CMR Sitrep

Paranoia in the LGBT Left?

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:51:00 +0000

Last week, the House Armed Services Committee approved its annual bill authorizing operations and policies for the Defense Department. Despite high frustration among gay activist groups, the Committee approved the 2010 National Defense Authorization bill without any action in support of legislation to repeal current law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service.

As reported by the local Washington, DC gay publication, the Washington Blade, consternation with Democrats' inaction on the military's homosexual ineligibility law has reached the point of paranoia. In the Blade report, titled "HRC Accused of Secret Deal to Repeal 'Don't Ask' Repeal," Aaron Belkin, director of the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center, accuses the Human Rights Campaign and other prominent LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) groups of conspiring against repeal efforts:

"'It would be one thing to say nothing, but there is pro-active lobbying on the Hill for Congress not to consider [the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] issue'," Belkin is quoted as saying. "'And so the community has been appalling on this issue.'"

When asked about the work of HRC, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and other groups, Belkin reportedly turned on his own side, saying he feels "'very confident in saying'" that "'not only are they not doing anything but they're pro-actively lobbying against consideration of the issue.'"

Over on the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement on June 16 (the same day the House Armed Services Committee was considering its defense authorization bill) declaring that the Senate "would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the president would like to see and when. With presidential leadership and direction, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress."

Previously, Sen. Reid had called for President Obama to issue an Executive Order to stop enforcement of the 1993 law. Such an action would be an affront to Congress and a breach of faith with the troops he leads. Instead of encouraging President Obama to create a conflict with Congress, Sen. Reid should be defending the legislative prerogatives of Congress.

The Senate is preparing to take up its version of the Department of Defense authorization bill this week. After the House declined to address the issue, any abrupt action in the Senate could only be explained as pure pandering to homosexual activists. Senators in both parties should stand up for the law that protects the high standards and culture of the world's greatest military.

In an interview with NewsMax, Elaine Donnelly summed up the current situation: "Donnelly: Obama's Gay Military Agenda Isn't Dead."

State Celebrates Gay Culture

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:30:00 +0000

State Department Celebrates Gay Culture...in Baghdad!

This article demonstrates what the increasingly gay-friendly State Department is doing to "celebrate" homosexuality in a war zone.

For One Night, Baghdad Gets a Pink Zone

Should there be similar "pink zone" events at forward operating bases in Iraq, air force bases in Afghanistan, and aircraft carriers at sea? If the 1993 law is repealed, why not? How would that work with the small-unit combat training missions with Iraqi and Afghan Muslims who need to learn how to fight the insurgents and Taliban?

If the presence of gay soldiers creates cultural problems with Muslim soldiers, should the gay soldiers be excused from that duty, or should it be the mission of our military to change the religious and cultural values of Muslims we are trying to train for combat and security missions? Inquiring minds want to know-and Congress has the responsibility to find out

New Army Appointment, Polls, but Still Little Support for Gays in the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:24:00 +0000

John McHugh Named as Secretary of the Army

This article in Politico, titled "Gay Groups Grow Impatient with Obama" suggests that HASC Ranking Member John McHugh, recently named as the next Secretary of the Army, may be a stealth advocate for gays in the military. The article's key quote: "The Pentagon also has toned down public opposition to reversing the gay ban, and the new secretary of the Army's job will be, in part, to smooth the way for that move."

Really-who knew? If the statement is correct, (and it may not be) it may explain why McHugh sat quietly and did not intervene when Democratic members of the committee tried to divert attention from the testimony of Elaine Donnelly and Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, through disrespectful decorum and stunning rudeness when the two testified before the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee last summer.

Members of the Senate considering the nomination may want to know whether Rep. McHugh endorses the gay activists' campaign to pressure President Obama into issuing an Executive Order to suspend enforcement of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military. This would be a surprise, since Mr. McHugh, through his long tenure on the Committee, has earned respect for his expertise on national security issues. McHugh also has long defended congressional prerogatives in the writing of laws. Does he now agree with gay activists that the president can and should sign an Executive Order disregarding the law? As Elaine Donnelly wrote in this article for NRO such an action would be an affront to Congress that would break faith with the troops that President Obama leads.

Even as Secretary of the Army, John McHugh could not repeal the law singlehandedly. Members of the Republican Conference announced on Tuesday that Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA) will be the new Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. CMR trusts that Congressman McKeon will give military/social issues the serious attention they deserve.

Two Polls on Gays in the Military

The Gallup organization has issued another poll of civilian opinion on gays in the military. As with similar surveys, the percentage in favor of allowing openly-homosexual men and women in the military increased in this poll to 69%.

Conservatives Shift in Favor of Openly Gay Service Members

Like most of the civilian polls, this one may be skewed by a phenomenon common in opinion surveys: As a group of experts from the Roper organization explained to members of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces in 1992, survey respondents who believe that a policy already exists are more likely to say that they favor it. In this case, the PR campaign constantly pushing the idea that there are many gays already in the military leads some people to approve what they believe to be true already.

The poll is specific enough to register church attendance and political affiliations, but admits at the end that "the poll data do not break out the attitudes of current members of the military or provide a read on the views of current military leadership, whose reactions may be a major factor in the Obama administration's decisions on a change in policy."

Earlier this year the Pew Research Center did another civilian poll in which support for gays in the military dropped one point, from 60% in March 2006 to 59% in March 2009:

Americans Favor Carbon Cap, Gays in the military and Renewing U.S.-Cuba Ties

We found this news incidentally while researching a different subject. The Pew Survey, which is less favorable to the gay activist cause, received almost no news coverage.

The most relevant polls have been done by the Military Times, which counts only the opinions of active-duty respondents. This article explains why this poll provides more insight than all the civilian polls put together:

Poll on Gays in the Military Perturbs Palm Center

Congressional Attempts to Repeal the Law

Barney Frank admits again that Congress does not have the votes, but intends to push for repeal of the 1993 law next year:

Gay Rights Bills Remain Stalled in Congress

In this Marine Corps Times article, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calls for "responsible leadership" on the issue of gays in the military, but fails to provide it.

Mullen: 'Don't Ask' Talks to Move Slowly

Note how the admiral casually equates people on our side with people on their side:

"The issue has strong proponents in favor of repeal and for keeping the status quo. Mullen said that no matter what happens, he doesn't want troops already under great stress over repeated deployments, lack of time back home and years of unconventional warfare to become a tool of either side. 'I think it's important that...it not become a polarizing debate that has the force in the middle,' Mullen said. 'And that's going to take responsible leadership on every aspect of this discussion. And I want to emphasize 'responsible leadership.'"

Adm. Mullen's comfort with this old tactic of the left does not inspire confidence.

Palm Center Trial Balloon Shot Down

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:53:00 +0000

There is no question that the Flag/General Officers Statement has made a huge difference at the Pentagon, but before the celebration begins, consider this May 19 article for the Los Angeles Times:

Obama in No Hurry to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Carol J. Williams quoted all the usual activists, including Aaron Belkin of the Michael D. Palm Center. The University of California-based advocacy group is trying to persuade the Obama Administration to nullify the 1993 law by simply ignoring it. But two days after the Palm Center floated its politically clueless proposal, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shot that trial balloon down. In her May 14 article posted on National Review Online, Elaine Donnelly highlighted the significance of Robert Gibbs' statement, which essentially repudiated the Palm Center’s latest polemic:

Obama Shuns Plan to Evade Gays-in-Military Law

The May 2009 Palm Center "report," titled "Military Law Experts Chart Course to End 16-Year Ban," was authored by a group of mostly-civilian academics specializing in "gender studies," including Aaron Belkin and Nathaniel Frank. Billed as a "Roadmap," the plan heads toward a cliff that brings to mind the desperate demise of "Thelma and Louise."

