Elaine Donnelly

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/23/14

Elaine Donnelly Fears Military Will 'Become A Magnet' For Transgender Service Members

Anti-LGBT activist Elaine Donnelly said yesterday that a push to end the ban on transgender military service members will create an “incentive” for people seeking sex reassignment surgery to join the Armed Forces, turning the military into a transgender “magnet.”

In an interview with Janet Mefferd, the Center for Military Readiness head criticized the Palm Center and prominent donor Jennifer Pritzker, a transgender veteran and billionaire, for its study that called for an end on the ban on transgender service.

“Why doesn’t she take her billion-plus dollars and set up a hospital there in San Francisco and they can do the transgender surgery, the very expensive hormonal treatments both before and after, instead of expecting the military to be the source of this very specialized and expensive medical treatment?” Donnelly asked.

“Now some people can see an incentive that would be created if young people who for whatever reason are confused about their sexuality — why, who knows, it baffles me — but if they decide, ‘well I know that my medical benefits are going to be covered,’ and so you join the military and if you know the military has to pay all of these medical benefits, then it becomes like a magnet.”

“The military is not there to be a magnet for people who have personal problems or medical problems or are sexually confused or whatever, it’s there to defend the country,” she added.

Donnelly Says Allowing Women In Combat Is Like Forcing Cheerleaders To Play In NFL Games; Rios Blames Spider-Woman

Center for Military Readiness head Elaine Donnelly appeared on Sandy Rios In The Morning today to once again warn of the perils of allowing women in combat. She told the American Family Association radio host that the Obama administration’s plan to open combat roles to women service members is “like saying let’s take those cheerleaders and put them into the frontlines of the NFL and football games.”

Rios said that the problem all started with the “feminist influence” found in movies that made women think that they “can do it all.”

“We are watching movies, almost every action movie has a chick hero and she’s stronger than the men, and she’s able to kick and to move and to kill as lethally as they are,” Rios added. “It started maybe with Spider-Woman, I don’t know.”

She went on to recount her time in Israel talking to the country’s female soldiers who “were very proud of what they were able to do” on the frontlines.

Rios sidestepped the issue on whether Israel’s policy towards women in the military harmed its country’s security, unlike her AFA colleague Bryan Fischer who tackled it by falsely claiming that Israel bans women in combat.

Donnelly: In that environment, direct ground combat, women are at a severe disadvantage. They do not have an equal opportunity to survive or help fellow soldiers survive. To force women into that environment it’s like saying let’s take those cheerleaders and put them into the frontlines of the NFL and football games. Well we don’t even do that with the officials in the football games. To do that would be unfair, injuries would skyrocket and it certainly wouldn’t help that team win any games, and that’s non-lethal combat. So if we’re not going to do it in non-lethal combat in the NFL, why are we planning on doing this in lethal combat where national security is at risk?

Rios: You and I both know that our daughters and many women listening to you and me, women our age too, are products of feminist influence even if they don’t consider themselves a feminist. We are watching movies, almost every action movie has a chick hero and she’s stronger than the men, and she’s able to kick and to move and to kill as lethally as they are, with Catherine Zeta Jones and think of all the women who have played these roles. It started maybe with Spider-Woman, I don’t know. It’s like ‘women power’ and ‘we can do this.’ In fact I just was in Israel interviewing some of the females in the Israeli military and they were talking about their frontline experience and they were very proud of what they were able to do, so there’s this mood, this feeling, that women can do it all.

Donnelly: 'Everything We Predicted' About the Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell 'Is Staring To Happen'

During an interview with Janet Parshall, anti-gay activist Elaine Donnelly pointed to a story about a drag performance at an Air Force base as proof that “everything we predicted is starting to happen” about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Donnelly said that the USO may soon have drag shows and thus creating “social turmoil in the Armed Forces.”

Of course, Donnelly also predicted in 2010 that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would lead to the reinstatement of the draft.

Donnelly: 'Lives Are Lost' if Military Drops Women in Combat Ban

The last few years have been tough on Elaine Donnelly, as the Phyllis Schlafly protégé appears to have lost the battle over her group’s two main priorities: maintaining the ban on openly gay service members and excluding women from combat positions. Donnelly, the head of the Center for Military Readiness, appeared on Secure Freedom Radio last week with Frank Gaffney to demand that Congress intervene and block the Obama administration from permitting women to serve in combat.

