press and a myriad of mainstream media have been repeating some misleading figures released recently by the General Accounting Office.
The data say that American taxpayers paid some $190 million over the past 10 years susidizing the costs of the screwy Clinton legacy "Don't ask, don't tell." Those costs, according to these sources, are costs necessary to prosecute and toss out gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members who admit their homosexuality, as well as the costs of recruiting and retraining their replacements. That $190 million is a hefty chunk of money in anybody's book, and it's got several congress persons, including Republicans, signing on to a bill to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Some linguists also were discharged, putting the U.S. at risk, supporters of the measure to lift "Don't ask, don't tell" say. Even the most strident gay activist would agree, I hope, that at least one linguist deserved to be discharged. Nope, too much to hope I guess; strident gay activists don't agree, and this is probably the linquist the Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl), Hon. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), and the Hon. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) are alluding to in legislation they're supporting along with at least 50 Democrats.
It's left unsaid by those pushing this agenda that if the American public supports homosexuals serving openly in the military, the public also has to sign on to the unsaid ramifications of endorsing homosexuality in the military and endorsing homosexuality among members of the military. If I was pushing this gay agenda, I'd leave that part left unsaid as well if I wanted the public to accept it.
What is also left unsaid is the cost of allowing gay and bisexual men to continue to serve in the military, even if they don't openly admit their sexuality. One of these costs is medical care for those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who contract HIV.
The Navy Environmental Health Center says that since 1985, the Navy has identified more than 5,000 sailors and Marines who had contracted HIV. It says (Note, this link is a PDF file and you need Adobe Acrobat to view it):
The underlining is my emphasis. That's a $20 million obligation each year for just the Navy and Marine Corps if just 100 persons are found to be newly infected with HIV, or an estimated $200,000 per person over a lifetime. If you do the numbers, at $200,000 per person, the Navy and VA already has incurred an obligation of $1 Billion since 1985 for the 5,000 service members who have HIV, some of whom now have fullblown AIDS.
This cost doesn't include the other services, just the Navy and Marine Corps. Nor does it include the major component of those trying to push the "gays in the military" agenda, recruiting replacements and retraining. This $1 Billion pricetag doesn't include lost time while on active duty and the costs of non-deployability -- both monetary and in lost effectiveness. Nor does it cover costs associated with treating dependents who have become and may become infected by service members.
Of course, not all HIV positive members of the military are homosexual. Some are heterosexual. The Navy acknowledged that in a 2002 article published in the Baltimore Sun. It said:
Thus, if 60 percent of all HIV positive cases in the Navy is a result of homosexual contact, then it naturally follows that 60 percent of costs associated with HIV are incurred as a result of homosexual contact. This means that $600 million of the lifetime costs the Navy and Veterans Administration will face already have been incurred because of homosexual contact. Add to that cost $12 million every year if 60 percent of just 100 sailors and Marines contract HIV through homosexual activity. Again, this doesn't include the costs incurred by the other services.
The Urban Institute last October reported that an estimated 65,000 gay and bisexual men and women are serving in the active duty and reserves, comprising less than three (3) percent of the total military complement, yet the Navy says 60 percent of all newly identified cases of HIV result from homosexual contact, a very disproportionate number.
Can it be assumed that if more homosexuals are allowed to join the military, that costs associated with treating HIV will increase? According to research presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference held last year, yes, because risky behavior among gay men is shown to be increasing due to increasing use of recreational drugs, unsafe sexual behavior, and a belief by gay men that HIV can easily be controlled by antiretroviral drugs and not lead to deadly AIDS. U.S. News & World Reports wrote "As antiretroviral drugs become more widely available, many who study HIV worry that people are taking fewer precautions to keep from getting the virus in the first place."
This is not homophobia, and this information is not meant to demonize a class of people. It's statistics and facts, the "rest of the story" if you will, what those promoting a certain agenda aren't telling the public. You can't make an informed decision if you don't have all the facts, and these are facts those pushing the "gays in the military" agenda don't want the public to have.
I don't agree that homosexuals should serve in the military. As the military puts it, "It's prejudicial to good order and discipline." I happen to agree. I've served in the military. There's also the privacy issue, and I've already written about my feelings on that subject.
Many in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered lobby would claim that I'd already served with homosexuals. Yes, I have. As soon as these homosexuals determined they didn't like the rigors and demands of service life -- which can be very, very hard -- they'd come out of the closet and get a free ticket home at considerable expense to the taxpayer as some folk point out. And that was in 1973-1978 when I was on active duty.
