Dear  Friends,  

 

In  the  past  four  years,  our  nation  has  witnessed  a  parade  of  governmental  and  judicial  policies  

that  have  assaulted  traditional  moral  and  spiritual  values.  Almost  every  day,  a  disturbing  new  

development   comes   to   light.   President   Barack  Obama   promised   during   his   first   campaign   to  

bring  "change"  and  "transformation"  to  America,  but  he  didn't  tell  us  how  he  was  going  to  do  it.  

Now  we  know.  His  administration  has  marshaled  grievous  attacks  on   religious   liberty,  on   the  

sanctity  of  human  life,  on  the  military,  on  the  traditional  family,  and  on  the  principles  that  made  

this  nation  great.  What  began  as  a  snowstorm  in  2009  has  become  an  avalanche  in  2013.  

This  past  May,  Newsweek  named  Obama  "the  first  gay  president,"  after  he  announced  that  his  

views  on  same-­‐sex  marriage  had  "evolved."  1  Numerous  radical  decisions  continue  to  flow  from  

that  repositioning.  

 

Recently,  for  example,  the  President,  the  U.S.  Attorney  General  and  more  than  200  Democrat  

leaders  began  putting  pressure  on  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court  to  strike  down  Proposition  8,  which  

was   supported   by   more   than   seven   million   California   voters   in   a   statewide   ballot.   This  

amendment  to  the  State  Constitution  declared  that  the  institution  of  marriage  was  henceforth  

defined  exclusively  as  being  between  one  man  and  one  woman.   It  was  a  great  victory  for  the  

family.  Then  the  lawsuits  began  to  fly.  

 

Proposition  8  was  struck  down  by  a  liberal  judge,  who  is  a  self-­‐acknowledged  homosexual,  and  

his   decision  was   upheld   by   the   California   Supreme   Court.  2   Now   the   case   is   before   the  U.S.  

Supreme  Court.  The  future  of  this  5,000-­‐year-­‐old  institution  known  as  marriage,  which  has  been  

honored  in  law  and  custom  everywhere  humankind  has  taken  root,  now  hangs  in  the  balance.  If  

President  Obama  and  his  Attorney  General  have   their  way,   voters  who   supported   traditional  

marriage  in  30  states  will  be  slapped  down.  

 

Whatever  happened  to  Abraham  Lincoln's  proclamation  in  the  Gettysburg  Address  that  ours  is  

a  government  "of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people"?  One  hundred  and  fifty  years  

have  passed  since  Lincoln  uttered  those  immortal  words,  and  we  have  become  a  nation  "of  the  

government,  by  the  government,  and  for  the  government."  

 

Outrageous  policies   continue.   Several  weeks   ago,   an  order  was  handed  down   from  a   federal  

official  that  required  prisons  in  Arizona  to  begin  releasing  hundreds,  and  perhaps  thousands,  of  

felons  in  that  state.  3  The  doors  swung  open  and  hardened  criminals  walked  out  on  their  own  

recognizance.   Potentially   violent   and   dangerous   prisoners   were   released   into   the   general  

population  without  ankle  bracelets,  parole  oversight,  or  monitoring  of  any  type.  No  one  knows  

today  where  these  men  are  or  what  they  are  doing.  

 

I  wonder  how  long  it  will  take  for  them  to  create  havoc  among  law-­‐abiding  citizens  in  Arizona  

and   elsewhere.   And   get   this:   the   Department   that   made   this   ridiculous   decision   is   called  

Homeland  Security.  At  times  it  seems  as  though  our  elected  and  appointed  leaders  are  trying  to  

destabilize  the  country.  

 

The  parade  continues.  Many  of  us  were  shocked  by  a  comment  made  three  weeks  ago  by  the  

most  respected  investigative  reporter  in  American  history,  author  and  a  liberal,  Bob  Woodward.  

He  said,  [The  President  is  exhibiting]  a  "kind  of  madness  I  haven't  seen  in  a  long  time."  4  I  think  

he  is  right.  

 

Something  akin  to  insanity  is  not  only  emanating  from  Washington,  but  it  seems  to  be  sweeping  

the  country.  In  February,  Colorado  state  representative,  Joe  Salazar,  explained  why  he  thought  

women   on   college   campuses   have   no   need   for   firearms   for   self-­‐protection.   He   said   even   if  

women  believe  they  are  being  followed  and  fear  they  might  be  raped,  they  could  be  misjudging  

a  man's  intentions.  5  "So  please,"  he  said,  "put  the  guns  away,  ladies."  