She predicted that “lives are lost” if women have the opportunity to serve in such units, which she arged would make the military’s mission “more difficult [and] more dangerous.” “This is the political agenda of the President,” Donnelly said, “we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag.”

Gaffney: What does it mean for the war fighting capabilities of the United States that we are relaxing the standards or we are enabling people who will not be able to meet them to get access to and become part of the military cadre?

Donnelly: When you complicate matters in infantry battalions you make life and missions there more difficult, more dangerous, bottom line: lives are lost. There is no excuse for doing this. We know that women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men and it’s been that way for decades. This is the political agenda of the President that is being imposed on the one institution or the one organization that he can order as Commander-in-Chief and everybody has to salute and make it work. That includes the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they are going along with this even though they have not disclosed the results of the marine tests. Now if the marine tests supported the goal of women being in the infantry, don’t you think we would’ve heard about it by now? Instead, we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag. These people are in charge of the Pentagon unless Congress intervenes and Congress has the responsibility to intervene. Under the Constitution, Congress makes policy, not the President, not the Joint Chiefs and certainly the field commanders who will have to implement these diversity metrics in order to get promoted.

Fischer Warns of a 'Complete Sexual Meltdown' and the 'Reinstatement of the Draft' over Women in Combat Policy

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is now recycling the exact same talking points against allowing women the opportunity to serve in combat that he used opposing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).

While none of the dire predictions Fischer warned about regarding the end of DADT ever materialized, Fischer made similar warnings while speaking yesterday with Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Like with the DADT’s repeal, Fischer predicted that the policy will undermine readiness, cohesion, security and performance, possibly leading “to a reinstatement of the draft.”

While Donnelly avoided Fischer’s question about reinstating the draft, she claimed that women will now have to register in the selective service system and said the policy will “harm women, men, infantry battalions and the national security of the United States.”

Donnelly said that sexual assaults may increase because male soldiers will resent the easier “double standards” for women, warning that now the whole military will “fall apart.”

Fischer: There’s also the issue of sexual tension and sexual misconduct, the potential for that is going to be introduced.

Donnelly: If you want to make that even worse than what we’re seeing now, and the rates keep going up and up it’s getting worse and worse, put women into direct combat units, adjust the standards to make it work and then just sit back and watch everything fall apart because double standards are so corrosive to morale. It increases resentment, resentment leads to sexual harassment, assaults or worse, this is a poisonous kind of atmosphere.

Later, Fischer warned of a “complete sexual meltdown” occurring due to “predatory women” trying to sleep with officers, citing CIA head David Petraeus’s affair with a reporter.

But a caller insisted that maybe the Obama administration decided to end prohibitions on women and openly gay service members so they can share foxholes together, an idea Fischer loved: “Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen.”

Fischer: I just think having women in uniform is just a bad idea and here we are seeing one of the reasons. You have got subordinates serving powerful supervisors, you’ve got predatory women, it’s just a recipe for complete sexual meltdown and that’s why we are seeing General Petreaus being a key example of that.

Let’s go to Lee, Bluefield, Virginia.

Caller: I’m gonna have to do something I thought I would never do. I am going to have to give President Obama credit for having a long-range strategy because I just realized why he wanted soldiers to be able to serve in the military and be openly gay, because when it comes time to share a foxhole he will put the openly gay soldiers in the foxhole with the women and that way they’ll both be safe.

Fischer: So Lee’s saying this is a brilliant strategy on the part of President Obama to eliminate sexual tension in the military. Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen. There won’t be any sexual misconduct. That’s President Obama thinking outside the box.

Religious Right Angry over 'Dangerous' Decision to End Ban on Women in Combat

While the Religious Right reacted with apoplectic rage following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the lifting of the ban on women in combat has brought dejected but relatively subdued responses from conservatives.

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer, who in December spoke out in favor of the ban by lying about the Israeli military’s policy on women in combat, tweeted that the decision was part of Obama’s plan to “feminize and weaken the U.S. military.”

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said that “lives could be lost unnecessarily” by the new policy, which “will harm men and the mission of the infantry as a whole.” “The administration has a pattern of irresponsible actions like this using the military to advance a social agenda,” she said, “This kind of a social experiment is a dangerous one.”

