Continuing Feminization of the U.S. Military: The Repeal of DADT

Sexual tension in the ranks means the end of military discipline.

The U.S. military took its first step on the sexual slippery slope when it admitted women to the military academies in the mid-1970s. Later, women began serving on the frontlines (just one way Bill Clinton ensured the decline of our once proud military and kowtowed to the radical feminists). The denial of reality—that there was no new element of sexual tension acting as a distraction from discipline—began then. 

The incorporation of women at least involved normal sexuality. And if a woman became pregnant, she would be discharged. Still, enormous damage has been done.

Now, with the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving openly, we will see increased tensions, this time with an unnatural and perverted sexuality endangering discipline—and it will be more pervasive in the daily life of a soldier. Where men and women are at least segregated in their housing, bathrooms, etc., this will not be the case with homosexuals. 

What a betrayal by our new Senator Brown to vote for the repeal of this important element of discipline. But then, he probably doesn’t have a problem showering no matter who is ogling him. 

Sen. Scott Brown Donated to Social Extremist RINO Candidate

Sen. Scott Brown gave $100 to social extremist RINO candidate for State Rep., Dan Winslow.

Winslow received the endorsement of the Massachusetts GLBT lobbying group, and that’s about as extreme as one can get. Winslow is even moving to embrace “transgender rights” demands.

Brown and Winslow have been friends since college and law school, and Winslow played a major role in his Senate campaign. But this is not about friendship. It’s about principles.

We’d hoped that Brown would be conservative across the board. He was a fairly reliable pro-family vote while in the Mass. legislature (though not pro-life).

Winslow looks like a qualified candidate unless you know the back story. It was Winslow who, as Gov. Mitt Romney’s Chief Legal Counsel, advised that marriage licenses be changed in May 2004 to allow same-sex couples to “marry”. He (and his boss Romney) changed the licenses without legislative authorization to read “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “bride” and “groom”. Winslow conducted the training sessions for town clerks and Justices of the Peace, threatening any who objected on religious or principled grounds that they would be fired or fined. Winslow and Romney unconstitutionally made law. The Supreme Judicial Court had not even told the Executive branch to do anything. (And the Legislature never has changed the statute to allow same-sex marriages.)

We hope that Sen. Brown does not agree with Winslow that DOMA should be overturned, that homosexual “rights” should be extended in all realms (including the military), and that there is a case to be made for “transgender rights”.

If Sen. Brown does agree with Winslow, why doesn’t he just go ahead and give an interview to the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows? They’ve been after him for months. Why hold back? 

"Party A" and "Party B"

[photo: Neil Contractor, Bay Windows]

Scott Brown Refuses to Take a Stand on Homosexuals in the Military

On Tuesday, Feb. 2, there will be a Congressional hearing on whether the 1993 law banning homosexuals from serving in the military should be repealed. (The law should not be confused with Clinton’s policy to evade the law, known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.)

So it was good timing last Sunday for Barbara Walters to ask Scott Brown whether or not he agreed with Obama on allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. But Brown refused to answer her question.

Brown, as a Lt. Colonel in the National Guard, knows well the military’s purpose and climate. He should have manned up and answered this question directly. Instead he avoided taking a clear stance, following the Mitt Romney model. (This is not surprising given that Romney’s men are now Brown’s top advisors.)

Brown deferred to “generals in the field.” Well, Senator-elect Brown, they’ve already spoken (as noted by the Center for Military Readiness):

As of January 2010, a formal statement of support for the 1993 Eligibility Law, addressed to the President and Members of Congress, has been personally signed by 1,164 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military, 51 of them of four-star rank. The statement concludes:

“Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects of the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Voluntary Force. As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654 Title 10) and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.”

Brown’s prevarication does not bode well. It is not indicative of an “independent thinker,” but of a politician waiting to see which way the wind is blowing. Not what his supporters voted for...

Here is our transcript from the Barbara Walters interview:

Walters: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.

Brown: Yes.

Walters: You’re a Lt Colonel. On Wednesday, the President announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’  What’s your view?

