Sunday, 14 February 2010
Abstinence-only programs might work, study says
clear


teensCOMMENT: It is encouraging to finally get some public recognition for something we have known to be true. Just one example from here in Tennessee:

Blount Nurses for for Health Education, Blount County, TN, Abstinence Education Program:
1999 --17.7 pregnancies per 1000
2004 -- 8.7 pregnancies per 1000
(TN Department of Health)

Survey of U.S. Parents and Teens:  Nearly all of the adults (91%) and teens (94%) surveyed believe that it is important for teens to be given a strong message from society that they should not have sex until they are at least out of High schools. See what parents prefer
HEREWhat are they teaching at YOUR student's school??

Speaking of sex education and activity -- Supporters of Gardasil are still pushing this 'vaccine' on our young daughters - go HERE for important information -  now  they are after our sons too!  This is perfectly ridiculous:

New Childhood Vaccines Schedules Released
Boys should get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to protect them against genital warts, and all children should receive the H1N1 vaccine to guard against swine flu, according to updated guidelines on childhood and teen vaccines.
The new vaccine schedules -- issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Family Physicians -- also recommend using combination vaccines whenever possible.
Read more here.
 

Abstinence-only programs might work, study says

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010; A01

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

The findings are the first clear evidence that an abstinence program could work.

"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After falling for more than a decade, the numbers of births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing.

The Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective. Instead, the White House is launching a $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work -- a program the administration on Monday proposed expanding to $183 million.

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex."

The study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully designed approach comparing it with several alternative strategies and following subjects for an extended period of time, considered the kind of study that produces the highest level of scientific evidence.

"This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. "I've always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap."

Longtime critics of the approach praised the study, saying it provides strong evidence that such programs can work and might merit taxpayer support.

"One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire," said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.

"No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention," said Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program is equivalent to many other well-designed abstinence curricula that are thorough, tailor their messages to students' ages and provide detailed information.

"For our critics to use marriage as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

The study released Monday involved 662 African American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004. Read more here.

Abstinence Education Effective in Reducing Teen Sex, Comprehensive Sex Ed Not
clear
Posted on 02/14/2010 2:53 PM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Global Warming Is Frozen Over
clear

Great slide show HERE.

Global Warming Is Frozen Over
By Phyllis Schlafly

Whether or not the groundhog sees his shadow on February 2, there's no denying that January put into a deep freeze the claims of crisis by global warming alarmists. Frigid temperatures destroyed fruit and coral in Florida, and snow fell on Al Gore's palatial home in normally warmer Tennessee.

The 20,000 delegates and journalists who gathered in Copenhagen to discuss climate change had to spend some of their energy hiding their embarrassment about the revelation of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit, which is an official collaborator of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Those disclosures told the world about some scientists' willingness to suppress climate-change data and rig the process in order to pretend there is consensus among scientists about global warming, to ostracize contrary views, and to promote their globalist agenda.

Obama's State of the Union demand for cap-and-trade legislation fell on deaf ears. Maybe that's because Obama is on record as promising that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be reduced to our 1910 level of emissions, when we had a population of 92 million.

Such a massive reduction in our energy use would mean lowering our standard of living to 19th century levels. The only Republican Senator willing to work with the Democrats on climate change legislation, Lindsey Graham, admitted that "the cap-and-trade bills in the House and Senate are going nowhere."

Even the New York Times admitted that "prospects grew dimmer" for the global warming advocates because Scott Brown repudiated cap-and-trade in his winning campaign in Massachusetts. Some incumbents who voted for the House bill find that challengers are scoring points with the public by attacking that vote.

January ended with a cold blast reportedly from Osama bin Laden blaming the United States for not halting what he called "the global warming crisis" and for failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol. He wants to punish us by getting the global economy to abandon the U.S. dollar.

What was to have been the baptism of the major nations into the religion of global warming in Copenhagen, Denmark, turned out to be a dry run. President Obama came and left empty handed, Communist China refused to limit emissions, and the Third World dictators didn't get the $100 billion handouts they expected.

At the close of the Copenhagen confab, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus made this same point about global warming. "I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon," he said, "global warming is not a matter of temperature. Global warming is a new religion, a religion of climate change. . . .

"This religion tells us that people are responsible for very small increases in temperatures, and they should be punished. . . . I'm absolutely convinced that the very small global warming we are experiencing is the result of natural causes. It's a cyclical phenomenon in the history of the Earth.

"The role of man is very small, almost negligible. Politicians, their fellow travelers, and the media understood that this is a good topic to take on, because talking about the world in the years 2050, 2080, and 2200 is an excellent way to escape from current reality."

President Klaus sent a message to the world: Do not dictate to humanity how to live based on an "irrational ideology." Man's natural ingenuity can create new technologies that will lessen any impact that mankind has on the planet's environment.