Faith and Freedom Coalition head Ralph Reed maintained that the Obama administration is “putting women in combat situations is the latest in a series of moves where political correctness and liberal social policy have trumped sound military practice.”

Richard Viguerie’s group claimed that “Obama’s plan to introduce women into frontline combat roles in the U.S. military is a dangerous and irresponsible social experiment, not an opportunity for women to serve their country and advance in their chosen profession.”

Radio talk show host Janet Mefferd on her Facebook page wrote that the move is further proof that the Obama administration is “intent upon undoing this great country” and will “stop at nothing to achieve it.”

Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin, who was reprimanded by President Bush after he made anti-Muslim and political speeches while in uniform, called the decision “another social experiment”:

The people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment, and they have never lived nor fought with an infantry or Special Forces unit. These units have the mission of closing with and destroying the enemy, sometimes in close hand-to-hand combat. They are often in sustained operations for extended periods, during which they have no base of operations nor facilities. Their living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions. Commanders are burdened with a very heavy responsibility for succeeding in their mission and for protecting their troops.

This decision to integrate the genders in these units places additional and unnecessary burdens on leaders at all levels. While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations. Is the social experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think not.

Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America said that the “majority of women” don’t care about the ban or want its elimination:

News of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's intent to lift the long-standing ban on women serving in direct combat is further proof that this administration simply does not care about the issues about which the majority of women care. Once again, their interest on women issues is driven by special interest groups. The point of the military is to protect our country. Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing. Concerned Women for America (CWA) and its more than half-a-million members around the country will continue to do all we can to see that our men and women in uniform are governed with the respect and resources needed to do the hard task of fighting for and protecting our freedoms.

“God help us,” lamented Denny Burk of the Southern Baptist Convention, who seemed to suggest that women shouldn’t be in the armed forces at all:

Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war? Is there a father in America who would under any circumstance risk having his daughter shot or killed in battle? Is there a single husband in this country who thinks it okay for his wife to risk being captured by our enemies? To risk becoming a prisoner of war? Is this the kind of people we want to be? Perhaps this is the kind of people we already are. I would sooner cut off my arm than allow such a thing with my own wife and daughters. Why would I ever support allowing someone else’s to do the same? Why would anyone?

What kind of a society puts its women on the front lines to risk what only men should be called on to risk? In countries ravaged by war, we consider it a tragedy when the battle comes to the backyards of women and children. Why would we thrust our own wives and daughters into that horror? My own instinct is to keep them as far from it as possible. Perhaps this move makes sense with an all volunteer force, but what if the draft is ever reinstituted? Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters to fight in combat?



Everyone in America ought to be scandalized by this news, but I’m wondering if it will even register on the radar of anyone’s conscience. To the extent that it doesn’t, we reveal just how far gone we are as a people. God help us.

Aaron Ahlert of FrontPageMag said the move is “sure to have deadly consequences” and represents the Obama administration “forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat.”

It didn’t take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military’s ban on women serving in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences.

...

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension, regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

...

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America’s interests. Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome, irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless other Americans, it is anything but. “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman,” she contends.

Donnelly Seeks to Ban Marriage Equality in the Military to Protect Opponents from feeling Offended

Center for Military Readiness head Elaine Donnelly appeared on In The Market with Janet Parshall yesterday to discuss the Todd Akin-sponsored bill that would ban same-sex marriages at military installations and permit discrimination against gay service members under the guise of a “conscience clause.” The marriage equality ban was removed from the final language but the “conscience” language remained. However, that was not enough for Donnelly, who said that same-sex marriage services at military installations jeopardizes religious freedom:

Donnelly: There’s also pressure to perform same-sex marriages, there’s already been a few that have happened on military bases. Well the new legislation unfortunately did not include that clause, which had been approved by the House, but the conference committee did pass some legislation there to protect the rights of chaplains with regard to religious liberty.

Parshall: How will that play out though because they didn’t go as so far as to say whether or not they would be excused from performing such ceremonies.

Donnelly: The administration is saying that no one will be forced to perform a ceremony with which they disagree for reasons of their sincerely held moral beliefs. But the pressure is on, it’s a chilling effect. If a chaplain says, ‘well I rather not perform that ceremony,’ is that chaplain going to be demoted in terms of promotion? The pressure will be on to comply or to be punished with various kinds of career penalties. You can’t always document these things but you know that over time the pressure would increase. This is why even though there’s been progress made in this particular bill, there is still a lot more that needs done.

