tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46027834876581481862024-03-05T09:18:08.389-05:00CMR SitrepCMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-20797737174850162022011-03-01T12:29:00.004-05:002011-03-07T15:45:36.856-05:00Conservatives for Unity at CPAC<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj83NIAN0Gi-vJu8OxKk_KEfR6Hh7CItSk4jKXHBQ7qWQAPpAbn-L1VfygircD0gwW21VkuqFaYU-wwToWDpl1pQYHTWmd8Qm_y3tTFc_dsM_FTcKcliUMEUVK56yT-fST4AS8X1cisqdA/s1600/Elaine-CPAC2011A.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 229px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj83NIAN0Gi-vJu8OxKk_KEfR6Hh7CItSk4jKXHBQ7qWQAPpAbn-L1VfygircD0gwW21VkuqFaYU-wwToWDpl1pQYHTWmd8Qm_y3tTFc_dsM_FTcKcliUMEUVK56yT-fST4AS8X1cisqdA/s320/Elaine-CPAC2011A.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5581441856165943122" /></a><br /><br /><br />The annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), coinciding with the Centennial Celebration of Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday, started a re-examination of what it means to be conservative.<br /><br />• <a href="http://bigpeace.com/edonnelly/2011/02/06/ronald-reagan-political-confidence-and-social-conservatism/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">CMR President Elaine Donnelly on Big Peace – Ronald Reagan: Political Confidence and Social Conservatism</span></a><br /><br />The article above was similar to a special letter to the American Conservative Union and the ACU Foundation, signed by over twenty respected conservative leaders, which expressed concerns about the inclusion of the gay activist group GOProud as a "participating organization" at this year's CPAC conference. With the full support of Let Freedom Ring President Colin Hanna and others who shared our concerns, CMR took the lead in organizing this project, which we called "Conservatives for Unity." The persuasive letter that the influential group sent to the American Conservative Union and Foundation boards of directors is linked here: <br /><br />• <a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/ConservativesForUnityLetter_020711.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Conservatives for Unity Letter re CPAC</span></a><br /><br />CMR did not seek media coverage for our letter, but as we thought might happen, someone leaked the letter and it appeared with a banner headline at the top of Wednesday’s <span style="font-style:italic;">Washington Times</span>. (The reporter missed the constructive tone of our letter, but the coverage was helpful.) <br /><br />• <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/8/cpac-fissure-over-gays-deepens/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">CPAC Fissure Over Gays Deepens; GOProud Called Incompatible</span></a><br /><br />The letter, addressed to the ACU Foundation Board from "Conservatives for Unity" (hardly indicating a "fissure," as the <span style="font-style:italic;">Times</span> headline read) noted that "[a]lthough it is unlikely that current controversies will be resolved at this time, we wish to lend support to leaders who might lay the groundwork for future success at CPAC by fostering unity among conservatives, not division."<br /> <br />The letter explained how allowing "GOProud to affiliate with CPAC is tantamount to tacitly removing the social conservative leg from the movement's metaphoric three-legged stool," and urged board members "to reconsider the decision to accept GOProud as a participating sponsor, or provide some assurance the board will seriously consider avoiding this sort of divisive dilemma at this time next year." The letter was well-received and had an immediate effect. <br /><br />In this article, Erick Erickson of Red State nailed GOProud for its intemperate rhetoric and history of support for liberal causes-He was particularly alarmed by the personal slash attacks of GOProud Co-Founder and Chairman Chris Barron against Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and ACU Board member Cleta Mitchell:<br /><br />• <a href="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Erick Erickson: This is Too Much for Me</span></a><br /><br />Al Cardenas, the new incoming chairman of ACU, correctly reacted to Barron's intemperate slash attacks against these respected conservative leaders, reiterating ACU's adoption of a resolution endorsing "traditional marriage between a man and a woman," and that supporters of gay marriage were not "Ronald Reagan" conservatives:<br /><br />• <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/new-cpac-head-distances-group-from-goproud"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Frum Report: New CPAC Head Distances Group From GOProud</span></a><br /><br />Chris Barron of GOProud subsequently apologized for his personal attacks, but he cannot eat his words convincingly. Liberal media are eager to portray GOProud as "conservative," as in this Politico article: <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B720EFAC-6936-4E35-8BC6-2B67CB30C3B9"><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Complex Legacy of David Keene</span></a>. The article also begins the process of unfairly attacking Al Cardenas, which is disappointing but no surprise because that is what liberal media always does. <br /><br />Here are some more commentaries and news articles of interest:<br /><br />• Kevin McCullough: <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2011/02/13/cpacs_experiment_gone_wild"><span style="font-weight:bold;">CPAC's Experiment Gone Wild</span></a><br /><br />• Star Parker: <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/02/14/gay_conservative_is_an_oxymoron"><span style="font-weight:bold;">'Gay Conservative' Is an Oxymoron</span></a><br /><br />• Sandy Rios: <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/sandyrios/2011/02/10/what_would_reagan_really_do"><span style="font-weight:bold;">What Would Reagan Really Do?</span></a><br /><br />• Floyd Brown: <a href="http://floydreports.com/gay-conservative-group-tears-conservatism-apart/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Gay 'Conservative' Group Tears Conservatism Apart</span></a><br /><br />• <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=259869"><span style="font-weight:bold;">American Principles Project: "An open Letter to CPAC attendees and presenters."</span></a><br /><br />• The Hill: <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/142587-conservative-group-wants-answers-from-palin-on-gay-rights"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Conservative Group Wants Answers from Palin on Gay Rights</span></a><br /><br />• Fishbowl DC: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/breitbarts-big-gay-cpac-party_b30963"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Breitbart's Big Gay CPAC Party</span></a><br /><br />• WorldNetDaily: <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=263177"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Conservatives Begin to See the Light"</span></a><br /><br />This article explains the significance of a move by the Young Americans for Freedom to remove Texas Congressman Ron Paul from their board of directors. For the second year in a row, the disproportionate numbers of young attendees following Pied Piper Ron Paul skewed the CPAC straw poll, rendering it worthless. Most have never heard that Ron Paul went back on his 2008 presidential campaign position and voted to impose LGBT laws and policies on our military, where "individual freedom" simply does not exist:<br /> <br />• William J. Upton, American Thinker: <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/conservatives_and_libertarians_1.html"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Conservatives and Libertarians</span></a><br /><br />This video of Florida Republican Allen West demonstrates why CPAC is important:<br /><br />• Video: <a href="http://west.house.gov/video/congressman-wests-inspiring-c-pac-speech"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Allen West at CPAC</span></a> <br /><br />Elaine Donnelly also participated in a panel titled "How Political Correctness Threatens Our Military," together with Iraq veteran and author Ilario Pantano, who plans to run again for Congress again in North Carolina’s 7th District.<br /><br />CMR joins with many other conservatives in congratulating Mr. Al Cardenas upon his election as the new Chairman of the American Conservative Union. Having witnessed once again the sheer size and complexity of CPAC 2011, we were reminded once again that this is not an easy job that he has taken on. CPAC is being pulled by liberal forces in the wrong direction, but if what Allen West described as the “pillars” of conservatism unite behind sound principles and values, CPAC 2012 will be the first major event of a successful election year.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-46782257453356701302010-11-23T22:21:00.003-05:002010-11-23T22:43:37.713-05:00Pentagon Using "Spin" to Push Gays in Military GoalPentagon officials are stepping up a misleading perception management (PM) campaign, trying to rush Congress into passing legislation that would impose a new LGBT Law or policy on our military. Such a law would require full acceptance of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in all branches and communities of the military, with "zero tolerance" of dissent.<br /><br />Activists who want the military to operate under LGBT Law are basing their hopes on perceptions about the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) report, due for early release on November 30. The report is being carefully "spun" as a military endorsement of gays in the military even though, as this editorial reveals, the Department of Defense has allowed an erroneous story based on anonymous sources to be published without correction, calling into question the integrity of the entire CRWG process.<br /> <br />-<span style="font-style:italic;">Washington Times</span>: <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/18/baracks-brokeback-barracks/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Barack's Brokeback Barracks</span></a><br /><br />Even before this incident, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) raised important questions about the workings and assumptions of the DoD Working Group with this September 28 letter.<br /><br />-<a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6b97f110-c9c9-4d21-96d8-b920e728ad6f"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Letter from Sen. John McCain to CRWG</span></a><br /><br />On October 25, Secretary Gates wrote what amounts to a "non-response" to Sen. McCain—most of it reads like a form-letter. <br /><br />-<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/23/gates-mccain-dadt-letter/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Gates October 25 Letter to Sen. McCain re: CRWG</span></a><br /><br />Secretary Gates cannot have it both ways-making statements that the intent was to "engage" the troops, while failing to mention that troops who support the current law were not given an equal opportunity to have their views respected and reported. It was not enough to ask for "solutions" to irresolvable problems, but that is what the CRWG surveys and focus groups have done.<br /><br />Secretary Gates' disingenuous claims about the CRWG survey <span style="font-style:italic;">process</span>, not its <span style="font-style:italic;">substance</span>, are contradicted by the survey instruments themselves and by recent history with which I am personally familiar.<br /><br />The most obvious flaw in the CRWG survey instruments is the conspicuous absence of the basic question of interest to Senator McCain and most members of Congress: <span style="font-style:italic;">should the 1993 law be retained or repealed?</span> Such a question would not be inappropriate or unprecedented. In 1992, I served on the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which commissioned professional survey of the troops that was designed by the Roper Company in consultation with the presidential commission and with the full cooperation of the Department of Defense. <br /><br />Unlike the CRWG survey, which reflected the mistaken expectation that Congress would repeal the law, the 1992 Roper survey was not skewed by gratuitous statements suggesting that all laws and regulations regarding women in or near combat were "likely" to be repealed. All personnel were free to express their opinions without restriction, even though the law regarding combat aviation had already been repealed by Congress in 1991, in the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal. <br /><br />During presidential commission focus groups at military bases nationwide, all personnel were encouraged to speak their opinions, on any side of the many issues the commissioners were reviewing. Just prior to our visit to the aircraft carrier <span style="font-style:italic;">John F. Kennedy</span>, the ship's commander prepared a special video encouraging all crewmembers to speak freely with commissioners, after thinking about the issue and preparing to express their rationale. <br /><br />According to active-duty personnel who contacted CMR, instead of issuing guidance that encouraged all views to be heard and respected on an equal basis, CRWG focus group instructions discouraged, precluded, or did not record the opinions of personnel who support current law.