CMR Sitrep

Conservatives for Unity at CPAC

2011-03-01T12:29:00.004-05:00

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.

• CMR President Elaine Donnelly on Big Peace – Ronald Reagan: Political Confidence and Social Conservatism

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:

• Conservatives for Unity Letter re CPAC

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 Washington Times. (The reporter missed the constructive tone of our letter, but the coverage was helpful.)

• CPAC Fissure Over Gays Deepens; GOProud Called Incompatible

The letter, addressed to the ACU Foundation Board from "Conservatives for Unity" (hardly indicating a "fissure," as the Times 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."

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.

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:

• Erick Erickson: This is Too Much for Me

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:

• Frum Report: New CPAC Head Distances Group From GOProud

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: The Complex Legacy of David Keene. 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.

Here are some more commentaries and news articles of interest:

• Kevin McCullough: CPAC's Experiment Gone Wild

• Star Parker: 'Gay Conservative' Is an Oxymoron

• Sandy Rios: What Would Reagan Really Do?

• Floyd Brown: Gay 'Conservative' Group Tears Conservatism Apart

• American Principles Project: "An open Letter to CPAC attendees and presenters."

• The Hill: Conservative Group Wants Answers from Palin on Gay Rights

• Fishbowl DC: Breitbart's Big Gay CPAC Party

• WorldNetDaily: "Conservatives Begin to See the Light"

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:

• William J. Upton, American Thinker: Conservatives and Libertarians

This video of Florida Republican Allen West demonstrates why CPAC is important:

• Video: Allen West at CPAC

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.

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.

Pentagon Using "Spin" to Push Gays in Military Goal

2010-11-23T22:21:00.003-05:00

Pentagon 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.

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.

-Washington Times: Barack's Brokeback Barracks

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.

-Letter from Sen. John McCain to CRWG

On October 25, Secretary Gates wrote what amounts to a "non-response" to Sen. McCain—most of it reads like a form-letter.

-Gates October 25 Letter to Sen. McCain re: CRWG

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.

Secretary Gates' disingenuous claims about the CRWG survey process, not its substance, are contradicted by the survey instruments themselves and by recent history with which I am personally familiar.

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: should the 1993 law be retained or repealed? 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.

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.

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 John F. Kennedy, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 long list of subjects that the Military Culture Coalition brought to the attention of the CRWG early in the process and again in September.

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.

--- Elaine Donnelly

CMR Requests Investigation of Pentagon "Leak" on Gays-in-Military Survey

2010-10-29T16:58:00.004-04:00

According 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.

‘Don’t Ask’ Survey: Majority OK Serving With Openly Gay Troops, Sources Say

In response, CMR President Elaine Donnelly sent an email to Mr. Jeh Johnson, Co-Chair of the Pentagon's "Comprehensive Review Working Group" (CRWG), asking him to investigate the incident and to prevent it from happening again.

Donnelly noted that the CRWG survey instrument sent to 400,000 active-duty and reserve personnel had omitted the key question, Should the 1993 law be retained or repealed? "It is therefore irresponsible and wrong," she wrote, "to make deceptive, surreptitious statements to the media on the results of the missing question."

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.

Leaders of the Center for Military Readiness and other organizations affiliated with the Military Culture Coalition met with Mr. Johnson for the second time in the Pentagon on September 16.

This is Donnelly's message to Mr. Johnson, sent on the afternoon of Friday, October 29:

Hello Jeh,

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Elaine Donnelly

Senate Rejects Repeal of Law on Gays in the Military

2010-10-07T13:03:00.003-04:00

Last 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.

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 fait accompli terms.

On September 21, 2010, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and 41 other national-security minded colleagues proved that conventional wisdom wrong. The Military Culture Coalition, the Flag & General Officers for the Military, and the Center for Military Readiness, applaud and congratulate these champions of the military for their principled stand against the triple threat that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) 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.

Following President Obama's State of the Union declaration that he intended to work with Congress to repeal the law, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen 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 how. 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.

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 de facto 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.

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 letter, 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.

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 Washington Times reported in an editorial just prior to the Senate vote, a case involving a CRWG participant and deputy chief of Army personnel, Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick. Drawing upon its own sources, the Times 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 editorial, the Times cited two confirming sources, a civilian whose account was published in the paper as a letter to the editor, and a report on the general's remarks received by U. S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). 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.

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.

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.

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.

Alliance Defense Fund Weighs in with Pentagon Repeal Panel

2010-10-01T14:25:00.003-04:00

The 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:

ADF Letter to CRWG

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

The Impact of Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on the Chaplain Corps: A senior active-duty chaplain weighs in

Military Culture Coalition Poll “Changes Game” in Gays in Military Debate

2010-08-12T16:54:00.002-04:00

With 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 MCC poll finds that Americans support keeping the current law. These findings and others have been reported in several stories since the poll’s release:

-WorldNet Daily: New Poll Finds Most Oppose DADT Repeal

-CNS News: Half of Democrats Favor Punishing Soldiers Who Oppose Homosexuality, Survey Finds

-Military.com: America says Obama playing politics with soldiers

-Baptist Press: "Likely Voters Support 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'"

Libertarians Should Leave the Military Alone

2010-08-06T14:32:00.004-04:00

John Stossel, a Fox News personality and self-proclaimed libertarian, recently wrote a column for Human Events announcing his belief that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy is "dumb" and that the United States should "repeal" it.

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.

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.

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, Section 654, Title 10, United States Code, 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.

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:

Ten Reasons to Oppose the LGBT Law or Policy for the Military

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.

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 attend a Log Cabin Republican fundraiser?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Gay Activist Groups "Protest Too Much"

2010-07-28T18:45:00.003-04:00

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.

The Washington newspaper Politico, in its daily "Morning Defense" 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 The Advocate also reported the launch of Outserve, "[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."

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 press release 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.

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."

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 discharge, Choi was arrested twice for handcuffing himself to the White House gate.

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 Human Events, consider similar conduct on the part of a heterosexual male officer.)

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.

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 press release 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.

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."

Patrick Murphy’s GIMC and MoveOn.org

2010-06-23T23:31:00.003-04:00

In an article for Military.com titled "Don't Ask How Much to Repeal 'Don't Tell'," 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."

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").

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.

And he is correct. A check of the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org 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.

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 approved a resolution sponsored by Texas Republican John Cornyn that denounced the group by name for its obnoxious New York Times full-page ad that distorted the good name of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American Commander in Iraq at the time.

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?

In a Human Events article titled "Murphy's (LGBT) Law for the Military," 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 Taking the Hill, 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.

Veterans Groups and Others Oppose "Repeal Deal"

2010-06-11T15:54:00.003-04:00

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:

American Legion: 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."

Veterans of Foreign Wars: 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."

At their 110th Convention last fall, the VFW also passed an unequivocal resolution:

Resolution No. 426

OPPOSE ALL EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE 1993 LAW BANNING HOMOSEXUALS FROM SERVING IN THE ARMED FORCES

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

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.

Association of the U.S. Navy: 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."

Air Force Association: 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."

National Association of Uniformed Services 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."

Reserve Officers Association: 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."

National Military Family Association: 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."

Army Reserve Association (ARA): (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."

Commentaries of Note:

Rep. Duncan Hunter, USA Today: Historic Votes Don't Assure End to DADT

John R. Guardiano: The Left Silences the Right-Wing Lambs on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Robert Knight: Conservative Media Fiddles While Military Burns

Frank Gaffney: Repealing DADT Would Break the All-Volunteer Force

William Buchanan: Gays in the Military

CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears on NRO: What’s the Deal?

John McCormack, Weekly Standard: Obama Admin: Repeal DADT Now, Ask Questions Later

R. L. Bernard, American Thinker: Nonsexual Zones of Trust and Military Policy

In addition, a number of retired officers who signed the Flag & General Officers for the Military statement in 2009 have been writing individual letters giving reasons why they signed the statement and still support the 1993 law. Retired Army General Frederick Kroesen went the extra mile in writing an op-ed for the Washington Times:

Kroesen: Risky Moves in the Military

The Fight to Stop Repeal Continues

2010-06-11T15:38:00.004-04:00

As the Senate prepares for the battle over the repeal of the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) joined with Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member John McCain, 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 (Roll Call, May 27, 2010).

Sen. McCain told Roll Call that he would "without a doubt" support a filibuster if the bill goes to the floor with language to repeal the law with "delayed implementation." "I’ll do everything in my power," 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. "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."

In an interview with National Review Online, 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:

John McCain on DADT

This article in Politico explains why final passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA), 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.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Far From Over

Meanwhile, even the liberal media started to ask serious questions that should have been discussed months ago:

New York Times: As "Don't Ask" Fades, Military Faces Thorny Issues

Agence France Press (AFP ): US Military Chief Cautions on Gay Ban Repeal

Betrayal of the Chiefs

2010-06-11T15:06:00.004-04:00

In a May 30 interview with Fox News Sunday, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen was equivocal about legislation to repeal the current law making homosexuals ineligible for military service that he had put on track for passage with his own Senate testimony. On February 2 Mullen admitted that the proposed new law would cause problems. Neither he nor Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 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."

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 "comfortable" with the power that would be placed in his hands if the "Repeal Deal" passed.

Speaking on Fox News shortly after the House and Senate votes, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney reported, "the service chiefs are furious." On June 2 Rowan Scarborough 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:

Military Chiefs Split With Mullen on Gays.

A senior defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity told Fox News that "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." Sen. James Webb 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."

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.

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 statement, 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 Rep. Mike Pence, (IN), Jack Kingston (GA), Steve Buyer (IN), Tom Rooney (FL), Duncan Hunter (CA), Todd Akin (MO).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 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 "LGBT Equality Month."

"Repeal Deal" Rammed Through House

2010-06-11T14:41:00.002-04:00

On 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 Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

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 Flag & General Officers for the Military, the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted for an amendment to the 2011 Defense Authorization bill that repeals the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, Section 654, Title 10, usually mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

The House vote was 234-194, with five Republicans defying their party's National Platform by voting for Pennsylvania Democrat Patrick Murphy's amendment for gays in the military. The unfaithful five included Libertarian Ron Paul (TX), Joseph Cao (LA), Charles Djou (HI), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), and Judy Biggert (IL). Twenty-six Democrats, including House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (MO), senior HASC member Gene Taylor (MS), and the newly-elected congressman Mark Critz (PA) voted "no" on the amendment and supported the current law.
Earlier the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar amendment, 16-12. (15 votes were required.) Sen. Jim Webb (VA) was the only Democrat to vote against the measure, while Sen. Susan Collins (ME) was the only Republican to vote for it.

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 President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen 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."

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 LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) agenda on the military.

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.

The Military Culture Coalition Stands Up for 1993 Law

2010-06-11T13:53:00.003-04:00

In February CMR announced the formation of a Military Culture Coalition (MCC) 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 Conservative Action Project, chaired by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, III.

Memo for the Movement

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 Heritage Foundation by Chuck Donovan:

Ready, Fire, Aim on DADT

Family Research Council published a new report by Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, USA (Ret.), which provided an excellent history of the 1993 law and the consequences of repealing it:

Mission Compromised: How the Obama Administration is Drafting the Military into the Culture War

Concerned Women for America (CWA) issued an excellent “Family Voice Bulletin” that analyzes the legislative history of the 1993 law and the administrative policy, DADT:

Homosexuality and the Military: What "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Is and Why It Matters

Liberty Counsel has issued another excellent report:

Liberty Counsel Joins Campaign to Support Military Families

The Center for Security Policy, Eagle Forum, Alliance Defense Fund, Focus on the Family, Thomas More Law Center, Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family Association, 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.

Milbloggers Not Unanimous

2010-05-13T15:26:00.003-04:00

The Huffington Post and Politico posted items yesterday touting a statement signed by military bloggers (in internet shorthand, "milbloggers), purportedly calling for "repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" But at least one among their number pointed out 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 law making homosexuals ineligible for military service, actually is a Pentagon administrative policy that Congress never voted for.

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, "Obama Proposes, Congress Disposes & the Military Opposes." Some of the bloggers may represent younger, new-media-savvy readers, but they may have missed the formidable Flag and General Officers for the Military statement, 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.

The 2009 Military Times 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 "Ten Reasons to Oppose the 'LGBT Law' for the Military."

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.

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.

The subcommittee's non-action was the apparent result of an April 30 letter that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mullen sent to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton. 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 Congressional Quarterly 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."

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.

Street Theater of the LGBT Left

2010-05-06T11:02:00.001-04:00

This article 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 "Unbecoming Conduct of Gay Activist Lt. Daniel Choi."

DoD officials have not given any explanation for his reported retention even though he is not eligible to serve.

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:

Photo: DADT Protest at McCain's AZ Office

The LGBT Left is consistently radical, but they are not pretty when they are mad.

This blog has moved

2010-04-28T10:25:00.001-04:00

This blog is now located at http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://sitrep.cmrlink.org/feeds/posts/default.

Marine General Re-Affirms: U.S. Military Should Not Follow European Model

2010-04-19T09:47:00.005-04:00

There 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:

Senate Testimony: European Militaries are Not Role Models for U.S

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 direct challenge to the credibility of gay activists who keep citing 25 mostly-European militaries as examples that the United States should emulate.

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.

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.

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, linked here, 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.

Gen. Sheehan wrote, "[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."

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:

US Ex-General Apologizes for Dutch Gay Remarks

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.

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.

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 social goals, not military effectiveness.

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.

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 Press Release: Continued Confusion About 1993 Gays-in-Military Law

2010-03-25T22:27:00.003-04:00

In 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:

"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, Section 654, Title 10, in future cases and those that are still pending."

"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."

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."

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."

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.

"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'."

She continued, "If Secretary Gates really wants to make enforcement of the law 'more humane,' he should follow the legal mandate to explain the purpose and meaning of the law 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.

"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."

Background: Why Exceptions in Enforcement Are Not Justified

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.

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 Boise Statesman, 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.

Defining Discipline Down

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.

Former Marine General Challenges NATO Military Myths

2010-03-22T16:18:00.004-04:00

Now 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.

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.

Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.

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.

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.

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.

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 Lt. Daniel Choi, 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 were outraged by Choi's stunt. His antics suggested that Choi knows little about team cohesion, even in his campaign to repeal the 1993 law.

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.

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.

Op-Eds and Commentaries of Interest on Gays in the Military

2010-03-15T15:31:00.003-04:00

We 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:

-Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force Chief of Staff, surprised us with his article, which makes excellent points even though he endorses the de facto policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": Don't Ask, Don't Change

-Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council: Sex Matters in the Military

-Robert Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries: Don't Ask Who They Are But What They Do

-Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy: Hail to the Chiefs

-Bob Maginnis: Gay Review and Combat Effectiveness

-Jane Chastain: Our Military Needs Your Help

-Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, USA (Ret.): Don't Stress the Military With Quad-Sexual Units (Maj. Gen. Brady was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam.)

-John Guardino, Part IV: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and Don't Even Pretend to Be Fair---Unbalanced, Inaccurate, and Unfair, and

-John Guardino, Part V: Lies, Damn Lies, and Polls

-The Optimistic Conservative: And So It Begins

Former Rep. Eric Massa: Military Record Shows Inappropriate Conduct

2010-03-15T11:29:00.003-04:00

The 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.

-The Atlantic: Massa's Navy Files

-New York Daily News: Former Navy Officers Who Served with Rep. Eric Massa Say He 'Groped' Subordinates on Ship

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.

Lieberman, Levin Can't Explain Terms of Repeal Legislation

2010-03-09T11:17:00.000-05:00

Sen. 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.

-Jen Mascio, Politico: Lieberman Bill Would End "Don't Ask"

-The Hill: Lieberman, Levin Take Lead on Measure to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy

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:

-Sen. Lieberman Proposed Legalizing Bisexual Behavior in the U.S. Military

-Sen. Armed Services Committee Chairman Did Not Know That Bill He is Sponsoring Would Legalize Bisexual Behavior in the Military

Obama Proposes, Congress Disposes, and the Military Opposes

2010-02-25T17:30:00.006-05:00

As with a lot of things coming out of the Obama Administration these days, the more questions that are asked, the worse its ideas look.

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."

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.

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 "'moratorium'...before any decision is made. ...[I]t [a moratorium on homosexual discharges] flies in the face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to."

When asked his position on a moratorium by Chairman Levin, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, Jr., answered:

Senator, I would recommend against it. Aside from the legal issues that the [Secretary of the Army John McHugh] 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.

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 de facto 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.

General Casey went on to say to Levin: "Chairman, this process is going to be difficult and -- and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it more I think I would be opposed to." He said much the same thing today to the House Armed Services Committee.

At that same hearing today, Army Secretary John McHugh said he was "strongly opposed to a moratorium," and noted that Secretary Gates had informed him of the Defense Department's opposition to a moratorium as well.

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 "the force and families," and emphasized the importance of doing so. He also noted that focus should be on the United States military, "not another country's force---our force." He stated his view that a moratorium would be "confusing" to the force, concluding that he did not support it.

Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway said any review needs to focus on readiness, and stated that the "current construct [the law making homosexuals ineligible] supports that purpose," and that any consideration of the issue now should do the same. He agreed with the CNO on the moratorium, saying either "change the law or not, ...half measures will only be confusing in the end." In testimony before the Senate today, Gen. Conway stated that "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."

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 "not the time to perturb the force," and echoed CNO Roughead that information on military families was necessary before deciding on repeal.

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 de facto 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.

--Tommy Sears

Military Secretaries, Chiefs Oppose "Moratorium" on Discharges of Gays

2010-02-25T09:23:00.006-05:00

In testimony before Congress this week, leaders of the four military services were questioned on their personal and professional views regarding President Barack Obama's plan to repeal the law making homosexuals ineligible for military service. Their answers to questions from congressional leaders showed that they have not been persuaded by gay activists' arguments for open homosexuality in the United States armed forces. These leaders bear the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of such misguided proposals, giving their insights preponderant weight.

Senate

In a hearing with Army Secretary John McHugh and Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, Jr., Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan raised the prospect of a "moratorium," which would in effect halt discharges pending a so-called Pentagon "review" of how to repeal the law. Senator John McCain led the way in strongly criticizing a "'moratorium'"...before any decision is made. ...[I]t [a moratorium on homosexual discharges] flies in the face of what the Secretary of Defense committed to."

When questioned on their position on a moratorium on homosexual discharges, Secretary McHugh and General Casey offered serious reservations.

Secretary McHugh: "...[T]he preference would be we would not enact a moratorium."

General Casey was even more assertive in an exchange with Chairman Levin:

CASEY:
Senator, I would recommend against it [a moratorium]. Aside from the legal issues that the secretary 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. And I don't think that would be prudent.

LEVIN:
If the moratorium were simply a moratorium---in other words, you're not implementing anything. You're just withholding discharges until that study is completed.

CASEY:
Chairman, this process is going to be difficult and---and complicated enough. Anything that complicates it more I think I would be opposed to.

House

While the Senate hearing was underway, the House was conducting its annual budget authorization hearing with Air Force leaders. Secretary Michael B. Donley and Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz testified before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC).

Under questioning from HASC Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who asked Gen. Schwarz if he thought the law should be repealed, the Air Force chief offered that with two wars going on, now is "not the time to perturb the force," and that information on military families was necessary before deciding on repeal.

Yesterday, the HASC held a similar hearing with Navy and Marine Corps leadership; Secretary Ray Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Gary Roughead, and Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway.

McKeon asked the Navy and USMC chiefs if the law should be repealed and
their views on a moratorium. 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 "the force and families," and emphasized the importance of doing so. He also noted that focus should be on the United States military, "not another country's force---our force." He stated his view that a moratorium would be "confusing" to the force, concluding that he did not support it.

Gen. Conway said any review needs to focus on readiness, and stated that the
"current construct [the law making homosexuals ineligible] supports that purpose," and that any consideration of the issue now should do the same. He agreed with the CNO on the moratorium, saying either "change the law or not,...half measures will only be confusing in the end."

In effect, the opposition to repeal from our country's top military leaders, the individual Service Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, illustrates that a "moratorium" would be nothing less than a thinly-veiled, de facto repeal. Senator McCain and Representative McKeon deserve high praise for exposing this back-door effort to make repeal a fait accompli, as well as do the Chiefs for their steadfast opposition in the face of congressional pressure to accept such a proposal.

Expert push-back on repeal of gays in military law

2010-02-04T14:24:00.005-05:00

A wave of contrary analysis has emerged in opposition to the misguided plan proposed to Congress this week on the issue of gays in the military. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed a proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee that would weaken enforcement of existing law, Sec. 654, Title 10, which makes homosexuals ineligible for military service, while also undertaking an internal Pentagon "study" aimed at implementing repeal of that law. Problem: The Pentagon doesn't get to make laws. That's Congress job, and Sec. 654, Title 10 is still on the books, as Senator McCain forcefully reminded the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, during the hearing. (You can see the video here. Use the video player's progress bar to fast forward to the approximately 204-minute mark). Senator McCain voiced his strong objection that their plan would not consider "whether the military prepares to [repeal the law], but how." Senator Sessions, another member of the Committee, strongly suggested that Gates' and Mullen's endorsement of repeal in effect compromised any study or review that their subordinates at the Pentagon might undertake.

With these events as backdrop, commentary from various sources was offered throughout the week:

Colonel David Bedey (US Army, ret.), a veteran of 30 years experience, explains in specific detail the problems with open homosexuality in the military and the broader gay-activist agenda behind it:

Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A Clear and Present Danger

Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and frequent national security issues commentator explains in the Washington Times why the Obama Administration effort to repeal the law will ultimately fail:

Obama Versus the All-Volunteer Military

Former Army Criminal Law Division chief and Virginia Assemblyman Richard Black exposes the fallacies of the gay-activists' arguments that open homosexuality in the military would not hurt discipline, and thereby overall readiness:

Danger to Discipline

William Kristol of the Weekly Standard asks why, of all the institutions that Americans question right now, is the Obama Administration targeting the one it trusts most, the United States military:

Don't Mess With Success

In this video, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council goes head-to-head with the executive director of the gay-activist Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization whose primary mission is repeal of the law, on MSNBC's Hardball:

Peter Sprigg on MSNBC's Hardball

DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops

2010-02-02T11:48:00.002-05:00

In their testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not compromise principle by proposing an unworkable plan to undermine the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10). As reported by the Washington Post, the testimony that Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen are expected to deliver suggests an irresponsible plan that would incrementally eviscerate the law by unilaterally suspending its enforcement for specious reasons.

Such a plan would create an incentive for "third parties" to guarantee retention of gay partners in the military simply by identifying their partner as gay. Homosexuals would become a protected class under standards different from everyone else. This would constitute a clear violation of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, and establish a double standard that, in the name of "consistency," weakens discipline across the board.

Finding #9 in the law could not be more clear: "The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces." Finding #10 reads, "Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty."

Furthermore, Finding #13 clearly asserts: "The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service." There is nothing in the actual law that authorizes the institutional dishonesty inherent in Secretary Gates' and Adm. Mullen's reported plan to establish a double standard for homosexuals who are not eligible to serve in the military.

The Secretary of Defense does not get to choose which laws he will enforce and which ones he will not. Nor does he have the power to issue regulations that contradict the law, creating confusion and demoralizing the troops in order to help President Obama deliver on a political promise.

If the Defense Department excuses the behavior of personnel who show poor judgment by engaging in homosexual conduct revealed by others, there will be more misconduct, not less. This is a plan for officially condoned indiscipline, in violation of the clear language and intent of the law.

Background:

This article provides background on the genesis of Secretary Gates' peculiar comment about more "humane" ways to enforce the 1993 law:

Defining Discipline Down

In most cases, homosexuals reveal themselves to be gay, and they are honorably discharged. If credible information comes to the attention of military authorities, and there are no unusual circumstances that rebut the reasonable "presumption" of homosexual conduct, the person in question is subject to discharge, usually honorable. Anyone who engages in homosexual conduct is, by definition, not eligible to be in the armed forces.

President Obama is promoting a new "LGBT Law" for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and more than 180 others, H.R. 1283, would forbid discrimination based on "homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." If passed, the law would be retroactive-allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged. The LGBT Law would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.

As stated in the statute itself, "There is no constitutional right to serve in the military." Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.

There is no way that a Pentagon panel of any size can come up with a plan to make the LGBT agenda work with no negative effects on recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military. CMR has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be:

Consequences of the Proposed New "LGBT Law" for the Military

More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law, and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would "break the All-Volunteer Force."

Lessons for Backers of Murphy's LGBT Law

2010-01-21T10:11:00.004-05:00

The political earthquake that occurred on Tuesday, electing Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate, was more than the first election of a Republican senator from that state since 1972. At his victory party Senator-elect Brown drew national applause when he declared,

"Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax money should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

This was not a "populist" sentiment. It was one of the clearest statements in support of a strong national defense that we have heard from a Republican candidate in a long time.

An obvious exception is retired Army Colonel Alan West, who is creating a sensation in his second run for Congress from the 22nd District in Florida. If you haven't seen this video of West in action, check it out:

Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West

The Massachusetts voters who calmly and cheerfully secured the "People's Seat" for Scott Brown are concerned about national security, and they don't want America's military to be used for any purpose other than national defense. In an article titled "It's the Enemy, Stupid," Andrew McCarthy of NRO quoted Scott Brown's top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign's internal polling showed "terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants" to be an even bigger issue than health care.

Will pro-defense members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, learn from this lesson?

It is a dangerous temptation to assume, that liberals and gay activists will retreat from the effort to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. The signs are encouraging, including post-election comments from U. S. Senate Democrats Evan Bayh (IN) and Jim Webb (VA), essentially warning their colleagues against continued political over-reaching. But the activists are not letting up.

CMR is nonpartisan and we don't endorse candidates, but voters and politically-active groups should ask every candidate for the Congress and U.S. Senate questions about their position on repeal of the 1993 law, which is constantly mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This includes every co-sponsor of HR 1283, Rep. Patrick Murphy's bill to impose a new LGBT Law on the military.

According to a survey done by the Massachusetts Family Institute, Scott Brown said that he supports "current armed forces policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military," while his rival Martha Coakley took the opposite position. (Brown and Coakley also disagreed on two more LGBT causes, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA.)

As the 2010 elections approach, questions of all candidates should focus on the Congress' findings regarding homosexuals in the military, as contained in the 1993 law and highlighted last week in a Washington Times op-ed by a respected former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.

Maintain Military Gay Ban

As Gen. Mundy wrote, the law's findings remain valid and important for good order and high morale in the military. Our servicemen and women should not be forced to carry the burdens of a controversial, unprecedented social experiment that would weaken recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer force.

CMR issues such as this are essential elements in two legs of Ronald Reagan's famous three-legged stool. We look forward to working with candidates, elected officials, voters, opinion leaders, media, researchers, and members of the armed forces to build support for sound policies and priorities for the best military in the world.

Roadmaps for Railroading the Military

2010-01-18T13:03:00.003-05:00

Gay activists who are trying to impose their radical agenda on the military are floating several "trial balloon" proposals to get their way despite strong opposition from military leaders and personnel, members of Congress, and the general public. The following are some of the most egregious bad ideas that media reports have revealed since October 2009:

1. Stifling Testimony from Military Leaders

The AP and the Washington Post reported on January 13 that Department of Defense lawyers are having second thoughts about the wisdom of repealing the 1993 law this year:

Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban

The article reported for the first time that House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) opposes repeal of the 1993 law, and The Hill reported additional details on January 15:

Skelton Opposes Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke at a dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) LGBT Left group in the country. Marching outside were even more radical homosexualists who demand that the president impose their San Francisco agenda on the men and women of our military. This article in the American Thinker analyzed the homosexualists' two-step plan to box-in military leaders with a pre-emptive presidential executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 Eligibility Law:

Roadmap for Railroading the Military

2. Updated RAND Report: More Advocacy, Not Evidence

Given the Pentagon resistance noted above, it is not surprising that AP also reported that SASC Chairman Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) is pursuing an alternative plan. In order to repeat and reinforce false arguments for gays in the military, Levin has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to "task" the RAND Corporation to update the report on this subject that they did in 1993. This proposal is irresponsible for several reasons:

- Retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, now a Fox News contributor, completely discredited the 1993 RAND report at that time it was released because it was a typically biased, pre-determined pro-gays-in-the-military paper. Updating that polemic would be tantamount to bestowing defense dollars directly on gay activist groups, including the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center.

- RAND demonstrated its liberal bias as recently as November 2009, when it made a significant "in-kind" contribution to the cause by issuing a news release promoting a paper that the Palm Center had solicited from RAND employee Dr. Laura Miller. As we reported in the CMR SITREP, the news release noted that it was not an official RAND report, much less an objective "study," but the Boston Globe and other major newspapers publicized it as if it were.

3. Delayed-Effective-Date Ploy

Another very speculative idea heard through the grapevine suggests that legislation to repeal the 1993 law might postpone its effective date for a few years, going into effect whenever the troops come home from the war or the Secretary of Defense determines that it is "safe" to impose the LGBT Left agenda on our military men and women.

- This would be another cynical attempt to circumvent and incrementally repeal current law by refusing to enforce it. Such a plan would require the troops to be part of a social experiment in the midst of a war, while blurring responsibility for that action and postponing accountability until after the 2010 and 2012 elections.

- The Flag & General Officers for the Military statement opposes "any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law." The delayed-effective-date ploy certainly would be as bad, and perhaps worse, than repealing the law with immediate effect. There is no "good time" to weaken the culture of the military, and no one should fall into the trap of arguing that repeal safely can come later.

4. Short-Sighted Incrementalism

The new Secretary of the Army, former New York Congressman John McHugh, thoughtlessly suggested a completely unworkable way to manage results, not "if" the law is repealed, but "when" it is. Speaking in an interview on multiple topics with Army Times, McHugh suggested that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units, but barred from others.

- Secretary McHugh's absurd comment demonstrates Mr. Magoo-like short-sightedness. It also calls into question the judgment of Mr. McHugh, who previously served as Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee. Secretary McHugh (or unnamed others he was quoting) apparently has not thought of the reaction if gays in the military are not eligible for deployment in close combat units, Special Operations Forces, SEALS, and submarines, in the same way that HIV+ troops must be retained but cannot be deployed in any unit overseas.

- This tentative plan, a recipe for constant chaos and demoralizing resentment in the ranks, contradicts claims that the new LGBT Law will "enhance readiness" in the military.

For more information that discredits every flawed argument that has been made for passage of the proposed LGBT Law, please review the comprehensive array of articles posted elsewhere on this website, www.cmrlink.org.

Activist Groups Dissemble on Mislabeled "RAND Report"

2009-12-01T10:19:00.008-05:00

On November 9 the Boston Globe and other major media misrepresented a private paper commissioned by the gay-activist Michael D. Palm Center as if it were a genuine research report of the RAND Corporation. This was not a RAND study; it was done by a RAND employee on her own time, together with an academic associate. The authors were Laura Miller, Ph.D., who is employed as a researcher at RAND, and Bonnie Moradi, Ph.D. of the University of Florida.

As noted in RAND's November 9 news release, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, commissioned the paper, which "was the product of a contract directly with the researchers and not through RAND." Survey results used for the study were from a four-year-old 2006 Zogby International Poll that also was commissioned by the Palm Center, a gay activist group formerly known as the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military." It remains unclear what the Palm Center's involvement, described as a "contract," was.

The Palm Center and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) nevertheless misdescribed the Miller/Moradi paper as a RAND report:

-Statement on Rep. Frank's Remarks to The Advocate on 2010 Repeal

Both organizations exaggerated "findings" that CMR analyzed in this article:

-RAND Lends Brand to Palm Center Polemic

CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears asked questions of the RAND Media Relations department, which tried to correct the situation. On RAND's request, the Palm Center changed the headline on their article promoting the Miller/Moradi paper slightly. But in an interview with National Public Radio in Connecticut, Nathaniel Frank of the Palm Center misrepresented the paper as "a new RAND Report."

RAND also contacted the SLDN, which replaced their original characterization of the Miller/Moradi paper as "a new survey by the RAND Corp." with a revision that remains misleading. The SLDN now describes the paper as "a new study by researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida and commissioned by the Palm Center."

This version still dissembles. Using the plural word "researchers" suggests a typical RAND team "study" rather than what the Miller/Moradi paper really is. The document was written by a single RAND employee, working without compensation on her own time, together with an associate at the University of Florida, reinterpreting four-year-old (not "new") information from a Zogby Poll paid for by the Palm Center.

Understanding that RAND was not professionally "commissioned" and their employee was not compensated, the SLDN's new iteration obfuscates nearly as much as before. The extent and nature of the Palm Center's involvement still is not clear. And as of this posting, the SLDN continues to refer to a non-existent "RAND study" in their website article linked above.

RAND is very careful about the use of its copyright and logo, and rightly so. Certainly the corporation does not want its name and reputation to be "borrowed" and misused to exaggerate the credibility of a private paper done for an outside activist group---especially one that is likely to misrepresent the document in congressional testimony and other public statements. Regardless of intent, the Palm Center benefited greatly from the RAND news release, which helped them to promote their cause under false pretenses.

This episode in the ongoing Gays in the Military Campaign, known as the GIMC, goes beyond public relations, or PR. When ideologues fabricate information to change public attitudes toward an issue, the proper term is "perception management," or PM, for short. Palm Center/SLDN Polemics continue to undermine the credibility of homosexualist groups that demand government power to impose their gay agenda on the military.

This is not the first time that the Palm Center has misrepresented "research" that cannot withstand close scrutiny. PM tactics such as this will not be enough to persuade Congress to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.

Dangers of Political Correctness in the Military

2009-11-16T13:47:00.005-05:00

As Elaine Donnelly wrote in her article featured in "National Review Online Hot" last week, the Army has been making compromises in apparently small matters, such as uniform standards for religious minorities, in order to advance "diversity" as a primary goal. In larger matters, reported "diversity" groupthink and reluctance to give offense apparently led some Walter Reed officials to "tolerate" the intolerable. According to NPR, their official inaction when Capt. Nidal Hassan displayed jihadist attitudes inadvertently led to the vicious attack at Fort Hood that took fourteen lives. Now the news media and a number of respected commentators are starting to stress the same theme: Officials who are responsible for the dangerous pursuit of "diversity" at all costs must be held accountable. These are recent examples:

1. The Christian Science Monitor quoted CMR on the importance of equal treatment in response to President Barack Obama's comments on Saturday:

Fort Hood Review May Challenge Political Correctness Up the Ranks

"'In the military everybody has to be treated the same, it's what holds everybody together,' says Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, a non-partisan group that focuses primarily on military personnel. 'You have horizontal cohesion among the troops and you have vertical cohesion between the commander in chief and the troops that he leads. The vertical cohesion is now at risk, and the President should restore it, and realize this was not a breach, as he says, but a consequence of skewed priorities.'"

2. With his usual insight and wit, columnist Mark Steyn has noticed that unlike the response to the 9/11 attacks, when the American people quickly recognized and organized to meet the threat, the killings of military personnel at Fort Hood have not been recognized as a jihadist attack that began with the misguided pursuit of "diversity" as a primary goal:

Jihad and the Scandal of "Brain-Dead Diversity"

"The truth is we're not prepared to draw a line even after he's gone ahead and committed mass murder. 'What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy,' said General Casey, the US Army's Chief of Staff, 'but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.' A "greater tragedy" than 14 dead and dozens of wounded? Translating from the original brain-addled multiculit-speak, the Army Chief of Staff is saying that the same fatuous prostration before marshmallow illusions that led to the 'tragedy' must remain in place. If it leads to occasional mass murder, well, hopefully it can be held to what cynical British civil servants used to call, during the Northern Irish 'Troubles', 'an acceptable level of violence.' Fourteen dead is evidently acceptable. A hundred and forty? Fourteen hundred? I guess we'll find out. 'Diversity' is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in 'multiculturalism' doesn't require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them."

3. Human Events editor Jed Babbin touches on several indictors of misplaced priorities and fecklessness in the conduct of our foreign policy and war in the Middle East:

Mr. Obama's War

"His [Gen. Casey's] comment on the Fort Hood massacre is well beyond political correctness: it is despicable. He now believes that 'diversity' is more important than protecting the lives of our troops at home and abroad. Anyone who cares more about diversity than protecting the force from internal threats cannot be trusted to lead. Casey should be removed forthwith."