According to Donnelly, the freedom of religion in the military can only be secured by ending the freedom of chaplains and houses of worship to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

There are many chaplains who refuse to marry a couple if either partner is unbaptized or had a prior marriage that ended in divorce. Of course, the military would never prohibit unbaptized or divorced people from getting married for the mere reason that there are several chaplains who will not marry them. But that is effectively the argument conservative activists like Donnelly use when they insist that same-sex couples should be prohibited from marrying simply because some chaplains disapprove of it.

Linda Harvey: Soldiers in Gay Pride Parade Brought 'Disgrace to the Uniform and to America'

As Republican leaders express their outrage at service members marching in a San Diego pride parade in uniform, Religious Right activists aren’t holding back either. In her radio alert yesterday, Mission America’s Linda Harvey accused the military personnel who marched in the parade of bringing “disgrace to the uniform and to America”:

Harvey: The San Diego homosexual pride parade on Saturday, July 21st, broke new ground. For the first time the Pentagon allowed members of the military to dress in full uniform at an event with a political agenda, and what an agenda it is. If you haven’t been to a pride parade recently, or ever, it’s not anything to be proud of. The uniform of our country was allowed to honor a display featuring men dressed as women, people in virtually no clothing at all and in your face advocacy of every aspect of homosexuality. How low will this present administration stoop before Americans say ‘we’ve had enough’? Here’s how the decision went down: there were concerns that some military members would march in uniform with or without permission so the big brass caved and said OK. Now think about that, because men and women who have taken an oath were planning to disobey standing protocol, their superiors decided to let them. The Pentagon says the exception is only for this parade but do any of us truly believe that?

This signals much more than an endorsement of deviance, it signals a breakdown of order. It’s also an exception that would not be extended to any groups but those on the left, could conservative soldiers appear in uniform at a Tea Party rally? Of course not, it’s only the homosexual lobby that gets this kind of deference. There were approximately three hundred service members signed up to march in this parade, that friends is a disgrace to the uniform and to America.

No debate about the military’s approach to gay and lesbian service members can be complete without a comment from Elaine Donnelly, who told Janet Parshall yesterday that participants wearing the uniform brought “discredit upon the Armed Forces”:

Later, Donnelly said the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell undermined the military’s commitment to “selfless service”:

Donnelly: Connect the dots here, how far is the military going to go with this? Well, frankly, they don’t know. Because the administration is saying that LGBT equality is a paramount concern, it is actually a political concern, the President is trying to deliver on political promises to his LGBT base, the left if you will, and the Pentagon is helping him do it.

Parshall: So stunning that there has been a historic set of rules of deportment of where and when that uniform can be used, and it seems to me and you have made this point several times over the last few years, that we are kind of making it up as we go along.



Donnelly: This is a special interest faction. We don’t have in our military, we shouldn’t have, special interest factions. We don’t have labor unions either. You don’t have groups that are more interested in their own interests than they are in the selfless support for the institution, for the mission. Selfless service is what the military is all about. When you start dividing up into special interest factions that start saying ‘we want this and we want that and we are different from everyone else and we are more special than everyone else,’ that’s when you really invite problems. So Janet, this is just beginning, this is LGBT law in the military.

Elaine Donnelly: Gays 'Make Other People Feel Like They are Not Welcome' in the Military

The failure of her alarming predictions about the consequences of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to materialize hasn’t stopped Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness from railing against gay rights in the military, and now Donnelly is taking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to task for delivering an “entirely inappropriate” Gay Pride Month message to service members. Donnelly, who supports the ban on gays in the military, accused the LGBT community of trying to “make other people feel like they are not welcome” in an interview yesterday with Janet Parshall. She said that Panetta’s message was part of a ploy by “LGBT activist groups” to “intimidate other people,” and Parshall lamented that she’s “never heard of a Heterosexual Month and they make up ninety-seven percent of the military.”

Parshall: We’ve got Leon Panetta, ‘June is called Gay Pride Month,’ and Leon Panetta in the Department of Defense is heralding gays in the military. Wow, I really would love to look into a crystal ball and see what we’re going to have in terms of numbers going down the road.

Donnelly: This is entirely inappropriate because the Secretary of Defense is treating a tiny minority of people in the military who are now allowed to be open, even though previously they were not even eligible to be in the armed forces, to have an event like this, which we predicted by the way. We predicted this a long time ago; this is a manifestation of LGBT law in the military. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender policies and celebrations in the armed forces, this is all part of it.



Parshall: Leon Panetta celebrating in so-called Gay Pride Month that which makes up less than three percent, to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never heard of a Heterosexual Month and they make up ninety-seven percent of the military.

Donnelly: Right. What happened to the notion, ‘we just want to serve in the military, we just want to be quiet and modest and discreet, just like everyone else’? What happened to that? Well of course that was all phony because the LGBT activist groups know exactly how to intimidate other people, make other people feel they are not welcome, their views are not welcome, and name calling occurs quite a bit. That’s pretty much part of the pattern and it’s one of the reasons why the 1993 law regarding gays in the military should have been retained.

James Dobson and Elaine Donnelly Lament 'Very Bad Orders' Promoting LGBT Rights in the Military

Last week we reported that James Dobson hosted Elaine Donnelly where she roundly criticized rights for women and gay service members, and on the following program the two anti-gay activists went after the Obama administration for potentially allowing service members’ same-sex spouses to collect housing, education and health benefits. Currently, the military is prohibited from providing such benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act.

After Dobson read a statement from Congressman Todd Akin attacking President Obama for his “appalling” attempt to “use the military” to defend his support of gay rights, Donnelly and Dobson played the victim by complaining that they receive unfair criticism for opposing equality for gay soldiers and their families. Donnelly said that LGBT rights groups are targeting the military because they realize that “in the military everybody must follow orders” and cannot protest the administration’s “very bad orders” and “flawed philosophy”:

Dobson: We mentioned Congressman Akin who has been very, very concerned about the same things we are talking about today. He wrote a statement and released it and I want to read what he had to say: “The President announced his new position on same-sex marriage, and used the military as a campaign prop to advance the liberal agenda. Whatever Obama’s views may be, I find it appalling that the he would so blatantly use the military for political cover on this controversial issue…. This liberal agenda has infiltrated our military, where service members and chaplains are facing recrimination for their sincerely held moral and religious beliefs. Moral or religious concerns about same-sex marriage or the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have become potentially career-ending.” That’s quite a statement and it’s what you’ve been saying but elaborate on it.

Donnelly: That’s true. Remember that the advocates of LGBT rights in the military are not at all concerned about this. They consider anyone who disagrees to be, well pick your favorite epithet, ‘name-calling,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘how dare you,’ ‘this is a civil right issue,’ all of those kinds of charges are launched.

Dobson: Hate-mongering.

Donnelly: Oh yes, all of those things. And it’s really unfair because we’re talking here about something as basic as human sexuality, we’re talking about marriage, we’re talking about raising children. The Pentagon has said we will not extend the family benefits, yet, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, but within two heartbeats when the President said ‘I am for gay marriage’ he also said, ‘I hear from military people who say they should get benefits he same as opposite-sex couples in the military.’ That’s where the drive is going. This agenda doesn’t quit, it doesn’t stay within one narrow area, because the LGBT groups, they’re quite large, they’re well-funded, they’re determined, and they really do realize that because in the military everybody must follow orders, this is the way it should under the Constitution, but the military is vulnerable to a president, to secretaries of defense and the services who give very bad orders, who are giving a flawed philosophy, control of the armed forces and personnel. This kind of thing is very troubling.

Donnelly: 'The Civil Rights Movement is being Co-Opted by the Advocates of Diversity, by Advocates of the LGBT Equality Group'

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness talked to James Dobson today on Family Talk about the expansion of the roles of women service members and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which they warned will have horrific ramifications. Donnelly, who has warned that allowing women in combat roles and gays to serve openly will lead to the military’s downfall, told Dobson that the culture of the military is in grave jeopardy due to the “process of diversifying and imposing LGBT agendas,” maintaining that “the civil rights movement is being co-opted by the advocates of diversity, by advocates of the LGBT equality group.”

The new concept of inclusion is a radical departure from the military’s honorable tradition of recognizing individual merit. In fact the armed forces were way ahead of the civilian world in recognizing individual merit regardless of race, regardless of gender even, but the way we’re going now, the civil rights movement is being co-opted by the advocates of diversity, by advocates of the LGBT equality group. There are a lot of influences under the current president who unfortunately are in the driver seat in the Pentagon and they are making some serious problems here. Can it change? Yes, the military is resilient, but right now people have got to become aware, first of all, of what’s happening and secondly, figure out a way to do something about it.