 

In  other  words,  women  are   too   stupid   to  defend   themselves   even  when   threatened.   There's  

more.  Salazar  said  at  a  legislative  hearing  that  if  a  woman  thinks  a  man  is  about  to  molest  her,  

she  should  blow  a  whistle  or  use  a  call  box!  Perhaps  she  should  say,  "Excuse  me,  sir.  I'll  be  right  

back.  I  need  to  go  find  a  call  box."  Is  this  what  the  Representative  would  tell  his  wife,  mother  or  

daughter  when  danger  lurks?  What  an  utterly  ridiculous  position  for  a  legislator  to  take.  

 

Now  we  come  to  a  matter  that  is  uppermost  on  my  list  of  concerns.  A  few  weeks  ago,  outgoing  

Secretary  of  Defense,  Leon  Panetta,  announced  that  for  the  first  time  in  U.S.  history,  selected  

military   women   will   be   assigned   to   ground   combat   roles.   This   decision   has   profound  

implications  for  families  and  for  the  welfare  of  women.  

 

I  asked  my  friend,  Elaine  Donnelly,  to  address  this   issue.  She  is  one  of  the  nation's  authorities  

on  military   issues  and   is   the  president  and   founder  of   the  Center   for  Military  Readiness.   She  

was  also  appointed  to  the  Presidential  Commission  on  the  Assignment  of  Women  in  the  Armed  

Forces   by   President   George   H.   W.   Bush   in   1992,   and   served   as   a   member   of   the   Defense  

Advisory  Committee  of  Women  in  the  Services  (DACOWITS)  from  1984-­‐1986.  

 

This  is  what  she  wrote:  

 

Dear  Dr.  Dobson,  

 

Families  in  America  −  especially  those  with  sons  or  daughters  in  the  military  −  should  be  

very  concerned  about  the  renewed  drive  to  force  (not  "allow")  women  into  the  infantry  

and  other  "tip  of  the  spear"  units  that  attack  the  enemy  in  direct  ground  combat.  

 

On   January   24   lame-­‐duck   Defense   Secretary   Leon   Panetta   announced   the  

administration's   intent   to   eliminate   military   women's   exemptions   from   direct   ground  

combat   units,   such   as   Army   and  Marine   infantry,   armor,   artillery,   Special   Operations  

Forces  and  Navy  SEALs.  

 

These   are   small   fighting   teams   that   locate,   close   with,   and   attack   the   enemy   with  

deliberate   offensive   action   and   a   high   probability   of   direct   physical   contact   with   the  

hostile  force's  personnel.  Their  missions  go  far  beyond  the  experience  of  being  "in  harm's  

way"   in   a  war   zone,  where   our  military  women   have   served  with   courage   before   and  

since  the  attacks  of  9/11.  

 

Wrapped  in  Secretary  Panetta's  camouflage-­‐disguised  package  is  a  legal  time-­‐bomb  that  

gives  new  meaning  to  the  phrase  "war  on  women."  Unless  Congress  intervenes,  a  future  

court  will   impose   Selective   Service   obligations   on   unsuspecting   civilian  women,   on   the  

same  basis  as  men.  

 

In   1981   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   upheld   the   constitutionality   of   young   women's  

exemption  from  Selective  Service  registration,  tying  it  directly  to  women's  ineligibility  for  

ground   combat   units.   (Rostker   v.   Goldberg)   Dropping   that   exemption   invites   an   ACLU  

lawsuit  like  the  unsuccessful  litigation  filed  in  Massachusetts  on  behalf  of  men  in  2003.  

President  Obama's   recent  move   to   put  women   into   direct   ground   combat   repeals   the  

premise  on  which  that  ruling  and  the  Rostker  decision  were  based.  

 

As  a  result,  the  judicial  branch  of  government,  which  is  least  qualified  to  make  policy  for  

the  military,  likely  would  rule  in  favor  of  the  ACLU.  Civilian  girls-­‐next-­‐door  would  have  to  

register   at   age   18  or   suffer   penalties   for   not   doing   so.  And  during  a   future   prolonged  

war,  female  draftees  could  be  called  to  fight  on  the  same  basis  as  men.  This  would  divide  

the   nation   instead   of   rallying   Americans   in   a   time   of   true   emergency   −   a   result   that  

would  weaken  our  military  deterrent  and  national  security.  

I  know  that  you  care  deeply  about  this  issue,  which  we  discussed  when  I  was  serving  on  

the   Presidential   Commission   on   the   Assignment   of   Women   in   the   Armed   Forces.  

Established  by  Congress  shortly  after  the  1991  Persian  Gulf  War,  the  commission  spent  a  

full  year  researching  the  subject  of  women  in  combat.  

