ABC News reported on December 16, 2010; ” The stress of being the gay soldier who publicly challenged the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law — facing the inevitable scrutiny that comes with being an activist — may have become too much for Lt. Dan Choi. Last Friday, 29-year-old Choi was admitted to the psychiatric ward at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Brockton, Mass., telling supporters in an e-mail that he had experienced a "breakdown and anxiety attack."
“Those close to Choi said he would likely be released today or Friday. He did not return telephone calls and e-mails from ABCNews.com.”
“Choi, who had chained himself to the White House fence three times in protest of the law that bans gays from openly serving in the military, said all veterans carry "human burdens."
“He wrote on friend Pam Spaulding's website, Pam's House Blend, that he had been betrayed by "elected leaders and gay organizations as well as many who have exploited my name."
“When ABC Radio contacted Choi in his hospital room Wednesday, Choi said only, "It's not easy," sounding glum, according to reporter Steve Portnoy.”
According to the Huffington Post Choi wrote Pam’s House Blend Blog; “I did not initially want to publicize this but I now realize it is critical for our community to know several things: veterans gay or straight carry human burdens, Activists share similar burdens, no activist should be portrayed as super human, and the failures of government and national lobbying carry consequences far beyond the careers and reputations of corporate leaders, elected officials, High powered lobbyists, or political elites. They ruin lives. My breakdown was a result of a cumulative array of stressors but there is no doubt that the composite betrayals felt on Thursday, by elected leaders and gay organizations as well as many who have exploited my name for their marketing purposes have added to the result. I am certain my experience is not an isolated incident within the gay veteran community."
“At the same time, those who have been closest to me know that I truly appreciate their gracious help and mentorship. I am indebted to their hospitality and leadership.”
Poor Dan Choi. Like Lt. Colonel Terrence Lakin, who faced a military courts martial and was found guilty of disobeying orders to deploy to Afghanistan, Choi is a pawn of those with agendas that do not consider their welfare.
In Lakin’s case is was his refusal to deploy because he believed the Commander-in-Chief, Barak Obama, could not issue a legitimate order due to questions about his birth certificate. He was pushed into this by his belief in the “birther movement”.
The Huffington Post report of December 15 states; “An Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questioned President Barack Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief told a jury Wednesday he was wrong to do so and would now deploy if he could. Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo. was speaking during a court martial hearing Wednesday at Fort Meade.”
“He faces up to 3 1/2 years in a military prison and dismissal from the Army after being found guilty of missing a flight that would have gotten him to his eventual deployment and pleading guilty to disobeying orders to meet with a superior and to report to Fort Campbell in Kentucky. He asked the jury to let him remain in the Army when it decides his punishment, and jurors are expected to begin deliberating on his sentence on Thursday.”
"I don't want it to end this way," said Lakin, a 17-year veteran of the Army. "I want to continue to serve."
“Under questioning by his defense attorney, Neal Puckett, Lakin expressed remorse for disobeying orders. He said he now understands that the Army cannot answer his question about Obama's eligibility to be president and that it was not the appropriate place to raise the issue. "I was wrong for trying to push this issue within the Army," he said.”
Choi’s case is similar in that he decided to ignore the military’s DADT policy and “tell” in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, a self proclaimed lesbian, that he was a homosexual. Since then he has been an activist for abolishing of DADT. He has appeared on left-leaning shows and participated in demonstrations even to the extent of chaining himself to the fence around the White House. To this date no action has been taken against Choi for his actions.
The Military Times, a liberal Gannett publication favoring inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military, released an astonishing poll of active-duty subscribers. Results of the 2008 annual survey indicate that success for that cause essentially would destroy the volunteer force.
As in previous years, the annual Military Times Poll reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal what the survey described as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” The catchphrase incorrectly labels the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military.
This is poll, and others of active military personnel, contradicts the reported 67% approval rate of abolishing DADT by the general public. The Defense Department sent out 400,000 questionnaires to military families asking if DADT should be repealed. The response was mixed with troops serving combat were not in favor of repeal, but those not in combat favored the repeal. The interesting fact of the poll was that only 150,000 questionnaires were returned. Perhaps 250,000 did not want to go on record with their views.
Ann Coulter writes in World Net Daily; “Even more absurdly, the Pentagon polled all military "personnel" – and their spouses! Only a small portion of what is known as "the military" actually does the fighting. The rest is a vast bureaucracy along the lines of the DMV.”
“Today's military features "victim advocates" and sensitivity training facilitators, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services personnel and a million other goo-goo positions. How did we ever take the shores of Normandy without a phalanx of "sensitivity training" counselors?”
“No one has any need to be reassured that the military's "social action" staff will enjoy working with gays. Whatever a career in "social action" entails, it better be gay-friendly. Frankly, it's appalling the Pentagon's poll of all military personnel and their families didn't produce better numbers for the gays.”
Coulter continues; “There are far more discharges for pregnancy and "parenthood" than for homosexuality. In the past five years, less than 1 percent of all unplanned military discharges (i.e. not due to retirement or completion of service) were for homosexuality.
Here's a record of the discharges for 2008, according to the Defense Department:
- Drugs: 5,627
- Serious offenses: 3,817
- Weight standards: 4,555
- Pregnancy: 2,353
- Parenthood: 2,574
- Homosexuality: 634
The DADT issue is just the first shot by those who want to destroy our military and its fighting capabilities. Following Cloward & Piven’s strategy of creating enough chaos to collapse the system these left-wing, anti-military groups will continue to press for more chaotic changes in the military until it is no longer an effective fighting force.
We already have women in combat situations, which cause men to think more of saving the woman than completing the mission. We will soon have women on submarines, a condition that no doubt will create tensions, where tensions are not needed. Special diets will be next — kosher, halal, vegan or no salt. Then will come diversities in the dress code — piercing will be allowed for those who want to express their individuality. If homosexual men can take showers with other men and ogle them than straight men should have the same right of showering with women and vice versa. No doubt this will coming down the pike in the future.
The military is not a democracy and it is not an extension of civilian life. Many of the rights civilian have under the Constitution are not honored in the military. The military has their own unique set of laws and rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As example the UCMJ does not permit criticisms of the commander-in chief or superior officers to the extent the First Amendment of the Bill or Rights does. Political speech is not protected in the military.
As long as this is an all volunteer military force those who wish to serve, for whatever reason should understand that the military is not civilian life and for reasons of discipline and cohesion the same rules do not apply.