I think every major conservative cause there is has taken a beating in the last several years, whether it’s health care, whether it’s the economy, our banking system, all kinds of things have been seriously harmed in the last three years. So are we going to give up on all of that? No, I certainly hope not, not as Americans. But the military is different because it’s the only military we have. If you cause problems in education, you can always homeschool; you can go to a different school system, if you don’t like your state you can move to another state; but if something is wrong with the culture of the military—Reagan had an easy job with it, all he had to do was rebuild the ships and the planes and the hardware—but rebuilding the culture of the military after we go through this process of diversifying and imposing LGBT agendas and lowering standards to accommodate it all, this is going to be more difficult.

Donnelly: Women in Combat, Gays Will Topple Military Like Jenga Blocks

The Center for Military Readiness’s Elaine Donnelly has been making the rounds this week to discuss what she alleges is the Pentagon’s attempted cover-up of a marked increase in violent sexual assaults in the Army since 2006. The increase in sexual assaults was reported [pdf] by the Army in January and Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta immediately called the trend “unacceptable” and vowed to take steps to stop it. This week, a federal judge ordered the Army to release more detailed records on the assaults, at the request of the ACLU and the Service Women’s Action Network.

Donnelly, however, asserts that the Pentagon has been trying to cover up the increase in sexual assaults in order to cover for a new policy allowing women to officially serve in combat positions.

Speaking with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio yesterday, Donnelly said that adding “social burdens” to the military – like allowing women to serve in combat and gays to serve openly – will eventually topple institution like a tower of Jenga blocks. Donnelly has previously claimed that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would  "break the all-volunteer force."

Gaffney: Are we at risk, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, of breaking the all-volunteer force with all of this?

Donnelly: Yes, yes we are. And what we’re heading toward is what I call the Jenga block military. If you’ve ever played that game with wooden blocks, you know you take the blocks out of the bottom, and you load more burdens on the top. Eventually, the tower becomes so unstable it collapses. And it’s a fun game to play on your kitchen table. But if you take things away from our military, and you keep adding social burdens on top, what you do is make a weakened force, you make that tower unstable. You, in essence, weaken the infrastructure of the culture of the military.

And let’s face it, it isn’t just about the weapons and the planes and ships and all of those hardware things, it’s the people who defend the military – the all-volunteer force. If we are doing great harm to both men and women in the military, if sexual assaults become so demoralizing, so conducive to indiscipline, what we’re doing is weakening the finest military in the world, we’re doing it gradually and according to this Army report, the progression is relentless. And it’s going in the wrong direction, it’s getting worse. And we certainly should not make it even worse than that by placing female soldiers into direct ground combat infantry battalions.

Somebody’s got to blow the whistle on this. Social engineers never are held accountable for their handiwork. Instead, the Pentagon invites them in to do more mischief, to create more problems. They don’t know what they’re doing. This report indicates that we need to really analyze this thing, and frankly Congress needs to intervene before it is too late.

Donnelly also dropped by the Janet Mefferd Show yesterday, where she claimed the Pentagon is “pretend[ing] there’s no problem” and mocked the Defense Department’s hiring of Sexual Assault Response Coordinators as a “jobs program” boondoggle:

Donnelly: You can understand why the Army did not want to trumpet these findings: they don’t fit the template. Well, now we’re going to put women into land combat battalions, the ones that are all male, the tip of the spear. They just pretend there’s no problem, and if theirs is a problem, well the problem is a myth. So, we’ll just do more training, we’ll hire more, what do they call it, ‘sexual assault response coordinators.’

Mefferd: Oh, good grief.

Donnelly: Starts to make a pretty good salary. You’re talking about a jobs program here.

Santorum Wins Backing of Fringe Religious Right Leaders

One day before the crucial South Carolina primary, Rick Santorum is beginning to win the endorsements of not just Religious Right luminaries but also fringe activists, including some who previously backed the failed presidential campaigns of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. Santorum recently won the backing of Religious Right activists such as James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Richard Viguerie, Maggie Gallagher, Penny Nance and most recently, former Perry booster John Stemberger.

