Where Do the Candidates Stand on a “San Francisco Military?”

Where Do the Candidates Stand on a “San Francisco Military?” [Elaine Donnelly]


With two articles published in the editorial section of the Washington Times, headlined “Gays and the Military,” the Center for Military Readiness is focusing attention on critically important military/social policies that affect discipline and morale in the armed forces.


The first article, subtitled “Where Do GOP Candidates Stand?” points out that any Republican stating a clear, unequivocal position on military/social issues would set himself apart from the others. It is also true that any Democratic candidate who disavows extreme social engineering in the military might draw support from pro-defense Americans.

The second article, subtitled “Democrats Prefer San Francisco-Style,” reports that none of the Democrats responded to the CMR Presidential Candidate Survey, but their previous positions and choice of advisors indicate that all would be likely to create a “San Francisco Military.” Our survey invited all of the candidates to distance themselves from the social/military agendas of NOW, the ACLU, and other such groups that want to impose their ideology on the armed forces. We are still waiting for one of the Democrats to do so.

The CMR 2008 Presidential Candidate Survey (PDF) includes questions on military/social issues such as women in land combat, women serving on submarines, the international CEDAW treaty, and acceptance of professed homosexuals in the military. Background information, which was provided to all of the candidates, is posted on our website, www.cmrlink.org.

The Center for Military Readiness does not endorse political candidates, but the survey is the first step in an educational process that will continue from now through this summer’s national conventions, the 2008 presidential election, and beyond Inauguration Day 2009. We are pleased to provide information important to voters looking for the next commander in chief.

Ellie

Article published Jan 2, 2008
Gays and the military


January 2, 2008

By Elaine Donnelly - The first of two installments.

If there is a conflict between equal opportunity and military necessity, which one should have priority? The non-partisan Center for Military Readiness asked all presidential candidates to state their views on this and related military/social issues that affect discipline and morale (www.cmrlink.org).

In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton downplayed his intent to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. Mr. Clinton failed, but his administrative "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy/regulations moved the agenda half-way.During a June 2007 presidential debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat, admitted that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was supposed to be a "transitional policy" toward full acceptance of professed homosexuals in the military. Where do Republicans stand on this and other military personnel issues?

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee responded well to the CMR survey, indicating that he would assign priority to military necessity. Mr. Huckabee would restore compliance with regulations and law regarding women in or near direct ground combat, and opposes Selective Service registration of young women, female sailors serving on submarines, the still-unratified CEDAW Treaty, tax-funded feminist power bases in the Pentagon and problematic family policies that increase single parenthood.

Mr. Huckabee also endorses the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military, but with contradictions. In a transcribed interview with Associated Press editors reported April 24, 2007, Mr. Huckabee said, "I'm not sure that being homosexual should automatically disqualify a person from the military. If a person can do his or her job, you know that's not for me the biggest issue."

This statement fails to recognize that the military differs from civilian occupations. Discipline and morale are essential, and the law states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve. When asked about Mr. Huckabee's incongruous statement to AP, his campaign said he still supports the 1993 law. He and other Republicans also endorse "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," without explaining what they mean.

On the one hand we have the law that Congress passed with bipartisan veto-proof majorities, "Section 654, Title 10," which could have been named the "Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993." The statute codified pre-Clinton Defense Department regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," and the courts have declared it constitutional several times.

We also have Mr. Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" enforcement regulations, inconsistent with the law, which invite homosexuals to serve if they do not say they are homosexual. Presidents are obliged to enforce laws, but not their predecessors' administrative policies. If the next president faithfully enforces the law, while dropping Mr. Clinton's convoluted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, homosexuals would be deterred from enlisting in the military. They could still serve America in many ways, but the number of homosexual discharges would plummet.

The campaigns of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said they do not answer surveys, leaving questions about positions taken previously. In December 1999, for example, the New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani, who was expected to run against then-Senate candidate Hillary Clinton, agreed with her support for professed homosexuals in the military.

In 1994, then-Senate candidate Mitt Romney secured the endorsement of the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans by signing a letter supporting "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military." When CNN's Anderson Cooper confronted Mr. Romney with that statement in November 2007, Mr. Romney answered in terms of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "I didn't think it would work," Mr. Romney said. "I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. ... It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked." We still do not know Mr. Romney's position on the 1993 law, which codified pre-Clinton regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, voted for the 1993 law, but his campaign only provided an April 2007 letter from his Senate office to an activist for homosexuals in the military. The letter mislabeled the law "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and indicated support for that policy. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson sent a statement endorsing the proper purpose of the military, but reflecting the same contradiction. Mr. Thompson's statement says he supports both current law and Defense Department policies regarding homosexuals in the military, and "sees no reason to alter this approach, especially during times of conflict and global instability."