Vaclav Klaus concluded: "I lived in a Communist world where politicians told us what to do. I don't think politicians or presidents should tell business what to do. That is always a mistake."

Nevertheless the propaganda continues. A father's letter to the editor of the Education Reporter described what his 5th-grade daughter Lily, at Three Oaks Elementary, Fort Myers, Florida, said she had learned in school. "I would rather just shoot myself in the head because it would be a less painful death than to suffer and die from global warming."

Thousands of public school students have been shown Al Gore's propaganda movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Another movie called "The Story of Stuff" is also shown in classrooms to teach students the evils of human consumption.

The movie projects a very negative view of capitalism and paints human use of natural resources as "exploitation," which is supposed to be synonymous with trashing the planet. The movie accuses us of chopping down the trees, blowing up mountains to get the metals inside, using up all the water, and wiping out the animals.

The main cause of unemployment and poverty is the lack of enough energy. Rather than expanding government to limit energy, we should be increasing the use of energy to eradicate hardship.


Further reading:

clear
Posted on 02/14/2010 2:51 PM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Health Care Bill Not Quite As Dead As We would Like
clear

See: We are 'one vote away' in the House.

NEWS FLASH:
Despite his drawbacks, don't think Brown's election made a real difference?

Senator Says Deal Was Reached on Pro-Abortion Health Care Before Brown Win

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --
In one of the first concrete confirmations that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts disrupted the effort to approve the pro-abortion health care bill, a top senator says a deal was in place to approve it but Brown's election prevented it from going forward. Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown’s victory. But with Brown becoming the 41st vote in the Senate against the bill and for a filibuster, the latest revelation shows how agonizingly close Democrats came to passing a final healthcare bill in time for President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Harkin, who was present for the talks, told The Hill “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn't get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, January 15. Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill. Now, Democratic lawmakers have since turned their attention to passing a comprehensive -- instead of a scaled-down -- healthcare bill, using the reconciliation process to make changes and approving smaller bills as a lead-in to that controversial idea.

Speaking for Scott Brown - He was sworn in yesterday so it is offically Senator Brown   -- his campaign produced an excellent ad called The Massachusetts Miracle.  It is worth watching.

If your Congressman is Lincoln Davis, Jim Cooper, Bart Gordon, John Tanner or Steve Cohen, go HERE to send your congressman a message.
Out of State Subscribers go HERE to find your Congressman.



No 2 ObamaCareCOMMENT:  Despite the fact that the American people do not see health care as a priority President Obama and congressional leaders are still  promoting  his health care. While most folks view the election of  Scott Brown as a clear 'message' on the Obama-Reid-Pelosi health care effort, the administration evidently has not completely received the  message.  Talk about being 'tone deaf'!  I am very happy to report that  time has proven that my friend Dr. Allen Quist, a Republican candidate for congress in Minnesota, was EXACTLY  correct when he exposed the 'marriage penalty' in the health care bill. 
Read The Marriage Penalty
HERE.
In addition, the priorities for the American people are
Economy, Jobs and Terrorism, not ObamaCare.

Senate Health Care Bill Gives $7 Billion to Health Centers, Could Fund Abortions
A new analysis of the Senate health care bill finds a section of the manager's amendment Senate Leader Harry Reid added to the bill that could find billions of dollars going to abortion funding. The little noticed provision could open a new door to direct taxpayer funding of abortions.During the closing stages of the Senate’s deliberations on its health care bill, HR 3590, Reid got his lengthy manager's amendment added to the measure. Read more HERE.

Top Democrat Working With White House For Abortion Funding in Health Care
Rep. Diana DeGette, the Colorado Democrat who leads the caucus of pro-abortion lawmakers, says she has been talking with the White House and others about how to resolve the abortion differences in the two bills.
The House measure contains the Stupak amendment that effectively bans government-funding of abortions under the health care plan -- consistent with current federal law under the Hyde amendment.
The Senate bill contains the Nelson-Reid deal that contains six different pro-abortion threats and forces taxpayers to pay for abortions. Read more HERE.

Some good news in the mix: Sen. Snowe Flat Out Rejects Reconciliation in Talks with Dems


Democrats quietly working to resuscitate healthcare overhaul
President Obama's campaign to overhaul the nation's healthcare system is officially on the back burner as Democrats turn to the task of stimulating job growth, but behind the scenes party leaders have nearly settled on a strategy to salvage the massive legislation.
They are meeting almost daily to plot legislative moves while gently persuading skittish rank-and-file lawmakers to back a sweeping bill
This effort is deliberately being undertaken quietly as Democrats work to focus attention on more-popular initiatives to bring down unemployment, which the president said was a priority in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.
Many have concluded that the only hope for resuscitating the healthcare legislation is to push the issue off the front page and give lawmakers time to work out a new compromise and shift public perception of the bill.
Read more here.

