As usual, the mainstream media is presenting the debate about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a non issue and portraying any objections as the ideas of "bigots and het pigs" (as heterosexuals are called in the Castro District of San Francisco)

Of course, this is a misdirection strategy because once the homosexuals are admitted, their practices will have to be "normed" and force normal soldiers into "sensitivity training" for objecting to the unwanted advances of homosexuals. The "bathroom sex culture" of homosexuals that resulted in AIDS will become as "normal" as the wiccan movement at the Air Force Academy, which has captured headlines lately.
 
The goal of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (instituted after Clinton attempted this in the early 1990s) is not to allow homosexuals to serve in the military. The goal is to get them in and then engage in social engineering much the same as forcing Harvey Milk Day on kindergardeners and punishing 6-year-olds in Alameda who disagree with school indoctrination such as theBoy In The Bikini. An example of the 'spin" by the managed media is NPR's interview with Representative DUNCAN HUNTER (Republican, California):

BLOCK: You are not in favor of a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Why not?

Rep. HUNTER: No, because I think that its bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units, especially those that are in close combat, that are in close quarters in country right now. Its not the time to do it. I think its - the military is not civilian life. And I think the folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians.

BLOCK: Transgenders and hermaphrodites.

Rep. HUNTER: Yeah, that's going to be part of this whole thing. Its not just gays and lesbians. Its a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you're going to let anybody no matter what preference - what sexual preference they have that means the military is going to probably let everybody in. Its going to be like civilian life and the I think that that would be detrimental for the military.

BLOCK: Was there anything in your experience with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq that made you think that unit cohesion would be a real issue if gays and lesbians who, I think we can acknowledge, are serving in the military now, just not openly, were to be open about their sexual orientation?

Rep. HUNTER: Yeah, I think that the majority of people in the military are they're young kids. They usually have more conservative families, more conservative backgrounds and I think that it would go against their principles and it would frankly make everybody a little bit uneasy to be in these close situations, how you go into combat, you know, the shower situation, the bathroom situation, just, you know, very mundane details - things that we have men and women separated, you know, because we don't want to have that sexual distraction. That exists for the homosexual aspect of things, too.

BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldn't you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.

Rep. HUNTER: No, but they aren't open about it, like you just said. It's like if you want to work for NPR, you don't go to work and on the first day say, hey, I want everybody to know that I'm gay. You probably don't care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. Thats why don't ask, don't tell works.

BLOCK: Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said today in the Senate hearing that hes talked to counterparts in other countries where they do allow gays to serve openly in the military, and there has been no impact, he says, on military effectiveness. What do you think about that?

Rep. HUNTER: Let me answer with this too. Admiral Mullen is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a political appointee. And thats fine, he has his opinion. But his opinion is not necessarily that of the chief of staff of the Army or the Marine Corp commandant. But I would say in answer to your particular question, the U.S. is not Canada and were not Great Britain and I would argue that we have a superior military and a much larger military than any other country....

BLOCK: Congressman Hunter...Do you think the climate has really shifted on this since Congress took it up back in 1993 and that the times have changed?

Rep. HUNTER: Maybe civilian-wise it has. But I can show you polls that are inter-military polls that show they haven't changed. In this study that Secretary Gates set up for one year, were going to find out what the Marine Corp commandant thinks. Were going to see what General Casey and the Army thinks. Were going to see what the, you know, from private first classes in Marine force recon to Army rangers, were going to see what they think about this and I think that will be quite telling."

Did you catch the subtext? The goal is to CHANGE the military from a conservative group with Christian or at least traditional values and expose them to the "gay" agenda. Is this is what Obama's "Change" propaganda was all about?

Back in November the Washington Times reported:

"Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway has emerged in internal Pentagon deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, according to a former senior Pentagon official.

Most of the senior brass hold deep reservations about President Obama’s pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues.

But Gen. Conway has gone further than others in stating his opposition to a change in policy, according to the former official, who has been privy to private conversations on the matter. “He feels very strongly that [removing the ban] would be disruptive, and he opposes it,” said the former official.

Gen. Conway’s private remarks stand in contrast to public utterances by other service chiefs, who have restricted themselves to repeating a well-rehearsed mantra: If Congress introduces a bill to repeal the ban, they will discuss it with the chain of command. If Congress changes the law, they will follow the law.

Gen. Conway is the only chief known to have actively surveyed his generals on the impact of removing the ban. Gen. Conway’s four-year term ends in November 2010."

So, as usual, our liberal media are lying to us. The people who actually fight and bleed for us do not want homosexual indoctrination added to boot camp. New York/Hollywood types despise the military and rarely, if ever, meet anyone who has actually served and yet they want to turn the armed forces into yet another petri dish for social experimentation, in the same way that they have destroyed the public school system.

Once our Presidents actually cared about the American people: