In 1953, President Eisenhower led a religious resurgence, calling homosexuality “wickedness,” fired gays from federal posts, and ruled homosexuality incompatible with military service. Four decades later, President Clinton allowed gays into the military. The new U.S. Secretary of Defense says he wants nothing but lethality. The 1/7/25 NY Times reports about an Army MD who violated ~100 of his male patients, which combined with the proportion of homosexuals and trans in recent DoD surveys, suggest that the military has failed to weigh the costs of including homosexuals as they inject sexual activities that detract from lethality – particularly the sexual assault of normals and gay ‘nests’ to maximize homosexual influence.

Gay nests? One of the more predictable things homosexuals do is colonize organizations and advance homosexuals therein by finding or inventing negatives about the normals that homosexuals might replace. Such nests were noted in the Kaiser’s court prior to WWI, inveighed against by the Nazi H. Himmler in 1937, and condemned by the US Senate in its 1950 report on homosexuality as injecting inefficiencies and raising costs. These nests are multiplying in our schools, universities, newsrooms, and governments (how else did the LA Fire Department get three lesbians in its leadership?). By now, there are so many nests operating in the military, that they are lowering the DoD estimates of rapes of normal males and increasing military expenditures. These "nests" seem involved in the NYTimes-authenticated vignettes below:

"If you report this, no one will believe you,” the boot camp drill sergeant said. It was 2 a.m. in the sergeant’s office. The victim, 18, had just been choked until he passed out. The sergeant raped him over a desk while other recruits slept in the next room. After the attack, the victim did what he felt he could do. He took a shower and went back to bed. The sergeant raped him twice more during basic training. Each time, he stayed quiet, determined to graduate. After he did, he reported what had happened to military authorities, expecting them to jail his attacker and start an investigation. He angrily describes the military’s response: “No investigator ever called me,” he said. “Nothing was ever done” about the perpetrator. Instead, his chain of command began to complain about him. The rapes damaged his kidneys and tore his rectum causing him to miss so much training getting treated that he was forced out of the Air Force for being medically unfit.

Enlisted at 17, he was a few weeks into technician school when a group of older officers and enlisted took some recruits to an off-base resort. In a private bungalow, after a round of drinking, they told recruits it was time for their initiation. "At first, there was laughing and nervous joking, and then there was silence. I was scared to death. And we got forced into sex acts none of us wanted. The teenagers were made to perform oral sex or were sodomized. What an awful thing, you go back to the base the next day and you have to face them."

Nests might also account for the following accounts:

The sailors offered to take the 17-year-old recruit out for a night. He woke up on the floor of a hotel room with a man ejaculating on his face while others tried to pull off his pants. He struggled free, locking himself in the bathroom. The next day he reported the attacks to the ship’s "police officer," who charged him with drinking, and sent him back to his bunk. His attackers, billeted nearby, raped him repeatedly. He complained to the officer again and again – often with black eyes and split lips – but the officer would say he had no proof. He repeatedly deserted, got arrested, and sent back to the ship. Eventually, he was forced out of the Navy with an other-than-honorable discharge for running away so often.

In 2020, Elder Fernandes, 23, was found hanging from a tree outside Fort Hood. He had been raped by his sergeant. He reported the offense and was transferred, but was upset by other soldiers spreading rumors about his sexuality.

The Times characterized male victims as “young and low-ranking.” It noted that many “struggle afterward, are kicked out of the military, and have trouble finding their footing in civilian life.” Homosexual rape goes on forever – not only did a creep violate you, but raped your manhood because you didn’t/couldn’t effectively resist (and you wonder if others think you are a creep). If you are a warrior, you are embarrassed because you did not stop the creep. You experience multiple rapes because you must endure the smug looks of those who assaulted you and if you report it, you are re-raped since others will know – and then speculate about you.

Homosexuals get into the military – Washington drummed one out of the Continental Army. But why invite them in? Recruits are of the age when sexuality is at its peak. Mixing the sexes and including homosexuals in that mix diverts resources away from the desired focus on lethality. Because they are often physically modified and troubled, trans – a creation of the homosexual movement – are even more apt to divert resources. Brown U researchers estimated that 17.2% of transgender (https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2023/2024/8) veterans claimed sexual assault (trans women 15.2% and trans men 30%) suggesting that between 1,100-1,500 trans service members report sexual assault each year! Trump’s vow to remove trans from the military should save the military substantial funds that would otherwise be used to treat trans and their victims. He might consider doing the same for homosexuals – for much the same reasons. After all, in the clinical literature as well as large national surveys, homosexuals are more apt to report being involved in sexual assaults.

The DoD [Department of Defense] appears to be trying to reduce sexual assaults without identifying gay nests. Instead, victims are being asked to notify the DoD bureaucracy; also, a sample of the enlisted are requested to answer a sexual experiences questionnaire. By comparing the two reports, the DoD estimates the number of sexual assaults (the difference in 2023 suggests about 17% of sexual assaults were reported). Since one of the functions of homosexual nests is to conceal sexual assaults, ignoring these nests means homosexual assaults were undercounted.

Table 1 summarizes the Navy and all respondents’ answers combined to the DoD sexuality questionnaire (in whole percentages except for trans). The Navy tilted slightly more homosexual than the enlisted as a whole (in line with the opinion of many who served that we interviewed). In 2023 90% of male and 63% of female U.S. high school students reported they were heterosexual. Thus, the enlisted were more apt to claim heterosexuality than their 2023 high school counterparts. Trans was reported at about the same rate. and twice as frequently by females. in both high schoolers and the enlisted.

The NYTimes reported that “about 10,000 men are sexually assaulted in the American military each year.” Think of it: About 10,000 men each year – even though “the vast majority of men sexually assaulted” “still never report it!” Indeed, the costs are piling up: “61,000 veterans…are now formally recognized by the department as having been sexually traumatized during their service.” Further, “the number of claims filed each year has surged by 70% since 2010.”

The homosexual Army Major highlighted in the NYTimes stories contributed to this surge – being charged by at least 41 of his victims. Each of these victims is seeking five million dollars.

The cost of enlisting this one homosexual might exceed a quarter of a billion dollars.

How much will the 61,000 "formally recognized" as having been violated end up costing? How much of our military budget be diverted to paying for homosexual assaults?

The stories of the Major’s victims are reminiscent of the vignettes detailed above. One victim lamented that he struggles “daily with feelings of shame, worthlessness, and anger. The military was my life and my identity. Now, I feel like a stranger to myself and to those I love.”

There is no "scientific" way to get respondents to a questionnaire to tell the truth or determine whether respondents’ answers are true. You can claim to have been victimized (or not), to be heterosexual (or homosexual) and without an intensive investigation, escape detection. All we usually have to go on as to "truthfulness of responses" are opinions about patterns of statements that have turned up in similar surveys.

The evidence that has been assembled from various kinds of surveys over the years suggests that men grossly underreport and women substantially overreport sexual assaults. These DoD surveys – where as few as 3% and perhaps as many as 17% of male victims reported an assault – suggest that a great number of male sexual assaults are being missed. For women, intensive analysis and re-checking suggest [see mediaradar.org › press_release_20070423.php] about half of women’s reports of rape by men may be untrue. Whether the ~9% of women’s assaults attributed to other women in the DoD surveys fall in the same category is unknown.

How does welcoming those who form sexual preference nests not weaken the military’s merit-based standards? Unit “cohesion requires high levels of integrity and stability among service members,” do homosexuals satisfy these goals? Even as trans tend to be dominated by their "I am housed in the wrong sex body" delusion, the volume and extent of their sexual assaults make it seem that homosexuals are as dominated by their sexual desires. How is either group "normal" and "just as socially useful" as the mental health professions claim?

The services are not reaching their recruitment goals.

Since recruits disproportionately come from religiously conservative families, excluding homosexuals might help the military in this regard. Additionally, the 61,000 victims of sexual assault might be discouraging others from joining.

Homosexuals’ desires have resulted in tens of thousands of injured and troubled service members. Individual homosexuals may have special skills that the military needs and their employment may be worth their risk to others or the growth of a nest. But, as a group, homosexuals pose so many risks and create so many costs, recruiting them – as was done under the last few Presidents – seems less than wise.

How was President Eisenhower wrong to call homosexuals "wicked" and to bar them from taxpayer support? Or FDR mistaken to go after homosexuals in the Navy before he became President? Considering the magnitude and harms of the documented homosexual assaults, and the disruptions and financial costs associated with their assaults, should the removal of trans in our military be our only concern?