Also, when I served, it was against military regulations for homosexuals to enter the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't in existence then. Yet homosexuals did enlist, homosexuals like retired Army Brig. Gen. Virgil Richard, one of three self-identified gay former military leaders promoting the bill to lift "Don't ask, don't tell." These homosexuals broke the law, lying to the military about their sexuality. Homosexuality is not a character flaw but dishonesty and lying are, and some of those homosexuals were granted security clearances and access to some this country's most closely guarded secrets. If they felt they were above the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military, what other laws would they break and did they break. Enemy agents could've used their homosexuality to blackmail them. It shows also the agencies providing background investigations on military security clearances are horribly broken and in need of major overhaul.
The needs of the service come first and foremost. The military does not exist as a grand social experiment, despite what some liberal thinkers believe. It exists to protect this country. Failure to understand that basic principle leads to a lot of misunderstanding. The military works for this country. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[Update 4/28/2005: "The military should be allowed to go back to asking about orientation and barring homosexuals from joining in the first place. Gays are the only group in society that can join the military and then decide to get out at any time with a fully honorable discharge. This has become a real scam, since over 95 percent of gays being discharged are self-referrals. They are not martyrs, as the media usually depicts them -- they knowingly abuse the system to get free training and pay at the expense of taxpayers." CDR. Wayne Johnson, JAG, USN (Ret.), commenting on his legal experience enforcing "Don't ask; don't tell"]
---The data say that American taxpayers paid some $190 million over the past 10 years susidizing the costs of the screwy Clinton legacy "Don't ask, don't tell." Those costs, according to these sources, are costs necessary to prosecute and toss out gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members who admit their homosexuality, as well as the costs of recruiting and retraining their replacements. That $190 million is a hefty chunk of money in anybody's book, and it's got several congress persons, including Republicans, signing on to a bill to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Some linguists also were discharged, putting the U.S. at risk, supporters of the measure to lift "Don't ask, don't tell" say. Even the most strident gay activist would agree, I hope, that at least one linguist deserved to be discharged. Nope, too much to hope I guess; strident gay activists don't agree, and this is probably the linquist the Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl), Hon. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), and the Hon. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) are alluding to in legislation they're supporting along with at least 50 Democrats.
It's left unsaid by those pushing this agenda that if the American public supports homosexuals serving openly in the military, the public also has to sign on to the unsaid ramifications of endorsing homosexuality in the military and endorsing homosexuality among members of the military. If I was pushing this gay agenda, I'd leave that part left unsaid as well if I wanted the public to accept it.
What is also left unsaid is the cost of allowing gay and bisexual men to continue to serve in the military, even if they don't openly admit their sexuality. One of these costs is medical care for those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who contract HIV.
The Navy Environmental Health Center says that since 1985, the Navy has identified more than 5,000 sailors and Marines who had contracted HIV. It says (Note, this link is a PDF file and you need Adobe Acrobat to view it):
"In 2004, 106 active duty Sailors and Marines became infected with HIV. Since 1985, over 5000 active duty Sailors and Marines have been infected with HIV, most of whom have been lost to the service. Of the 480 HIV positive members remaining on active duty at the end of 2004, none are deployable, and the DoN incurs an annual health care cost of approximately $6 million ($12,000 per person) and approximately 10,000 lost duty days (20 per person). The DoN acquires a new estimated $20 million obligation each year for the lifetime HIV health care costs of each newly infected member ($200,000 per person at the annual infection rates of 100 Sailors and Marines) with some significant portion of this passed on to the Veteran's Administration upon separation of the member. Retraining costs for the HIV infected members who separate from service have not been calculated."
The underlining is my emphasis. That's a $20 million obligation each year for just the Navy and Marine Corps if just 100 persons are found to be newly infected with HIV, or an estimated $200,000 per person over a lifetime. If you do the numbers, at $200,000 per person, the Navy and VA already has incurred an obligation of $1 Billion since 1985 for the 5,000 service members who have HIV, some of whom now have fullblown AIDS.
This cost doesn't include the other services, just the Navy and Marine Corps. Nor does it include the major component of those trying to push the "gays in the military" agenda, recruiting replacements and retraining. This $1 Billion pricetag doesn't include lost time while on active duty and the costs of non-deployability -- both monetary and in lost effectiveness. Nor does it cover costs associated with treating dependents who have become and may become infected by service members.
Of course, not all HIV positive members of the military are homosexual. Some are heterosexual. The Navy acknowledged that in a 2002 article published in the Baltimore Sun. It said:
About 60 percent of the new HIV infections in the military are from homosexual contact ... but infections from heterosexual contact are increasing, particularly among young, inner-city black men.This 60 percent is an estimate because under the requirements of "Don't ask, don't tell," the member of the military isn't legally required to admit he is gay or bisexual. So the 60 percent comes from personnel who admitted to medical personnel they'd had homosexual contact.
