The author of the legislation to repeal the ban “is a little-known Democratic congressman named Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran“.  Smart move having not only a veteran introduce repeal, but one who has recently served in the military, thus aware how lifting the ban would affect the morale of troops serving today:

Mr. Murphy is trying to build support for repealing the ban by couching his argument in financial and national-security terms. He says the Pentagon has spent more than $1.3 billion training service members who were later discharged under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provisions and prosecuting troops accused of violating the provisions.

He also argues that the military, already waging manpower-intensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn’t kick out troops who are otherwise willing and able to serve. More than 13,500 troops have been discharged under the law since 1994, including at least 428 in 2009, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group that opposes the ban.

Sounds like the right way to argue for repeal, by making it a national security issue.  We may well see repeal sometime this year.

This is one promise I hope the president keeps.  Now, to get him to act on that “net spending cut” he promised . .

On my pile of things to blog about has long sat a pamphlet by Robert Spencer, The Islamic Jihad Against Gays:  Why isn’t the Muslim Students Association speaking out? Published by the conservative David Horowitz Freedom Center, the pamphlet addresses an issue which most (but fortunately not all) liberal groups and gay organizations care to consider, the plight of our fellows in Islamofascist nations like Iran.

Now, another one of David’s media enterprises is addressing anti-gay attitudes among Islamic scholars, an issue to which many gay organizations seem blind.  On yesterday’s Front Page Magazine, straight blogger Eric Golub reported on a “lecture last week at the UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies (CNES)” where Joseph Massad, associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, offered some theories which, if offered by a conservative would raise the hackles of gay organizations from coast to coast.

Golub calls the talk “anti-gay,” but from his report, it sounded just plain bizarre to me:

Massad . . . explained that “Queer is about resistance to Islam.” Similarly, he said that “There is no Arabic transliteration of queer. It is a judgmental notice of deviance.” In a particularly striking claim, Massad insisted that, for Muslims, concepts like “hate and sexuality are only translatable to English-speaking people.” Muslim honor killings, presumably, are only a figment of non-Muslims imagination.

Massad also used the occasion to present a novel – and decidedly homophobic – conspiracy theory. “Queer is an imperialist term,” he announced. “It is part of the Anglo-American gay agenda.” Indeed, according to Massad, “queer is an example of cultural imperialism.”

Now, I’m not particularly partial to the term “queer,” but wouldn’t even consider calling it an “imperialist” term.

It’s good to see mainstream conservative organizations addressing the plight of gays in Iran and confronting the prejudiced attitude certain Islamic scholars have toward people like us.  It would be nice if our home-grown gay organizations also took note of these prejudices.

While the junior Senator from Vermont may be “the only socialist in the U.S. Congress“, Bernie Sanders is not the biggest spender in the U.S. Senate.  According to David Boaz of the Cato Institute:

42 senators in 2008 voted to spend more tax dollars than socialist Bernie Sanders. They include his neighbor Pat Leahy; Californians Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who just can’t understand why their home state is in fiscal trouble; and the Eastern Seaboard anti-taxpayer Murderers’ Row of Kerry, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton, Schumer, Lautenberg, Menendez, Carper, Biden, Cardin, and Mikulski.

The American Conservative Union rated Mrs. Boxer as even more liberal than Mr. Sanders.  

Wonder what California voters are going to think when they learn that our junior Senator’s spending record matches that of our state’s profligate and unpopular legislature.  I’d say it’s something in the water out here, but Boxer just doesn’t spend enough time in her own state to drink enough of the water.

Ma’am, I think it’s time you look for another job, ’cause you’re just not looking out for California taxpayers.

Glenn links the details: “CLIMATEGATE UPDATE: Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures. (Via Tim Blair, who rounds up related items).”

Given the recent discussion on this blog (notably in the comment thread to my post on Joy Behar) about whether monogamy is essential to marriage, let me draw your attention to a post Glenn Reynolds linked today on a site that is hardly at the vanguard of the marriage movement.  Among her “Secrets to a Long Happy Marriage,” Wendy Atterberry includes some tips on “keeping faithful.”  Yes, she acknowledges that people may stray, but leads off her list with this point:  ”Be aware of the dangers and recognise the urge for what it is: a temporary itch, not to be scratched.”  (Emphasis added.)

She thus acknowledges that fidelity is key to a happy marriage.  And that once that fidelity is compromised, it takes a lot of work to restore trust, requiring both husband and wife to “work through the problem together, with professional help if” necessary.

In case you miss my point, let me repeat, fidelity is essential to marriage and gay people are capable of monogamy.

It’s just too bad the leaders of gay organizations refuse to say as much.

Whenever a Republican wins a significant election, many on the left are quick to dismiss it is a fluke–or the result of some underhanded right-wing scheme.  Reagan wouldn’t have won in 1980 had his advisors not worked behind the scenes to prevent the release of the hostages held in Iran (a Sick theory lacking any substance whatsoever). Bush wouldn’t have won in 1988 had it not been for his “racist” Willie Horton ads.  White men threw a temper tantrum in 1994 and helped steal Florida six years later.  Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate; Massachusetts voters weren’t opposed to the Democrats’ big government initiatives.