Brown: I think it’s important, because as you know, we’re fighting two wars right now. And the first part is to finish the job and win those two wars. I’d like to hear from the generals in the field – in the field – the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.

Walters: But Senator, your own view?

Brown: That’s my view.

Walters:  So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?

Brown:  No, I’m gonna wait to speak to the generals on the ground.

For more on homosexuals in the military, see the Center for Military Readiness. We especially hope that Senator Brown will study this report: “Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military.”

Scott Brown Going Wobbly on Gay Rights?

Is this what conservatives supported in electing Scott Brown? I don't think so! Let's hope this is just wishful thinking  on the gay activists' part. Then again, pro-gay Romneyites are advising Brown. Hold the line, Scott!

From EDGEBoston (GLBT news), Feb. 1:

"Are Sen.-Elect Scott Brown’s Views on Gay Rights Changing?"

 

Graham Wilson, a Political Science Professor at Boston University, believes Brown’s views on social issues will evolve in time.

"I don’t know his stand on (gay marriage) in detail but I do think he will moderate and has shown signs of doing so already," Wilson told EDGE. "Now that he has the Republican nomination, his challenge is to avoid defeat in general elections that will be held in what for him are likely to be less favorable circumstances."

Someone who is familiar with Brown’s positions on LGBT issues is Scott Gortikov, the Executive Director of Mass Equality, who said Brown has expressed "consistent opposition to LGBT equality" as a State Senator.

Gortikov does hold out the hope that Brown may be inclined to be more supportive of the LGBT community on certain issues considering the company he will be in.

"He is a junior Senator from a Massachusetts delegation and this is a delegation that has supported issues of equality for a long time," Gortikov said. "(Brown) touts not only his traits of independent thinking but also his conservative credentials. There may be nuances to his thinking when it comes to future votes on LGBT issues."

Bay Windows (linked with EDGE) also posted an "open letter" to Scott Brown, asking for a "dialogue". They're "awaiting his reply."

Catholic Action League of Mass. on Scott Brown

C. J. Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, sent this letter to The Pilot (Archdiocese of Boston newspaper), regarding Scott Brown's election:


January 25, 2010

Letter to the Editor

The Pilot

While pro-life Catholics may justly celebrate the defeat of a pro-abortion extremist in the special U.S. Senate election held on January 19th, The Pilot story on Scott Brown's victory conveyed the impression that I believe Senator-elect Brown is in accord with Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life. I don't and he isn't ("Many Catholics react favorably to Brown's election," 1/22/10).

Brown supports Roe v. Wade, and as a legislator has voted for buffer zones, emergency contraception and Commonwealth Care, which includes state funding of abortions, sterilizations and birth control. The best we can expect from Senator Brown is that he will support restrictions on abortion, limitations on abortion funding, and conscience clause protections.

The longstanding and bipartisan tradition in Massachusetts politics however, is for those seeking office to accept the votes, endorsements and contributions of social conservatives during an election, and then move leftward after the election.

In Scott Brown's case, he didn't wait for election day to tell the Boston Herald that he now considers same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth to be "settled law."

Sincerely,

C.J. Doyle

Executive Director

Catholic Action League of Massachusetts

Malkin Asks Conservatives to Oppose McCain; MassResistance Warns about Scott Brown’s Romneyite Advisors

TROUBLE? Scott Brown in D.C., flanked by 

Romneyite advisors Peter Flaherty and Eric Fehrnstrom
(Boston Globe, 1-23-10)

Please, Senator-Elect Brown: Remember who elected you. It wasn’t the mushy middle, personified by RINO Senator McCain and former Mass. Governors Mitt Romney and Bill Weld. Their compromising approach is the problem, not the solution!

Michelle Malkin shares our concern over conservatives going wobbly, e.g. Sarah Palin supporting McCain in his re-election bid. Malkin writes, “Conservatives: Beware of McCain Regression Syndrome” (1-22-10):

Pay attention: In the afterglow of the Massachusetts Miracle, there are flickers of peril for The Right. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but like Paul Revere’s midnight-message, consider this warning “a cry of defiance, and not of fear.” Conservatives have worked hard over the past year to rebuild after Big Government Republican John McCain’s defeat. But McCain isn’t going gently into that good night. … While he runs to the right to protect his seat, McCain’s political machine is working across the country to install liberal and establishment Republicans to secure his legacy.