Substituting affected "scholarship" for normal common sense, the document unsuccessfully tries to make the case for presidential nullification of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. Here is a brief excerpt of the Palm Center Plan, which confirms what CMR has been saying about the far-reaching consequences if the 1993 law is repealed:

"Compliance with the new policy will be facilitated to the extent that personnel understand that enforcement will be strict and that noncompliance will carry high costs, and thus perceive that their own self-interest lies in supporting the new policy. Consequently, the implementation plan should include clear enforcement mechanisms and strong sanctions for noncompliance, as well as support for effective implementation in the form of adequate resources, allowances for input from unit leaders for improving the implementation process, and rewards for effective implementation. Toward this end, the Defense Department should work to identify the most potent 'carrots' and 'sticks' for implementing the new policy. These include:

1. [T]he specific sanctions and enforcement mechanisms that will most effectively promote adherence to the policy;

2. [S]upporting mechanisms and resources that will be needed to assist personnel with enacting change; [and]

3. [T]he types of surveillance and monitoring of compliance with the new policy that will be most effective at different levels in the chain of command." (p. 20)

The document is absurd in its illogic, and the references to "carrots and sticks" to make full acceptance of homosexuals in our military "work" are downright chilling.

Perhaps we should thank the Palm Center for confirming what CMR has been saying all along: Anyone who disagrees with an officially-mandated gay agenda in our military will find themselves in violation of the corollary "zero tolerance" policy. What the Palm Center recommends as "strong sanctions for non-compliance" would include denial of promotions, which would end the dissenters' military careers. Thousands of good people could be forced out of the military, just to please activists who have no understanding of what the military is for.

Pentagon Does Not Want to Go There

Perhaps this explains the May 22 USA Today report that the Pentagon is in no rush to repeal the 1993 law that is usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Military Wants More Time Before Gay Ban Ends

A writer at TownHall.com attributed the stall in momentum to the Flag & General Officers for the Military Statement to the President and Members of Congress, in support of the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military:

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Here to Stay

Keep in mind that the ball is in Congress' court. Members of the House may be called upon to vote for repeal of the law, and people who support our military will hold them accountable for their vote. A House Armed Services Committee hearing or two may be scheduled sometime this summer, and there is still reason for concern that Congress and/or the president will set up some sort of study commission or working group to pave the way for repeal of the law.

Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell seemed to downplay any speculation that the Defense Department wants the 1993 law to be repealed:

Pentagon: No Plans to End "Don’t Ask, Don't Tell"

This note to CMR stands as a reminder of what this is all about, sent to CMR via the "Confidential Contact" spot on this website, from an active-duty Major:

Subject: Gays in the Military

Please do not let up in the fight to keep the current exclusion in place. Homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service: it will be destructive to morale and discipline, and will terminally effect recruiting and retention.

I cannot speak out on the issue publicly; I count on you being my voice.

Major R

Bad Advice for Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:04:00 +0000

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen are scheduled to appear this week before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. In anticipation, the Gays-in-the-Military PR hot air machine has fired up again.

The campaign piped down a little bit when President Obama took the oath of office, with most activities happening in private. There were numerous meetings at the White House with the Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT groups, and several activists have been appointed to key positions.

But now the activists are growing increasingly impatient because Obama has not appointed a gay cabinet member or the equivalent, and because he has not pressured Congress to repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10, usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or DADT). Barney Frank, the highest-profile openly-gay Member of Congress, told Roll Call last Thursday that Democrats don't have the votes for repeal this year. Now the activists are demanding that Obama issue an Executive Order essentially nullifying the 1993 law by high-handed fiat.

That would be the effect if he were to order Pentagon officials to stop enforcement of the law, across the board. So much for Obama's oath of office, which obligates him and the executive branch to enforce duly-enacted laws. (DADT is not a law-it is the convoluted enforcement policy that President Bill Clinton imposed on the military, even though it differs from the law that Congress actually passed. Congress allowed Clinton to drop "the question" from military induction forms asking potential new servicemembers whether or not they were homosexual, but that question can be reinstated at any time—no additional legislation required.)

The stepped-up campaign began last week when the New York Times (print headquarters of the Gays-in-the-Military-Campaign) turned up the heat on the Obama Administration to do something, anything, to advance the gay cause:

As Gay Issues Arise, Obama is Pressed to Engage

The broadcast Gays-in-the-Military-Campaign is headquartered at MSNBC. On May 6, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow interviewed Dan Choi, aWest Point grad and former Army lieutenant who ended his military career when he announced that he was homosexual earlier this year.

Maddow would never ask an obvious question that CMR President Elaine Donnelly asked the Department of Defense and Army Inspectors General (IG) to investigate several years ago when twelve language trainees were discharged from the Defense Language Institute (DLI) near Monterey, California: Why did the DLI, or in this case West Point, admit trainees or cadets who were not eligible to serve in the military?

Mr. Choi's willingness to serve our country is admirable, but assuming that he knew that he was gay when he entered West Point, either he was misled by West Point officials or he chose to disregard the 1993 law. The Inspectors General did not answer Donnelly's questions about DLI, but members of Congress can and should ask similar questions at any time. Everyone can serve our country in some way, but not everyone is eligible for military service.

CMR Blogs on NY Times; Gays Cry Foul on Obama Website "Change"

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:15:00 +0000

CMR President Elaine Donnelly contributed to the New York Times' "Room for Debate" blog/op-ed section yesterday on the topic of gays in the military. Her submission appeared along with those of eight others here:

"Room for Debate - In the 'Barracks, Out of the Closet'"

Aaron Belkin, director of the gay-activist Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara (formerly the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military) joined with Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit policy and legal organization whose primary objective is to repeal the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service. Belkin and Sarvis wrote only about "how" to repeal the law, not the consequences of that action-something they rarely talk about.

Betraying a typically elitist attitude, Belkin referred to the political system-i.e., Congress voting to make policy-as a "mess" that President Obama should "circumvent" by "commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality." Advocates writing about other countries actually confirmed that the forced acceptance of open homosexuality in the ranks in Britain has resulted in consistent cultural change across the board, to include other sexual minorities. (Writer Craig Jones, a former officer in the British Royal Navy, failed to mention that Britain capitulated to an order of the European Court of Human Rights in 1999, a course of action likely to be rejected by the United States.)

* * * * *

Though it did not link to the Flag & General Officers for the Military (FGOM) website, the "Room for Debate" blog highlighted the May 1, 2009, New York Times article by Elisabeth Bumiller (linked below). The article was not as gung-ho pro-gays-in-the-military as most articles in the New York Times usually are. The FGOM Open Letter was mentioned, but without specifics about rank:

In Military, New Debate Over Policy Toward Gays

It is surprising that the article by Elisabeth Bumiller actually acknowledged some hesitation among the West Point cadets, even though they have heard only one side of the story. Last December Elaine Donnelly corresponded with Col. Thomas A. Kolditz , head of West Point's Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership who is quoted in the article. Col. Kolditz confirmed that the USMA has not hosted a speaker who supports the 1993 law with a commitment comparable to that of Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center, who has been a guest speaker at West Point several times.

Col. Kolditz also confirmed that on November 4, 2008, he hosted a former male-cadet-now-female activist for transgenders in the military, who addressed several classes. Question still unanswered: Why do West Point leaders expect that future officers will have to accommodate transgendered servicemen and women in the American military?

* * * * * * *

Columnist Don Feder, writing on the "Boycott the New York Times" website, took issue with the Times' bias:

Times is GHQ for Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2. The White House

Some of the gay websites have been buzzing with anger about subtle changes on the White House website. They are upset because of what one gay blogger described as a "move that many people...see as a shift in policy, and a backward step from a clear campaign promise that was reiterated during the first days of January of this year."

The White House website has changed the language on its page regarding LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) Civil Rights. Gay activists see the changes as a retreat from Obama's commitment to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, and a significant change in policy, for the worse.

In particular, activists complained that the website language changed from a commitment to a "full repeal" of DADT to a commitment to "change" the discriminatory policy in a "sensible" manner. In their view, "changing DADT" is not the same as repealing DADT because it would essentially keep the "discriminatory" policy in place, albeit with some alterations.

An interesting comment appeared on the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's "Frontlines" blog, written by James E. Pietrangelo, II. (This may be the same plaintiff who, in December, asked the Supreme Court to review a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the constitutionality of the 1993 law):

"You folks at SLDN do a lot of good work, but I do not for the life of me understand why you refuse to see the writing on the wall (webpage). The change in wording is yet more evidence (as if there were not enough already) that Obama has stuck the knife in his promise on DADT. Instead of wasting time trying to divine the meaning of the website and calling the White House only to get a form response, why doesn't Aubrey Sarvis and Joe Solomenese and the other Gay 'leaders' get together and call Obama the bigot that he is. It is time to start marching, people. Time indeed."

Since the kerfuffle broke out in LGBT-land, the White House website restored the word "repeal" before the catch-phrase "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It will take more than website words, however, to convince members of Congress that they need to repeal the 1993 law.

3. Congress

As CMR reported last week, congressional LGBT Equality Caucus co-chairs Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Tammy Baldwin expressed in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call their assessment that 2009 is not the year to pursue repeal of the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service.

Elaine Donnelly explained to OneNewsNow that Frank's comments reflect a concession to process, but not intent. Representatives Frank and Baldwin plan to lay the groundwork for repeal in 2010. Donnelly's comments appear here:

Intent Still There to Repeal Military Homosexual Ban

Barney Frank's Sidestep Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:32:00 +0000

An article published in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call last Thursday indicated that the combined voices of more than 1,000 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military are being heard.

The article, titled "Frank: Democrats Punting on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Until 2010" (available by subscription only) quotes Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Co-Chairs of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Equality Caucus. Both openly gay, Frank and Baldwin expressed doubts that Congress will repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military this year. Said Frank, "We haven't done the preliminary work, the preparatory work. It would be a mistake to bring it up without a lot of lobbying and a lot of conversation."

This is interesting, since the activist Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and other groups have had numerous lobbying days on this issue, going back several years.

To the extent that the votes are not there for repeal right now, credit must go to the sheer weight of the Open Letter signed and delivered by the Flag & General Officers for the Military. Their strong statement in support of the law has clearly given pause to the congressional Democrat caucus, and "changed the game" by blunting Obama's attempt to create a false appearance of "consensus" among military leaders that it is OK to repeal the law.

It is important to consider the source of the Roll Call article. Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin are determined advocates of repeal. In his comments to Roll Call Barney Frank is merely offering advice to the SLDN on how, not if, Congress might repeal the law with a free-standing bill next year. Frank played a similar intermediary role in 1993, when he infuriated gay activists by telling them that Bill Clinton's administrative policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT), the only option left to them, would be a step in the right direction that would ultimately lead to repeal of the 1993 law.

Where does the issue stand today? It is very possible that one of the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee will raise the issue during Defense Department (DoD) budget authorization hearings. Short of repealing the law, the next recourse for Democrats would be to enlist a supposedly non-threatening sounding, bi-partisan "commission" or "panel" to study the issue. A tax-funded "Gays in the Military Commission" would subsidize and empower homosexualist groups sure to come up with a report on how, not if, the DoD should implement repeal of the 1993 law.

Members of Congress should oppose any such effort on no uncertain terms. Given current leadership in the White House and Congress, the composition of such a commission would amount to a foreordained result in favor of repeal. Single-minded activists would control the agenda and outcome, wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars along the way.

The stalwart efforts of the Flag and General Officers for the Military and congressional supporters have gotten the attention of congressmen and women who may have told Barney Frank to back off-at least for now. This is encouraging news, but far from victory. Efforts to establish and subsidize a "Gays in the Military Commission" persist as a threat as Congress considers the Defense Department budget for this year. CMR will continue to monitor ongoing developments, and take the lead in defending the 1993 law.

Puerile Prattlers for Gays in the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:21:00 +0000

Miss California Carrie Prejean is not the only patriotic, principled American public figure to come under attack from activists for the homosexual agenda.

On April 15, 2009, four founding members of Flag and General Officers for the Military in a Washington Post op-ed titled Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit. More than 1,100 retired flag and general officers have taken a firm stand in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That statute, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., frequently is mistaken for the administrative policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The huge impact of the high-ranking officers' unequivocal, game-changing statement was proven by the near-hysterical reaction of immature advocates of gays in the military. They did not expect to see this op-ed published in one of their primary house-organs, the Washington Post, apparently. Many online comments and letters to the editor descended to the level of personal attack against the authors. The usual flapping around in the comments section inadvertently confirmed just how threatening to their cause the op-ed really was.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly submitted a letter to the Post-not to respond to juvenile attacks, but to address several points of misinformation regarding the acceptance of homosexuals in the militaries of several foreign countries. The text of Donnelly's letter follows:

To the Editor:

Several letters resorting to personal attacks against the distinguished authors of an op-ed supporting the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military reflect poorly on the critics. Objective readers should know that in 1999, Britain capitulated to a European court order to accept professed gays in their military. Recruiting problems persist even though same-sex couples live in military housing, and the British Ministry of Defence meets regularly with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) groups to discuss unresolved problems that uniformed personnel are not allowed to discuss openly. Britain is an ally, but its Army and Navy are not comparable to American forces on the high seas and in combat theaters such as Afghanistan.

Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada include gays in their militaries, but these nations have assigned higher priority to liberal social objectives than to readiness for aggressive combat. Other militaries without restrictions on gays are very restrictive in actual practice. Germany, for example, imposed many restrictions on open homosexual behavior and imposed career penalties such as denial of promotions and access to classified information. In Israel, where able-bodied citizens including women must serve, military personnel usually do not reveal their homosexuality and are barred from elite combat positions if they do. America's military is a role-model for the world, and the 1993 law deserves continuing support.

Elaine Donnelly
President, the Center for Military Readiness

Show us a movement that constantly resorts to personal attacks to get their way, and we will show you a movement that has no legitimate argument.

* * * * * * *

CMR appreciates the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, which published a comment in support of the Post op-ed authors titled Keeping America Free. The article recognizes that few appreciate better the unique conditions, challenges and sacrifices of military service than those who have devoted their lives to it.

Parsing Colin Powell

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:24:00 +0000

Listening to retired Army General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is difficult to figure out where the knowledge and experience of the general leaves off and personal political correctness begins. Witness the self-contradictory interview that Gen. Powell recently did with MSNBC-TV talk show host Rachel Maddow, a self-identified lesbian and liberal, on April 1.

On the day before, March 31, the Associated Press broke the news that more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers had signed and delivered to the White House, Pentagon, and Congress an open letter endorsing current law regarding homosexuals in the military. Someone at MSNBC, a notoriously liberal network that few people watch, may have brainstormed about a way to make "news" by upstaging the thousand-star-studded open letter.

If Maddow was expecting Powell to break sharply with hundreds of his former Army colleagues, she had to be disappointed. After a chat about conventional foreign policy and military matters, Maddow sprang this question on General Powell: "[D]o you still think that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is necessary for good order and discipline in the military? You have discussed the idea that it should be reviewed. Would you support the move if Congress decided to get rid of that policy?"

Powell made some comments about the history of the issue, explaining why Congress passed a law making homosexuals ineligible for the military, which prior to 1993 had been long-standing Defense Department policy. He repeated the PC-bromide about "changing times" creating the need to "review the policy," but added this: "I am withholding judgment because I am not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff anymore. And I think we have to hear from our senior military leaders about the effect of a change in the law would have on the force."

Perhaps unimpressed with Powell's response, Maddow tried the "everybody else is doing it" angle:

Maddow: "The examples of other countries that have successfully integrated openly gay people into their forces, are those good reference points for that sort of a study?"

Powell: "Those are reference points that have to be taken into account, sure. I would study every one of those cases...I don't think, however, the armed force of the United States is the same as the armed force of one of our European friends or Canadian friends. And therefore as the courts have held traditionally over the years, and the Congress has as well, the military is a unique institution with rules and regulations and a way of living in close proximity with other soldiers-and you're told whom you're going to live with-that the military can have a set of regulations and rules that would not pass any kind of legal or constitutional muster if it was in civilian society. (Emphasis added)

"And so I think because it is the quality of the force and the ability of the force to apply the nation's power wherever it's called upon to do so, we have to be careful when we change this policy. But if the military leaders think that enough time has passed since 1993 that we ought to take a look at this and perhaps change the policy, I'll be completely supportive. I'm not going to make a judgment until I hear from the chiefs."

Gen. Powell appears conflicted between his high-profile endorsement of candidate Barack Obama last fall and his past support for the 1993 law, which President Obama opposes and has promised to repeal. As CMR President Elaine Donnelly explained in an October 2008 article for National Review Online, this is not the first time that Powell spoke about this subject in a way that appeared politically correct and supportive of President Barack Obama, but actually confirmed concerns of those who support the current law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.

An old saying has it that if you weigh into a debate and both sides disagree with you, you probably have the strongest argument. But the issue of gays in the military is not just an academic or philosophical argument. As more than 1,100 retired Flag and General Officers for the Military recently affirmed, "We believe strongly that this law, which Congress passed to protect good order, discipline, and morale in the unique environment of the military, deserves continued support."

Several gay activists writing on leftist websites have expressed displeasure with Powell's equivocation. Now that the 1,000-star flag and general officers have spoken out in favor of the 1993 law, that is probably as far as the general is willing to go.

Gen. Powell's widely-respected record of distinguished service to our country stands on its own. He could serve America again by affirming the difference between the civilian world and military life, without apology or the contradictory suggestion that political correctness can overcome human characteristics or military realities that remain unchanged.

-- Tommy Sears

Major Media Miss AP Report on Flag & General Officers for the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:49:00 +0000

On March 31 David Crary of the Associated Press covered the release of the Flag & General Officers for the Military statement in support of Section 654, Title 10, the law regarding homosexuals in the military. Among other things, AP reported that more than 1,050 retired flag and general officers had signed the open letter, which was delivered to the White House, Congress and the Pentagon on that day. The story made the Washington Post (online only), Washington Times, Newsday, Miami Herald, and many more newspapers nationwide. The Gannet-owned Military Times, however, let down their many active duty readers by burying the story in two sentences surrounded by statements from advocates of gays in the military. This treatment contrasts with the coverage usually given to the smallest story generated by activists who are determined to repeal the 1993 law.

The April 13 Military Times story by William H. McMichael mentions the 1,000+ retired flag officers in two sentences, but does not provide information about the distinguished signers, 47 of whom achieved four-star rank in all branches of the service. Nor did the article provide information that would help readers to locate the Flag & General Officers for the Military website, which provides background on what the retired military leaders said, and why.

Military Times also ran this week an unquestioning endorsement/review of a polemic book authored by Nathaniel Frank of the activist Palm Center, formerly known as the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. The book reportedly attempts to revise the legislative history of the 1993 law and disregards the harmful consequences of its repeal. Given this treatment of the Frank book, a more prominent placement of the Flag & General Officers for the Military story would seem in order. The editorial position of the Military Times supports repeal of the 1993 law, but in view of its annual polls of its active-duty subscribers solidly rejecting that position (for four years running), journalistic responsibility requires more balanced and informative coverage on the consequences of repealing the 1993 law.

CMR is grateful to the more than 1,000 distinguished retired officers, among them former service chiefs and combatant command leaders, who have stepped forward to defend sound principles and policies for the All-Volunteer force.

Defense and foreign policy commentator and President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney explained the significance of this in an April 1 NewsMax.com article titled, "Former Officers Rally Against Gays in Military." In the face of conventional wisdom that repeal of the law is simply a matter of time, the former military leaders who lent support to the Flag & General Officers for the Military project have rallied to our nation's cause with nothing to gain for themselves. Their unequivocal support for sound policy and a law designed to protect military morale and readiness could and should turn the tide of the entire debate.

Active duty men and women and civilians who care about the military expect the media-particularly newspapers specifically devoted to coverage of military news--to take note and report stories such as this. Active duty people also expect their elected and current military leaders to pay attention and to defend the culture of the armed forces, on which our national security depends.

SLDN Calls Names, Can't Count

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:59:00 +0000

On Tuesday, 1050 retired general and flag officers presented a statement to the White House, Congress and the Pentagon expressing their strong support for Section 654, Title 10, U. S. Code, the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service. This distinguished group of retired Flag & General Officers for the Military, includes 47 four-star officers from all branches of the service. Among them are a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several service chiefs, numerous U. S. and combatant and allied forces commanders, and a Medal of Honor recipient. With absolutely nothing to gain, these distinguished men and women have affirmed strong support for this law based on many decades of experience at all levels of our armed forces.

Of course, dissent from the mainstream media-favored, politically-correct, gay-activist agenda requires swift retribution. Enter the Palm Center, a "research institute" originally known as the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military [CSSMM]," and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay-activist non-profit group with a primary objective of repealing Section 654, Title 10. The inestimable years of leadership and sacrifice that these officers' signatures represent mean little in the face of the single-minded, intolerant agenda of Palm and SLDN.

No, what Palm and SLDN really can't stand is that after lifetimes of selfless service during and after distinguished military careers, a few of them happen to be in their 70s.

SLDN, in a post on its "Frontlines" blog dated April 1 by its Executive Director, Aubrey Sarvis, goes on to take gratuitous shots at one of the statement's signers, former Commandant, General Carl E. Mundy, Jr., USMC (Ret.). Never mind that General Mundy's record of leadership, both as Commandant and for many years in an active life of public service, have made him one of the Marines' most respected leaders. The gay activists' name-calling reflects far more badly on them than on him.

Sarvis lamely questioned the number of signers on the Flag & General Officers for the Military statement, even though all of their names are posted on www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com and 54 pages of hand-written signatures were presented to the White House, Pentagon, and Congress. Instead, Sarvis tried to change the subject by mentioning the Palm Center-assembled "hundred plus admirals and generals who have called for repeal" of the law. We do not know and did not ask if any of these are in their 70s. As far as keeping Section 654, Title 10 is concerned, today there are over 1,100 general and flag-rank supporters. And counting. It has been an honor to work with them, and we will continue to build on their impressive work.

--Tommy Sears

Appointees, Activists, and Priorities

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:46:00 +0000

The Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute's "Presidential Leadership Project" is boasting of 20 appointments that have influence in the Obama Administration, including Mark Pierriello, the Director of Priority Placement, Presidential Personnel. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will not be in the Pentagon indefinitely, and he is not the one making appointments for key positions dealing with military personnel issues.

* * * * * * *

In this article, "Costs of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Lawrence Korb re-hashes old arguments that Elaine Donnelly analyzed and debunked in an article for the Duke University Journal of Gender Law & Policy and in her July 2008 testimony for the House Armed Services Committee. (For answers, see pages 17-25.)

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) probably will use the "soldier" graphic cited by Korb during a Lobbying Day scheduled for Friday, but it doesn't change the fact that the number of honorable discharges for homosexuality-most of which occur due to admissions of non-compliance with the 1993 law-is small compared to separations for other reasons.

* * * * * * *

Log Cabin "Republicans"

This article in the gay newspaper Washington Blade, titled "Log Cabin Under Democratic Control," indicates that the so-called Republican group is influenced if not controlled by Democratic Party interests. Note how well-known gay activist funder Tim Gill, who has personally targeted and defeated conservative congressmen in several states, has been providing a large portion of the Log Cabin organization's budget. Wonder if the group will accept the $100,000 that Gill has offered to choose their next chairman?

When it comes to supporting the military, political party is irrelevant. Equal opportunity is important, but members of Congress must assign higher priority to the needs of the military.

Commandeering the Commanders?

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:40:00 +0000

This article in the San Francisco Chronicle, titled "Tauscher Renews Effort to Repeal 'Don't Ask,'" reports on the plans of the San Francisco-area congresswoman, including this:

"She also suggested that because the Pentagon is enforcing an act of Congress, Obama order the Pentagon to report on how a repeal might be implemented and thus empower top brass to take a position."

Rep. Tauscher, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, surely knows that this could be seen as an abuse of authority by the Commander-in-Chief. Members of the Joint Chiefs are obligated to answer questions from members of Congress truthfully; it would be out of line to pressure uniformed leaders to endorse in advance any type of controversial legislation.

This would be especially wrong in the case of a bill that, according to the annual Military Times Poll, active-duty troops consistently have opposed strongly for four years in a row.

The article also suggests that Tauscher wants to establish some sort of commission to "study" the issue, headed by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army General Colin Powell. In the same interview she described this cause as the next big "civil rights" issue. Rep. Tauscher keeps forgetting that the 1993 law is about conduct-not individual rights.

Tauscher also should know, as Elaine Donnelly wrote in a National Review Online article titled "Where is Colin Powell on Military/Social Issues?," that General Powell famously dismissed the civil rights issue long ago.

General Powell has made a few comments suggesting that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be reviewed. (CMR agrees-President Bill Clinton never should have imposed that administrative policy on the military in the first place, and his successor, George W. Bush, should have dropped Clinton's inconsistent "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regulations long ago.)

But that is a far cry from the unsupported assumption that Colin Powell is ready to impose the full gay agenda on the military, or that he would allow his good name to be used to lend credibility to advance the agenda of an assembly of gay activist groups who want to use the military for their own purposes.

Congress Will Defeat Tauscher Bill for Gays in the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:52:00 +0000

On March 3 Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) re-introduced legislation (H.R. 1283) to repeal the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, which is commonly mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In response, CMR President Elaine Donnelly issued a news release confidently predicting that efforts by liberals in Congress to repeal the 1993 law would not succeed.

"Members of Congress are starting to take this issue seriously," Donnelly said. "Indications are that repeal of the 1993 law would hurt the 'Three R's,' recruiting, retention, and overall readiness in the volunteer force." She added, "The illusion of momentum will not be enough to overcome opposition among military people and doubts among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who support the military." In the view of CMR, Congress should focus on the readiness of our military and its ability to remain the most effective fighting force in the world.

Donnelly emphasized that the annual Military Times Poll of almost 2,000 active duty subscribers found that 58% of respondents supported current law-for four years in a row. The 2008 survey also found that 10% said they would not re-enlist if Congress repeals the 1993 law, and an additional 14% said they would consider leaving.

* * * * * * *

Between the lines of this Politico article, titled "Obama Faces Test on Gay Military Ban," there is evidence of more resistance in Congress than Ellen Tauscher expected. Note the pressure from gay activists on President Barack Obama. They want him to push hard and move quickly "so that he can play offense on the debate, rather than be forced into a defensive posture." How he would do this is unclear, but such an effort probably would be seen as overbearing, especially at a time when internal Pentagon controversies are simmering on several national security issues of tremendous importance.

* * * * * * *

In this commentary for Human Events, "Democrats Launch Efforts to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis provides some historic background about his role at the Pentagon when the 1993 law and Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" proposal were being considered.

Letters from Active Duty Personnel

To remind everyone of what this exercise is all about, here are two well-reasoned letters from active duty Army Warrant Officers, provided by Commander Wayne L. Johnson JAGC Navy (Ret.): HTTP://WWW.ARMYTIMES.COM/COMMUNITY/OPINION/ARMY_OPINION_LETTERS_030209/

Transgenders in the Military and the Tauscher Repeal Bill

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:01:00 +0000

1. Transgenders in the Military?

This McLatchy-Tribune newspaper report, titled "Transgender Vets a Hidden Population," highlights the next frontier for cultural change in the military. In Britain, the Office of the Minister of Defence meets with LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender groups on a regular basis, and the Obama administration is totally supportive of transgender rights. As reported by the Naval Academy Alumni USNA-At-Large network, on November 4, 2008, West Point hosted a transgender former officer who addressed a class on behalf of the Transgender American Veterans Association.

If the law is repealed and the military cannot exercise "discrimination" based on sexual orientation in accepting applicants, gender-confused people will join in significant numbers, and have access to the military and veterans' medical systems for their transgender operations. (The Palm Center recently posted a study on the transgender cause titled Summary and Analysis of the 2008 Transgender American Veterans Association Survey.) Defense and Veterans Affairs Department-funded medical coverage is a big deal for the TAVA.

A number of practical questions come to mind-where should "transitioning" individuals be housed-in the men's quarters or the women's? Who gets to decide what a person's gender is-and when? And what about women who don't want pre-surgical men sharing their private quarters, or families who are not comfortable with transgender people teaching their kids in DoD schools and child care centers-the largest institutions of their kind in the world? The opposition's policy seems to be "don't ask, don't tell."

2. Tauscher Bill to Repeal 1993 Law on Gays in the Military

This account in NPR, "Congress in No Rush to Lift 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'," reported that Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) would re-introduce her bill to repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military. The article notes that Senator Carl Levin is probably acting as a surrogate for Sen. Ted Kennedy in attempting to find a Republican co-sponsor for a Senate companion to Tauscher's bill. Also note the statement of Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network, commenting that he is "talking regularly with Obama's staff and encouraging them to keep their word."

Pentagon Pressured to Support Gays in the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:02:00 +0000

1. The Pentagon

Officials Should Read 2008 Military Times Poll

The third item in the Washington Times' February 12 "Inside the Ring" column mentions statements made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the matter of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"---a policy that is constantly confused with the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, told reporters that it would be hard for him to provide with certainty any feel for how attitudes in the military have changed over time.

The general declined to give his personal views on the issue other than to repeat that he supports "the law of the land" as it now stands. He also said he was unaware of any studies or polling done to gauge opinions among members of the military. Gen. Chiarelli, it seems, missed the front-page January 5, 2009, Army Times story reporting results of the 2008 Military Times Poll.

As in previous years, the poll revealed that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." More importantly, a new question asked active duty subscriber/respondents what they would do if Congress repeals the 1993 law.

Seventy-one percent said they would continue to serve, but almost 10% said "I would not re-enlist or extend my service," and 14% said "I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service." Only 6% expressed "No Opinion." These findings do not guarantee future actions, but all high-level Pentagon officials should be concerned about the potential loss of 10% - 24% of the volunteer force.

If the opinions of reserve and national guard troops are similar to those of active duty personnel surveyed in the Military Times poll, and if the poll's findings approximate the number of military people who would leave or consider leaving if the 1993 law is repealed, combined losses (including guard and reserve forces) would be huge.

-- A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10%) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people---more than the active duty Marine Corps (200,000).

-- If an additional 14% decided to leave, the voluntary exodus would translate into a loss of almost 527,000---a figure approaching the size of today’s active duty Army (more than 545,000). Estimates of losses in active duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10%) and 323,000 (23%).

The poll's findings are not an exact prediction, but they are significant and ought to be of concern to President Barack Obama, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and members of Congress. Regardless of what it is called, repeal of the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, would devastate the volunteer force.

2. The Department of Justice

Opposition to Solicitor General Nominee Elena Kagan

On February 10, the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) issued a news release opposing the nomination of Harvard Dean Elena Kagan to become Solicitor General of the United States.

On the same day, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee reportedly asked questions of Dean Kagan about her willingness to defend the Solomon Amendment, a law mandating equal campus access for ROTC programs and military recruiters. It is disappointing, however, that the senators did not question her further about specific issues affecting the military.

The Solicitor General's office participates in the preparation of petitions, briefs, and other papers filed by the government in Supreme Court proceedings. In addition, the office reviews all cases decided adversely to the government in the lower courts to determine whether they should be appealed and, if so, which position should be taken.

In 2005 Ms. Kagan and 53 other law school faculty members filed an amicus brief supporting litigation asking the courts to declare the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with that position, but the Supreme Court overruled on a unanimous vote.

The outcome of this case very likely would have been different if Dean Kagan had been the Solicitor General instead of a law professor endorsing a losing argument. Absent an appeal, the Third Circuit ruling would have nullified the Solomon Amendment by judicial fiat, without any review by the Supreme Court.

At her confirmation hearing Dean Kagan submitted a statement promising to vigorously defend the statutes of this country against constitutional attack, and to honor the principle of stare decisis with regard to previous Supreme Court decisions. Nevertheless, we need to know whether Kagan still endorses the amicus argument that the military is no different than other employers. If this is her view, will she respect Supreme Court precedents recognizing the principle of "deference" to the executive branch and Congress on matters of regulation and law affecting the military?

In view of the far-reaching powers invested in this office, members of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate should ask more questions of Ms. Kagan to determine her legal philosophy with regard to the Solomon Amendment and other specific matters affecting the military. This is especially important since she has been mentioned as a possible candidate for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enormous power should not be entrusted to an official whose judicial philosophy would do great harm to the all-volunteer force.

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

Kennedy to Sponsor Gays in the Military Bill

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:41:00 +0000

1. Congress

Senator Seeking Republican Co-Sponsor

A front-page Boston Globe article by Bryan Bender, titled "Obama Seeks Assessment on Gays in Military," reports the news that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is going to sponsor a bill to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. This is significant, since there has been no Senate bill in the past. There is one condition--Kennedy is looking for a Republican to co-sponsor to provide political cover. According to the CNSNews, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin also wants to vote for a bill repealing the 1993 law during the coming year.

Liberals in Congress are pressuring the Joint Chiefs to say something-anything-that might give them political cover as they move to fulfill Obama's campaign promise to repeal the law.

- On January 12, Newsweek reported that Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCOS) Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is under intense pressure from Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who "has held long talks on gays and the military with Mullen and other members of the joint staff."

- We don't know whether Tauscher gained ground with Adm. Mullen and the JCOS, but it appears that Obama will not move without some sort of support from military leaders. Resistance to pressures from liberals in Congress will be difficult, since some members of Congress are calling for a 10% cut in the defense budget, and Rep. Barney Frank has called for a 25% cut in defense funds.

- To overcome Pentagon resistance, reflected in the most recent Military Times poll of active duty subscribers, the administration and some members of Congress are talking about a "study" on the issue. To reach the desired "consensus," the question would not be if the 1993 law regarding professed homosexuals in the military should be repealed, but when and how it should be repealed.

- The "study" referred to in the Boston Globe article could take several forms. Following the precedent of 1993, when Bill Clinton was eager to lift the ban, the RAND Corporation produced a seriously flawed polemic that suited the expectations of the Clinton administration.

- An in-house "task force" or "military working group" also could produce recommendations on how to deal with issues such as same-sex unions and housing, sensitivity training, personnel losses when volunteers choose not to re-enlist, as predicted in the Military Times poll, etc. On the contrary, such a group would probably concentrate on what type of training would be needed to increase acceptance. The resulting report would be highly publicized in the media.

- At that point Tauscher and the media will pressure the chiefs to comment favorably on the predetermined "studies," lest they be described as "out of step" with "experts" promoting gays in the military. Obama will appear to stay above it all, but Pentagon appointees, including a new Secretary of the Navy after March 2009 will be in position to promote the cause. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other LGBT groups will continue to meet with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, the successor to David Chu.

- At some point the president will direct Secretary Gates to ask the JCOS their opinions not on whether the law should be repealed, but how to make the new policy "work." This will fulfill Obama's promise to achieve "consensus" in consultation with the military.

2. The Executive Branch

This article from Bay Windows, a prominent New England gay newspaper, confirms that the Obama administration is working with the LGBT Left to implement their mutual agendas. Mark Pierriello, who has been heading the LGBT Victory Fund's Presidential Appointment Project, has been appointed Director, White House Office of Presidential Personnel.

This position is more plum than most because the Director gets to recommend others for key administration appointments, including mid-level jobs in the Department of Defense. Pierriello is certain to choose committed LGBT activists or supporters for many key positions at the Pentagon. So far twelve openly gay people have been appointed to positions in the Obama administration.

3. The Activists

Deb Price, who writes a column on gay issues every week for the Detroit News, includes some interesting twists in this article, "Ban on Gays in the Military May End." Note Lawrence Korb's push to have repeal legislation in this year's edition of the National Defense Authorization Act. But Aaron Belkin of the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, thinks that President Obama should issue an order stopping the discharge of Arabic linguists. All the better, he says, to get military people "used to gay people serving openly in stages." What happened to the story that military people are used to gay people already?

Belkin forgets that the President and Executive Branch have the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. This includes Section 654, Title 10. Under this law, homosexuals in all occupations-including linguists-can serve our country in some way, but they are not eligible to serve in the military.

On another front, the American Psychoanalytic Association of America, (APAA) has issued a paper, titled "Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals in the Military," which argues that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) does psychological damage to gay troops. The paper, which relies almost exclusively on materials provided by the activist Palm Center, is another example of "experts" brandishing credentials that have little to do with common sense.

The APAA seems to know little about military culture, and even less about reasons why Congress passed the law in 1993. If the APAA did have a complete understanding of the issue, they would know that the phrase "sexual orientation" appears nowhere in the law.

The problems complained of by this group and many others center on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), a proposal made by then-President Bill Clinton that Congress rejected for many good reasons. DADT exists in the form of administrative regulations that Clinton imposed on the military, and it could be eliminated by Obama Administration in the same way. The real goal is to repeal the 1993 law, regardless of the harm done to good order, discipline, and morale.

4. The Judiciary

There is reason for concern about President Obama's nominee for Solicitor General, Elena Kagan. Our friend Flagg Youngblood's excellent op-ed about this nomination is here. My article for National Review Online, titled "Solicitor General Nominee Should Respect Solomon Amendment," explained the significance of Kagan's opposition to the Solomon Amendment. This law mandates that if a college or university receives federal funds, it must provide campus access for ROTC programs and military recruiters on an equal basis.

In 2005, Ms. Kagan and 53 other law school faculty members filed an amicus brief supporting litigation asking the courts to declare the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with that position, but the Supreme Court overruled on a unanimous vote.

The outcome of this case could have been different if Dean Kagan had been the Solicitor General instead of a law professor endorsing a losing argument. Absent an appeal, the Third Circuit ruling would have nullified the Solomon Amendment by judicial fiat, without any review by the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General also reviews all cases decided adversely to the government in the lower courts to determine whether they should be appealed and, if so, which position should be taken. In view of the far-reaching powers invested in this office, senators should question Ms. Kagan closely to determine her legal philosophy. CMR has contributed several questions for Judiciary Committee senators to ask at her confirmation hearing, scheduled for February 10. A vote on her confirmation will probably take place the following week.

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

President Obama Pushes to Deliver on Gays in the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:17:00 +0000

1. The Obama White House

Within minutes of the Inauguration, the White House website posted this:

Support for the LGBT Community

"Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

- Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

- Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals."

The White House statement advocating repeal of the 1993 law is straight out of the gay activists' playbook. The "key test" it mentions implies that there is a right to serve in the military. The truth is that sometimes there is an obligation, but there is no right to serve in the military. Many people who are capable and patriotic are not eligible for military service.

- The issue of discharges of homosexuals is addressed here.

- And the "Arabic linguist" issue is addressed in the July 23, 2008, testimony of Elaine Donnelly, on pages 23-25.

- With regard to family status and housing of gays in the military. It is entirely possible that if the 1993 law is repealed, the DoD could order acceptance of civil unions or something comparable to marriage so that there would be no "discrimination" against same-sex couples.

- In Britain, which is supposed to be our role model, same-sex couples are living in family housing, and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is meeting with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activist groups to discuss ways to include transgenders in the military. Contrary to suggestions that all is well in the gay-inclusive British military, gay activists are working with the MoD to reduce what they call "bullying." Britain is having problems with recruiting, even though officials have allowed gay service members to march in uniform in gay parades. (See Donnelly's testimony, pages 17-18 and footnotes 41 and 42.)

- Comment of Interest: Fox News' Megyn Kelly, who was reporting from the Commander-in-Chief's Inaugural Ball, said that the active duty and wounded people who were present were largely supportive of the new president, Barack Obama. She pointedly mentioned, however, that more than a few military people told her that they did not agree that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed.

2. Congress

- According to Politico, the issue of gays in the military will be the first of five "Top Lobbying Fights to Expect" in this Congress. This report contradicts other claims that action on the repeal bill will not occur until 2010.

3. News Reports

Anna Mulrine of US News & World Report, in a January 16 article titled "Obama to Confront Limits on America's Overstretched Military" reports that the Pentagon is "well underway" with a plan to grow the ranks of the military. The plan is to increase the Army by 65,000 soldiers by 2010, bringing active duty forces to a total of 547,000. The Marine Corps plans to add 27,000 to its ranks, growing to 202,000 by 2011.

Due to poor economic conditions, recruiting and retention are presently meeting goals. And it is possible that passage of the Tauscher bill, which would invite homosexuals who were denied before to join-would attract an unknown number of professed homosexuals, including those who were discharged or denied induction before.

But has anyone thought about the cultural clash between American gay troops and Muslim allies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Training Muslim troops is part of the job-how will the culture clash work in the field?

The American military has modified many American practices and customs to avoid giving offense. Will the military have to exempt gay soldiers from deployment to these areas? Or will they operate with additional stress that undermines trust and the training mission? These are only a few of the many questions that President Barack and members of Congress need to think through.

4. Message from the Field

The "Confidential Contact" feature on this website offers a way for active duty men and women to communicate with CMR in confidence. On January 15, we received this message from a serviceman in the field. His message is important and being conveyed to people in a position to make a difference.

"Ms. Elaine Donnelly:

I am writing you again to let you know that I am following this military personnel/social issue as closely as I can. Myself and the majority of my fellow Captains that I talk with about this issue are in agreement that the law needs to remain in place and be enforced. Quite frankly I am a little taken back of the notion that we could have an open acceptance of homosexuality in the U.S. Military. Whatever happened to morals and social boundaries?

I am praying that good decent people make the right decisions regarding this issue. This issue has far reaching implications for our military and our entire nation. I am saddened to see our nation slowing degrade its moral authority.

I thank you for standing up and protecting our military. I hope that my Generals will do the same. We are going to need a very large movement of the American people calling and writing their representatives in Congress about this issue."

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

LGBT Left Pressing Obama for Gays in the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:52:00 +0000

1. Military Times Poll Setback for Gay Rights Activists

The year 2009 brought an unexpected setback to gay activists who are determined to repeal the 1993 law making homosexuals ineligible for military service. In an article for National Review Online titled Military Times Poll: Troops Oppose Gay Agenda for the Military, CMR President Elaine Donnelly analyzed strong opposition to repeal of the law among the current active-duty forces.

For the fourth year in a row, 58% of active duty Military Times subscribers (almost 2,000 in the 2008 poll) indicated support for current law. In response to a new survey question, 10% of respondents said that if the 1993 law is repealed, they would not re-enlist. Another 14% said that they would consider ending their careers.

This PDF shows the original Military Times article, complete with graphs, and Elaine Donnelly's letter to the editor that translated those percentages into potential numbers. As the letter published in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Times notes, the 2008 survey is not an exact prediction, but personnel losses anywhere close to those indicated by the Military Times poll would devastate the volunteer force.

2. Pressure on the Joint Chiefs

Several articles have reported that organizations pushing for repeal plan to apply pressure on the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). They are hoping that one of the chiefs will say something-anything-that could be interpreted as support for their cause:

- In a Nov. 25, 2008 article titled "Obama Team Denies it will Delay 'Don't Ask,' Repeal", the Washington Blade reported that "A member of Barack Obama's transition team is denying media reports that the president-elect has decided to delay efforts to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' until 2010." An Obama transition team spokesperson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said decisions on how to proceed would be made after more experts have joined the Obama administration. Translation: Gay activists are recommending "experts" for appointment to key mid- to high-level positions. These officials will be in place to push the gay agenda when Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates steps down and is replaced with President Obama's own man.

- Lawrence Korb, who has been campaigning for gays in the military for years, has suggested that the Pentagon should set up some sort of study group that would make recommendations on personnel issues, including the gay ban. Such a "study," of course, would have a pre-determined outcome. Another option may be the commissioning of a pre-determined RAND report, similar to the discredited one that RAND produced in 1993.

- A December 22, 2008, National Public Radio interview titled "Will Obama Press to End DADT?", quoted Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) saying, "I would say, continue to reach out to the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs to seek a favorable recommendation from them for the House bill."

- Newsweek (Jan. 12, 2009) has reported that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is under intense pressure from California liberal Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, who "has held long talks on gays and the military with Mullen and other members of the joint staff. She says they understand how times have changed. "'They don't want to find themselves crosswise with the new commander in chief.'"

- In 1993, a Defense Department Working Group was charged to come up with recommendations to implement Bill Clinton's plans for professed gays in the military. White House advisors George Stephanopoulos and Counsel Bernard Nussbaum coordinated the project and other activities so that Bill Clinton could deliver on his campaign promises. Working Group members met with gay activists to get their advice. Only when the Washington Times reported on the closed door meetings did the Working Group invite opposing voices, including Elaine Donnelly, to speak to them. Days later Donnelly and the others learned that the Working Group had already completed its flawed report recommending the flawed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) concept.

2. Congress

- Activists for repeal have told some reporters that the Obama administration and liberals might back off a bit on the Tauscher legislation. Others have correctly reported that the cause of gays in the military remains a top priority.

- This article in Agence France Presse, titled "Obama Era Expected to End Taboo on Gays in US Military", and featured on the Drudge Report on January 7, quoted several advocates who showed no sign of letting up on their drive for gays in the military. It also quoted Obama's Transition website indicating that the administration will try to impose a pure "civil rights" ideology on the military that would assign special rights to homosexuals.

3. The Obama Transition Team & Administration

On Friday, January 9, the incoming White House Press Secretary, Thomas Gibbs, responded to a question from "Thaddeus" who asked, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy? Said Gibbs, "Thaddeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much, but it's 'Yes.'"

On the now-closed website www.change.gov there was a spot called "Your Seat at the Table." According to lists posted under "Civil Rights," representatives of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest gay activist group in the country, met with the Transition Team on Dec. 5, Dec. 8, Dec. 10, and Jan. 6. The Dec. 10 meeting included a host of like-minded gay activist groups, including the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

Media people keep repeating the "spin" that Obama is trying to avoid the "mistakes" of Clinton in pushing too hard and too soon for gays in the military. The Transition Team records, to the contrary, indicate that he is doing more than Clinton-the only difference being that meetings are behind closed doors instead of in the open, with Washington Post photos of gay activists meeting with the president in the Oval Office.