<br /> <br />As I told CRWG leaders last spring, the Roper survey instrument was not designed in consultation with commissioners holding only one point of view. In accordance with our subcommittee structure, I was assigned to work on the project together with another commissioner whose views were quite different from mine. Together we worked hard to produce an instrument that was professional, fair, and acceptable to both of us and to the entire commission. <br /> <br />The Roper survey was not a "referendum," but it did not hesitate to ask candid questions and to compile the results according to relevant criteria, such as military and combat experience, military community, etc. The survey covered related issues throughout, such as training standards, sexual misconduct, family/child care concerns, etc. Results were very useful to the commission, but unlike the CRWG survey, it was not billed as the "definitive" voice of the military on the range of controversial issues before the commission.<br /> <br />CRWG leaders could have benefited from the Roper survey model, but they chose another course of action with the Westat company. Secretary Gates claims that numbers of surveys sent out and focus groups conducted make the survey "comprehensive." On the contrary, these are process matters-they do not satisfy concerns about the substance of the survey, including the omission of a <a href="http://www.militaryculturecoalition.com/content/home/28741/MCC%20Submits%20List%20of%20Topics%20for%20Pentagon%20Gays-in-Military%20Working%20Group%20Report"><span style="font-weight:bold;">long list of subjects</span></a> that the Military Culture Coalition brought to the attention of the CRWG early in the process and again in September.<br /><br />With so many "thorny issues" apparently left out, it is no surprise that gay activist groups are already hailing the CRWG survey as useful for their cause. The DoD's tolerance of unsupported, inaccurate leaks about the survey may already have distorted public perceptions. Congress will not be so easily fooled.<br /><br /> --- Elaine DonnellyCMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-55685353023543043992010-10-29T16:58:00.004-04:002012-07-18T14:46:51.991-04:00CMR Requests Investigation of Pentagon "Leak" on Gays-in-Military SurveyAccording to the AP and the Washington Post, an unnamed Pentagon source has claimed that the recent Defense Department survey of 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops found that a majority would not object if they are required to accept professed homosexuals in the military following repeal of the current law.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/dont_ask_survey_shows_majority.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">‘Don’t Ask’ Survey: Majority OK Serving With Openly Gay Troops, Sources Say</span></a><br />
<br />
In response, CMR President <span style="font-weight: bold;">Elaine Donnelly</span> sent an email to <span style="font-weight: bold;">Mr. Jeh Johnson</span>, Co-Chair of the Pentagon's <span style="font-weight: bold;">"Comprehensive Review Working Group" (CRWG)</span>, asking him to investigate the incident and to prevent it from happening again. <br />
<br />
Donnelly noted that the <a href="http://bigpeace.com/edonnelly/2010/07/25/pentagon-survey-catches-a-tiger-by-the-tail/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">CRWG survey instrument</span></a> sent to 400,000 active-duty and reserve personnel had omitted the key question, <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Should the 1993 law be retained or repealed?</span></span> "It is therefore irresponsible and wrong," she wrote, "to make deceptive, surreptitious statements to the media on the results of the missing question."<br />
<br />
Sources have told CMR that opposition to repeal was consistently strong during focus groups conducted by CRWG officials, even though participants were not allowed to discuss the key question: Should the 1993 law be retained or repealed? They were only asked to come up with ways to "mitigate" problems expected to ensue.<br />
<br />
Leaders of the Center for Military Readiness and other organizations affiliated with the <a href="http://www.militaryculturecoaltion.org/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Military Culture Coalition</span></a> met with Mr. Johnson for the second time in the Pentagon on September 16. <br />
<br />
This is Donnelly's message to Mr. Johnson, sent on the afternoon of Friday, October 29:<br />
<br />
Hello Jeh,<br />
<br />
I read today’s Washington Post article reporting a "leak" about the DoD military survey. We have been predicting for some time that the administration would selectively release incomplete information in order to manage perceptions and to help President Obama to repeal the law. I was hoping to be wrong; apparently I was not. <br />
<br />
I trust that you will investigate this incident and prevent it from happening again. It is wrong for any Pentagon official, knowing that the CRWG survey instrument omitted the key question, to make deceptive, surreptitious statements to the media on that same question, Should the 1993 law be retained or repealed? <br />
<br />
That inquiry was not included in any of the survey instruments distributed and/or sponsored by the DoD and the CRWG. An irresponsible, unaccountable person nevertheless is claiming that military people answered the missing question with responses that support repeal of the 1993 law. <br />
<br />
As we discussed weeks ago, my sources tell me that opposition to repeal was consistently strong during the focus group discussions, even though participants were not allowed to discuss the key question: Should the 1993 law be retained or repealed? They were only asked to come up with ways to “mitigate” problems expected to ensue. <br />
<br />
I would appreciate it if you would inform all DoD and CRWG spokesmen (and women) that premature comments and unsupported speculation about the views of military people on retention or repeal of the 1993 law are not appropriate and will not be tolerated. <br />
<br />
I look forward to your response.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
<br />
Elaine DonnellyCMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-74249674099165119562010-10-07T13:03:00.003-04:002010-10-07T13:21:04.474-04:00Senate Rejects Repeal of Law on Gays in the MilitaryLast month's vote in the United States Senate frustrated, for now, unremitting efforts of liberals and their LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) allies to impose a radical social experiment on the U. S. military. That men and women whose one and only priority rightly should be defense of the nation find themselves under such an assault should be an outrage, but unfortunately, most media have treated the issue as an afterthought.<br /><br />Immediately after this year's State of the Union speech by President Obama in January, determined activists launched a relentless lobbying and media campaign, while the Obama Administration crafted a misleading "Repeal Deal" to overcome opposition in the House Armed Services Committee. In May the full House and the Senate Armed Services Committee disregarded the military service chiefs, rushing to repeal the 1993 law with "delayed implementation." Most media discussed repeal in <span style="font-style:italic;">fait accompli</span> terms. <br /><br />On September 21, 2010, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Senator John McCain (R-AZ)</span> and 41 other national-security minded colleagues proved that conventional wisdom wrong. The <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.militaryculturecoalition.com">Military Culture Coalition</a></span>, the <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.org">Flag & General Officers for the Military</a></span>, and the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Center for Military Readiness</span>, applaud and congratulate these champions of the military for their principled stand against the triple threat that <span style="font-weight:bold;">Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)</span> had embedded in the 2011 National Defense Authorization bill. Senator McCain successfully led a bipartisan vote to block a defense bill that would have repealed the current law making homosexuals ineligible for military service. A complete victory can only be assured, however, by stopping the back-door efforts of liberals to erode and eventually eliminate the law.<br /><br />Following President Obama's State of the Union declaration that he intended to work with Congress to repeal the law, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Secretary of Defense Robert Gates</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen</span> appeared before the Senate and outlined a plan to achieve the president's goal. Gates set up a "Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG)" to assess and study the impact on the military of repeal of the law. However, this review has not asked the obviously logical question of whether or not the law should be repealed; it has only examined <span style="font-style:italic;">how</span>. By framing the review in this way, the Pentagon effectively barred servicemembers from expressing support for the law. What they didn't count on was Congress' rejection of the law's repeal through this transparently rigged process.<br /><br />But despite last month's legislative defeat, the CRWG still has a mandate from Secretary Gates to report its findings on Dec. 1, even though the Senate has rejected what the review <span style="font-style:italic;">de facto</span> contemplates: repeal of the law. Given its flawed objective in light of last week's vote, the CRWG's report should be taken with substantial skepticism. <br /><br />Senator McCain has now come out swinging against this misguided venture. In his capacity as Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he wrote Secretary Gates on September 28, calling for a re-examination of the Obama Administration's entire approach to this issue. In his <a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6b97f110-c9c9-4d21-96d8-b920e728ad6f"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">letter</span></span></a>, Senator McCain notes that DoD surveys that were supposed to "engage" the troops were skewed by the mistaken presumption that Congress would vote to repeal the 1993 law.<br /><br />CMR has also received numerous reports that active-duty focus group participants were told that the only question of interest was how to implement repeal of the law-not if the law should be repealed. The <span style="font-style:italic;">Washington Times</span> reported in an <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/16/new-gay-army/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">editorial</span></a> just prior to the Senate vote, a case involving a CRWG participant and deputy chief of Army personnel, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick</span>. Drawing upon its own sources, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Times</span> quoted the general speaking "before several hundred troops at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany: 'Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,' Lt. Gen. Bostick said. But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.'" In a follow-up <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/23/outing-the-new-gay-army/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">editorial</span></a>, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Times</span> cited two confirming sources, a civilian whose account was published in the paper as a <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/23/witness-to-bostick-comments/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">letter to the editor</span></a>, and a report on the general's remarks received by <span style="font-weight:bold;">U. S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)</span>. CMR remains concerned that regardless of what troops may actually be expressing, the administration will spin the Pentagon report as a call for repeal of the 1993 law.<br /><br />Last week the Military Culture Coalition sent to the CRWG a lengthy list of issues that should be addressed by the panel’s report that is due on December 1. This presentation, following up an initial meeting with the working group in March, demolishes the notion that implementation of a new LGBT law or policy for the military would be "easy" or desirable in terms of military necessity.<br /><br />This latest presentation to the CRWG included an expanded selection of easily-accessible policy analyses, reports, and articles that highlight many controversies that troops in the field apparently were not encouraged or allowed to discuss for the record. These documents, which CMR will make available to the public, will provide the public a better understanding of the most difficult issues, which LGBT activists want to ignore. <br /><br />By slowing the headlong race to approve legislation in the defense authorization bill to repeal Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., Senator McCain, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, and their colleagues have created an opportunity for a more responsible and thorough consideration of this important issue. Together with the many groups working with the Military Culture Coalition, CMR will continue to work against any lame-duck Congress or Obama Administration efforts to attempt repeal again or further weaken the current law.