We live in a world where everything is politicized. Almost every American agrees we have a problem with illegal immigration, but once politicized, any attempt to solve that problem is reduced to racism. Most Americans know our government’s spending will result in decades of severe debt, yet once politicized, any attempts to cut spending are seen as anti-poor, anti-minority, anti-elderly, anti-education, anti-environment, etc. Politicizing these issues is a great way to get apathetic Americans to take notice of an important issue, and even garner support for one side or another. However, often times, the reality of these situations is lost when politics is the driving force behind the solutions. That’s exactly what we’re seeing with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented in 1993 by a Democrat-controlled Congress, and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The gay community, in their undying love for the Democratic Party, often conveniently forgets that fact. The Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, and during the decade between the implementation of DADT and the start of the Iraq War, Democrats were virtually silent on the matter. Fast-forward to 2006, when Democrats regained the majority in Congress for the first time since the mid-90s. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was not simply a low priority for the incoming Democratic majority; it was nowhere to be seen. It was not until the 2008 Presidential campaign, when Barack Obama made the repeal of DADT a top priority in his promises to the gay community. Obama has yet to make DADT a top priority in his administration, and joins the long list of Democratic leaders to fail on this issue.
This is a national security issue that affects us all. As taxpayers, we have spent millions of dollars training thousands of soldiers and officers discharged under this policy. Our military has invested time and money creating lean, mean, fighting machines out of these brave men and women, and we’re willing to toss them away simply because of who they are physically attracted to? It’s outrageous! We could use another 14,000 troops right now, in case nobody has noticed.
In March, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent out a memo ordering a comprehensive review of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The purpose of the study, with results due December 1st, is to:
(1) Determine any impacts to military readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and “family readiness.”
(2) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations and benefits.
(3) Recommend appropriate changes, if any, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as evaluate how a policy change would affect ongoing cases.
(4) Find appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness once a change is made.
With 78% of Americans supporting a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it is clear the policy will come to an end soon. However, many Americans – myself included – want to make sure it is repealed responsibly, given that we are in the middle of a two-front war. This Pentagon study is designed to analyze the effects of repeal on our military, and act accordingly.
Therefore, it is entirely political when, in the midst of waiting for the results of a Pentagon review of the policy, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) inserts an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. It is entirely political when the liberal and gay media (which are one in the same), praise this amendment as a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – when it is clearly NOT.
“House Passes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Amendment” – The Huffington Post
“DADT compromise passes House/Senate committee” – Bay Windows
“House Passes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Amendment 234-194” – Towleroad
“Congress Moves to End DADT” – The Advocate
“DADT Passes the House” – The Daily Kos
These headlines sound great but a closer look at the amendment, by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, shows that it is nothing but political maneuvering. In order for Murphy’s amendment to repeal the DADT policy, all of the following must happen:
(1) The Secretary of Defense must receive the Pentagon report, which is not due until December 1, 2010.
(2) The President must submit a written certification to the congressional defense committees, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which states: (a) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action. (b) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments. (c) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
Oh, and the repeal still wouldn’t go into effect until 60 days after all of these conditions are satisfied.
So let’s put this in plain English: According to Murphy’s amendment, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not be repealed until the Pentagon report comes back on December 1, 2010, and the President, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense all say the military is ready to repeal the policy. And, if the report suggests that military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention would be adversely affected by DADT’s repeal, it won’t be repealed.
Understood?
The Amendment does NOTHING. So why insert it in the Defense Authorization bill? So Democrats can vote for it, and paint Republicans as bigots. There have been 14,000 gay men and women dishonorably discharged from the military, and we’re playing political games. It’s disgusting.
There is no doubt that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. Gays are the only people in America that have to lie about who they are to serve and die for our country. Regardless of how you feel about gays serving openly in the military, we’re talking about the gay guy serving in Afghanistan who can’t write to the guy he has at home because someone might find out he’s gay. We’re talking about the guy who can’t put a picture of his 15-year partner on his bunk because somebody will find out he’s gay, and throw him out of the military. That’s an equal rights issue. Meanwhile, a guy who is openly Muslim and openly anti-American is at Ft. Hood dispensing psychological advice to our military men and women. This guy can be in the military, but gays aren’t welcome?