Thus, if 60 percent of all HIV positive cases in the Navy is a result of homosexual contact, then it naturally follows that 60 percent of costs associated with HIV are incurred as a result of homosexual contact. This means that $600 million of the lifetime costs the Navy and Veterans Administration will face already have been incurred because of homosexual contact. Add to that cost $12 million every year if 60 percent of just 100 sailors and Marines contract HIV through homosexual activity. Again, this doesn't include the costs incurred by the other services.
The Urban Institute last October reported that an estimated 65,000 gay and bisexual men and women are serving in the active duty and reserves, comprising less than three (3) percent of the total military complement, yet the Navy says 60 percent of all newly identified cases of HIV result from homosexual contact, a very disproportionate number.
Can it be assumed that if more homosexuals are allowed to join the military, that costs associated with treating HIV will increase? According to research presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference held last year, yes, because risky behavior among gay men is shown to be increasing due to increasing use of recreational drugs, unsafe sexual behavior, and a belief by gay men that HIV can easily be controlled by antiretroviral drugs and not lead to deadly AIDS. U.S. News & World Reports wrote "As antiretroviral drugs become more widely available, many who study HIV worry that people are taking fewer precautions to keep from getting the virus in the first place."
This is not homophobia, and this information is not meant to demonize a class of people. It's statistics and facts, the "rest of the story" if you will, what those promoting a certain agenda aren't telling the public. You can't make an informed decision if you don't have all the facts, and these are facts those pushing the "gays in the military" agenda don't want the public to have.
I don't agree that homosexuals should serve in the military. As the military puts it, "It's prejudicial to good order and discipline." I happen to agree. I've served in the military. There's also the privacy issue, and I've already written about my feelings on that subject.
Many in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered lobby would claim that I'd already served with homosexuals. Yes, I have. As soon as these homosexuals determined they didn't like the rigors and demands of service life -- which can be very, very hard -- they'd come out of the closet and get a free ticket home at considerable expense to the taxpayer as some folk point out. And that was in 1973-1978 when I was on active duty.
Also, when I served, it was against military regulations for homosexuals to enter the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't in existence then. Yet homosexuals did enlist, homosexuals like retired Army Brig. Gen. Virgil Richard, one of three self-identified gay former military leaders promoting the bill to lift "Don't ask, don't tell." These homosexuals broke the law, lying to the military about their sexuality. Homosexuality is not a character flaw but dishonesty and lying are, and some of those homosexuals were granted security clearances and access to some this country's most closely guarded secrets. If they felt they were above the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military, what other laws would they break and did they break. Enemy agents could've used their homosexuality to blackmail them. It shows also the agencies providing background investigations on military security clearances are horribly broken and in need of major overhaul.
The needs of the service come first and foremost. The military does not exist as a grand social experiment, despite what some liberal thinkers believe. It exists to protect this country. Failure to understand that basic principle leads to a lot of misunderstanding. The military works for this country. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[Update 4/28/2005: "The military should be allowed to go back to asking about orientation and barring homosexuals from joining in the first place. Gays are the only group in society that can join the military and then decide to get out at any time with a fully honorable discharge. This has become a real scam, since over 95 percent of gays being discharged are self-referrals. They are not martyrs, as the media usually depicts them -- they knowingly abuse the system to get free training and pay at the expense of taxpayers." CDR. Wayne Johnson, JAG, USN (Ret.), commenting on his legal experience enforcing "Don't ask; don't tell"]
Neat Freebie: Check into VirtualArmory for your free "American Hero Bracelet." The site is operated by the Army National Guard and is designed primarily as a recruiting tool, but if you don't mind entering some personal information, the Army National Guard will send you a metal band that looks very much like the POW/MIA bracelet I used to wear in the '60s. It's numbered and the Army National Guard says it's giving away one bracelet for every serving Guardsman. It took about two months to get mine, but it's nice. From the website: "The American Hero Band is a free wrist band worn by Americans to demonstrate their support of the 'Defenders of Freedom' who are Army National Guard Soldiers deployed across the globe. Engraved on the metallic wrist band are the words IN HONOR OF AN AMERICAN HERO, SERVING IN THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD. These words are flanked left by the Army National Guard logo and right by the American Flag. There is also an inscription of the National Guard web site, www.VirtualArmory.com, and a unique serial number engraved inside this commemorative wrist band."
---
posted by NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist @ 21:55
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home