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-87308647132937081272010-10-01T14:25:00.003-04:002010-10-01T14:42:04.284-04:00Alliance Defense Fund Weighs in with Pentagon Repeal PanelThe Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has released submissions it has made to the Pentagon Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG), the ad hoc panel charged by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to assess the impact of repeal of the law on gays in the military on the armed forces. The submissions include a letter from ADF following up its meeting (in which it was joined by CMR and other organizations concerned about this issue) of September 16, 2010 with the CRWG, as well as two anonymous articles from currently serving military officers (one a USAF JAG officer, and the other a senior active-duty chaplain). Links to the articles are provided below:<br /><br /><a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/Letter%20GM%20to%20CRWG%20092910%20no%20exhibits.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">ADF Letter to CRWG</span></a><br /><br /><a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/USAF%20JAG%20re%20DADT%20Repeal%200910.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Article by USAF JAG officer in opposition to repeal of Section 654, Title 10, U. S. C., the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service</span></a><br /><br /><a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/DADT%27s_Impact_on_the_Chaplain_Corps_Ch_3.pdf">The Impact of Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on the Chaplain Corps: A senior active-duty chaplain weighs in</a>CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-62026790670217182182010-08-12T16:54:00.002-04:002010-08-12T17:01:29.985-04:00Military Culture Coalition Poll “Changes Game” in Gays in Military DebateWith the release of a new poll commissioned by the Military Culture Coalition, largely undiscussed issues and perspectives in the debate over the attempt to repeal the law on gays in the military have emerged. Contrary to past polls that gauged respondents' "feelings" about gays in the military, the <a href="http://www.militaryculturecoalition.com/content/MCCPoll"><span style="font-weight:bold;">MCC poll</span></a> finds that Americans support keeping the current law. These findings and others have been reported in several stories since the poll’s release:<br /><br />-<span style="font-weight:bold;">WorldNet Daily</span>: <a href="http://www.military.com/news/article/new-poll-finds-most-oppose-dadt-repeal.html?ESRC=eb.nl"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">New Poll Finds Most Oppose DADT Repeal</span></span></a><br /><br />-<span style="font-weight:bold;">CNS News</span>: <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/70876"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Half of Democrats Favor Punishing Soldiers Who Oppose Homosexuality, Survey Finds</span></a><br /><br />-<span style="font-weight:bold;">Military.com</span>: <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=189713"><span style="font-weight:bold;">America says Obama playing politics with soldiers</span></a><br /><br />-<span style="font-weight:bold;">Baptist Press</span>: <a href="http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=33489"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Likely Voters Support 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" </span></a>CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-51070664845718271912010-08-06T14:32:00.004-04:002010-08-09T10:27:15.027-04:00Libertarians Should Leave the Military AloneJohn Stossel, a Fox News personality and self-proclaimed libertarian, recently wrote a column for <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38279">Human Events</a></span></span> announcing his belief that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy is "dumb" and that the United States should "repeal" it.<br /><br />Stossel's article and similar comments on "The O'Reilly Factor" were misinformed and inappropriate in their assumption that the military is comparable to the civilian world. As stated in current law, it is not. Stossel and others are free to be libertarians, but that is a poor excuse for imposing on the military extremes of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) agenda. <br /><br />A new LGBT law or policy for the military would not be "leaving people alone"-due to mandatory "zero tolerance" policies it would be just the opposite. Personal actions in the military, whether disciplined or undisciplined, affect everyone else, for better or worse. Ultimately, national security is the primary consideration-individual rights do not apply in the same way. <br /><br />As usual in media discussions of this issue, Stossel confused the facts, starting with the suggestion that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a law. It is not. The actual statute, <a href="http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID=29"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Section 654, Title 10, United States Code</span></a>, states that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an administrative policy suggesting that homosexuals can serve in the military as long as they don't say they are gay. Congress never voted for DADT because it correctly saw it as unworkable. The actual law makes no mention of the concept, but Bill Clinton imposed it on the military anyway, in the form of expendable administrative regulations that are not consistent with the law. <br /><br />Gay activists constantly exploit the confusion caused by DADT with human interest stories about discharged homosexuals who should have been told they were not eligible to serve in the military. Those stories are far less important than the consequences of Congress repealing the current law, which are summarized in these ten points: <br /><a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/TenReasonstoOpposeLGBTLaworPolicy061610.pdf"><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Ten Reasons to Oppose the LGBT Law or Policy for the Military</span></a><br /><br />In his column John Stossel disavowed the "conservative" label, but several other prominent figures thought to be conservative have recently associated themselves with gay rights advocates. Grover Norquist, noted anti-tax champion and head of Americans for Tax Reform, along with Bill O'Reilly’s "culture warrior" Margaret Hoover, recently joined the board of GOProud, a gay activist group that claims to be Republican. GOProud is an offshoot of the Log Cabin "Republicans," which currently is in a California court waging legal war against our military. With high-handed litigation that disrespects constitutional principles as well as our uniformed men and women, the Log Cabiners' are trying to get a federal judge to nullify the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10. <br /><br />The Republican National Platform has stated unequivocal support for that law in every presidential election since 2000. Given this fact, why did Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, recently announce his intention to <a href="http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2010/jul/30/cornyn-due-gay-fundraiser/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">attend a Log Cabin Republican fundraiser</span></a>?<br /><br />Association with these groups by Stossel, Norquist, Cornyn and Hoover represents a trend of "libertarianizing" conservatism, which is most disturbing where national security is concerned. The near-exclusive focus of libertarians on individual rights and freedoms seems to have clouded their perspective on national defense issues. <br /><br />They should know that in the military, individualism is circumscribed and in some respects prohibited outright. Servicemembers don't get to "express themselves" with attire or accessories that differ from uniforms worn by everyone else. Nor do they enjoy individual comforts common in the civilian world-much less the freedom to use marijuana and other pursuits favored by some libertarians. <br /><br />Without consistent standards of conduct and procedures, imposed by necessity at the expense of individual rights, the military cannot accomplish its missions. This is why the current law, passed in 1993 by veto-proof, bipartisan majorities in both houses, elevates concepts such as unit cohesion, discipline and morale above individual rights, and applies those restrictions on a 24/7 basis, on- or off-base. In addition to listing ways that the institution differs from the civilian world, the law clearly states that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military.<br /><br />It is possible that Stossel, Norquist, Hoover, and others are misguided by personal associations with gay friends, which most of us have, but civilian friendships are not relevant to this discussion. All should reexamine the so-called "civil rights" arguments of gay activists who seek to use the military as a laboratory for social engineering experiments that military people would not be free to avoid. <br /><br />Rather than simply "allowing" homosexuals to serve, the forced acceptance of open lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in the military would result in the imposition of corollary "zero tolerance" policies that punish anyone who disagrees with homosexuality for any reason. Repeal would cause many personnel with irreplaceable experience to leave, short of a full career, and would discourage others from joining in the first place.<br /><br />"Libertarian" conservatives and Republicans are free to promote that philosophy all day long, but they should stop trying to impose the LGBT agenda on men and women in uniform. To be consistent with their own "leave us alone" mantra, libertarians need to draw the line at the military's door. Unlike the civilian world, the All-Volunteer Force restricts individual freedom within itself to protect that same freedom for the rest of us.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-19577785198773876912010-07-28T18:45:00.003-04:002010-07-28T19:03:48.225-04:00Gay Activist Groups "Protest Too Much"LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) activists have revealed the next stage of their plan to push repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. They need to act fast-prior to the end of this Congress-since the next election may change everything.<br /><br />The Washington newspaper <span style="font-style:italic;">Politico</span>, in its daily <a href="http://www.politico.com/morningdefense/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Morning Defense"</span></a> e-mail, reported that the gay-activist Servicemembers United group has formed "'Servicemembers United Action Fund,'...to give them lobbying muscle to fight for repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.'" The gay newspaper <span style="font-style:italic;">The Advocate</span> also reported the launch of <a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/26/Gay_Mil_Group_Forms_for_Post-DADT_Life/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Outserve</span></a>, "[a]n organization representing gay and lesbian active duty military personnel...formed to help the Pentagon as the military eases into its proposed policy change."<br /><br />Since the "outed" servicemembers still are not using their own names, this appears to be a Nixon-Watergate-style "modified, limited hang-out" strategy. The Outserve group's <a href="http://outserve.org/press-release/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">press release</span></a> includes interesting comments about public displays of affection ("PDAs"), confirming in denial what LGBT activists demand: Whatever is appropriate for opposite-sex couples should be acceptable for same-sex couples, with a military mandate of acceptance.<br /> <br />Don't care for or accept PDAs (same-sex dancing, etc.) at military-sponsored social events? If Congress repeals the law, too bad. The new military policy of "zero-tolerance" of "unacceptable attitudes" will say, post-repeal, "What you think doesn’t matter. Get with the LGBT program, or find the door."<br /><br />As for equal standards of conduct, former Army Lt. Daniel Choi and Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach have demonstrated how the concept would work in defining discipline down. Choi demanded and got special treatment right from the start. He announced his homosexuality during a March 2009 MSNBC interview on the "Rachel Maddow Show," thereby declaring himself ineligible for the military under the law on national television. The military began discharge proceedings, which took far longer than usual or necessary, no doubt due to his self-generated publicity. During the extended interval between his "self-outing" on MSNBC and his ultimate <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/dont_ask_critic_dan_choi_honor.html?hpid=moreheadlines"><span style="font-weight:bold;">discharge</span></a>, Choi was arrested twice for handcuffing himself to the White House gate. <br /><br />Choi should have been discharged in a normal amount of time, and held accountable for his antics at the White House gate while in uniform. The fact that he was not held accountable (all charges were dismissed) indicates that gay servicemembers will be treated as more "equal" than others. As for Fehrenbach, another LGBT hero, his solicitation of a male sex partner on a gay website justified disciplinary action long ago. (As CMR President Elaine Donnelly explained in <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33385"><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">Human Events</span></span></a>, consider similar conduct on the part of a heterosexual male officer.) <br /><br />Neither Choi nor Fehrenbach were eligible to serve in the military, but their conduct has been given an unusually wide berth, probably due to the Obama Administration's unfailing, politically-motivated support for the president's LGBT base.