McCain and other RINOs have their hands all over Scott Brown as he tries to find his footing in D.C. Let’s hope they are not able to co-opt Brown.

Our email alert (“Say it ain't so! As race gets tighter Republican Scott Brown's veering to the left,” Jan. 8) received a lot of negative response from our supporters who just didn’t want to believe that Scott Brown might be moving to the left. We linked to a Boston Herald article, “Scott Brown vows to work with Dems” (Jan. 7):

Brown . . . said he wants to play the part of a swing vote, sought after by both sides of the aisle.

"I give you my word. What's the Republican Party gonna do to me? They haven't really done much for me now," he said. "So all of a sudden I'm obligated to them? I don't owe them anything. " . . .

"If I go down there, I'll be the 41st (Republican) senator," he said. "The Democrats have to come to me and say, 'Scott, we know you're an independent guy, can we have you on this issue?'" 

"That's a great position to be in, he added.

…

Brown continued to paint himself as a social moderate who is tight-fisted with taxpayer dollars and hawkish on national security. …

Brown ducked the label “pro-choice” while saying abortion should be a woman’s personal choice. In the next breath, he said he would vote to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court justice who opposed Roe v. Wade - but added he would have supported Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

We also noted that leftist Herald columnist Margery Eagan labeled Brown a Bill Weld-style Republican (i.e., RINO):

Yesterday morning I would have called Scott Brown a social conservative. By the time he finished an hour with Herald editors yesterday afternoon, he was calling himself a “social moderate.” Yet he sounded like a social liberal. Gay marriage, which he once wanted to put up for a referendum? “This is settled law” in Massachusetts, he said. “People have moved on.” …

Pro-choice or pro-life? Brown, who’s repeatedly pushed for abortion restrictions and has the support of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said he doesn’t like those “labels.” Pressed, he agreed the “choice” should be between a woman and her doctor - the very definition of pro-choice. …

Forget morphing into JFK, as Brown does in his ads. He’s morphing into Weld-lite.

It was bad enough seeing former Governors Weld and Cellucci (RINOs extraordinaire) campaigning with Brown, and Romney emerging from backstage at the election night celebration. Now we see the above photo in yesterday’s Boston Globe, showing Brown flanked by Romneyites Peter Flaherty and Eric Fehrnstrom, as he visited the Capitol on Thursday.

MassResistance alerts constitutional patriots across America who supported Scott Brown: Keep him honest! Beware the bad influence of McCain and Romney! We didn’t work this hard to see another “moderate” Republican in the Senate.

Scott Brown Must Prove Himself True to Constitutional Principles

Obviously we’re happy that Scott Brown has been elected. We had to stop Coakley and slow down Obama's killer agenda. We’re hoping for the best from Brown. 

But we are bothered by his alliance with RINOs Mitt Romney and John McCain. His campaign was run by Romneyites. Eric Fehrnstrom and Peter Flaherty were at Brown’s side every minute during his visit to D.C. on Thursday. Will they all pull him to the left? We want to hear more talk about the Constitution and less about "what's good for his state."

Scott Brown with new mentor, John McCain [Washington Post photo].

J.J. Jackson asks questions that have been bothering us too. In Canada Free Press:

In the wake of Mr. Brown’s victory I see a lot of Conservatives acting little better than giddy and foolish Democrats did upon the accession of Barack Obama to the left right hand of Nancy Pelosi Almighty.  Many of my fellow patriots on the right and correct side of the isle have a lot of good things to say about Scott Brown and his successful election bid for one of Massachusetts’ Senate seats.  But at times they are downright deifying this man as the savior of our Republic. …

Questions, questions everywhere - and all have yet to be answered.