 

During  many  hearings  and  field  trips,  we  heard  testimony  from  many  experts  on  all  sides  

of   the   issue,   including   men   and   women   of   all   ranks   and   branches   of   service.   The  

commission   made   many   recommendations   lending   support   to   military   women   and  

families,   but   we   strongly   recommended   that   infantry,   armor,   artillery,   and   Special  

Operations  Forces  battalions  remain  all-­‐male.  

 

Defense  Secretary  Panetta,  on  his  way  out  the  door,  ignored  empirical  data  and  findings  

compiled   in  30  years  of  tests  and  studies   in  America  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Amazon  

warrior   myths   and   popular   culture   cannot   change   the   fact   that   in   a   direct   ground  

combat   environment,  women   do   not   have   an   equal   opportunity   to   survive,   or   to   help  

fellow  soldiers  survive.  

 

Secretary   Panetta   casually   endorsed   "diversity"   for  women   in   land   combat,   and   set   in  

motion  incremental  plans  designed  to  blunt  opposition  with  a  "frog-­‐in-­‐the-­‐pot"  strategy.  

When  asked  about  Selective  Service,  Panetta  said  he  didn't  know  "who  the  hell"  was  in  

charge  of  that.  

 

Civilian  polls  and  surveys  on  this  subject  usually  are  skewed  by  use  of  the  word  "allowed"  

in   land   combat,   instead   of   "required."  Many   single   mothers   who   joined   the   National  

Guard  in  order  to  get  medical  benefits  for  their  young  children  may  be  surprised  to  learn  

that  they  could  be  ordered  to  serve  in  direct  ground  combat  units  such  as  the  infantry.    

 

No  matter  what  their  recruiters  promised,  this  will  not  be  a  "voluntary"  situation.  

 

One  reason  will  be  Joint  Chiefs  Chairman  Gen.  Martin  Dempsey's  call  for  the  assignment  

of  "significant  cadres"  of  women  in  groups,  or  with  female  "mentors"  to  create  a  "critical  

mass"   in   formerly  all-­‐male  units.  Women's  "safety"   is  said  to  be  the  goal,  even  though  

the  administration  is  encouraging  extreme  violence  against  women  at  the  hands  of  the  

enemy.  

 

The   second   reason   is   a   little-­‐known  drive   for  what   former   Joint  Chiefs  Chairman  Adm.  

Mike  Mullen  called  "diversity  as  a  strategic  imperative."  The  Pentagon-­‐endorsed  Military  

Leadership  Diversity   Commission,   (MLDC),   a   largely   civilian   commission   established   by  

Congress,  recommends  "diversity  metrics"  (read,  quotas)  for  women  in  land  combat.  

 

The  goal  is  not  to  improve  military  effectiveness;  it  is  to  increase  the  numbers  of  female  

officers   rising   to   three-­‐   or   four-­‐star   ranks.   Enlisted   women,   who   outnumber   female  

officers  five  to  one,  will  have  to  pay  the  price,  even  though  Defense  Department  records  

going  back  decades  have  shown  that  female  personnel  are  promoted  at  rates  equal  to  or  

faster  than  men.  

 

Military   leaders  keep  protesting   (too  much)   that   tough  military   training   standards  will  

remain  the  same.  That  will  not  be  possible  as   long  as  "gender  diversity"   is  the  primary  

goal.   The   tipoff   came   during   the   January   24   news   conference,   when   Gen.   Dempsey  

suggested   that   standards   found   to   be   too   high   will   be   questioned.   "[If]   a   particular  

standard  is  so  high  that  a  woman  couldn't  make  it...the  burden  is  now  on  the  service  to  

come  back  and  explain...why  is  it  that  high?"  

 

Regardless   of   what   is   being   said   now,   these   pressures   eventually   will   drive   standards  

down,  making   them  "equal"  but  not   the   same  as   tough,  male-­‐oriented   standards   that  

exist   right   now.   It   is   illogical   to   believe   otherwise,   since   all   forms   of  military   training,  

starting  with  basic  and  pre-­‐commissioning  training,  accommodate  gender  differences.  

 

As  stated  by  the  Marines   in  a  fall  2011  briefing  to  the  Defense  Advisory  Committee  on  

Women   in   the   Services,   women   on   average   have   20%   lower   aerobic   capacity   for  

endurance,  40%  lower  muscle  strength,  47%  lower  lifting  strength,  and  26%  slower  road  

marching  speed.  In  addition,  female  attrition/injury  rates  during  entry-­‐level  training  are  

twice   the   rates  of  men.  To   reduce  potential   injuries,  physically   strenuous  exercises  are  

omitted   and   standards   gender-­‐normed   with   scoring   systems   that   measure   "equal  

effort,"  not  equal  results.  