4. Reacting to the stated priorities of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, Linda Chavez has zeroed in on the horrors that "diversity at any cost" can lead to:

Fire General Casey

"The biggest question that remains is not Hasan's motivation, but the government's. Why is it that counterterrorism investigators and the Army were so eager to dismiss suspicion of Hasan when his actions clearly warranted a high-priority, full-fledged investigation? Were Hasan's colleagues discouraged from reporting his suspect activities because they feared retaliation from military brass in the name of protecting "diversity"? Surely, Casey's own words are fair warning to anyone in the military that they should tread lightly in ever questioning the activities of any Muslim in uniform. But Casey's outrageous statements are more likely to encourage prejudice than quell it...If we can't be assured that the military is doing its job to ensure that extremists do not infiltrate our armed forces, then every Muslim automatically comes under suspicion."

Additional worthwhile commentaries reflecting growing awareness of this subject have been written by:

-Dorothy Rabinowitz, Wall Street Journal, "Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer"
-Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, "It's the Jihad, Stupid"
-David Limbaugh, Townhall.com, "Suicidal Political Correctness"

Cogent Commentaries Counter GIMC

2009-10-23T16:51:00.004-04:00

In recent weeks several influential, pro-military writers have published excellent articles countering the multi-million dollar Gays in the Military Campaign (GIMC):

Cal Thomas revealed the social-engineering agenda behind the Navy's effort to put women in the submarine service and to repeal the 1993 Homosexual Ineligibility Law:

TownHall: "Don't Ask, Tell, or Legitimize"

In a cover story for the Edmund Burke Institute's magazine Reflections, Dr. Grace Vuoto described the gay-activist agenda to transform the culture of the military, and showed that polls of current and former servicemembers have indicated strong support for the 1993 Eligibility Law:

Reflections: "The Next Frontier: Gays in the Military"

In this article, retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis in no uncertain terms dispelled the myth of a "national security" necessity to allow open homosexuality in the military:

Human Events: "Obama's Gay Speech"

Robert Knight discussed the strategy of the Michael D. Palm Center, a gay-ctivist "think tank" at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Palm two-step plan is to "eliminate opportunities for [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] to resist" the push to impose open homosexuality on the military. Knight joined Bob Maginnis in countering overblown claims about discharges of gays. The proportion of discharges due to homosexuality, compared to personnel losses for all reasons over the period he cites, is even more insignificant, totaling only .37 percent.

Town Hall: "Lifting the Ban Would Do a Rank Disservice"

Unbecoming Conduct of Gay Activist Lt. Daniel Choi

2009-10-12T17:11:00.009-04:00

During an appearance on CNN's "AC 360" program with Anderson Cooper on Tuesday, October 6, Army National Guard 1st Lt. Daniel Choi aggressively attacked both Elaine Donnelly and more than 1,000 Flag & General Officers for the Military. Lt. Choi, who is fighting a discharge due to professed homosexual conduct, displayed a side of his personality unlike the sympathetic figure that he has been trying to portray as a former Arabic linguist who graduated from West Point in 2003.

With the help of Anderson Cooper, who conducted the interview as an unabashed advocate of repealing the law, Daniel Choi made a statement that was simply untrue. When Elaine mentioned that more than 1,150 high-ranking officers had personally signed a formal statement in support of the 1993 Eligibility Law, Daniel Choi falsely described the Flags & General Officers for the Military (FGOM) as being "in their seventies and eighties," and living in "senior citizen centers" where Elaine "collected" their signatures.

Choi also claimed that most had not served under the current law, which he misdescribed as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." On the contrary, of the Army generals whose retirement dates are known, a clear majority retired since 1994, when current law went into effect. Some were in leadership roles during the post-9/11 and still-current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. To state the obvious, it takes many years to earn the respect of peers and four-star rank in the military, building on decades of decision-making experience that 20-somethings do not have.

The intemperate attack on former military leaders who had served our country with distinction--51 of them having retired in four-star rank--said more about Daniel Choi than it did about anyone else. Choi's comment was ironic in view of the fact that many of the retired flags and generals are very involved in second careers, running businesses, volunteering time, raising money for military charitable organizations, consulting with the Department of Defense, and traveling frequently.

The Flag & General Officers for the Military are accomplished, highly-respected individuals who know how to get things done. As stated on the website of the Flag & General Officers for the Military, seven generals and admirals serving on the FGOM Steering Committee asked colleagues in all four services to join them in signing the formal Statement to the President and Members of Congress. By March 2009, more than 1,000 had sent their signatures via regular mail, not e-mail. The number has risen to1,152 since then, and all signatures remain on file with CMR, which provided administrative support for the FGOM project. None of these distinguished leaders had anything to gain by stepping up in defense of sound values and priorities for the All-Volunteer Force.

When Army Times asked Daniel Choi why he was still a lieutenant after graduating from West Point in 2003, Choi said the question was not relevant to the interview. (July 13, 2009) The military needs skilled linguists, and CMR always assumes the good faith of anyone who wants to serve in uniform. The fact remains that West Point graduate Daniel Choi, who has now revealed himself to be a homosexual, took the place of someone else who was eligible to serve.

Many people who are patriots and willing to serve are not eligible for reasons such as age, health, personal violations of law, and the like. It makes no sense to recruit, train, and deploy people who are not eligible for military service. This is the problem with Bill Clinton's convoluted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has created human interest problems that members of Congress predicted and tried to avoid by rejecting it. Criticism of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," however, does not justify repeal of the 1993 Eligibility Law.

Administration Sets Back Plans for Missile Defense

2009-09-21T15:37:00.002-04:00

The Center for Military Readiness is pleased to join with the leaders of many respected pro-defense groups in expressing concern about current decisions that are weakening our defenses against long- and short-range ballistic missiles.

Conservative Leaders Speak Out on Obama Missile Defense Decision

The announcement that the Obama Administration will abandon plans for ground-based missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic suggests a surrender of influence, betrayal of two of our closest friends in the region, a posture of appeasement towards Russia, and a misunderstanding of the seriousness of the potential nuclear capability of Iran. Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), head of the Republican Study Committee, issued this statement:

"The first nine months of the Obama administration have emboldened rogue dictators across the globe, and now an increasingly antagonistic Russia has been rewarded for bullying and threatening its neighbors. Not since the Carter administration has America looked so weak on the international stage."

More information is provided in this "Web Memo" by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D, and Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation, titled "President Obama Must Not Surrender to Russia on Missile Defense." In an article titled "The Obama Doctrine," Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy writes that current policies will "Undermine our allies. Embolden our enemies. [and] Diminish our country."

CMR agrees that last week's announced suspension of missile defense plans with the Czech Republic and Poland will have the effect of increasing the risks of both long- and short-range attacks from Iran, with little or no sign of expected "help" from Russia. We should not be practicing appeasement with other nations that want to interfere with the security interests of the United States. Americans who are concerned about this issue should contact elected officials in Washington, DC, who can be reached easily through this link: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Media Bias on Military Social Issues

2009-09-04T12:45:00.004-04:00

CMR has been wondering for some time why it is that the Washington Times, thought to be a conservative newspaper, more often than not covers the gays in the military story from the standpoint of those pushing for repeal of the law. This article, for example, quotes Elaine Donnelly briefly but primarily focuses on the perspective of the "LGBT Left."

-Obama Faces Growing Anger on the Left

One of the gay activists quoted in the article claimed on his blog that he had "played a small part in generating this story."

* * * * * *

On August 15 the New York Times published the first of two major articles in a series promoting the idea of women in land combat, complete with a color photograph, several videos, and the results of a poll conducted in July. The photo, dated April 2004, raised more than a few eyebrows and sparked inquiries to CMR.

The featured female soldier is shown charging an unseen enemy with her rifle, but the background doesn't seem to support the warlike image. Behind her, next to a wall, are five male soldiers lounging with guns and bottled water, one of them inspecting a large camera. There is no apparent urgency to help the female soldier to charge the unseen enemy, but the casual reader might miss the illusion substituting for reality. The image fits the template of the article, but it is no help to military women who are well aware of resentment that arises when the media pretends that special treatment equals equality.

The New York Times also published the results of a poll of civilians on the issue of women combat:

-"Support for Women on the Battlefield"

The poll, indicating that 83% of respondents favor women in combat, is highly misleading. The 83% reading resulted from a question essentially asking whether women should be in the military and be deployed to danger zones-on a voluntary basis, of course. This is the current situation, which news reports have consistently portrayed both as a fait accompli and a policy that is working almost perfectly well. Professional pollsters know that questions about issues that people believe to be settled usually generate a positive response. In this case, the conditional nature of the question virtually guaranteed an 83% approval rating that fit in nicely with the two front-page articles pushing women in land combat.

The poll question did not seek opinions on women being ordered into direct ground combat on the same basis as men-a situation that is already happening, in violation of regulation and law, but most people don't believe to be happening. Still, responses to the New York Times' follow-up questions were not a hearty endorsement of women in the infantry, even though the word "join" suggested that such units are like a social club, and the question did not even hint that the definition of "combat" involves far more than being "in harm's way."

Direct ground combat is defined as deliberate offensive action against the enemy while under fire. In infantry battalions where physical requirements and missions have not changed, female soldiers do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.

The New York Times PR blitz followed the usual "perception management" template, and the Boston Globe followed the Times' lead with an op-ed that inaccurately described the position of CMR on this issue. Elaine Donnelly's Letter to the Editor in response, titled "Army's 'Anything Goes' Policies Are Unwise for Women and Men," was published in the Globe on September 2.