<br /><br />The announcement that LGBT advocacy groups are stepping up their lobbying and public relations efforts calls to mind the aphorism, "Thou doth protest too much." The Outserve <a href="http://outserve.org/press-release/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">press release</span></a> claims "it will be business as usual" after repeal. The fact that this group is being established with the express purpose of saying so betrays its ultimate goal, which is military-mandated acceptance of open LGBT lifestyles and their attendant conduct. <br /><br />This strategy represents nothing less than the fundamental transformation of the military’s culture. The Pentagon's actions (and inaction) speak louder than the activists' words. Already we are seeing signs of inconsistent practices that deserve a new acronym: "DSIG" for "double standards involving gays." Given the current president's open support for the homosexual agenda and his 2008 campaign-trail talk of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America," no one should be fooled by gay-activist PR promising "business as usual."CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-45395860641006063592010-06-23T23:31:00.003-04:002010-06-23T23:42:19.626-04:00Patrick Murphy’s GIMC and MoveOn.orgIn an article for Military.com titled <a href="http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,215734,00.html?ESRC=retirees.nl"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Don't Ask How Much to Repeal 'Don't Tell',"</span></a> former Marine officer Ilario Pantano takes strong exception to "a neatly bundled vote wrapped in the flag with a camouflage bow on top. And a price tag."<br /><br />Pantano is talking about the vote last month in the House of Representatives, led by Pennsylvania Democrat Patrick Murphy, a former Army JAG officer, which would repeal the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service (Section 654, Title 10, U. S. Code, usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell").<br /><br />Pantano, now a Republican candidate for Congress in North Carolina, accuses Congressman Murphy of betraying his "Blue Dog" (Capitol Hill-speak for "conservative Democrat") credentials, not to mention his former brothers-in-arms, for a political handout from an ultra-liberal Washington special interest group that is targeting the military for radical change.<br /><br />And he is correct. A check of the Center for Responsive Politics’ <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00027594&type=I"><span style="font-weight:bold;">OpenSecrets.org</span></a> reveals that Congressman Murphy’s largest campaign contributor since 2006 is the far-left MoveOn.org, which contributed $88,112 in cumulative PAC funds to Patrick Murphy’s campaigns-almost $10,000 more than his second-largest contributor. <br /><br />MoveOn.org is the same anti-war outfit that, as Pantano points out, has brought Americans "such patriotic hits as 'General Betray-us.'" In September 2007 the U.S. Senate <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21moveon.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1277326908-yhF8nPPN%20eTp9fiuvFu1hw&pagewanted=print"><span style="font-weight:bold;">approved a resolution</span></a> sponsored by Texas Republican John Cornyn that denounced the group by name for its obnoxious <span style="font-style:italic;">New York Times</span> full-page ad that distorted the good name of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American Commander in Iraq at the time. <br /><br />Then-Senator Barack Obama skipped that vote but issued a statement calling the Republican-sponsored resolution a "stunt." Now that President Obama has assigned Gen. Petraeus to lead the war in Afghanistan, will Congressman Murphy still take PAC funds from MoveOn.org?<br /><br />In a <span style="font-style:italic;">Human Events</span> article titled <a href="http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,215734,00.html?ESRC=retirees.nl"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Murphy's (LGBT) Law for the Military,"</span></a> CMR President Elaine Donnelly wrote about the disingenuousness of Murphy's "gays-in-the-military campaign" (GIMC). Not unlike other veterans in Congress, Murphy has been eager to draw voters' attention to his military service. (According to his 2008 autobiography <span style="font-style:italic;">Taking the Hill</span>, Murphy served for seven months as a jump-qualified JAG lawyer with the 82nd Airborne, and served with a Brigade Operational Law Team (BOLT) for seven months in Iraq.) Voters also should be aware of the contradiction between Murphy's service as a soldier and the anti-military agenda and attitude of his most generous contributor, MoveOn.org.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-88710912998317619712010-06-11T15:54:00.003-04:002010-06-11T16:22:03.626-04:00Veterans Groups and Others Oppose "Repeal Deal"The following respected veterans groups have taken a stand against the "Repeal Deal" to allow open homosexuality in the military by repealing the current law making homosexuals ineligible. The organizations below sent letters to congressional leaders opposing hasty action to repeal the current law:<br /><br /><a href="http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10E21.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">American Legion</span></a>: May 19, 2010 - "The military is a unique environment, in which DADT has worked well without diminishing our nation's war-fighting capability. Indeed, the core purpose of our military is to fight and win our nation's wars. Enacting any law that does not enhance the military's ability to accomplish that mission would be detrimental to the security of our nation. We believe that the repeal of DADT would be such an action."<br /> <br /><a href="http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10E22.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Veterans of Foreign Wars</span></a>: May 25, 2010 - "The military is about the 'whole,' not the individual, and the rules and regulations are there for the good order and discipline of all service members… The VFW is fully aware that this issue is all about fulfilling a campaign promise, just as it was in 1993. While we oppose any change to the current DADT policy, as well as to P.L. 103-10, we do urge you and your colleagues to wait until the DoD working group finishes its 10-month review."<br /><br />At their 110th Convention last fall, the VFW also passed an unequivocal resolution:<br /><br />Resolution No. 426<br /><br />OPPOSE ALL EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE 1993 LAW BANNING HOMOSEXUALS FROM SERVING IN THE ARMED FORCES<br /><br />BE IT RESOLVED, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we strongly oppose all efforts to repeal Public Law 103-160 (Section 654, U.S. Code Title 10), which bans homosexuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces; and<br /><br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge the Department of Defense to review the current, "don't ask, don't tell" policy and replace it with a policy more consistent with the intent of Public Law 103-160.<br /><br /><a href="http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10E20.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Association of the U.S. Navy</span></a>: May 20, 2010 - "We ask that the Secretary of Defense comprehensive review board be allowed to complete their extensive review prior to any legislative action on this matter."<br /><br /><a href="http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10E16.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Air Force Association</span></a>: May 21, 2010 - "Those who serve must be our key constituency, and our efforts must ultimately be to ensure they are ready and able to discharge their responsibilities. Thus, we believe it would be unwise to change such an important policy without having heard from those it will affect. AFA strongly believes their views and values must factor into any legislative changes, as they will drastically alter the identity of our military on all levels of the spectrum."<br /><br /><a href="http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10E15.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">National Association of Uniformed Services</span></a> May 24, 2010 - "NAUS is proud of our troops and we respect their mission at home and overseas. There are serious questions on whether change in this law will improve military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and we strongly suggest you wait until the Pentagon has reviewed the consequences of repealing the laws presently in force."<br /><br /><a href="http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10E19.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Reserve Officers Association</span></a>: May 21, 2010 – "The Reserve Officers Association, representing 63,000 Reserve Component members, does not support such hasty action. This issue is very polarizing, and can cause internal strife within our military at a time we are fighting in two theaters of a war."<br /><br /><a href="http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10E18.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">National Military Family Association</span></a>: May 21, 2010 - "NMFA does not have a formal position on the law itself, but sent a letter to Minority Leader John Boehner on May 21. Excerpt: "Our Association agrees with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen that the Department of Defense must be allowed, prior to any legislative action, the opportunity to complete the assessment of the impact of such a policy change, and most importantly develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan. Our service members and their families deserve no less."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.armyreserve.org/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Army Reserve Association (ARA)</span></a>: (website article endorsing the statement of HASC Chairman Ike Skelton) "My position on this issue has been clear – I support the current policy and I will oppose any amendment to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. I hope my colleagues will avoid jumping the gun and wait for DOD to complete its work."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Commentaries of Note</span>:<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Rep. Duncan Hunter</span>, <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">USA Today</span></span>: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20100601/editorial01_st1.art.htm"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Historic Votes Don't Assure End to DADT</span></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />John R. Guardiano</span>: <a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/26/the-left-silences-the-right-wing-lambs-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">The Left Silences the Right-Wing Lambs on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Robert Knight</span>: <a href="http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=646d9183-ea79-4718-ac8e-55b6c5e9c943&t=c"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Conservative Media Fiddles While Military Burns</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Frank Gaffney</span>: <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/FrankGaffney/dontaskdonttell-military-House-Senate/2010/05/26/id/360230"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Repealing DADT Would Break the All-Volunteer Force</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">William Buchanan</span>: <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=37264"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Gays in the Military</span></a> <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears</span> on <span style="font-style:italic;">NRO</span>: <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2UzYjM5ZDA0ZWFlZGM1NDUyOWFlOTE5M2YzMzE3Yjk"><span style="font-weight:bold;">What’s the Deal?</span></a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />John McCormack</span>, <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Weekly Standard</span></span>: <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacongressional-dems-push-repealing-dadt-review-complete"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Obama Admin: Repeal DADT Now, Ask Questions Later</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">R. L. Bernard</span>, <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">American Thinker</span></span>: <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/nonsexual_zones_of_trust_and_t.html"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Nonsexual Zones of Trust and Military Policy</span><br /></a><br />In addition, a number of retired officers who signed the <a href="http://www.flagandgeneralofficerforthemilitar.com"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Flag & General Officers for the Military</span></a> statement in 2009 have been writing individual letters giving reasons why they signed the statement and still support the 1993 law. <span style="font-weight:bold;"> Retired Army General Frederick Kroesen</span> went the extra mile in writing an op-ed for the <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Washington Times</span></span>:<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Kroesen</span>: <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/12/risky-moves-in-the-military/print/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Risky Moves in the Military</span></a>CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-3198328004092680242010-06-11T15:38:00.004-04:002010-06-11T16:34:31.860-04:00The Fight to Stop Repeal ContinuesAs the Senate prepares for the battle over the repeal of the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)</span> joined with <span style="font-weight:bold;">Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John McCain</span>, who led the opposition for months, in calling for action to remove the measure from the defense bill when it comes before the full Senate (<span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Roll Call</span></span>, May 27, 2010).