Pelosi vow for all-out health war
Despite polls showing adamant voter opposition to Democratic health-care legislation, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi said yesterday she's determined to jam a bill through Congress.
"You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence," she told reporters.
"If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in, but we're going to get health reform passed."
But first, she said,
Democrats must work out significant differences among themselves, specifically between the Senate version of the bill and the more liberal House version, which would expand the federal government's role in health care even more.
Read more HERE.



Boehner: Health Care Bill ‘Not Quite As Dead as I Want It’
(CNSNews.com)
- Two days after Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts, vowing to vote against the Democrats' health care bill in the Senate, House Minority Leader John Boehner said the bill that passed the House in November was "dead" but "maybe not quite as dead as I want it."

 

Liberal leaders on Capitol Hill now have 3 options with regard to ObamaCare:

1. Scrap It – The most obvious option is for the Senate not to take any action on the House version of ObamaCare and the House to do the same with the Senate version of health care reform. Starting over on health care reform would consist of taking smaller bites of ObamaCare and working with Republicans to pass elements that have bipartisan support.

2. Pass It ASAP (also known as the Thelma and Louise Strategy) – The most dangerous option for liberals is to forge ahead with ObamaCare and attempt a strong-arm strategy to get it passed within the next few weeks. It is possible for the House to take up the Senate bill in an attempt to pass something this year. The House would need a simple majority and the bill would go to the President’s desk. Reconciliation could be used as a means to get a technical corrections measure to the Senate requiring only a simple majority to pass. This would effectively be the Congress doubling down on ObamaCare and ignoring the will of the American people.

3. Lame Duck Strategy – Wait until the 2010 elections are over and jam everything into a reconciliation bill. There may be so many members who have lost their jobs, they may be willing to pass something during the post election time when they have already lost their jobs. Source HERE.

Polls finds growing fears on health bill
WASHINGTON - Fears about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul increased significantly in December, according to a new poll released as the legislation's future hangs in doubt.

The monthly poll out Tuesday from the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation measured consumers' views of how a remake would affect their own finances and access to care, among other things.

It was conducted between Nov. 28 and Dec. 20, in the run-up to the Senate's Christmas Eve passage of sweeping health care legislation that brought Congress closer than ever before to enacting a comprehensive revamp of the nation's medical system. That effort was cast into turmoil last week when a GOP victory in Massachusetts' special Senate election robbed Democrats of their filibuster-proof supermajority.
The survey shows a majority are following the health care debate in Congress — and their trepidation is evidently growing as they do.

Nonetheless, people still think that Obama should address the issue as part of dealing with the nation's economic slump, although the percentage of people who say that it's very important for Obama to do so has slipped from 56 percent in the survey conducted in September, to 49.5 percent in this month's report.

Among the poll's other findings:

33 percent of respondents said they believed their access to care would be worse if a health care overhaul occurred, a jump from 25 percent in the poll released last month. Thirteen percent said they thought they would have better access to care in a remade system, about the same as last month. Read more here.
clear
Posted on 02/14/2010 2:50 PM by Bobbie Patray
clear
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Changing 'Don't Ask,Don't tell'?
clear



service buttons
COMMENT:  It is about military readiness and effectiveness, not "civil rights'.  There is no constitutional right to serve in the military and the military is no place for social experimentation.  Opporutnity for military service is limited in a number of ways. Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way. Making these changes could result in resistance in the ranks, hurt morale, damage trust and unit cohesion, affect recruitment and one study showed it would impact re-enlistments. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”


1.  DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops
2. Iraq Veteran Leads 'Don't Ask' Push


Go HERE to send your Tennessee Congressman a message.
Out of State Subscribers go
HERE to find your congressman.

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued a statement.
[Elaine is a personal friend and has been working in this field for many years.]

1. DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops

 In response to a plan that an AP report said would be presented before the Senate Armed Services Committee today by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not compromise principle by proposing an unworkable plan to undermine the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10).  The testimony that Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to deliver suggests an irresponsible plan that would incrementally eviscerate the law by unilaterally suspending its enforcement for specious reasons.

“Such a plan would create an incentive for “third parties” to guarantee retention of gay partners in the military simply by identifying their partner as gay.  Homosexuals would become a protected class under standards different from everyone else.  This would constitute a clear violation of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, and establish a double standard that, in the name of ‘consistency,’ weakens discipline across the board.

“Finding #9 in the law could not be more clear: The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.’  Finding #10 reads, ‘Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.’ 

Furthermore, Finding #13 clearly asserts: The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.”  There is nothing in the actual law that authorizes the institutional dishonesty inherent in Secretary Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s reported plan to establish a double standard for homosexuals who are not eligible to serve in the military.”

Donnelly continued, “The Secretary of Defense does not get to choose which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not.  Nor does he have the power to issue regulations that contradict the law, creating confusion and demoralizing the troops in order to help President Obama deliver on a political promise.”