"Thoughtcrime" and National Security

2009-08-27T10:40:00.003-04:00

The Tuesday, August 25 announcement of the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogation methods by US Attorney General Eric Holder demonstrates once again the contempt liberals hold for dissent. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid labels town hall attendees "evil mongers." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denigrates Americans who oppose health care legislation as "Astroturf" (a political insider euphemism describing "protesters for hire"). The Speaker goes on to allege that said "Astroturf" brandishes signs with "swastikas."

The Obama Administration advises website visitors to refer the senders of "fishy" emails to the White House. Hate crimes legislation currently under consideration by Congress institutes criminal penalties for acts motivated by "the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person" (language codified in Public Law 103-322 in 1994). Never mind that violent acts addressed by the hate crimes legislation already are criminal in their own right. This new legislation proposes to punish not only the criminal acts, but the thoughts behind the acts.

The criminalization of thought, and thereby, dissent, should be a frightening prospect to Americans. Essentially, those opposing government policies, or proposals or ideas preferred by elected officials, may soon find their disagreement punishable by law.

Go back and dust off George Orwell's 1984. Or if you haven't read it, get a copy. The totalitarian state personified by Big Brother in that dark parable punished expression unsanctioned by the government and called it thoughtcrime. The job of the book's main character consisted of continually updating and revising news reports. The state pervaded the lives of its subjects, coercing them into perpetuating its infallibility and constantly revising history to suit the state's ends.

Attorney General Holder, whose boss, President Barack Obama, came to office opposing the Iraq war and the previous Bush Administration policies that accompanied it, proposes to pursue criminally those who carried out the policy prerogatives of a political opponent. Such an enterprise can not be dismissed as petty partisan reprisal, especially when it concerns activities of intelligence services at the heart of the nation's security. It amounts to terrorizing political opponents by putting them and those in their service in legal jeopardy.

Similarly, the so-called "Military Readiness Enhancement Act," proposed legislation that would impose open homosexuality on the military, would bring with it its own policing of thought under "zero tolerance" policies. Any dissent regarding "real or perceived sexuality or sexual orientation" would become a form of expression punishable in the armed forces by reprimands, denied promotions, and ended careers. Those who do not share the military's new official perspective on homosexuality need not apply, and those currently serving in disagreement with the new law may find their careers at an abrupt end.

The political left has warned for years against "police state" tactics, allegedly employed by their political opponents on the right. Americans should become especially wary of "thought police" tactics, employed against them by their government.

-Tommy Sears

Sophistry about Submarines

2009-08-20T11:45:00.004-04:00

In a July 22, 2009 article, Stars & Stripes newspaper reported some alarming attitudes and perspectives on the issue of women on submarines. (Thanks to the USNA At-Large network for bringing it to our attention):

Breaking into the Underwater Boys' Club - Sailor One of 12 Women to be Submarine-Qualified

The unserious headline and the tone of some of the people interviewed is disappointing. The Silent Service is not a "boys' club," and this is a serious matter.

The article quotes Lt. Cmdr. Marilisa Elrod, a doctor and undersea medical officer who likes to wear her husband's dolphins because she is qualified to ride on the submarines. Dr. Elrod points to countries such as Australia, Canada, Spain, and Norway as examples that justify women being on submarines. She appears unaware of obvious realities that set the American submarine service apart from those of all other countries she mentioned. None of those countries deploy subs for months at a time in oceans worldwide.

And her cavalier attitude toward quality of life problems that would ensue if subs were gender-integrated is not a credit to her as a naval officer. (The article is unclear whether she shares a stateroom with a male officer when she rides on a submarine or whether he is displaced and sent to hot-rack with enlisted sailors.)

Lt. Cmdr. Elrod appears appallingly ignorant of biological realities that pose a real threat to all crew members, and an unborn child, if a pregnancy is discovered while on an undersea mission. The same comments apply to Petty Officer Jim Grisham, who equated the issue of women on submarines with "homosexuals in small units." That's a pretty ridiculous analysis, but as a medical doctor, Cmdr. Elrod should understand certain realities better than he.

In addition to our own Navy in recent years, Britain and Canada have resisted pressures to put women on submarines because of health risks associated with the constantly-recycled atmosphere that is safe for adults but a likely cause of birth defects in the earliest weeks of fetal development. Significant risks of ectopic pregnancy, including the possibility of death, would create the need for immediate evacuations. It is extremely hazardous to dangle a rescue basket from a helicopter in the middle of the ocean.

A comment on this story posted by a member of the USNA At-Large network provided a vivid example of real-world risks:

"A point of interest. As a station HH-46 helo pilot at Rota Spain circa 1980, I was awakened by the shore patrol at my home in the wee hours of the morning. I had standby SAR duty and was told to report to air ops immediately for an emergency medivac mission. Upon arriving at air ops I was told that I needed to medivac a sailor with severe abdominal pain off a ship operating in the western Med. Plotting the coordinates of the ship I recommended that the ship close to at least within 100 nautical miles off the eastern shore of Spain, as the HH-46 only had a round trip range of about 250 nautical miles. The ship had a deck capable of landing an HH-46 but no refueling capability. Assembling my crew including a corpsman, we launched for the eastern shore to refuel and await the estimated time of arrival of the ship at the designated coordinates. Despite poor visual conditions we located the ship and made the medivac of a young female sailor back to Rota via refueling on the eastern shore. We were met at Rota by an ambulance who took her to the hospital. The entire evolution took about 10 hours. Later that evening I went to the hospital to check on the young sailor. The diagnosis - PMS." (Posted by Peter Zuidema)

Such operations would put everyone in peril and compromise long-term stealth deployments that are fundamentally different from surface ship missions.

The Submarine Group spokesman quoted by Stars & Stripes, Lt. Cmdr. Greg Kuntz, needs to get his priorities straight and think this through with logic uncolored by political correctness. Take the question of "how" to accommodate female sailors on submarines, which is huge in itself. As explained in the SAIC Report posted below, even if the Navy could justify the enormous cost, cramped submarines cannot be "stretched" like Town Car limousines to accommodate gender-separated officers and enlisted sailors.

Career paths must include deployments on all subs, not larger, nuclear-powered boomers only. Concerns about sexual privacy in berthing areas well below the minimum habitability standards of surface ships cannot be ignored. It is difficult enough to serve in any type of submarine.

The more important question is "why." What justification is there for creating irresolvable operational hazards in undersea missions, while introducing social issues and tensions that could have a serious negative effect on morale, recruiting, retention, and readiness in the Silent Service?

A law exists that requires official advance notice to Congress before DoD money is spent to gender-integrate submarines. The Navy may be skirting that law, and Congress should hold the Navy accountable. If there is a need for more male doctors and sailors for submarines, more male doctors and sailors should be recruited and trained. Unneeded gender quotas at the US Naval Academy create pressures to gender integrate submarines, despite the potential health risks to women, which usually are not discussed, plus the negative impact on missions and crews as a whole.

Rather than straining to accommodate politically-correct social agendas, the US Navy should concentrate on maintaining and strengthening policies and standards that best meet the mission requirements of the Submarine Service and its sailors.

The following links provide further information on the issue:

The SAIC report on the subject, "Submarine Assignment Policy Assessment," considered to be definitive:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/SAPA%20020195.pdf

The medical aspects of the issue are discussed in this letter to Congress from retired Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, USN, an expert in undersea medicine:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/HPScott%20061200.pdf

Finally, the concerns expressed to the former DACOWITS (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services) some time ago remain equally true today:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/NAVY-DACOWITS_0295.pdf

The undersea environment in which our submariners live and defend America is as dangerous as outer space. There is no compelling reason for social experiments that make our sailors' lives more difficult and more dangerous.

Summer in the Capitol City

2009-08-13T15:48:00.003-04:00

President Barack Obama's proclaimed LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) Equality month in June extended into July, causing major liberal media to follow the traveling "Gays in the Military Campaign" (GIMC), led by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and his new BFFs at the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay activist group in the nation.

Liberal media keep following the road show, which is planning to visit at least seven cities with an entourage of former servicemembers who tell their stories about honorable discharges for homosexuality under the 1993 law. On July 8, CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears appeared on CNN's "Situation Room," with the network's Pentagon correspondent, Chris Lawrence. (Sorry, no video link is available. The performance must have been so powerful and persuasive that activists at the network just had to remove it from the website.) However, a partial transcript and analysis of the report is available from the Media Research Center, which highlighted it as one of its "Bias Alerts," pointing out the disparity in time allotted to repeal proponents and our opposing view

Meanwhile, in response to a USA Today editorial pushing gays in the military, retired Admiral Jerome Johnson and Lt. Gen. E.G. Shuler, USAF (Ret.), two of 1,148 Flag & General Officers for the Military, signed this "Opposing View" op-ed titled A Matter of National Security.