<br /><br />Sen. McCain told <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Roll Call</span></span> that he would <span style="font-style:italic;">"without a doubt"</span> support a filibuster if the bill goes to the floor with language to repeal the law with <span style="font-style:italic;">"delayed implementation."</span> <span style="font-style:italic;">"I’ll do everything in my power,"</span> the Arizona Republican said, citing letters from the four service chiefs urging Congress not to act before a Pentagon review of the policy is complete. <span style="font-style:italic;">"I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda."</span><br /> <br />In an interview with <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">National Review Online</span></span>, Sen. John McCain reaffirmed his intent to continue the fight, even if it takes a super-majority (under Senate rules) or a successful filibuster to do it:<br /><br /><a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWEwZWJiMmRkODU1OTcwMjg2NzBmNmExZjg1MzAyYzQ="><span style="font-weight:bold;">John McCain on DADT</span></a><br /><br />This article in <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Politico</span></span> explains why final passage of the <span style="font-weight:bold;">National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA)</span>, which now has the Repeal Deal language in it, still is not a "done deal." The defense bill is controversial for many reasons, including language authorizing abortions in military hospitals. Regardless of the reason, sufficient "no" votes could defeat the bill.<br /><br /><a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F05D8B31-18FE-70B2-A8D3628039205DDB"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Don't Ask, Don't Tell Far From Over</span></a><br /><br />Meanwhile, even the liberal media started to ask serious questions that should have been discussed months ago:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">New York Times</span></span>: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29gays.html?scp=1&sq=as%20don%27t%20ask%20fades,%20military%20faces%20thorny&st=cse"><span style="font-weight:bold;">As "Don't Ask" Fades, Military Faces Thorny Issues </span></a><br /><br />Agence France Press (AFP ): <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.5eaf6bbb255b23063c3b3635bd5f7c52.b1&show_article=1"><span style="font-weight:bold;">US Military Chief Cautions on Gay Ban Repeal</span></a>CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-53965173701287957152010-06-11T15:06:00.004-04:002010-06-11T16:32:57.408-04:00Betrayal of the ChiefsIn a May 30 interview with <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fox News Sunday</span></span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen</span> was equivocal about legislation to repeal the current law making homosexuals ineligible for military service that he had <span style="font-style:italic;">put on track for passage with his own Senate testimony</span>. On February 2 Mullen admitted that the proposed new law would cause problems. Neither he nor <span style="font-weight:bold;">Secretary of Defense Robert Gates</span> has named a single advantage of repeal to the military, but the politically-correct admiral nevertheless is personally for it. For Secretary Gates, the president’s stated views (and political promises) are the sole justification for "moving out."<br /><br />On April 30 Adm. Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates co-signed a strong letter asking Congress to take no action until after the Pentagon working group produces its report. On May 27, however, the American Forces Press Service described Mullen as <span style="font-style:italic;">"comfortable"</span> with the power that would be placed in his hands if the <span style="font-weight:bold;">"Repeal Deal"</span> passed.<br /> <br />Speaking on <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fox News</span></span> shortly after the House and Senate votes, retired Air Force <span style="font-weight:bold;">Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney</span> reported, <span style="font-style:italic;">"the service chiefs are furious."</span> On June 2 <span style="font-weight:bold;">Rowan Scarborough</span> wrote a widely-circulated column describing events that left the chiefs feeling betrayed by Chairman Mullen and members of Congress who rushed to repeal the law:<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/1/military-chiefs-split-with-mullen-on-gays/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Military Chiefs Split With Mullen on Gays</span></a>.<br /><br />A senior defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity told <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fox News</span></span> that <span style="font-style:italic;">"Some troops feel double-crossed because they had been told that nothing would happen quickly and were assured that the Pentagon would take their individual concerns into account."</span> <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sen. James Webb</span> said on CNN, "I believe we had a process in place and to pre-empt it in some ways showed a disrespect for the people in the military."<br /><br />The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has no operational authority, is responsible to convey the professional advice of the service chiefs to the president. Instead, Adm. Mike Mullen has been promoting the president's view down the chain of command---in complete defiance of the stated opinions of the four military service chiefs. And he did this even though he admitted in February that he does not know what repeal would mean.<br /><br />On the House side, Republicans defended the law and the right of military personnel to be heard before the vote was taken. House Ranking Member Rep. "Buck" McKeon presented a laudable <a href="http://republicans.armedservices.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1048"><span style="font-weight:bold;">statement</span></a>, recommending "no" votes on both the Murphy Amendment and the full defense bill if the legislation were adopted. Others who took to the floor to defend the law included <span style="font-weight:bold;">Rep. Mike Pence, (IN), Jack Kingston (GA), Steve Buyer (IN), Tom Rooney (FL), Duncan Hunter (CA), Todd Akin (MO)</span>. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)</span> claimed that votes for the repeal legislation would make our military more "American." On the contrary, forced implementation of Rep. Murphy's proposed LGBT Law, whether by legislation or executive order, now or later, will Europeanize our military and force it to emulate policies that assign highest priority to social goals at the expense of military necessity. All of this was done just in time for President Obama's Proclamation of <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"LGBT Equality Month."</span></a>CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-34771646264745251342010-06-11T14:41:00.002-04:002010-06-11T14:59:30.783-04:00"Repeal Deal" Rammed Through HouseOn Thursday, May 27, a combination of liberal and misguided legislators exploited or fell for a contrived "Repeal Deal" that began the process of eliminating the 1993 law regarding gays in the military while denying that result and the price that would be paid. This abnegation of congressional authority occurred despite strong letters of opposition from the four military service chiefs of the <a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=d54ca976-3986-4c91-a863-1b18e9e52d46"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Army</span></a>, <a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=33bf9036-4a5d-4e0e-a979-812397abdc72"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Navy</span></a>, <a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6d23f83b-470d-4eab-9018-feeb27584635"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Air Force</span></a>, and <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e1af1c1c-f034-471e-8c2e-2f3c2066e328">Marine Corps</a></span>.<br /><br />Disregarding the still-unheard views of active-duty personnel worldwide, an impressive array of veterans and civilian groups, and the professional advice of 1,167 retired <a href="http://www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Flag & General Officers for the Military</span></a>, the <span style="font-weight:bold;">House of Representatives</span> and the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Senate Armed Services Committee</span> voted for an amendment to the 2011 Defense Authorization bill that repeals the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Section 654, Title 10</span>, usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).<br /><br />The House vote was <span style="font-weight:bold;">234-194</span>, with five Republicans defying their party's National Platform by voting for Pennsylvania Democrat <span style="font-weight:bold;">Patrick Murphy's</span> amendment for gays in the military. The unfaithful five included Libertarian <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ron Paul (TX)</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Joseph Cao (LA)</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Charles Djou (HI)</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)</span>, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Judy Biggert (IL)</span>. Twenty-six Democrats, including <span style="font-weight:bold;">House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (MO)</span>, senior HASC member <span style="font-weight:bold;">Gene Taylor (MS)</span>, and the newly-elected congressman<span style="font-weight:bold;"> Mark Critz (PA)</span> voted "no" on the amendment and supported the current law.<br />Earlier the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar amendment, <span style="font-weight:bold;">16-12</span>. (15 votes were required.) <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sen. Jim Webb (VA)</span> was the only Democrat to vote against the measure, while <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sen. Susan Collins (ME)</span> was the only Republican to vote for it.<br /> <br />The House and Senate amendments to the defense bill were cleverly described as a "compromise" even though passage would repeal the 1993 law. Final action will not occur until the Pentagon finishes its review of how it would impact the military, due on December 1. At that point <span style="font-weight:bold;">President Barack Obama</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Secretary of Defense Robert Gates</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen</span> are supposed to "certify" that repeal will not harm "military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion, recruiting/retention, and family readiness that may result from repeal of the law and recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such impacts."<br /> <br />The legislation lacks any definition of these terms, and crystal balls are as scarce as magic wands. Nevertheless, this designated triumvirate of officials (Obama, Gates & Mullen) will have the power to define those phrases and to pull the trigger on the military 60 days after "certification" of their own previously-stated opinions. With Congress and the statute out of the way, the Obama Administration will have full power to impose the full <span style="font-weight:bold;">LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered)</span> agenda on the military.<br /><br />Nevertheless, there remains strong dissension among the Service Chiefs and within Congress on this issue. The upcoming installments of SITREP will deal with each of these groups in turn.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-4131062904129104282010-06-11T13:53:00.003-04:002010-06-11T14:40:12.361-04:00The Military Culture Coalition Stands Up for 1993 LawIn February CMR announced the formation of a <span style="font-weight:bold;">Military Culture Coalition (MCC)</span> to encourage communication and cooperation between organizations that support sound military personnel policies. On May 24, in advance of congressional votes on repeal of the 1993 law making homosexuals ineligible for military service (Sec. 654, Title 10, U. S. Code, usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), the MCC received new support from a long list of distinguished individuals who signed a formal statement coordinated by the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Conservative Action Project</span>, chaired by former <span style="font-weight:bold;">U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III</span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/CAP%20MEMO--%20Don%27t%20Ask-%20Don%27t%20Tell.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Memo for the Movement</span></a><br /><br />Several organizations established special web pages with information on the issue, or ran articles on blogs like this one in the "Foundry" blog of the <span style="font-weight:bold;">Heritage Foundation</span> by Chuck Donovan:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/26/ready-fire-aim-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/#comment-113169"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Ready, Fire, Aim on DADT</span></a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Family Research Council</span> published a new report by <span style="font-weight:bold;">Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, USA (Ret.)