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
DBFA 605
Advocacy Project Assignment Instructions
Overview
For this assignment, you will draw on your studies to produce an advocacy plan for the issue featured in the Persuasive Essay and using the communicative mode of your choice. The issue in the Persuasive Essay will be used to create a local advocacy project. After giving some thought to any specific action plan(s) to be encouraged, the other key part of this assignment is to choose an appropriate mode for how this advocacy might work (e.g., oral, written, visual, digital, live, online, recorded, etc.).
You will be given an opportunity to justify your choice of mode, so the choice itself needs to be a rhetorically sound, deliberate, and based on the conditions under which the desired audience will encounter the advocacy piece. Examples include a short video, a speech/public talk of some sort, a podcast, a brief written appeal to be placed in an appropriate venue, a visual flyer or poster, some sort of flash performance, etc.
Instructions
The aims of this assignment are twofold: 1) to demonstrate an awareness of what constitutes effective advocacy (e.g., its differences from persuasion), and 2) to show a strong awareness of the rhetorical benefits of different modes of communication, as well as their weaknesses.
Part 1
Topic and Mode Rationale: You will submit a topic with a 200-word rationale for the mode of choice (with at least 3 cited sources) detailing why the issue is relevant to public policy and the mode of choice is being chosen.
Part 2
Outline: You will submit an outline for the project and include at least 5 sources:
a. Setting your goals
b. Strategies for developing your message
c. Strategies to get the message out
d. Team building
e. Putting it all together
f. Conclusion
Part 3
Final: The Advocacy Project is to be submitted along with a detailed summary of the project; this is at least 6–7 pages in length. The Advocacy Project must include the following:
1. Introduction: Must include a summary of the issues and a clear thesis statement
2. Rationale for the mode of choice: This must include the rationale for the mode of choice detailing why the issue is relevant to public policy.
3. Include the elements of your outline headings: Each heading must be supported with research, facts, strategies, etc.
a. Setting your goals
b. Strategies for developing your message
c. Strategies to get the message out
d. Team building
e. Putting it all together
4. Conclusion: offers a good summary of issues treated in the paper and offers practical application.
5. References
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Page 2 of 2

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.
Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com