 

If  women   become   eligible   for   direct   ground   combat,   these   allowances  will   have   to   be  

scrapped.   In   the   alternative,   men's   higher   standards,   re-­‐named   "barriers,"   will   be  

lowered  to  accommodate  women  who  will  feel  the  backlash  of  resentment,  even  though  

they  are  not  to  blame.  

 

Contrary  to  vague  promises  and  misguided  beliefs,  it  will  not  be  possible  to  hold  women  

to   current   standards   in   tough   Army   Ranger   training,   the   Marines'   Infantry   Officer  

Course,  Air  Force  Special  Operations  Forces,  the  Delta  Force,  or  Navy  SEALs.  In  the  British  

Army  an  experiment  with  "gender-­‐neutral"  training  was  ended  after  18  months  due  to  

soaring  injury  rates  among  women  and  reduced  challenges  for  men.  

 

The   British   Ministry   of   Defense   also   decided   to   retain   land   combat   exemptions   for  

women  twice  since  9/11,  in  2002  and  2010.  No  other  military  fighting  force  in  the  world,  

including   potential   enemy   forces  with   combat  missions   comparable   to   ours,   has   been  

forced  to  accept  "gender  diversity"  as  a  paramount  goal.  

 

The  Pentagon's  redefined  "new  diversity"  would  override  recognition  of  individual  merit  

−   the   key   to   successful   racial   integration   long   before   the   civilian   world.   The   MLDC  

recommends   that   officers   who   do   not   support   "diversity   metrics"   goals   be   denied  

promotion.   And   successors   to   today's   Joint   Chiefs   of   Staff,   including   Marine  

Commandant  General  James  Amos,  will  be  selected  only   if  they  support  the  president's  

misguided  goals.  

 

General   Martin   Dempsey   recently   suggested   that   placing   women   in   ground   combat  

battalions  would  reduce  assaults  of  women   in  the  military.  Twenty-­‐two  years  after  the  

same  argument  was  made  in  the  aftermath  of  the  Navy's  Tailhook  scandal,  the  opposite  

has  been  proven  true.  

 

According   to   the   2012   Army  Gold   Book   report,   violent   attacks   and   rapes   in   the   ranks  

have  nearly  doubled  since  2006,  rising  from  663  in  2006  to  1,313  in  2011.  The  Army  also  

reported  that  violent  sex  crime  was  growing  at  an  average  rate  of  14.6  percent  per  year,  

and   the   rate   was   accelerating.   According   to   the   2011   report   of   the   Defense  

Department's  Sexual  Assault  Prevention  and  Response  Office  (SAPRO),  reports  of  sexual  

abuse  have  risen  by  22%  since  2007.  

 

In  the  Navy,  ship  commanders  and  other  high-­‐level  officers  have  been  fired  at  the  rate  of  

two  per  month  for  the  past  three  years  −  most  often  due  to  sexual  misconduct  across  the  

spectrum   from   sexual   assault   to   inappropriate   romantic   relationships   that   affect  

everyone  else.  Empirical  evidence  drawn   from  actual  experience,  not   feminist   theories,  

indicates   that   placing  women   in   land   combat   battalions  will   increase   resentment   and  

make   social   problems   worse,   not   better.   Military   personnel   know   this,   but   all   are  

required  to  follow  the  orders  of  President  Obama,  with  no  option  to  disagree.  

 

It's  not   just  women  who  will  be  put  at  greater  risk  by  forced  acceptance  of  Hollywood-­‐

style   fantasies   imagining   equality   in   an   "ungendered"   military.   Young   men   whose  

parents  taught  them  to  protect  and  defend  women  will  be  out  of  place.  All  military  men  

will  be  affected  by  less  rigorous  training  exercises  and  personnel  losses  associated  with  

pregnancies   and   sexual   misconduct   that   detracts   from   team   cohesion   −   an   essential  

quality  that  is  properly  defined  as  mutual  dependence  for  survival  in  combat.  

 

Members   of   Congress   need   to   ask   an   essential   question:   How   will   any   of   these  

consequences  improve  morale,  discipline,  and  combat  readiness?  

 

Even   though   the  U.S.   Constitution  assigns   to  Congress   the  power  and   responsibility   to  

make   policy   for   the  military,   the   high-­‐handed   administration   is   trying   to   cut   Congress  

and  the  American  people  out  of  the  process.   In  May  we  will  hear  how  the  services  will  

keep  the  president's  plans  on  course  toward  full   implementation  in  2016.  Congress  can  

still   act   before   incremental   steps   become   irreversible,   but   nothing   will   happen   unless  

they  hear  from  their  constituents  back  home.  