</span>, which provided an excellent history of the 1993 law and the consequences of repealing it: <br /><br /><a href="http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10E106.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Mission Compromised: How the Obama Administration is Drafting the Military into the Culture War</span></a> <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Concerned Women for America (CWA)</span> issued an excellent “Family Voice Bulletin” that analyzes the legislative history of the 1993 law and the administrative policy, DADT:<br /><a href="http://www.cwfa.org/articles/18936/CFI/nation/index.htm"><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Homosexuality and the Military: What "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Is and Why It Matters</span></a> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Liberty Counsel</span> has issued another excellent report:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1138"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Liberty Counsel Joins Campaign to Support Military Families</span></a><br /><br />The <span style="font-weight:bold;">Center for Security Policy</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Eagle Forum</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Alliance Defense Fund</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Focus on the Family</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Thomas More Law Center</span>, <span style="font-weight:bold;">Traditional Values Coalition</span>, the <span style="font-weight:bold;">American Family Association</span>, and several groups concerned with the religious liberties of military chaplains have been working with the MCC to mobilize forces in support of the 1993 law.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-69902663391401733022010-05-13T15:26:00.003-04:002010-05-13T15:57:19.154-04:00Milbloggers Not UnanimousThe <span style="font-style:italic;">Huffington Post</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">Politico</span> posted items yesterday touting a <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Milbloggers_call_for_end_to_Dont_Ask.html?showall"><span style="font-weight:bold;">statement</span></a> signed by military bloggers (in internet shorthand, "milbloggers), purportedly calling for "repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" But at least <a href="http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=19109"><span style="font-weight:bold;">one among their number pointed out</span></a> on the prominent "This Ain't Hell" blog that all milbloggers aren't in unanimity on the so-called repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). The catch-phrase, which misrepresents the intent of the 1993 <a href="http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=336"><span style="font-weight:bold;">law</span></a> making homosexuals ineligible for military service, actually is a Pentagon administrative policy that Congress never voted for.<br /> <br />There are some errors in the Milblog statement that has liberals all excited. With the exception of Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, who spoke for himself only, the Service Chiefs have not called for repeal. CMR documented the Chiefs' congressional testimony in our SITREP blog entry, <a href="http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/2010/02/obama-proposes-congress-disposes-and.asp"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Obama Proposes, Congress Disposes & the Military Opposes."</span></a> Some of the bloggers may represent younger, new-media-savvy readers, but they may have missed the formidable <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://www.flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com"=>Flag and General Officers for the Military statement</span></a>, signed by 1,167 retired military leaders who have strongly reaffirmed current law and urged its retention based on their long and distinguished military experience. <br /><br />The 2009 <span style="font-style:italic;">Military Times</span> survey of active-duty subscriber/respondents showed that a majority of active-duty servicemembers also continue to support current law. Only 30% favored full integration with homosexuals in showers and other areas offering no privacy. This hardly constitutes a groundswell for repeal, inconvenient as these facts may be for civilian gay activists and their allies. CMR has crystallized major points of controversy in a single-page paper titled <a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/TenReasonsOpposeLGBT.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Ten Reasons to Oppose the 'LGBT Law' for the Military."</span></a> <br /><br />The Michael D. Palm Center, a gay-activist organization based at the University of California-Santa Barbara, suggested months ago that pride in the military's professionalism should be used to push the gays-in-the-military cause. The milbloggers' statement and the liberal media spin following it shows exactly how the strategy works. It's a classic example of political jujitsu, using the strength of the institution against it. This is why the culture of the military itself is very much at risk. <br /><br />However, political reality again belies the illusion of momentum promoted by the gay activists. On May 12 the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel, which has primary jurisdiction over the issue of gays in the military in Congress (along with its Senate counterpart), declined to take any action on the current law. <br /><br />The subcommittee's non-action was the apparent result of an April 30 <a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/SECDEFlettertoChairmanSkelton.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">letter</span></a> that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mullen sent to House Armed Services Committee Chairman <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ike Skelton</span>. Gates and Mullen strongly opposed any legislative action this year, stating that to do so would "send a very damaging message" that servicemembers' views "do not matter." In another example of media spin used to obscure fact, a <span style="font-style:italic;">Congressional Quarterly</span> report on Tuesday, headlined "Levin Wants To Include Repeal of 'Don't Ask' in Authorization Bill," nonetheless contained the inconvenient fact that Levin had "indicated he was uncertain whether he has the votes in the committee to support repeal."<br /><br />Despite contrived PR events and invented news reports to promote their cause, the gay activists know they are losing the legislative battle. They understand their last chance may be slipping from them as an elitist, liberal Congress begins to run scared as Election Day approaches. Unless they can convince Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to ram another unpopular law through, as with healthcare reform, repeal will not happen in Congress this year. That knowledge makes the gay activists desperate, and dangerous.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-70419620632362840772010-05-06T11:02:00.001-04:002010-05-06T11:07:13.717-04:00Street Theater of the LGBT Left<a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/20/Protesters_Handcuffed_to_White_House_Fence/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">This article</span></a> in the gay magazine Advocate shows a picture of the six former military members who chained themselves to the White House gate in a protest demanding repeal of the 1993 law. Former Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen, the person on the far left of the photo in a Navy woman's uniform, is a transgendered former male. Next to Sandeen is Army Lt. Daniel Choi, who continues as a soldier with his National Guard unit even though he has twice gotten arrested for public demonstrations in uniform. CMR has previously analyzed his behavior in <a href="http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/2009/10/unbecoming-conduct-of-gay-activist-lt_2230.asp"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Unbecoming Conduct of Gay Activist Lt. Daniel Choi."</span></a><br /><br />DoD officials have not given any explanation for his reported retention even though he is not eligible to serve.<br /><br />Some gay activists staged a sit-in protest at the Arizona office of Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), the Ranking Member of the SASC, who is leading the fight to defend the 1993 law:<br /><br /><a href="http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2010/04/photo-tweets-dont-ask-don-t-tell-protest-at-mccains-office.html"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Photo: DADT Protest at McCain's AZ Office</span></a><br /><br />The LGBT Left is consistently radical, but they are not pretty when they are mad.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-16400182222116481392010-04-28T10:25:00.001-04:002010-04-30T17:32:34.597-04:00This blog has moved<br /> This blog is now located at http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/.<br /> You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click <a href='http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/'>here</a>.<br /><br /> For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to<br /> http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/feeds/posts/default.<br /> CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-17234822942556583902010-04-19T09:47:00.005-04:002010-04-27T11:12:56.871-04:00Marine General Re-Affirms: U.S. Military Should Not Follow European ModelThere is more to say about the testimony of Gen. John Sheehan, USMC (Ret.) who was invited to speak before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 18 in support of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Among other things, Gen. Sheehan confronted the constantly-repeated, thinly-reasoned claim that the American military should adopt liberal social policies in our military:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=378"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Senate Testimony: European Militaries are Not Role Models for U.S</span></a><br /><br />The general made unequivocal observations about cultural change in the aftermath of the Cold War, which had the effect of weakening European militaries that he served with as the Army's Atlantic NATO Commander from 1994-1997. His comments were <a href="http://cmrlink.org/2010/03/former-marine-general-challenges-nato.asp"><span style="font-weight:bold;">a direct challenge</span></a> to the credibility of gay activists who keep citing 25 mostly-European militaries as examples that the United States should emulate. <br /><br />The counter-attack began almost immediately, starting with Senate Armed Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). Under questioning, Gen. Sheehan discussed the consequences of cultural change in some European militaries, including the Netherlands, which decided to adopt different priorities because the Soviet threat no longer existed. The introduction of labor unions and socially liberal goals, including the inclusion of professed homosexuals in the ranks, changed the mission of the armed forces to something less than combat-ready military forces. <br /><br />Gen. Sheehan cited as an example the 1995 Serb attack on Srebrenica, in which the Serb attackers tied up soldiers of a small Dutch force before taking away and murdering 8,000 Muslim men. Liberal media accounts wrongly accused Gen. Sheehan of placing the blame for the Srebrenica massacre on individual gay soldiers in the Dutch Army. This was not what he said-the force was dangerously undermanned due to cultural change that miscalculated future threats. An apparently defensive Dutch ministry protested and claimed that Gen. Sheehan had disparaged gay soldiers and misrepresented the views of a retired Dutch general in support of his point. <br /><br />On March 29 Gen. Sheehan sent a personal note to retired Dutch General Henk van den Breeman, a former colleague when Sheehan was the Army's Atlantic NATO Commander. In his note, <a href="http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/GenSheehantoGenHvandeBreemen29March.pdf"><span style="font-weight:bold;">linked here</span></a>, Sheehan confirmed that his statements at the hearing, in answer to questions from Chairman Levin, were made in good faith. He apologized, however, for using the Dutch general's name when Sen. Levin demanded to know whether NATO colleagues agreed that radical cultural change in post-Cold War European militaries had contributed to the tragedy at Srebrenica. <br /><br />Gen. Sheehan wrote, <span style="font-style:italic;">"[T]he failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual soldiers." Instead, the tragedy occurred due to "rules of engagement [that] were developed by a political system with conflicting priorities and ambivalent understanding of how to use the military. As we know, the consequences of those compromises were devastating."