Today, Viguerie released the names of additional Religious Right figures that are supporting Santorum, including Paul Pressler, the Southern Baptist leader who hosted the recent Texas meeting of social conservatives.

But other Santorum endorsers are less well-known:

  • Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, who has dedicated her career to fighting the rights of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, argued that it would lead to a draft along with “forcible sodomy.”  
  • Michael Geer of the Pennsylvania Family Institute who has crusaded against marriage equality, calling it a “tragedy.” 

All in all, about the people you would expect to endorse Rick Santorum.

Religious Right activists hit Romney for Trying to Have it Both Ways on Gay Military Service

Mitt Romney has attempted to thread the needle on whether gays and lesbians have a right to serve openly in the military, saying he staunchly opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell but is not willing to reinstate the policy. In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney called Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military,” but then in 2007 Romney claimed he originally found the policy “silly” but effective, and has since criticized attempts to repeal it. In a June debate Romney dodged a question on whether he would reverse the repeal, until he finally told the Des Moines Register editorial board this week that he would oppose the restoration of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

While his halfhearted and milquetoast stand may not surprise the vast majority of Americans who supported the policy’s repeal, it has not played well with Religious Right activists who want to see Don’t Ask Don’t Tell reinstated.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness recently started the Military Culture Coalition along with other conservative leaders to oppose repeal efforts, denounced Romney for his position of supporting Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in principle but not its reinstatement:

Donnelly questioned Governor Romney's comments to the Des Moines Register, noting that "The military does not work that way. Flawed policies that impose heavy 'complicating features' on the backs of military men and women cannot and should not be switched on and off, depending on the direction of political winds or promises made to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activists of either political party."

She added, "Sound policies that reinforce morale and readiness should be maintained at all times. A long list of what Governor Romney calls 'complicating features' were caused when the 2010 lame-duck Congress voted for Obama's LGBT Law and related policies. Current problems and those yet to come are no more acceptable now than in the midst of a shooting war."

Sandy Rios of Family-Pac and the former head of Concerned Women for America mocked Romney for the “audacity” to say he is more conservative than other candidates while revealing a complete lack of conviction regarding his views on open service in the military:

As the issue of allowing gays to openly serve in the military raged last year, Mitt Romney let it be known he roundly opposed the idea. He was outraged ... incensed. Many conservatives were certain this was the real Mitt revealing himself after years of having to pretend to embrace gay rights as governor of Massachusetts. With this messy business of his position on gay rights out of the way, they could at last breathe a sigh of relief and support the man they thought looked and sounded presidential and had the credentials to turn the economy around.

But now that has all changed. In an interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board last Friday, the former Massachusetts governor explained that it wasn't the concept of having gays openly serve in the military that had troubled him ... only the fact that the change was being made in a time of war. Now that the conflict is over, he would not, as Commander in Chief, do anything to change it.



As if to drive his point further, Romney added that Gingrich's "unreliability" hadn't just been 14-15 years ago, but in the last 2-3 years. Yet Mitt Romney's latest leap from conservatism had only taken place a few days prior. What kind of audacity does it take to stand before a news agency editorial board and brag in the face of the evidence that you are the most conservative candidate?



One could go further back with Romney's liberal/conservative iterations, but these are current examples which, in the case of gays in the military, goes back not a few years but a few days. Surely it is a quantum leap to assign him the mantle of conservatism in the current race.

Truth and honesty are inconvenient at times, but they are as much a part of conservative values as any position on the economy or national defense. Dishonesty and deceit are basic disqualifiers -- and bend as we may to excuse the inexcusable, in Romney's case, they are very hard to ignore.

Not to be outdone, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association went after Romney and Ron Paul, who voted in favor of repeal last year, calling them “non-starters as candidates”:

If evangelical Christians simply vote their values, there is simply no way they can cast a vote for someone who is in favor of legitimizing homosexual behavior in the military.

In the GOP field, there are just two candidates who support the presence of sexual deviancy in our armed forces: Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Romney told the editorial board of the Des Moines Register last Friday that he is just fine with sexually aberrant behavior in the military.



Bottom line: for values-driven voters who claim to be conservative and to draw their values from the Judeo-Christian tradition, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are both likely to be - and should be - non-starters as candidates. If a voter only claims to be a social conservative but isn’t one in fact, then a vote for Romney or Paul is not likely to be a problem.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious