| CMR Sitrep |
 |
|
Friday, June 19, 2009
Paranoia in the LGBT Left?
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."
Thursday, June 11, 2009
State Celebrates Gay Culture
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
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.
|
|
|
Home