 

Parents  and  concerned  citizens  should  contact  their  representatives  and  senators  to  ask  

them,  What  are  you  going  to  do  about  this?  Members  of  Congress  need  to  be  supportive  

of  military  women,  respectful  of  their  courageous  service  in  recent  wars,  and  innovative  

in   establishing   realistic   policies   that   actually   improve   the   effectiveness   of   the   All-­‐

Volunteer  Force.  

 

The  only  way  to  preserve  high,  uncompromised  standards  in  tough  training  for  fighting  

battalions,  and  to  maintain  the  legal  rationale  for  women's  Selective  Service  exemptions,  

is  to  codify  women's  exemption  from  assignment  to  direct  ground  combat  units.  This  can  

be  done,  but  right  now  members  of  Congress  are  only  hearing  from  organized  feminists  

and  compliant  military  leaders  who  are  following  Obama's  orders.  

 

I  hope  and  pray  that  your  readers  will  follow  your  example  in  showing  unfailing  support  

for  our  men  and  women  in  uniform.  We  need  reinforcements  in  the  fight  for  our  military.    

 

 

 

 

 

It  is  the  only  one  we  have,  and  national  security  depends  on  it.  

 

Elaine  Donnelly  

President  and  Founder  

Center  for  Military  Readiness  

 

Well,  the  limitations  of  time  and  space  require  me  to  close  this  letter.  I  strongly  suggest  that  my  

readers   let   their   voices   be   heard   by   the   President,   Congressmen,   Senators,   bureaucrats,   and  

state   legislators.  They  need  to  know  how  citizens   feel  about  the  foolishness  that   is  pervading  

this  country.  Perhaps  there  is  time  to  save  it  from  social  and  moral  disaster.  Family  Talk  will  be  

working  on  that  objective  in  the  days  ahead,  and  we  pray  that  you  will  also.  

In  closing,  may  I  ask  that  you  help  Family  Talk  continue  to  defend  righteousness  and  sanity   in  

the  wider   culture?  Our   contributions   in   February  were  alarmingly   low.  We  deeply  appreciate  

those  of  you  who  have  been  able  to  give  us  a  hand.  

 

Blessings  to  you  all.  

  James  C.  Dobson,  Ph.D.  

Founder  and  President  

   

P.S.   This   letter   highlights   the   "insanity"   occurring   every   day   in   America,   resulting   from   the  

dominance  of  liberalism  run  amok.  My  friend,  Gary  Bauer,  reported  the  following  news  story  in  

his  American  Values  commentary  on  March  5th,  2013.  

 

 

"There   has   been   another   incident   demonstrating   just   how   dangerous   food   can   be.   On   the  

morning  of  Friday,  March  1st,  a  seven  year-­‐old  boy  in  the  D.C.  suburbs  of  Anne  Arundel  County  

was  eating  a  breakfast  pastry.  (Apparently  Michelle  Obama's  food  police  were  on  vacation  that  

day.)  After   taking  a   few  bites,   the  boy  noticed   that  his  pastry   looked   like  a  gun,  and  he   said,  

"Bang,  bang."  

 

In  my  world,  this  should  have  gone  unnoticed  as  the  normal  imagination  of  a  little  boy.  But  in  

the   left's  world,   the  boy  was  suspended   for   two  days.  School  officials  were  so  shaken  by   the  

incident  that  they  sent  a   letter  home  to  every  parent,  warning  them  that  food  was  used  by  a  

child  for  an  inappropriate  gesture  and  that  child  was  removed  from  class.  The  letter  went  on  to  

say  that  school  counselors  would  be  available  to  talk  to  any  children  who  were  troubled  by  the  

incident.  

 

I  don't  know  whether  to  laugh  or  cry.  Was  the  pastry  a  "pop"  tart?  

 

On  a  more  serious  note,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  the  cultural  left's  grip  on  our  public  education  

system:  explicit  sex  education,  American  history  that  is  all  too  often  anti-­‐American  revisionism;  

introducing  the  radical  homosexual  agenda  at  the  earliest  ages;  blocking  Judeo-­‐Christian  values  

at  the  schoolhouse  door;  and  gun-­‐free  zones  that  will  never  stop  a  killer.  

 

Now  hard-­‐left  political  correctness  has  made  a  criminal  out  of  a  seven  year-­‐old  playing  with  a  

pastry."  

 

Gary  Bauer  

President  

American  Values  

   

"The  only  assurance  of  our  nation's  safety   is  to   lay  our  foundation   in  morality  and  religion."  ~  

Abraham  Lincoln