Republicans are waiting for the Pentagon review to be completed, and that somehow makes them bigots. Democrats, who refuse to wait for the Pentagon review, are somehow labeled champions of gay rights. But what good is their support for a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, if they want it implemented recklessly, sacrificing military readiness during a two-front war?
Politicizing issues and making them about emotion – not logic – is exactly what the Democrats do best. We need to do what is best for our nation and our military, and we owe it to every man and woman in uniform to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell responsibly, leaving military readiness uncompromised.
Are you kidding me? No, I’m serious, are you kidding me? Let me tell you right now in my personal opinion Lisa V from the CC Times is a JOKE, ok!? In my personal opinion, anyone, I mean ANYONE (Tom Del Beccaro, Harmer, etc.) who works closely with her on our side has ZERO credibility, NONE, ZIP! In fact, you’ve exp…osed yourself.
What I want to know is this, Read this GLOWING piece on Harmer/Meese below and ask yourself these KEY questions:
1.) How is it that the CONTRA COSTA Times goes all the way down to near Gilroy for this story? Uh, it’s not in CC, it’s not breaking news? It’s not really news, but yet Lisa V goes way out of her way for this story. Yeah, Harmer is running for a district in CC , but uh, hmm, I’d call it a stretch.
2.) What exactly is the story? Is there a REALLY a story? Ed Meese does Harmer fundraiser, wow…stop the presses, lol. Are you serious? How many other fundraisers of Emken’s, Goehring’s, Amador’s, etc. have been covered with this kind of attention and glowing press and a personal visit & photo ops by Lisa V? Look, I love Ed too, but, uh…I had a one-hour exclusive interview with Ed like 14 years ago for the law school newspaper at Berkeley I started & I didn’t catch the national papers burning my phone to reprint it. I’m just saying….
3.) On that note: How many positive articles on Harmer has Lisa V done? How many negative? How many positive on Brad Goehring (In my opinion, the front runner and biggest threat to McNerney) has Lisa V done and how many has she done that have been negative, or critical on Brad or his campaign? How about Emken and Amador? Kind of interesting when you add those numbers up no?
4.) Why is it that Lisa V shows up to a lot of events that Tom Del Baccaro is at? That’s kinda weird huh? Why do I hear rumors that Tom is unofficially supporting Harmer? Huh? Did you know that allegedly Tom Del Beccaro and David Harmer have the same political consultant (Tim Clark)? Huh, that’s kinda strange. Why do I hear rumors that the CCRP is emailing people asking them to phone bank for Harmer? Now that is really weird. I hope those rumors aren’t true as ALL official GOP party orgs/people are supposed to be neutral in the primary!
5.) Do you think for a second that the CC Times or Lisa V will back/endorse or in any significant way support our CD-11 GOP nominee over Democrat incumbent Congressman Jerry McNerney whom the CC Times endorsed last election?
http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/index.php/endorsements
http://www.rightondaily.com/2010/05/ca-11-update-cc-times-comment-archive-does-david-harmer-think-they-will-support-him-in-the-general/
http://www.garamendi.org/node/228
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_10th_congressional_district_special_election,_2009
http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/contra-costa-times-endorsement-of-harmer-for-ca-11-a-questionable-call/
Why would you listen to their advice then? Do you think Lisa V really likes or admires Reagan, Meese, or Karl Rove? Yet she shows up at these events and gives in my opinion temporary glowing coverage, weird huh? Don’t you think Harmer and Tom Del Becarro know how Lisa V seems to feel about conservatives? What then does that say to you about how Harmer’s camp is approaching this election and their credibility?
6.) Finally, read the “news story” below and ask yourself this one last question. If the byline was taken off, could you tell the difference between this article from Lisa V of the Contra Costa Times and a press release from the Harmer Campaign? Be honest.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_15127554
Note: ALL of this entire post and associated content are my personal opinion only (i.e. it does not represent the views of any of my clients or campaigns I/Conservative New Media work(s) on) and I make NO factual claims whatsoever, nor cast aspersions on anyone in any way. This is all intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. I am merely expressing my opinion as an American and conservative who is interested in seeing fairness and transparency in the media and the CRP/GOP nominating process & to fight the MSM from possibly manipulating that. I am simply asking questions and it is up to you to do your own diligence and make up your own mind.
The former governor of Alaska wowed them last night in Turlock, California as she helped raise money for California State University (CSU), Stanislaus.