</span><br /><br />The general's private note was released to the media, causing another wave of criticism in an Associated Press report that misinterpreted Gen. Sheehan's attempt to clarify his remarks:<br /> <br /><a href="http://cmrlink.org/2010/03/former-marine-general-challenges-nato.asp"><span style="font-weight:bold;">US Ex-General Apologizes for Dutch Gay Remark</span>s</a><br /><br />Contrary to the AP headline, General Sheehan did not retract or apologize for the substantive point of his testimony. As he stated, individual soldiers in the undermanned Dutch military force that the Serbs overwhelmed at Srebrenica were not responsible for decisions made by superiors. The point remains that inverted priorities can result in the loss of lives, both military and civilian. <br /><br />Gen. Sheehan did concede that his understanding of a long-ago conversation may have been in error, and he apologized for that. This happens between honest people all the time. It is important to note, however, that his position on the issue remains unchanged and would have been the same even if he had not conversed with the Dutch general in 1993, right after the hearings on Clinton's push for gays in the military. <br /><br />Gen. Sheehan's testimony as a former military leader is far more credible than reports from civilian gay-activist "experts" that essentially quote only their own "research" and testimonials from like-minded friends in Europe. Once a military force puts liberalization above military effectiveness, hallmarks of "success" only relate to <span style="font-style:italic;">social</span> goals, not military effectiveness. <br /><br />By this inadequate standard, all foreign militaries will continue to declare their experience with homosexuals to be completely successful. This is why the U.S. military should not emulate the example of foreign, largely-European militaries with priorities skewed by social goals. <br /><br />Gen. Sheehan's note was gracious, but private. It should not have been released by the Dutch general and the ministry within hours of its receipt. Still, his testimony and follow-up note made solid points that needed to be heard: Cultural change in a military force has consequences, and European militaries should not be considered role models for America's armed forces.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-6681079903728141892010-03-25T22:27:00.003-04:002010-03-25T22:46:12.485-04:00CMR Press Release: Continued Confusion About 1993 Gays-in-Military LawIn response to an announcement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the results of a 45-day review of the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:<br /><br />"Secretary Gates has sent a confusing message to the troops. By applying new regulations applying only to the small number of discharges that occur for homosexuality, he has invited noncompliance with the extant 1993 law, <a href="http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID=29"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Section 654, Title 10</span></a>, in future cases and those that are still pending." <br /><br />"Instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the meaning and intent of the law, Secretary Gates seems to be condoning unwarranted delays. Local commanders who are trying to do their duty by enforcing the law deserve support, not second-guessing by higher-level officials who seem more concerned about President Obama's views than they are about the terms and intent of the law."<br /><br />Donnelly continued, "Whether intended or not, regulation changes announced today could create an incentive for 'third parties' to 'out' someone who is not eligible for military service. This will undermine respect for the law and perpetuate the institutional dishonesty that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen complained of in February." <br /><br />She added, "It is unfortunate that Adm. Mullen has mischaracterized the views of active-duty subordinates who are not truly free to express their own opinions, due to the Chairman's inappropriate personal statement prematurely calling for repeal of the law. Admiral Mullen has disingenuously claimed little disagreement with his personal view among active-duty troops. But junior personnel will not disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during focus group meetings, and those who do agree with Mullen should not be used as props in the presence of the media." <br /><br />She added, "It is also ironic that Adm. Mullen has criticized a three-star general for expressing a personal view in support of the 1993 law, even after Mullen himself expressed a personal opinion favoring repeal of the same law before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2. This appears to be a double standard that is not helpful.<br /><br />"Furthermore, Secretary Gates has once again insisted that the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) that he has established should limit its report only to 'how' and 'when' to repeal the law---not 'if' the law should be repealed. This posture effectively cuts out Congress and the American people, who will oppose any attempt to impose a European-style LGBT Law and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered policies on our military by what Sen. John McCain described as a 'fiat'." <br /><br />She continued, "If Secretary Gates really wants to make enforcement of the law 'more humane,' he should follow the legal mandate to explain <a href="http://cmrlink.org/printfriendly.asp?docID=336"><span style="font-weight:bold;">the purpose and meaning of the law</span></a> more accurately, and exercise his legally-authorized option to reinstate 'the question' about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms. All of the personal stories about servicemembers discharged for homosexuality could have been avoided if the Bush and Obama Administrations had taken steps to more fully explain and enforce the actual law. <br /><br />"Despite the unnecessary and unfortunate confusion caused by Secretary Gates today, I remain confident that members of Congress ultimately will retain current law, which is important to protect recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">Background: Why Exceptions in Enforcement Are Not Justified</span></span><br /><br />With regard to the matter of "third party outings" generally, Finding #15 in the statute clearly states that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." Because there is no constitutional right to serve, the creation of an unjustified exemption for persons revealed to be gay by others would contradict the plain meaning and intent of the law.<br /><br />In a prominent case that sparked the discussion of "third parties" last year, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a former weapons systems officer, continues to claim that he should be spared discharge. An investigation by Fehrenbach's local newspaper, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Boise Statesman</span>, found that he was accused of sexual assault by a "third party" he solicited for consensual sex on a gay website. A police report ensued, but Fehrenbach was cleared when he proved the incident was consensual. <br /><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=33385"><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Defining Discipline Down</span></a><br /><br />It is unclear whether new regulations will allow Fehrenbach to remain in the Air Force. Nothing in cases involving "third parties" justifies a suspension of enforcement, since the law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-63400546391143521052010-03-22T16:18:00.004-04:002010-03-25T23:08:37.106-04:00Former Marine General Challenges NATO Military MythsNow that we are about to get a European-style health-care system, do we want a European-style military too? This was the underlying question discussed at a March 18 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on legislation to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. <br /><br />The Center for Military Readiness has posted a detailed article reporting on the strong testimony of retired Marine General John Sheehan, who had served as Atlantic Commander of NATO and American forces during a time when the consequences of harmful social change became evident in European militaries. <br /><br /><a href="http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=378"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.</span></a><br /><br />CMR appreciates Gen. Sheehan for stepping up to defend the 1993 law in a difficult two-against-one situation. He drew upon 35 years of experience as a Marine Corps infantry officer who has served in combat, led a platoon, three companies, an infantry battalion, and an infantry regiment. And because his career also included command of units from 26 different nations, Gen. Sheehan was well-qualified to refute the notion that European militaries should be role models for ours. The general also noted that the British military capitulated to a 1999 European Court order to include gays in their military-something that America's military would never do.<br /><br />The apparent agitation of SASC Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) indicated that Gen. Sheehan had presented his points effectively. Gen. Sheehan's colloquy with Sen. McCain about the male-on-male sexual assault incident in Vietnam exposed the folly of depending on judicial proceedings after the fact to "handle" disruptions in the ranks. <br /><br />Major media missed some unintended humor from Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), who tried to play the race card. When Sen. Burris asked Gen. Sheehan whether he had ever commanded minority troops, the general replied that he had never commanded troops that were not fully integrated with blacks, whites, Hispanics, Orientals, etc. Then Burris reminded the general about minority role models such as the tennis champion Williams sisters and golfer Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods in a discussion about sexual misconduct? Score that one as a gaffe. <br /><br />Raunchy red-headed entertainer Kathy Griffin caused a minor disruption when she left the hearing room for a rally on Freedom Square organized by the Human Rights Campaign. The rally was upstaged by <a href="http://cmrlink.org/2009/10/unbecoming-conduct-of-gay-activist-lt_2230.asp"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Lt. Daniel Choi</span></a>, a West Point graduate and professed homosexual who thanked Army officials for their inexplicable forbearance by violating uniform regulations and getting arrested for chaining himself to the White House gate. Many gay activists who were trying to stay focused on Congress <a href="http://www.stripes.com/articleprint.asp?section=104&article=68778"><span style="font-weight:bold;">were outraged by Choi's stunt</span></a>. His antics suggested that Choi knows little about team cohesion, even in his campaign to repeal the 1993 law. <br /><br />Sen. McCain effectively countered the notion that the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) should only discuss "how" and "when" to repeal the law, but not key questions of "whether" and "why." Showing his LGBT rainbow colors, Sen. Levin asked General Sheehan, "If you could be satisfied that there would be no harm to combat cohesion or effectiveness, would that be satisfactory to you?" Gen. Sheehan said no, members of Congress need to demonstrate how repeal of the law would actually improve military effectiveness. <br /><br />If Sen. Levin prevails, America's armed forces could start to resemble European militaries-boasting about liberal "equal opportunity" policies that have little to do with military deterrence or effectiveness. Is this what we want? For the sake of national security, America's military must remain the best in the world.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-18484604649156109982010-03-15T15:31:00.003-04:002010-03-22T17:52:06.078-04:00Op-Eds and Commentaries of Interest on Gays in the MilitaryWe appreciate the efforts and support of all commentators who have stepped up to write and speak for active-duty troops whose voices otherwise would not be heard on the issue of gays in the military:<br /> <br /><br />-Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force Chief of Staff, surprised us with his article, which makes excellent points even though he endorses the <span style="font-style:italic;">de facto</span> policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05mcpeak.html"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Don't Ask, Don't Change</span></a><br /><br />-Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council: <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/07/sex-matters-in-the-military/print/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sex Matters in the Military</span></a><br /><br />-Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries: <a href="http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=db92eec8-233e-4d7e-a172-543e3c48975f&t=c"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Don't Ask Who They Are But What They Do</span></a><br /><br />-Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy: <a href="http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18321.xml"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Hail to the Chiefs</span></a><br /> <br />-Bob Maginnis: <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=35839"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Gay Review and Combat Effectiveness</span></a><br /><br />-Jane Chastain: <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127520"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Our Military Needs Your Help</span></a><br /><br />-Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, USA (Ret.): <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/84513952.html">Don't Stress the Military With Quad-Sexual Units</a> (Maj. Gen. Brady was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam.)