| CMR Sitrep |
 |
|
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Expert push-back on repeal of gays in military law
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
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
DoD Plan Would Violate 1993 Eligibility Law and Demoralize Troops
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."
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Lessons for Backers of Murphy's LGBT Law
The political earthquake that occurred on Tuesday, electing Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate, was more than the first election of a Republican senator from that state since 1972. At his victory party Senator-elect Brown drew national applause when he declared,
"Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax money should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."
This was not a "populist" sentiment. It was one of the clearest statements in support of a strong national defense that we have heard from a Republican candidate in a long time.
An obvious exception is retired Army Colonel Alan West, who is creating a sensation in his second run for Congress from the 22nd District in Florida. If you haven't seen this video of West in action, check it out:
Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West
The Massachusetts voters who calmly and cheerfully secured the "People's Seat" for Scott Brown are concerned about national security, and they don't want America's military to be used for any purpose other than national defense. In an article titled "It's the Enemy, Stupid," Andrew McCarthy of NRO quoted Scott Brown's top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign's internal polling showed "terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants" to be an even bigger issue than health care.
Will pro-defense members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, learn from this lesson?
It is a dangerous temptation to assume, that liberals and gay activists will retreat from the effort to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service. The signs are encouraging, including post-election comments from U. S. Senate Democrats Evan Bayh (IN) and Jim Webb (VA), essentially warning their colleagues against continued political over-reaching. But the activists are not letting up.
CMR is nonpartisan and we don't endorse candidates, but voters and politically-active groups should ask every candidate for the Congress and U.S. Senate questions about their position on repeal of the 1993 law, which is constantly mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This includes every co-sponsor of HR 1283, Rep. Patrick Murphy's bill to impose a new LGBT Law on the military.
According to a survey done by the Massachusetts Family Institute, Scott Brown said that he supports "current armed forces policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military," while his rival Martha Coakley took the opposite position. (Brown and Coakley also disagreed on two more LGBT causes, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA.)
As the 2010 elections approach, questions of all candidates should focus on the Congress' findings regarding homosexuals in the military, as contained in the 1993 law and highlighted last week in a Washington Times op-ed by a respected former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.
Maintain Military Gay Ban
As Gen. Mundy wrote, the law's findings remain valid and important for good order and high morale in the military. Our servicemen and women should not be forced to carry the burdens of a controversial, unprecedented social experiment that would weaken recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer force.
CMR issues such as this are essential elements in two legs of Ronald Reagan's famous three-legged stool. We look forward to working with candidates, elected officials, voters, opinion leaders, media, researchers, and members of the armed forces to build support for sound policies and priorities for the best military in the world.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Roadmaps for Railroading the Military
Gay activists who are trying to impose their radical agenda on the military are floating several "trial balloon" proposals to get their way despite strong opposition from military leaders and personnel, members of Congress, and the general public. The following are some of the most egregious bad ideas that media reports have revealed since October 2009:
1. Stifling Testimony from Military Leaders
The AP and the Washington Post reported on January 13 that Department of Defense lawyers are having second thoughts about the wisdom of repealing the 1993 law this year:
Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban
The article reported for the first time that House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) opposes repeal of the 1993 law, and The Hill reported additional details on January 15:
Skelton Opposes Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama spoke at a dinner sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) LGBT Left group in the country. Marching outside were even more radical homosexualists who demand that the president impose their San Francisco agenda on the men and women of our military. This article in the American Thinker analyzed the homosexualists' two-step plan to box-in military leaders with a pre-emptive presidential executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 Eligibility Law:
Roadmap for Railroading the Military
2. Updated RAND Report: More Advocacy, Not Evidence
Given the Pentagon resistance noted above, it is not surprising that AP also reported that SASC Chairman Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) is pursuing an alternative plan. In order to repeat and reinforce false arguments for gays in the military, Levin has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to "task" the RAND Corporation to update the report on this subject that they did in 1993. This proposal is irresponsible for several reasons:
- Retired Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, now a Fox News contributor, completely discredited the 1993 RAND report at that time it was released because it was a typically biased, pre-determined pro-gays-in-the-military paper. Updating that polemic would be tantamount to bestowing defense dollars directly on gay activist groups, including the University of California-based Michael D. Palm Center.
- RAND demonstrated its liberal bias as recently as November 2009, when it made a significant "in-kind" contribution to the cause by issuing a news release promoting a paper that the Palm Center had solicited from RAND employee Dr. Laura Miller. As we reported in the CMR SITREP, the news release noted that it was not an official RAND report, much less an objective "study," but the Boston Globe and other major newspapers publicized it as if it were.
3. Delayed-Effective-Date Ploy
Another very speculative idea heard through the grapevine suggests that legislation to repeal the 1993 law might postpone its effective date for a few years, going into effect whenever the troops come home from the war or the Secretary of Defense determines that it is "safe" to impose the LGBT Left agenda on our military men and women.
- This would be another cynical attempt to circumvent and incrementally repeal current law by refusing to enforce it. Such a plan would require the troops to be part of a social experiment in the midst of a war, while blurring responsibility for that action and postponing accountability until after the 2010 and 2012 elections.
- The Flag & General Officers for the Military statement opposes "any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law." The delayed-effective-date ploy certainly would be as bad, and perhaps worse, than repealing the law with immediate effect. There is no "good time" to weaken the culture of the military, and no one should fall into the trap of arguing that repeal safely can come later.
4. Short-Sighted Incrementalism
The new Secretary of the Army, former New York Congressman John McHugh, thoughtlessly suggested a completely unworkable way to manage results, not "if" the law is repealed, but "when" it is. Speaking in an interview on multiple topics with Army Times, McHugh suggested that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units, but barred from others.
- Secretary McHugh's absurd comment demonstrates Mr. Magoo-like short-sightedness. It also calls into question the judgment of Mr. McHugh, who previously served as Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee. Secretary McHugh (or unnamed others he was quoting) apparently has not thought of the reaction if gays in the military are not eligible for deployment in close combat units, Special Operations Forces, SEALS, and submarines, in the same way that HIV+ troops must be retained but cannot be deployed in any unit overseas.
- This tentative plan, a recipe for constant chaos and demoralizing resentment in the ranks, contradicts claims that the new LGBT Law will "enhance readiness" in the military.
For more information that discredits every flawed argument that has been made for passage of the proposed LGBT Law, please review the comprehensive array of articles posted elsewhere on this website, www.cmrlink.org.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Activist Groups Dissemble on Mislabeled "RAND Report"
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.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Dangers of Political Correctness in the Military
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"
Friday, October 23, 2009
Cogent Commentaries Counter GIMC
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"
|
|
|
Home
Sitrep Blog