The comment about timing, which echoes similar statements made by Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani, is puzzling because liberals are the only ones trying to repeal the 1993 law. When the current conflict subsides, should homosexual activists succeed? Voters should ask, and Republicans should tell.

Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness. The CMR 2008 Presidential Candidate Survey is posted at www.cmrlink.org.

Ellie

Article published Jan 3, 2008
Gays and the military


January 3, 2008

By Elaine Donnelly - The last of two installments.

Democratic presidential candidates want to impose the full weight of San Francisco-style liberal ideology upon the armed forces. You would never know it, however, given the silence or equivocation of Republicans on military social issues.

As noted in this space yesterday, the Center for Military Readiness has been conducting a non-partisan survey to determine where the presidential candidates stand on military issues affecting discipline and morale. Candidates who did not respond to survey questions, including all the Democrats, missed an opportunity to proclaim sound, responsible priorities for the military. Previous statements, however, indicate that any Democrat winning the White House would turn the Pentagon into a laboratory for social experimentation by civilian ideologues. These include feminists and homosexualists — determined activists who demand government power to impose the homosexual agenda on all institutions of American life.

Democrats condone the pure feminism of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, defined by the issue of women in land combat. In 2005, then-House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, California Republican, spearheaded legislation to restore Army compliance with Defense Department regulations exempting female soldiers from placement in or near direct ground combat (infantry) battalions. Mrs. Clinton and feminist colleagues countered with a resolution framing this as a feminist issue, which encouraged the Pentagon to continue violating regulations and laws requiring congressional notice and oversight.

Unauthorized, incremental repeal of women's exemptions from land combat will eventually affect the Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces, forcing them to cope with predictable consequences: gender-normed training standards to create the illusion of equality, higher injury rates, pregnancies, and disciplinary issues that hurt readiness and morale. Eventually, ACLU lawyers will file another lawsuit challenging young women's exemption from Selective Service registration.

With women in land combat, the ACLU will win.

Parents whose daughters are denied college loans for failure to register will wonder why these issues were not debated in 2008. They should know that Mrs. Clinton, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina favor Selective Service registration for young women, or participation in mandatory national service.

Mr. Obama is being advised by former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, an outspoken advocate of women serving on submarines. If an Obama administration mandates "career opportunities" for female sailors on cramped submarines, which operate with constantly recycled air that elevates risks of birth defects, submarine commanders may have to disrupt undersea missions by conducting hazardous mid-ocean evacuations of pregnant sailors.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware strongly supports the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an international treaty that would surrender sovereignty to international bureaucrats on all issues involving women — meaning, just about everything. Mr. Biden and other senators have demanded hearings on military sexual misconduct and "violence against women," as defined by anti-male feminists.

None has recognized an underlying problem: policies pretending that servicemen and women are interchangeable, "ungendered" beings actually encourage scandals and violence against women, provided that the enemy inflicts the violence in close combat.

All of the Democratic candidates want to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military, which is frequently mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Congress rejected "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," then-President Clinton's proposal to accommodate discreet homosexuals, as unworkable. Mr. Clinton imposed it on the military anyway with administrative regulations inconsistent with the law.

In a June 2007 debate, Mrs. Clinton admitted that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was supposed to be a "transitional policy" toward full acceptance of professed homosexuals in uniform. To avoid political consequences for colleagues in Congress, any Democratic president would likely push for quick repeal of the 1993 law, without public hearings or debate.

That would force the military to follow the "civil rights" model, mandating equal housing and social status for homosexual military couples. "Sensitivity training" programs would enforce acceptance of known homosexuals in the ranks. There will be no "national security" benefits, since numbers of homosexual discharges have been small in comparison with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy, weight standard violations, or drug offenses.

Add to this scenario public resistance that would hurt recruiting, potential abuse of subordinates living in close quarters, plus higher risks of HIV infection, which increase the numbers of non-deployable personnel. The result will be unprecedented disciplinary problems that detract from morale and readiness.

We cannot afford a San Francisco military.

In 1992, Republicans helped Mr. Clinton to win by not debating this issue — in the same way that some Republicans are avoiding the issue today. Will a presidential leader emerge who is prepared to defend the culture of the only military we have? The one who does so first could become president of the United States.

Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness. The CMR 2008 Presidential Candidate Survey is posted at www.cmrlink.org.

Ellie

CMR 2008 Presidential Candidate Survey (PDF)

http://cmrlink.org/cmrnotes/2008_candidate_survey3.pdf

Ellie