Will Mr. Brown, now Senator Brown, have the courage to do the things that a true conservative would once he takes his place in the Senate?  Will he embrace the Constitution and vote against all laws that, while they might be good for his State, violate that document’s limited mandates of power?  Will he have the cojones to vote against any and every bill that comes before the Senate which contains one iota of unconstitutionality snuck into it by wicked people seeking power over our liberty?  Will he have the fortitude to stand before his colleagues in the well of the Senate and chastise those who propose powers to our government which are strictly forbidden and do so regardless of party?  Will he turn his nose up at spending more than the government takes in and reject burdening our children with obscene debts to lubricate the votes of special interests and a minority of Americans?  Will he exhibit the courage needed to start paring back and proposing cuts or outright elimination of unconstitutional programs already on the books?  Will he reject the fallacy of bipartisanship when such a tactic requires compromises to limited government?

Or will Mr. Brown be what really passes for a “conservative” in Washington and the Republican Party?  Will he simply oppose the most egregious of new usurpations of liberty and only when the American people speak up loudly enough for him to take notice while he helps to pass ones of a lesser nature that he thinks we will not find out about or later object to?  Will he cast his vote in favor of yearly budgets that cannot be paid for like so many of his colleagues do? …

When these questions are answered I will pass judgment on Scott Brown as a Senator, as a Republican and as a conservative.  When he shows me that he is worthy of praise, only then shall I give it to him. …

Election Day: Massachusetts, January 19, 2010

A beautiful winter day at a polling location in the western burbs of Boston.

THE PEOPLE'S SEAT: Scott Brown at Littleton Rally, Jan. 18

Rally on Littleton Common for Scott Brown,
Monday, January 18, 2010, 4:00 p.m.

This guy really has a great rapport with the people. He's genuine. Despite horrible weather conditions (and no nearby parking), there were 200-300 supporters there to greet Scott as he wound down his day of campaigning. Terrific enthusiasm! If he doesn't win in a landslide, it could only be due to unprecedented election fraud.

Photos: Scott Brown vs. Coakley-Obamabots: Boston Rally Jan. 17

We were at Northeastern University in the hours before Obama's appearance at the Martha Coakley “rally” in Boston today. The people who were lined up waiting to go in appeared comatose as they awaited their messiah. Few Coakley signs were seen, and no enthusiasm was felt. The Brown supporters who turned out, by contrast, were really psyched and fun to talk to. Three cheers for the Northeastern University Republican Club who had an energetic group. We also met lots of people from all over, including a new American citizen from Argentina, and a fellow from Texas who came to help us out!

 FEEBLE:

Coakley’s Support of “Transgender Rights” Would Force Taxpayers to Fund Murderer’s Trans Procedures

The ultra-leftist Huffington Post thinks Scott Brown is a bad guy … for opposing taxpayer-funded sex-change procedures demanded by a convicted murderer.

According to the Huffington Post, it’s bad enough Brown opposes homosexual “marriage” -- but then they go on to list this as another of his bad deeds:

“The two-time incumbent [Brown] took a firm stance on opposing the request of a convicted murderer for a sex-change operation.”

Huff Post brands this "engaging in the culture wars," and that's a no-no. (They want conservatives to just shut up.) But Brown was courageous enough to stand up against the leftist trans madness fad and debated this issue on New England Cable News (7/16/07) with a trans activist from the International Foundation for Gender Education. (Unfortunately, the video has been taken down.)

The convicted murderer’s demands have been supported by a prominent transgender activist (and Massachusetts voter) “Nancy” Nangeroni, who testified alongside Martha Coakley for the “Transgender Rights” bill in Massachusetts last July. The transgender rights bill would mandate coverage for exactly such insane procedures.

 

Attorney General Martha Coakley testifying in favor of “Transgender Rights” Bill H1728.  Nancy Nangeroni (right), trans activist, looks on. [MassResistance photos]

The murderer in question is Robert Kosilek, who has demanded his transgender treatments in court -- dressed as a woman.

Convicted wife murderer, Robert Kosilek [AP photo]

Scott Brown was simply displaying common sense. It’s Martha Coakley who’s out of the mainstream. And if she gets her hands on health care legislation, you can be certain she’ll ensure transgender procedures are covered under all government-approved insurance plans.

“No discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression!”

