Thursday, January 21, 2010
Lessons for Backers of Murphy's LGBT Law
The political earthquake that occurred on Tuesday, electing Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate, was more than the first election of a Republican senator from that state since 1972. At his victory party Senator-elect Brown drew national applause when he declared,
"Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax money should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."
This was not a "populist" sentiment. It was one of the clearest statements in support of a strong national defense that we have heard from a Republican candidate in a long time.
An obvious exception is retired Army Colonel Alan West, who is creating a sensation in his second run for Congress from the 22nd District in Florida. If you haven't seen this video of West in action, check it out:
Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West
The Massachusetts voters who calmly and cheerfully secured the "People's Seat" for Scott Brown are concerned about national security, and they don't want America's military to be used for any purpose other than national defense. In an article titled "It's the Enemy, Stupid," Andrew McCarthy of NRO quoted Scott Brown's top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign's internal polling showed "terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants" to be an even bigger issue than health care.
Will pro-defense members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, learn from this lesson?
It is a dangerous temptation to assume, that liberals and gay activists will retreat from the effort to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. The signs are encouraging, including post-election comments from U. S. Senate Democrats Evan Bayh (IN) and Jim Webb (VA), essentially warning their colleagues against continued political over-reaching. But the activists are not letting up.
CMR is nonpartisan and we don't endorse candidates, but voters and politically-active groups should ask every candidate for the Congress and U.S. Senate questions about their position on repeal of the 1993 law, which is constantly mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This includes every co-sponsor of HR 1283, Rep. Patrick Murphy's bill to impose a new LGBT Law on the military.
According to a survey done by the Massachusetts Family Institute, Scott Brown said that he supports "current armed forces policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military," while his rival Martha Coakley took the opposite position. (Brown and Coakley also disagreed on two more LGBT causes, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA.)
As the 2010 elections approach, questions of all candidates should focus on the Congress' findings regarding homosexuals in the military, as contained in the 1993 law and highlighted last week in a Washington Times op-ed by a respected former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.
Maintain Military Gay Ban
As Gen. Mundy wrote, the law's findings remain valid and important for good order and high morale in the military. Our servicemen and women should not be forced to carry the burdens of a controversial, unprecedented social experiment that would weaken recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer force.
CMR issues such as this are essential elements in two legs of Ronald Reagan's famous three-legged stool. We look forward to working with candidates, elected officials, voters, opinion leaders, media, researchers, and members of the armed forces to build support for sound policies and priorities for the best military in the world.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Roadmaps for Railroading the Military
Gay activists who are trying to impose their radical agenda on the military are floating several "trial balloon" proposals to get their way despite strong opposition from military leaders and personnel, members of Congress, and the general public. The following are some of the most egregious bad ideas that media reports have revealed since October 2009:
1. Stifling Testimony from Military Leaders
The AP and the Washington Post reported on January 13 that Department of Defense lawyers are having second thoughts about the wisdom of repealing the 1993 law this year:
Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban
The article reported for the first time that House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) opposes repeal of the 1993 law, and The Hill reported additional details on January 15:
Skelton Opposes Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke at a dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) LGBT Left group in the country. Marching outside were even more radical homosexualists who demand that the president impose their San Francisco agenda on the men and women of our military. This article in the American Thinker analyzed the homosexualists' two-step plan to box-in military leaders with a pre-emptive presidential executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 Eligibility Law:
Roadmap for Railroading the Military
2. Updated RAND Report: More Advocacy, Not Evidence
Given the Pentagon resistance noted above, it is not surprising that AP also reported that SASC Chairman Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) is pursuing an alternative plan. In order to repeat and reinforce false arguments for gays in the military, Levin has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to "task" the RAND Corporation to update the report on this subject that they did in 1993. This proposal is irresponsible for several reasons:
- Retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, now a Fox News contributor, completely discredited the 1993 RAND report at that time it was released because it was a typically biased, pre-determined pro-gays-in-the-military paper. Updating that polemic would be tantamount to bestowing defense dollars directly on gay activist groups, including the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center.
- RAND demonstrated its liberal bias as recently as November 2009, when it made a significant "in-kind" contribution to the cause by issuing a news release promoting a paper that the Palm Center had solicited from RAND employee Dr. Laura Miller. As we reported in the CMR SITREP, the news release noted that it was not an official RAND report, much less an objective "study," but the Boston Globe and other major newspapers publicized it as if it were.
3. Delayed-Effective-Date Ploy
Another very speculative idea heard through the grapevine suggests that legislation to repeal the 1993 law might postpone its effective date for a few years, going into effect whenever the troops come home from the war or the Secretary of Defense determines that it is "safe" to impose the LGBT Left agenda on our military men and women.
- This would be another cynical attempt to circumvent and incrementally repeal current law by refusing to enforce it. Such a plan would require the troops to be part of a social experiment in the midst of a war, while blurring responsibility for that action and postponing accountability until after the 2010 and 2012 elections.
- The Flag & General Officers for the Military statement opposes "any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law." The delayed-effective-date ploy certainly would be as bad, and perhaps worse, than repealing the law with immediate effect. There is no "good time" to weaken the culture of the military, and no one should fall into the trap of arguing that repeal safely can come later.
4. Short-Sighted Incrementalism
The new Secretary of the Army, former New York Congressman John McHugh, thoughtlessly suggested a completely unworkable way to manage results, not "if" the law is repealed, but "when" it is. Speaking in an interview on multiple topics with Army Times, McHugh suggested that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units, but barred from others.
- Secretary McHugh's absurd comment demonstrates Mr. Magoo-like short-sightedness. It also calls into question the judgment of Mr. McHugh, who previously served as Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee. Secretary McHugh (or unnamed others he was quoting) apparently has not thought of the reaction if gays in the military are not eligible for deployment in close combat units, Special Operations Forces, SEALS, and submarines, in the same way that HIV+ troops must be retained but cannot be deployed in any unit overseas.
- This tentative plan, a recipe for constant chaos and demoralizing resentment in the ranks, contradicts claims that the new LGBT Law will "enhance readiness" in the military.
For more information that discredits every flawed argument that has been made for passage of the proposed LGBT Law, please review the comprehensive array of articles posted elsewhere on this website, www.cmrlink.org.