Elaine Donnelly wrote this column for US News & World Report, which ran with one by Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). Elaine analyzed the latest flawed idea from the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, an activist group that used to call itself the "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military." In May the Palm Center issued a report advocating suspension of discharges currently required by law. Elaine explained the breaking of faith with the troops that such an action by President Obama would represent:

-Allowing Gays in the Military Would be Unfair and Hurt Troop Morale

LGBT Month was supposed to culminate with the suspension order from President Obama-a constitutionally ridiculous idea on many levels, starting with its violation of the oath of office requiring the president to uphold the laws of the land. "Not so fast," warns this commentary in (of all places) the Washington Post:

-Do Tell

Sometimes the opposition helps to make our case with unintended absurdity. Witness Richard Cohen, who made one of the more inane arguments we have read in a June 30 Washington Post column:

-Open the Military Closet

"Of course, there will be resistance to changing 'don't ask, don't tell.' So what? It's the right thing to do and the military, of all institutions, knows how to enforce discipline. Will there be incidents? You bet. Will a gay man hit on one who is not? Again, you bet. But does this happen all the time with heterosexual women and heterosexual men? Of course. Come-ons are part of life. Same sex or opposite sex, they are not fatal."

Pardon us, Mr. Cohen, but the consequences of indiscipline in the military can be fatal-to individuals and to national security. Your elitist racial analogy breaks down in comparison with certain realities involving human sexuality. In order to encourage good order and discipline, the military continues to separate men and women to the greatest degree practicable in close quarters involving little or no privacy. It is, as you say, the right thing to do.

Audie Murphy (Not)

This review of Patrick Murphy's book Taking the Hill, posted on Military.com, analyzed the 2008 autobiography of the Army veteran from Pennsylvania who has become a hero to gay activists demanding repeal of the 1993 law regarding gays in the military. CMR President Elaine Donnelly, who has read Murphy's book, concludes that even the full title is a bit overstated:

-Taking the Hill - From Philly to Baghdad to the United States Congress

It didn't take long for Aubrey Sarvis of the SLDN to accuse Donnelly of disparaging Rep. Murphy's military record, even though she did not. It seems that anyone who quotes from Rep. Murphy's book, or from his own Bronze Star citation for seven months of honorable service with an Army Brigade Operational Law Team (BOLT) in Iraq, risks being accused of "swiftboating."

Sarvis falsely accused Elaine on a liberal blog because he cannot dispute her primary point, as stated in her article for Human Events:

-Murphy's (LGBT) Law for the Military

"[There is] every reason to expect that under Murphy's New LGBT Law -- just like the original Murphy's Law -- everything that can go wrong likely will go wrong. America's military is the best in the world, but various types of sexual misconduct still occur. Men and women are human, and therefore imperfect. Homosexuals are no more perfect than anyone else. Sound military personnel policies encourage discipline rather than indiscipline, but Murphy's New LGBT Law would have the opposite effect."

Now It Can Be Told

So - former Rep. John McHugh of New York, the former Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, really is a closet gays-in-the-military supporter. Who knew?

McHugh Says View Has Changed on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

At a hearing on his confirmation to be the new Secretary of the Army before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 30, McHugh stated his views as follows:

"It is a serious issue and it is an issue that has not been before me as a Member of Congress since 1993. The reality is the President has made very clear...I have no doubt the President is going to press forward with his intent to change that policy. To whatever degree remains to be seen. I think he would like a full reversal. It is also without question that Secretary Gates has begun a process of what he describes as softening that policy. Whatever that may mean remains to be seen.

"My view, as Secretary of the Army, if confirmed, would be to do the most effective job I could garnering the military input and information that I think any Secretary and any President would like as they go forward in finalizing the determination. That is how I described my envisioned role to the administration. They seemed content with that.

But having said that, two other factors. Whatever the decision of the President and the Secretary of Defense, it would be my responsibility, if confirmed...to best describe...the rationale, and the justification for whatever policy evolves. That is the responsibility of a service Secretary, as I see it, under title 10. And at the end of the day, I think it is worth noting, of course, this is a policy embedded in law, and there will be no overturning of it without the agreement of this Congress, the House, the Senate, and of course, the President."

Funny how Mr. McHugh has forgotten that the issue of gays in the military was right there before him not 16 years ago-but only twelve months ago. His promise to seek full information and "military input" rings hollow to anyone who remembers his sorry performance as Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee last July. During a hearing staged by Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Susan Davis (D-CA), McHugh just sat there and watched his HASC colleagues bully Elaine Donnelly and her fellow witness Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, a former Delta Force soldier who was otherwise occupied in 1993. As a Special Operations Forces Ranger, Jones was there to rescue his buddies when the Black Hawk went down in Mogadishu, Somalia.

Ranking Member McHugh did nothing to intervene when HASC Democrats (and one since-defeated RINO, Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut, who was not even a member of the committee) tried to intimidate Donnelly with a series of absurd or insulting questions. McHugh failed in his responsibility as a legislator to defend the 1993 law, but it sounds like he will be more eager to do the bidding of President Obama if the law is repealed.

Memo to John McHugh: the 1993 law will not be repealed if pro-defense Republicans and Democrats ensure that future hearings are conducted with more courtesy than you provided as HASC Ranking Member in July 2008. With the chairman of both the HASC and SASC having committed to hearings, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have the responsibility to take the issue seriously, and to consider the extreme and harmful consequences of repealing the law. Our troops deserve no less.

Letdown for the LGBT Left

2009-07-07T11:08:00.007-04:00

The White House

In an attempt to placate his lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered constituency groups, President Barack Obama issued a proclamation declaring June 2009 to be "LGBT Pride Month." But after a full month of relentless activism and media support, the LGBT Equality Caucus remains frustrated by President Obama, the Congress, and the courts.

There was little to get excited about on Wednesday, June 24, when the Center for American Progress (CAP), a far-left think tank closely associated with the Obama Administration, released a report titled "Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" Authored by Lawrence J. Korb, a liberal who likes to describe himself as a Reagan Pentagon appointee, the report is yet another collection of misinformation from gay-activist groups such as the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

The CAP, SLDN, and other activist organizations have publicized the human interest stories of several young men and women who were trained and served in the military for a number of years, but received an honorable discharge when they disclosed they were homosexuals. One of them is Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who was revealed to be homosexual and received a notice of discharge in 2008.

Articles and reports from the SLDN and the CAP have claimed that the training Fehrenbach received cost the Air Force what he estimated as $25 million dollars. (See Lawrence J. Korb, Sean E. Duggan, Laura Conley, the Center for American Progress, Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," June 2009, p. 3.)

Really? In 1992, the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces requested and received from the Air Force information on the cost of training military pilots. The average cost to train an Air Force pilot was pegged at $2.5 million; $3.1 million for fighter and bomber pilots. (Commission Report Finding #2.61GH, p. C-93) Assuming inflation to $4 million or so, the $25 million estimate is wildly over-stated. Why?

Secondly, the SLDN and CAP Reports have described Fehrenbach as a former "pilot," even though he was a weapons systems officer. WSO's are trained to fly missions in the back seat of an aircraft. Fehrenbach has received decorations for his service as a weapons systems officer. Why are the activists describing him as a pilot?

Congressional Action/Inaction

-On June 25, openly-gay Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) attempted to offer amendments to this year's House Defense Authorization bill: one would have repealed the present homosexual ineligibility law; the other would have 'suspended" ongoing enforcement of that law, in effect having the same result as repeal (i. e., allowing open homosexuality in the military). Polis withdrew the amendments before they could be considered by the House, probably due to opposition from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), and the ongoing recognition by the House Democratic leadership that it cannot muster the votes to repeal (or "suspend") the law. Despite its present political advantages and a liberal media complicit in advancing its agenda, the failure of Polis' amendments represents another major defeat for the LGBT Left.

-According to Stars & Stripes, there is a three-sided stalemate going on: Congress says President Obama needs to offer his own repeal plan, the White House says "the repeal is just one of numerous goals," and the Pentagon maintains that "Congress must act first on 'don't ask' before service leaders will make any changes."

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in Limbo for Now

-Meanwhile, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is tap-dancing but not really saying that a repeal bill is ready to be announced. Apparently, Senate Democrats are still waiting for a RINO to sign up as a co-sponsor with the bill's planned original sponsor, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) According to the Palm Center, Sen. Reid previously had called for President Obama to sign an Executive Order to stop enforcement of the law. This makes no sense, since the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate should be defending the prerogatives of Congress in writing laws, instead of encouraging the Executive Branch to circumvent one of them.

The Supreme Court

-Last month the Supreme Court declined to hear the latest challenge to the homosexual ineligibility law. Stephen Dinan reported on more LGBT advocates' dissatisfaction.

Justices Decline "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Case

Dinan noted at the end of his article that the gay activists intend to keep counting the number of discharges occurring when servicemembers reveal themselves to be homosexual. For perspective, the media should report the number of discharges that occur for other reasons. Personnel losses for pregnancy/family hardship and weight standard violations occur at far greater rates, and the number of discharges for homosexuality could be reduced to near-zero if the convoluted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" administrative policy were dropped.

Paranoia in the LGBT Left?

2009-06-19T15:51:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Celebrates Gay Culture

2009-06-11T00:30:00.008-04:00

State Department Celebrates Gay Culture...in Baghdad!