USA Today, “Transgendered inmates push for state-funded sex-change surgery” (8/19/2006):

In Massachusetts, four of the 12 inmates diagnosed with gender identity disorder are receiving hormone shots.

Kosilek has been receiving hormone therapy since a federal judge ruled in 2002 that he was entitled to some treatment for gender identity disorder. Although Judge Mark Wolf did not order a specific treatment plan, he ruled that Kosilek had proven he has a serious medical condition that had not been adequately treated.

After Wolf's ruling, the corrections department allowed Kosilek to receive female hormones and laser hair removal. He was also given access to female undergarments and some makeup.

During testimony this spring in his second lawsuit, Kosilek said the female hormones and other treatments have not been enough to relieve his suffering and said he would likely commit suicide if he does not get the surgery.

Such talk infuriates state Sen. Scott Brown, who filed legislation seeking to ban sex-change operations for inmates in 1998. The legislation died in committee.

Brown points out that most private health insurers do not cover sex-change operations, and says taxpayers should not have to pay for such "elective" surgery for inmates.

"I just think it would be deemed a luxury for him to have that operation. He is in there because he murdered his wife," Brown said. "There are no luxuries that are supposed to be available."

But advocates for transgendered inmates say that in some cases, sex reassignment surgery is a medical necessity, not a luxury.

See also CBS/AP, “Cross-Dressing Killer Robert Kosilek Wants You To Pay For Hair-Removal Treatments Behind Bars” (11/23/09).

Union Guys for Scott Brown

On the Tom and Todd show this morning (WRKO AM680), Bill Hudak (Republican candidate for Mass. Sixth Congressional Dist., North Shore) called in with a great anecdote on the Brown-Coakley debate last night.

He said that the union guys were out in force outside the building with big 4' x 8' Coakley signs. As Scott Brown arrived at the building, he went over and greeted the guys. Hudak overheard them tell Brown, "We're voting for you. We just got paid $50 to hold the signs."

When Coakley arrived, in typical arrogant liberal style, she walked right by the guys holding her signs without a word of acknowledgement.

May the best man win.

UPDATE 1-13-10: Videos confirming this anecdote at FlemingandHayes blog. 

More on the Phony Boston Globe Poll

Martha Coakley up by 15 points (says the Boston Globe)? Doesn't seem right to this Massachusetts resident. Also, the Boston Herald is supposedly going to release a poll showing Coakley only 1 point ahead. Here's more on the polls from Legal Insurrection blog [excerpt]:

Globe Poll An Outlier

Obama wins New Hampshire primary in a landslide!

That was the prediction of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and most other pollsters prior to the primary. In fact, Hillary Clinton won the primary, causing much hand wringing. This shows us that we need to be cautious with polling data. It is just part of the picture.

The UNH poll released this morning by The Boston Globe, showing a safe 15% lead by Coakley among likely voters, does not ring true to me. UNH started polling on January 2 and finished January 6. Rasmussen, which polled during that same time period, showed Coakley up by 9% among likely voters but only 2% among definite voters. PPP polled more recently and showed Brown up by 1%. The Boston Herald is to release a poll which reportedly will show Coakley with a 1% lead among likely voters.

The UNH-Globe poll is an outlier, by far. The three other polls show this as a single digit race among likely voters, with Brown's voters far more highly motivated. [Added] Even the UNH-Globe polls shows that among the voters who are listed as "extremely interested in election" it is an even race, at 47% each.

Scott Brown Up by 1 -- or Coakley Up by 15?

A new poll says Scott Brown is leading by 1%. This from Public Policy Polling:  

The Massachusetts Senate race is now a toss up. Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47. ["The Wall Street Journal ranked PPP as one of the top swing state pollsters in the country last year. (11-6-08 WSJ)"]

Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters.  Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative. 

Here are more details on PPP's poll.

Dems caught with their pants down again? 

Coakley supporters on their way to her rally?

Why is the Boston Herald reporting on "No Pants Day" on the T, but not the new polls? All the Herald mentions is the number of Facebook friends (where Brown is way ahead).

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reports its own poll shows Coakley up 15 points among likely voters.