4. Administration Nominations/Appointees

Leaders of opposition groups are meeting with high-level members of the Obama Transition Team and pushing hard for the appointment of people who support their causes. The Washington Times recently reported that some activists want the administration to appoint the first Secretary of the Navy who is openly gay. Donnelly's NRO article on that possibility appears here: Military Nominees and the Homosexualist Agenda

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

Do Not Risk the Good Order and Discipline of the Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:54:00 +0000

Sound advice from Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy in his December 30, 2008 column for the Washington Times. President-elect Obama would do well to heed it.

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

Army Times Finally Reports on Fort Leonard Wood Sex Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:10:00 +0000

The December 15, 2008, cover story of Army Times finally reports on the alarming rise in courts-martial for sexual misconduct by drill sergeants at Fort Leonard Wood, a gender-integrated Army basic training base in Missouri. CMR highlighted the original report on this story by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last month here.

Army Times quotes several officials at Fort Leonard Wood who seem resigned to a high school atmosphere in basic training. They seem to believe that the situation cannot be improved, and it does not have consequences.

Advocates of co-ed basic training and gays in the military (often the same people) usually maintain that military people are so "professional" in matters involving sexuality that it is an insult to suggest otherwise. This is unrealistic and harmful thinking, especially in view of the number of drill sergeants who have been court-martialed or severely disciplined for "consexploitation"---consexual sex with female basic trainees.

This scandal deserves a strong media spotlight, congressional attention, and accountability for those who have refused to revisit the wisdom of imposing co-ed basic training on the Army.

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

Co-ed Basic Training Sexual Abuses on the Rise

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:13:00 +0000

An article in the November 23, 2008 St. Louis Post-Dispatch describes an alarming rise in instances of sexual misconduct at Fort Leonard Wood, a gender-integrated Army training installation in Missouri. The report by Philip O'Connor, titled "New Sex Scandals at Fort Leonard Wood," notes that "at least 14 drill sergeants or other trainers have faced courts-martial for having improper relationships with Soldiers undergoing initial-entry training at the [base]."

The article also recounts an earlier congressional investigation of Fort Leonard Wood in 1996, two years after gender-integrated training began at the base. Seventeeen drill instructors were either convicted, pleaded guilty or received discharges in lieu of courts-martial. At about the same time, a sensational sex scandal exploded at Aberdeen Proving Ground, shortly after the re-election of then-President Bill Clinton.

According to the Post-Dispatch, "since 2005, sexual misconduct allegations against drill sergeants increased each year. In 2007, 68 percent of all trainee abuse allegations involved drill sergeant sexual misconduct, far ahead of complaints about physical or verbal abuse." The paper deserves credit for publishing a disturbing story, but where were the rest of the media been on this story during the past two years?

Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), declares the Army's vigilance on the issue, promising to "prosecute to the fullest extent we can if allegations are investigated and found to be valid." Unfortunately, the primary source of the problem is the Pentagon itself. CMR compiled an analysis of Army Gender-Integrated Basic Training (GIBT) in 2003. Its findings are available here. The failure of TRADOC and officials of the Army to acknowledge evidence that co-ed basic training undermines discipline and morale has led to the myriad problems now emerging.

CMR has more data and analysis on this issue available at its page on co-ed basic training. We challenge the media to do more investigation on this story, with questioning minds open enough to consider the effect of gender integrated training on sexual misconduct in the ranks.

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

Obama's "Universal Service" Threatens National Security

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:31:00 +0000

In a July 20, 2008 American Thinker article titled "Obama's Civilian National Security Force," Lee Cary described the elaborate plans of Barack Obama to transform America "into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers."

Mr. Cary, who has personal experience in volunteer community organizing, noted the expansiveness of Obama's "Plan for Universal Voluntary Public Service." Starting on page 59, in small print, the plan amounts to mandated, universal volunteerism-a contradiction in terms. The ultimate purpose is to convert Americans' current volunteer spirit and efforts into what Cary described as "cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out [Obama's] social re-engineering agenda."

Essentially, Obama would co-opt Americans' present volunteerism and coerce additional "service." Not only would this mean dramatic increases in spending for new government-sponsored "volunteer" programs, it also would inculcate in its participants the notion that they owe volunteerism and service to the government, and the government likewise owes them something in return. The perpetuation of such a concept would actually erode and endanger true volunteerism and public service by tainting the motivation behind civic-mindedness. The expectation that service should result in some tangible reward weakens a sense of duty.

The tradition of "service as its own reward" is nowhere more important than in our military, which depends on volunteers who have a strong belief in country and freedom, and service to both before self.

The fiscal consequences of Obama's service program demand scrutiny, but Obama's plans extend further than simply adding new government programs. His inversion of the incentives that underpin our nation's institutions, especially the military's, threaten to redefine traditional notions of volunteerism and service. Regardless of who wins the election today, Americans need to soberly and seriously consider proposed plans for universal national service.

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

Virginia Attorney General Defends Military Votes

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:07:00 +0000

As we noted in an October 16 SITREP article titled "DoD Must Not Tolerate Disenfranchisement of Troops," we need to guarantee to our men and women in uniform the opportunity to cast their vote and to have it counted. CMR applauds the action of Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell, who issued an October 27 opinion defending the rights of military voters.

McDonnell's opinion overruled a decision of the Fairfax County, Virginia, registrar who had claimed that state law required the disqualification of absentee ballots that did not display the signature of a witness. AG McDonnell's opinion found that federal law governing overseas military voting took precedence over the state law cited by the registrar. Federal law does not require a witness for military absentee ballots. The Virginia State Board of Elections subsequently advised the local elections officials to abide by McDonnell's opinion.

CMR commends the efforts of the National Defense Committee, which played a crucial role in bringing this issue to light. Retired Rear Adm. Jim Carey, his son Bob Carey, and Sam Wright, Director of the Military Voting Rights Program, are dedicated volunteers who have done a great job protecting our servicemen and -women's votes, and ensuring that they are counted.

We hope that as the election enters its closing days, the Department of Defense will match the vigilance of the National Defense Committee and other like-minded organizations and citizens. More than any other group, our brave men and women serving in harm's way deserve the opportunity to cast their votes and to have them counted on Election Day.

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.

Obama's Gay Activist Supporters Threaten Society And The Military

noreply@blogger.com (CMR Editor) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:51:00 +0000

An October 20 commentary by Linda Harvey on WordNetDaily.com, titled "Gay Pedophilia & Obama", profiles Kevin Jennings, founder and long-time head of the radical homosexual group GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Jennings is now the Obama campaign's fundraising co-chair for the "LGBT" (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. Harvey describes Jennings' promotion of a radical homosexual agenda through the vehicle of the public school system. In calling for Obama to remove Jennings from his position with his campaign, Harvey enumerates several questions that arise from Jennings official association with the Obama campaign.

Many of these same questions apply to the radical homosexual agenda with respect to the military. Once the gay activists' achieve their goal of open homosexuality in the ranks, the arguments against imposing the same upon civil society, such as in the public schools, become greatly weakened. That is the whole idea. If the homosexual agenda is acceptable for the military, one of our nation's most conduct-restrictive public institutions, why would it not be acceptable in all civilian institutions?

If anyone doubts the intent of Sen. Barack Obama to push the gay agenda to the limit, be sure to click on the box highlighted in Ms. Harvey's piece as "LGBT Left," and then on the "More Videos" section of Obama's rainbow-decorated web page. The only mystery is, why has the McCain campaign declined to draw distinctions between McCain's position and the radical LGBT agenda?

* * * * * * *

Interested readers, including members of the military, are invited to comment through the "Confidential Contact" site on this website, www.cmrlink.org. Nothing in the CMR SITREP Blog is intended to aid or hinder elections or the passage of legislation before Congress.