At the outset its important to recognize that what we today call Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has always been a social engineering campaign of the Gay movement in which racial minorities are merely useful pawns. Jesse Jacksons Rainbow Coalition, associated with his 1984 presidential run, was evidence of this. After his usefulness faded as a front man for establishing homosexuality as culturally equivalent to race in the civil rights movement, they edged him out and stole the rainbow exclusively for themselves.

In the 1990s they quarterbacked the national anti-discrimination public policy campaign to stigmatize and criminalize social disapproval of homosexuality, using the tactic of bundling sexual orientation with race as inseparable legal equivalents, frequently using Blacks as figureheads of LGBT-controlled Human Rights Commissions that sprang up by the hundreds like dandelions in cities and states.

Presently, the best proof of the relative status of progressive coalition members is the annual Pride calendar: the LGBTs get the arguably two best weather months of the year (Gay Pride in June, Gay History in October) while Blacks and Women get only one month each: frozen February and dirty-slush March, respectively.

The two LGBT months, especially October, also happen to offer LGBT activists premium access to school children for the purpose of shaping young minds. June becomes one giant recruitment campaign to get kids out to Pride parades and other affinity-building events. Typically, Blacks and Women are advantaged by DEI policies only if they happen to be LGBT themselves, or proven dedicated allies of the LGBT movement.  
    
To be sure, when I began opposing the normalization of homosexuality in America in the late 1980s as a newly minted Christian culture warrior of the Reagan Revolution, LGBTism as cultural force with supremacist visions was already well established. Its foundations had been laid in the 1940s and its militancy had fully matured by the early 1970s. For a deep dive on those early roots, read my series on that topic here.

Its operational phase in the 1980s centered on the theme of anti-discrimination because the masterminds behind it believed they could get constitutional protection for sodomy from the Supreme Court using Justice Louis Brandeis right to privacy legal theory. That had worked for its sexual revolution cultural precursors: 1) contraception on demand for unmarried people in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972 (in effect endorsing sex outside of marriage as an important social value) and 2) abortion on demand in Roe v Wade, 1973 (the back-up plan). But conservative JFKs SCOTUS appointee Byron White totally crushed that hope with the majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick, 1986, affirming the right of states to regulate sexual deviance, particularly homosexual sodomy, in the public interest. 

LGBT strategists quickly regrouped around the legal back-up plan redefining homosexuality as an immutable condition, not a lifestyle choice as they had previously admitted. Thus was created the born that way talking point which became ubiquitous in the public debate virtually overnight, all to further the legal argument that sexual orientation should have equal protection under the 14th Amendment because it was inborn like skin color. In his 2015 majority opinion creating gay marriage by judicial fiat in Obergefell v Hodges, LGBT champion Justice Anthony Kennedy finally simply declared homosexuality to be immutable without any reasonable basis in science or logic. 

All of this social engineering factored into the process of forcing the military to embrace DEI propaganda and policies, and I was part of the opposition to it from the very beginning.

The first assault on the military was led by Bill Clinton. Gays in the Military was a centerpiece election promise of the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. I personally confronted Clinton in a live Town Hall television event with question-posing audiences in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA. I was in Portland and Clinton was in Seattle alongside Margarethe Cammermeyer, an Army Colonel who had been discharged for lesbianism. My question related to the LGBT attacks on the Boy Scouts, and I forced Clinton into a corner such that he sided with me against it (as noted by Rush Limbaugh on his show the next day). However, I was deep enough into the event to see that its primary purpose was to showcase the gays in the military talking points.

Cammermeyer purportedly won her lawsuit against the Army in 1994, supposedly leading to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the military.  However, at that time I was personal friends with Col. Ron Ray, a JAG lawyer who litigated that case for the military. He told me the Army actually won the case, and the DADT policy was a completely unnecessary and gratuitous capitulation. Importantly, to make DADT binding legal policy the military first had to decriminalize homosexuality and bestiality (the two elements of the crime of sodomy in the common law), which even the hard left media was forced to admit. 

That having been said, in retrospect I think DODT came to serve as the model for how LGBT issues should be handled virtually across the board in society today: a compromise that grants reasonable tolerance for private lifestyles lived discretely but not acceptance or celebration of open advocacy of same-sex attraction disorder and related behavioral problems.

When DODT was under attack during the Obama administration, I personally delivered copies of the 4th Edition of my book The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party  6th edition is just out under the title Nazi Germanys Dirtiest Secrets - and why they matter to America today - and an essay titled "Don't Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to dozens of Senators, including Senator Scott Brown of my home state of Massachusetts, who had run and won on the theme of family values. His staff bragged that just that morning he had stood strong against voting the DADT repeal bill out of committee. A few weeks later (apparently the victim of blackmail in my opinion) he not only caved on the issue and voted for the bill, he held a special signing ceremony and photo-op in his office attended by a leading Massachusetts LGBT organization. He then lost the seat to Pocahontas.

My essay predicted a lot of what subsequently came to pass in the military. In particular, I wrote there would certainly be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military.... The entire premise of a military system based on voluntary service is that young men will want to serve. But will normal men want to volunteer when they know they will share close quarters with other men for whom they will be objects of sexual interest? It is a recipe for deep and widespread moral and morale problems.

It is with great satisfaction, therefore, that I end this article with a link to this story: Military Recruiting Skyrockets Under Trump, Shatters 15 Year Record. ###