U.S. defense officials deliberately skewed survey results to sway ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 22, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An explosive document from the U.S. military’s top investigative office has revealed evidence that a Pentagon survey pivotal to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal was engineered months prior to its release, and deliberately skewed in later media leaks, to sway Congress towards repeal despite opposition from combat troops.
An unredacted version of the April 2011 report by the Defense department’s Inspector General was leaked to the conservative Center for Military Readiness, and a slightly redacted version was confirmed as authentic by a Defense spokesperson to LifeSiteNews.com.
The authors found that Jeh Johnson, a co-chair of the commission handling the survey, had breached the document’s non-disclosure agreements by discussing an early draft of the document with “a former news anchor” and “close personal friend” on or around July 4, 2010. The purpose of the meeting, almost six months before the survey’s official end, was to obtain “suggestions for persuasive writing” in addition to syntax and sentence structure, according to investigators.
When the former news anchor was confronted, the IG reports that the individual said he/she was “pleased that finally the United States was getting around to this idea [repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’] and I was struck by how many members of the United States Armed Services thought this was just fine.” The individual said that he/she reached the conclusion about troops favoring repeal based on a sentence in the document she saw in July.
However, according to the survey itself, the survey’s 103 questions were not transmitted to troops until July 7, and were available online through August 15.
Further evidence of tampering emerged while investigating a source who breached non-disclosure agreements by leaking survey results to the media weeks before its release. Investigators concluded that, in addition to violating protocol, the source was “not a ‘disinterested party’” and deliberately skewed the information to favor a repeal of DADT.
“[E]vidence showed the source carefully disclosed specific survey data to support a pro-repeal agenda ... to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress,” write the authors.
Investigators even say the source, who had access to the near-final survey draft, acted in spite of presumed opposition from military servicemen themselves.
“Early evidence suggested that the primary source of the information was someone who had a strong emotional attachment to the issue of furthering a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and probably had ‘assumptions going in’ that the [Comprehensive Review Working Group]‘s findings would ultimately reveal a repeal would not be supported by a majority of Service members,” states the report.
The document notes that “96 of the 101 individuals” with access to the draft report’s data “each denied under oath” that they were the source, leaving too little evidence to reveal the source’s identity. The remaining five, all White House officials whom Johnson briefed on the survey on November 9, appear not to have been questioned.
Two prominent recipients of the leaked information, the authors of a November 11 Washington Post article, claimed that 70 percent of military respondents said the effect of a DADT repeal would “positive, mixed, or nonexistent” and that the results had “led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.”
But investigators note that the Post’s enormously influential figure could have been re-phrased for the exact opposite effect, hinging upon use of the “mixed effect” statistic.
“If [Post authors] Mr. O’Keefe’s and Mr. Jaffe’s sources had 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,’” wrote officials.
Taken apart from the “mixed effect” statistic, the survey’s findings show evidence of strong opposition to repeal, particularly among troops with on-the-ground experience. Among respondents with combat deployment experience since September 11, 2011, four times as many troops said that a repeal would have a negative or very negative impact in a field environment than those who anticipated a positive/very positive impact - 44 percent to 11 percent.
In addition, over twelve times as many Marine combat troops said repeal would impact unit readiness negatively as those who responded positively, while Army combat troops were six times more likely to be negative than positive.
The skewed representation, however, eventually became a sturdy talking point for both media and policymakers in the months after the November 30 release.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates defended repeal in December by asserting that “a strong majority of those who answered the survey - more than two-thirds - do not object” to repeal. In an AP report Friday on Obama’s scheduled repeal announcement, the survey was similarly represented as finding that “two thirds of troops did not care if the ban ended.”
Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.
I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:
Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.
Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.
After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.
The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.
So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.
When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.
Target boycott climbs to over 1 million
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms.
The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.
“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans. Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy. Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable. And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”
Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.”
The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.
“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says.
The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children.
“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked.
There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so.
“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”
Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins
CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.
Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.
At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.
“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”
The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.
“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”
One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.
“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”
“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”
Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.
But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.
The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.
Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.
“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”
Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:
The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.