<br /><br />-John Guardino, Part IV: <a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/16/don%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell-and-don%E2%80%99t-even-pretend-to-be-fair-part-iv-unbalanced-inaccurate-and-unfair/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and Don't Even Pretend to Be Fair---Unbalanced, Inaccurate, and Unfair</span></a>, and<br /><br />-John Guardino, Part V: <a href="http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/21/don%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell-and-don%E2%80%99t-even-pretend-to-be-fair-part-v-lies-damn-lies-and-polls/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Lies, Damn Lies, and Polls</span></a><br /><br />-The Optimistic Conservative: <a href="http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/and-so-it-begins/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">And So It Begins</span></a>CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-69538227395354334642010-03-15T11:29:00.003-04:002010-03-17T11:36:35.656-04:00Former Rep. Eric Massa: Military Record Shows Inappropriate ConductThe story of recently-resigned Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) is reminding members of Congress why it would be unwise to recruit professed homosexuals and bisexuals for our military. Former Navy Lt. Cmdr. Massa reportedly had a history of inappropriate sexual approaches against male subordinates while he was in the Navy. <br /><br />-<span style="font-style:italic;">The Atlantic</span>: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/eric-massas-navy-files/37309/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Massa's Navy Files</span></a><br /><br />-<span style="font-style:italic;">New York Daily News</span>: <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/14/2010-03-14_sea_no_evil_say_no_evil_massas_shenanigans_in_navy_may_scuttle_repeal_of_dont_as.html"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Former Navy Officers Who Served with Rep. Eric Massa Say He 'Groped' Subordinates on Ship</span></a> <br /><br />Massa's alleged record demonstrates a point we have made many times. Subordinate personnel in the military are unlikely to file complaints when confronted with inappropriate sexual approaches from their own superiors. Congress should not elevate the risk of new types of sexual misconduct, which would make military life more difficult and more dangerous.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-27966495745666619362010-03-09T11:17:00.000-05:002010-03-17T11:27:28.583-04:00Lieberman, Levin Can't Explain Terms of Repeal LegislationSen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 Eligibility Law. His bill, S. 3065, is nearly identical to H.R. 1283, a bill sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA). Lieberman has several liberal co-sponsors, but it is significant that he did not get the support of a single Republican co-sponsor. <br /><br />-Jen Mascio, <span style="font-style:italic;">Politico</span>: <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=270EFCAA-18FE-70B2-A8B23095280E6DD0"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Lieberman Bill Would End "Don't Ask"</span></a><br /><br />-<span style="font-style:italic;">The Hill</span>: <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/85309-lieberman-levin-take-lead-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-bill?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page="><span style="font-weight:bold;">Lieberman, Levin Take Lead on Measure to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy</span></a><br /><br />CNS News Video Reporter Nicholas Ballasy did a fine job trying to pin down Senators Lieberman and Carl Levin (D-MI) on the terms of their own bill. Senator Levin was particularly inept in trying to discuss the meaning of the Lieberman bill, of which he is a co-sponsor. Take a look at the video, and watch the body language of both:<br /><br />-<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/62387"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sen. Lieberman Proposed Legalizing Bisexual Behavior in the U.S. Military</span></a><br /><br />-<a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/62401"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sen. Armed Services Committee Chairman Did Not Know That Bill He is Sponsoring Would Legalize Bisexual Behavior in the Military</span></a>CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-3646987164723945452010-03-04T11:08:00.003-05:002010-03-17T11:16:24.838-04:00More Questions from Congress, and CMR Meets with Pentagon LeadersMarch 3 House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Personnel Subcommittee Hearing<br /><br />Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) conducted a hearing with the two co-chairs of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group, DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army General Carter Ham, and with the DoD Under Secretary for Personnel & Readiness, Clifford L. Stanley. Committee members repeatedly asked Mr. Johnson and General Ham about their plans to conduct a review of the issue, including a survey of active-duty troops. In response to persistent questions from HASC Personnel Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), working group co-chairman Johnson agreed that the committee should answer two key questions: <span style="font-style:italic;">Is there evidence that current law is harming military readiness?</span> Secondly, <span style="font-style:italic;">Would repeal of current law improve military readiness?</span> <br /><br />Rep. Wilson also highlighted many problematic issues that were framed in detailed questions submitted to the Pentagon by HASC Ranking Member Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA). One of the most controversial issues was a potential conflict that could result in repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) if Congress votes to repeal the 1993 law. Rowan Scarborough provided more detail on family issues in this article for the Washington Times:<br /><br />-<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/08/group-wants-same-military-benefits-for-gay-spouses/print/"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Group Wants Same Military Benefits for Gay Spouses</span></a><br /><br />On March 4, CMR and representatives of the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defense Fund and the Center for Security Policy met with the Comprehensive Review Working Group co-chairs at the Pentagon. (The CRWG also met with activists for the other side separately on the same day.) CMR will provide assistance to the CRWG whenever we can in the coming months.CMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602783487658148186.post-54812270237017582762010-02-25T17:30:00.006-05:002010-03-01T12:40:16.549-05:00Obama Proposes, Congress Disposes, and the Military OpposesAs with a lot of things coming out of the Obama Administration these days, the more questions that are asked, the worse its ideas look.<br /><br />A month ago, in his State of the Union address, the President said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."<br /><br />The President did not, however, offer any repeal legislation of his own. Not unlike another issue you may have heard about lately, health care, in which case only until today did the President provide his own legislative proposal. But Congress did not complain, and has gone to "work" to "repeal the law," to quote the President.<br /><br />The early results cannot be impressive to the White House. After a week of annual defense budget hearings featuring the leaders of the four military services, Congress' idea for repealing the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service, (usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell") has been met with a resounding thud. The proposal, spearheaded by Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman Carl Levin, for a "moratorium" on discharges of gay personnel, met with considerable skepticism from the Committee's ranking member, Senator John McCain. Senator McCain led the way in strongly criticizing a <span style="font-style:italic;">"'moratorium'...before any decision is made. ...[I]t</span> [a moratorium on homosexual discharges] <span style="font-style:italic;">flies in the face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to."</span><br /><br />When asked his position on a moratorium by Chairman Levin, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, Jr., answered:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Senator, I would recommend against it. Aside from the legal issues that the</span> [Secretary of the Army John McHugh] <span style="font-style:italic;">mentioned, it would complicate the whole process that Secretary Gates had laid out. We would be put in a position of actually implementing it while we were studying implementation.</span><br /><br />The "process" Casey cites refers to a so-called "study" or "review" by the Pentagon, proposed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before SASC on February 2, 2010, on "implementation" of repeal. What General Casey came all around saying, but could not say directly as a leading official appearing before a co-equal branch of government, is that this "moratorium" proposal amounts to <span style="font-style:italic;">de facto</span> repeal. As CMR President Elaine Donnelly has said, "by definition, a Defense Department task force producing a pre-determined paper on 'how' and not 'if' Congress should repeal the [law making homosexuals ineligible for military service] will not be an objective 'study.' And a 45-day search for excuses to suspend enforcement of the...law suggests that the Executive Branch can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. This is worse than pointless-it is irresponsible." And a moratorium, or suspension, of discharges while the so-called study proceeds has the same effect.<br /><br />General Casey went on to say to Levin: <span style="font-style:italic;">"Chairman, this process is going to be difficult and -- and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it more I think I would be opposed to."</span> He said much the same thing today to the House Armed Services Committee.<br /><br />At that same hearing today, Army Secretary John McHugh said he was <span style="font-style:italic;">"strongly opposed to a moratorium,"</span> and noted that Secretary Gates had informed him of the Defense Department's opposition to a moratorium as well.<br /><br />The House fared no better with the Department of the Navy. Yesterday, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead gave his personal view that he was in agreement in going forward with the review ordered by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He added that the review would survey <span style="font-style:italic;">"the force and families,"</span> and emphasized the importance of doing so. He also noted that focus should be on the United States military, <span style="font-style:italic;">"not another country's force---our force."</span> He stated his view that a moratorium would be "confusing" to the force, concluding that he did not support it. <br /><br />Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway said any review needs to focus on readiness, and stated that the <span style="font-style:italic;">"current construct</span> [the law making homosexuals ineligible] <span style="font-style:italic;">supports that purpose,"</span> and that any consideration of the issue now should do the same. He agreed with the CNO on the moratorium, saying either <span style="font-style:italic;">"change the law or not, ...half measures will only be confusing in the end." </span> In testimony before the Senate today, Gen. Conway stated that <span style="font-style:italic;">"unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the warfighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective. At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is."</span><br /><br />The Air Force brass has had less to say, but only because it has been under less pressure. Their only appearance thus far in the annual congressional defense budget process has been before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), whose Chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, opposes repeal. Under questioning from HASC Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who asked General Norton Schwarz if he thought the law should be repealed, the Air Force Chief of Staff offered that with two wars going on, now is <span style="font-style:italic;">"not the time to perturb the force,"</span> and echoed CNO Roughead that information on military families was necessary before deciding on repeal.<br /><br />As with the year-long efforts to close Gitmo and reform health care, this Administration seems to have a nasty habit of making big promises with no plan on how to deliver. In this case, lucky for the United States military. While people of good conscience may disagree on any array of other issues, the unity of our military experts opposing a moratorium on discharges of homosexuals, which amounts to <span style="font-style:italic;">de facto</span> repeal of the law, cannot be ignored. These leaders have devoted lifetimes to the service of our nation and are ultimately responsible for lives affected by the policies they impose or Congress enacts. We ignore their sage wisdom at our national security peril.<br /><br />--Tommy SearsCMR Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06209568312370148185noreply@blogger.com