 

“If the Defense Department excuses the behavior of personnel who show poor judgment by engaging in homosexual conduct revealed by others, there will be more misconduct, not less.  This is a plan for officially condoned indiscipline, in violation of the clear language and intent of the law.”

 Background:

This article provides background on the genesis of Secretary Gates peculiar comment about more “humane” ways to enforce the 1993 law:
Defining Discipline Down

The idea of finding a more “humane” way to enforce “DADT” began when Air Force Lt. Victor Fehrenbach was “outed” by a “third party,” who turned out to be a young man that Fehrenbach had solicited for sexual activity on a gay website.  The two shared a hot tub, but the younger man accused Fehrenbach of sexual assault in a late-night call to the police.  Fehrenbach cleared himself of the charge—the encounter was consensual—but the process revealed that he was a homosexual and therefore not eligible to be in the service.  (Fehrenbach has allowed himself to be described as an F-15 pilot, but he is actually a weapons systems officer or WSO.)

 Fehrenbach told only part of his story on national television, to the applause of gay activist groups pushing for repeal of the 1993 law.  He was also a guest at the White House during President Obama’s June 2009 “LGBT Equality” month promoting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered cause.  Although Secretary Gates did not mention Fehrenbach by name at the time he was in the news, the aviator’s carefully air-brushed personal story apparently led to the “more humane” comment from Gates.

Shortly thereafter, the Idaho Statesman published a detailed report that told the rest of the story.  CMR requested a copy of the police report and quoted it in the article above.

In most cases, homosexuals reveal themselves to be gay, and they are honorably discharged.  If credible information comes to the attention of military authorities, and there are no unusual circumstances that rebut the reasonable “presumption” of homosexual conduct, the person in question is subject to discharge, usually honorable.  Anyone who engages in homosexual conduct is, by definition, not eligible to be in the armed forces. 

President Obama is promoting a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces.  A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and more than 180 others, H.R. 1283, would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.”  If passed, the law would be retroactive—allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged.  The LGBT Law would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.

As stated in the statute itself, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.”  Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.

There is no way that a Pentagon panel of any size can come up with a plan to make the LGBT agenda work with no negative effects on recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military.  CMR has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be:

Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military

More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, will be in Washington, D.C. and available for interviews.


 
HR 1283 has
187 sponsors including Steve Cohen from Memphis.

2. Iraq Veteran Leads 'Don't Ask' Push

The Obama administration's staunchest ally in the uphill fight to allow gays to openly serve in the nation's military is a little-known Democratic congressman named Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran who has written the only legislation that would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions.

Mr. Murphy, a two-term Democrat from Pennsylvania, served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division and was the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress. His bill has 187 co-sponsors, leaving it just 31 votes short of the 218 needed to ensure passage.

"The momentum is clearly on our side," he said in an interview. "It's time for Congress to have the guts to stop turning its back on talented and professional soldiers just because they're gay."

With Defense Secretary Robert Gates heading to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to lay out the Pentagon's preparations for a possible repeal of the 16-year-old ban, the long-dormant political battle over the "don't ask, don't tell" provisions is heating up.

But it is far from clear that enough Democrats from moderate or conservative states will want to risk casting a politically sensitive vote in favor of repealing the ban.

Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, opposes repealing the ban and has said his full committee won't hold a hearing on Rep. Murphy's bill, complicating its path to a vote.

Mr. Skelton's Senate counterpart, Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, supports eliminating the ban, but some lawmakers have said they are waiting to hear the Pentagon's full recommendations before introducing a bill. Such a step could be months away.

Mr. Gates's appearance Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee alongside Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will mark the first time that senior Pentagon officials lay out their thinking for how the ban could be repealed.

Defense officials and congressional aides said that Mr. Gates and Adm. Mullen would announce an internal Pentagon review into the thorny legal and logistical questions that would need to be confronted if Congress repealed the ban, including whether the military would extend marriage and bereavement benefits to the partners of gay service members.

Mr. Gates has made clear in the past that he thinks Congress should move slowly on the issue and give the Defense Department adequate time to prepare for the changes.

Some of the Pentagon's top military officers also oppose lifting the restrictions, at least in the short term.

A senior military official said that Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, believes the ban shouldn't be lifted until the U.S. completes its withdrawal from Iraq.

A second member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, also believes eliminating the "don't ask, don't tell" provisions would harm military readiness, according to military officials familiar with his thinking.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an advocacy group that favors the ban, echoed the concerns of many Republicans, saying that allowing gays to serve openly would threaten the military's ability to recruit and retain talented soldiers.

"Nothing can or should be done that could harm military readiness in wartime," she said. Read more here.



clear
Posted on 02/11/2010 3:50 PM by Bobbie Patray
clear
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28