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

For One Night, Baghdad Gets a Pink Zone

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

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

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

2009-06-11T00:24:00.005-04:00

John McHugh Named as Secretary of the Army

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

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

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

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

Two Polls on Gays in the Military

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

Conservatives Shift in Favor of Openly Gay Service Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll on Gays in the Military Perturbs Palm Center

Congressional Attempts to Repeal the Law

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

Gay Rights Bills Remain Stalled in Congress

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

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

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

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

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

Palm Center Trial Balloon Shot Down

2009-05-28T10:53:00.007-04:00

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

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

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

Obama Shuns Plan to Evade Gays-in-Military Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pentagon Does Not Want to Go There

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

Military Wants More Time Before Gay Ban Ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: Gays in the Military

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

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

Major R

Bad Advice for Barack Obama

2009-05-11T19:04:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

As Gay Issues Arise, Obama is Pressed to Engage

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

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

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

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

2009-05-05T14:15:00.007-04:00

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

In Military, New Debate Over Policy Toward Gays

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

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

2. The White House

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Congress

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

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

Intent Still There to Repeal Military Homosexual Ban

Barney Frank's Sidestep Strategy

2009-04-28T17:32:00.006-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puerile Prattlers for Gays in the Military

2009-04-28T11:21:00.007-04:00

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

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

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

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

To the Editor:

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

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

Elaine Donnelly
President, the Center for Military Readiness

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

* * * * * * *

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

Parsing Colin Powell

2009-04-13T18:24:00.006-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Tommy Sears

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

2009-04-09T18:49:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLDN Calls Names, Can't Count

2009-04-04T14:59:00.007-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

--Tommy Sears

Appointees, Activists, and Priorities

2009-03-13T11:46:00.003-04:00

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

* * * * * * *

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

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

* * * * * * *

Log Cabin "Republicans"

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

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

Commandeering the Commanders?

2009-03-12T10:40:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress Will Defeat Tauscher Bill for Gays in the Military

2009-03-11T17:52:00.003-04:00

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

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

Letters from Active Duty Personnel

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

Transgenders in the Military and the Tauscher Repeal Bill

2009-03-10T15:01:00.005-04:00

1. Transgenders in the Military?

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

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

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

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

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

Pentagon Pressured to Support Gays in the Military

2009-02-17T14:02:00.005-05:00

1. The Pentagon

Officials Should Read 2008 Military Times Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Department of Justice

Opposition to Solicitor General Nominee Elena Kagan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

Kennedy to Sponsor Gays in the Military Bill

2009-02-09T16:41:00.007-05:00

1. Congress

Senator Seeking Republican Co-Sponsor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Executive Branch

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

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

3. The Activists

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Judiciary

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

President Obama Pushes to Deliver on Gays in the Military

2009-01-28T11:17:00.009-05:00

1. The Obama White House

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

Support for the LGBT Community

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

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

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

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

- The issue of discharges of homosexuals is addressed here.

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

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

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

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

2. Congress

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

3. News Reports

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

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

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

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

4. Message from the Field

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

"Ms. Elaine Donnelly:

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

LGBT Left Pressing Obama for Gays in the Military

2009-01-26T10:52:00.008-05:00

1. Military Times Poll Setback for Gay Rights Activists

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

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

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

2. Pressure on the Joint Chiefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Congress

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

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

3. The Obama Transition Team & Administration

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

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

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

4. Administration Nominations/Appointees

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

* * * * * * *

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

Do Not Risk the Good Order and Discipline of the Military

2008-12-31T16:54:00.003-05:00

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

* * * * * * *

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

Army Times Finally Reports on Fort Leonard Wood Sex Scandal

2008-12-11T14:10:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

Co-ed Basic Training Sexual Abuses on the Rise

2008-11-24T19:13:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

Obama's "Universal Service" Threatens National Security

2008-11-04T17:31:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

Virginia Attorney General Defends Military Votes

2008-10-29T15:07:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

Obama's Gay Activist Supporters Threaten Society And The Military

2008-10-23T13:51:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

Should Generals Confer With Gay Activists?

2008-10-22T12:56:00.003-04:00

The UK Telegraph reported on October 12 that the chief of the British Army's General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, "made history" by addressing the Army-sponsored Fourth Joint Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Matters. The Telegraph quotes General Dannatt, who is described as a Christian, saying that his "Equality and Diversity Directive for the Army sets the standard that we must live by, and, importantly, it communicates that standard to everyone in the chain of command."

General Dannatt's Directive mandates "respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers," as a "command responsibility" that is vital for "operational readiness." To demonstrate "tolerance," the UK Ministry of Defense also hosts an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) Forum on its website.

Since Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama, it is fair to ask: Should American Army generals have to go to gay activist conferences in order to show support for professed homosexuals in the military? If we follow the lead of Britain, such meetings and consultations with gay activist groups are very likely, in order to make the new policy "work." (CMR President Elaine Donnelly mentioned this type of "sensitivity training" in her testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on July 23. See page 10 of the Summary, linked here.) And what about those who disagree with the new policy on personal, moral, or religious grounds? As CMR President Elaine Donnelly stated in her July testimony before Congress, under such "directives" or policies, the presumption of guilt of harboring "anti-homosexual" attitudes would strongly deter anyone who disagrees with the new policy from filing a complaint. (See testimony summary, pages 6-8).

General Powell is certainly entitled to support the presidential candidate of his choice, but his personal political preferences should not result in greater strains on unit cohesion, morale, and discipline in our military. Surely Gen. Powell knows that conditions of service for our volunteer men and women are already demanding enough.

* * * * * * *

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

DoD Must Not Tolerate Disenfranchisement of Troops

2008-10-16T16:21:00.002-04:00

This OneNewsNow.com article titled "Complicated process deters soldiers, dependents from voting" quotes John Fund, Wall Street Journal columnist and author of the recent book, Stealing Elections. Fund expressed concern that the ability of deployed troops and sailors to vote will be compromised "because of bureaucratic red tape."

A recent Military Times poll on support for the presidential candidates shows a strong majority of support for Senator McCain. Given the intensity of the race and the close margins reflected in polls of the civilian population, it is vital that our men and women in uniform are guaranteed the opportunity to place their vote and to have it counted. The National Defense Committee is taking the lead on this issue, and we believe their effort on behalf of our military deserves unqualified support.

* * * * * * *

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

Dutch Case Suggests Risks Posed by Gays in the Military

2008-10-16T14:20:00.003-04:00

An October 15 report from a court in Groningen, The Netherlands, illustrates the elevated risk that open homosexuality would pose to our servicemen and women. According to Breitbart.com, several gay men who attended "sex orgies" in that country told a judge that a "three-member gay gang" tried to deliberately infect them with the AIDS virus.

Consider that the individuals involved in this heinous case chose to be in the situation that led to the alleged assaults. Under military conditions, servicemembers have no choice with whom they are assigned.

The military routinely denies induction to individuals whose weight, height, eyesight, prior injury and other health factors it determines disqualifying. It does so in order to maintain the most able and ready force possible. The induction of persons known to be at higher risk of HIV infection would force the military to compromise that principle. Persons testing positive for HIV are not eligible for induction, but if they become infected, current law requires that they must be retained but classified as non-deployable. There is no reason why the military should assume additional risks and non-deployability costs by recruiting or retaining men who engage in homosexual conduct, who are known to have far greater rates of HIV infection.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly made this point and more while testified on the issue of gays in the military before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee. A summary of her statement described several incidents in which homosexual servicemen infected others with the HIV virus. (See pages 6-9) Congress must consider these issues seriously before taking any action with regard to the law excluding homosexuals from military service.

* * * * * * *

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

Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on CMR Issues

2008-08-22T16:30:00.002-04:00

The Center for Military Readiness has prepared a Policy
Analysis on an issue that voters should consider in the 2008 presidential race. It is posted here.

* * * * * * *

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

Paper Misses Mark on Women in Combat

2008-06-26T14:32:00.003-04:00

Lori Manning and her feminist friends just don't get it. Cracks about abayas are inconsistent with their constant complaints about sexual assault. Their WIC demands are putting female enlisted women at greater risk of sexual assault. For them the issue is all about careers for female officers, who have little in common with the enlisted women. And if there is one word that does not fit in discussions of the military "work environment" it is the word "choice." You go where you are ordered to go.

They have missed the main point--young people are not being told what they are getting into, and that is wrong.

* * * * * * *

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

Gays Oppose Medal for General Pace

2008-06-19T16:51:00.002-04:00

CNSNews.com reports that two homosexual advocacy groups are criticizing the decision of President George W. Bush to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to retired Marine General Peter Pace , who served a single term as Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff. It is their reaction, however, which takes intolerance to an extreme.

Let's see if we have this right. A distinguished Marine, General Peter Pace, stated in a 2007 interview that he was personally opposed to what he sees as immorality in sexual matters. When was the last time we heard a public figure say something like that? Controversy ensued, causing the general to forego another term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But now President George W. Bush has chosen to recognize the service and character of General Pace by bestowing on him a special award, the Medal of Freedom.

This is too much for homosexual activist groups. They vilify the general with epithets intended to intimidate anyone who disagrees with their extreme views. If General Pace is opposed to sexual misconduct, of the straight or homosexual kind, where do his critics stand?

General Pace's views happen to coincide with the law regarding homosexuals in the military that was duly enacted by Congress in 1993. The statute reflects the views of people who see the issue in moral terms, but it uses secular language emphasizing military discipline and morale. President Bush, apparently, agrees with General Pace that such practices are inherently disruptive in both the military and civilian worlds.

The over-heated reaction of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Left disrespects millions of people who do not share their views. The LGBT Left claims to advocate "tolerance," but intimidation employed to advance their sexual agenda reflects intolerance taken to an extreme.

* * * * * * *

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