And still despite polls in the Bay State, exit polls in New Jersey and Virginia and data from across the country, Democrats press forward on health care as if these elections didn’t happen.  To Nancy Pelosi and her allies, inconvenient electoral returns (so long as she remains Speaker) just don’t register.   Despite ever increasing numbers of Americans opposed to her health care plans, the San Francisco Democrat remains determined “to get health care done:”

“You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.”

As it is with the Speaker on health care, so it is with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri on the “science” behind his dire warnings of global warming.  Despite errors found in 2007 IPCC report which helped win him the Nobel Prize, he won’t admit his mistakes because, as he puts it, “a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them”.  It’s not a matter of science for him, but of pride, not admitting that his critics got something right.

Why can’t he just admit he made a mistake and move on?  Why can’t Nancy Pelosi accept the fact that the American people don’t want the health care reform she’s offering and move on to other options more in line with the popular mood?  Why can’t liberals admit that the mood of the American people is shifting, while polls may have recently suggested people were more open to big government options, they now show growing opposition to statist initiatives.

* (more…)

It looks like President Obama has indeed laid the groundwork for repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  A friend e-mailed me a post from the lefty blog Think Progress that details steps the Administration is taking to make it easier for gay people to serve openly in the military:

In a Senate hearing tomorrow, the first in 17 years on the issue, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen “will unveil the Pentagon’s initial plans for carrying out a repeal, which requires an act of Congress.” Gates and Mullen are “not expected to offer a specific legislative proposal to repeal the law, but rather to detail some of the preliminary steps that need to be taken inside the military in advance of formulating a legislative plan.” “A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced” at the hearing tomorrow, a process that could “take the better part of this year to complete.” In the meantime, a senior Pentagon official tells CNN that Gates will discuss at the hearing options for more “humanely” implementing the current ban.

While the Administration still hasn’t developed a legislative path forward, we do at least see efforts to mitigate the impact of the ban.  A step forward, to be sure, but not the full measure of progress we need.

Importantly, Gates and Mullen are taking the steps that should have been taken seventeen years ago when Bill Clinton rushed to repeal the ban on gays serving in the military.  They should investigate how to repeal the ban while ensuring the morale and readiness of our troops.

That investigation should help bring Republicans like incoming Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown on board (given his recent interview with Barbara Walters) and perhaps even John McCain, given his interview with the Washington Blade during the 2008 presidential campaign.  Thus, the investigation should make it easier for Congress to vote on repeal.  Socially moderate, pro-military Republicans are more likely to favor repeal when they have solid evidence from our military commanders that lifting the ban will not hurt troop morale.

Kudos to the folks at Think Progress for such a thorough report on efforts to repeal the ban as well as the effect of this unnecessary policy and the resistance to change.  Their post merits your attention.

For well over a year now, I have stopped paying attention to the left-wing blogs which distort my views and seek to cast me as something I am not.  It’s just not worth my time to attempt to engage with people more interested in belittling conservatives than in understanding–and countering–our arguments.

When, however, a blogger, well, in this case, a blogress whom I generally respect gets my views wrong, I do take notice.  Last night, just before bed, I chanced on an incoming link from the normally sensible and sharp, Cynthia Yockey (AKA a Conservative Lesbian).  In her broadside attacking me for my alleged views on gay marriage, she misrepresents my recent critique of Joy Behar:

His latest assault on gays and lesbians who are seeking equality in every aspect of their lives, especially marriage equality, is founded on siding with Joy Behar, of “The View,” who recently opined that homosexuals do not deserve marriage equality because she says we are not monogamous. Or somehow, straight people who marry are monogamous, but gay people, who cannot marry, are not monogamous and therefore never deserve to have marriage equality.

I did not side with Joy Behar.  I believe gay people are capable of monogamy.  In my post, I faulted gay leaders for their silence in the wake of Miss Behar’s recent comments on gays and monogamy.  I did so to show my skepticism of their “understanding of the responsibilities and purposes of marriage.”  I did not challenge the fitness of same-sex couples to fulfill the obligations of matrimony. (more…)

The campaign of Matthew Berry released this morning an internal poll which showed that good man within striking distance of 10-term Democrat Jim Moran in one of the least Republican districts in Virginia.  The “internal poll conducted by the Tarrance Group” find that “only 38% of likely voters believe . . . Moran deserves to be reelected in November while the plurality of likely voters, 40%, believe that it is time to give someone new a chance”:

The poll also reveals that Matthew Berry is the Republican candidate who can beat Jim Moran. When Matthew Berry’s background and experience are described to voters as well as Moran’s experience and record, the race is within the margin of error: 41% for Matthew Berry and 44% for incumbent Jim Moran, with a significant 16% remaining undecided.

I’ve known Matthew for about fourteen years.  He is a solid conservative with strong libertarian inclinations.  As I wrote in my endorsement:

He knows that with less federal regulation, industry can more readily prosper, leading to a better and cheaper products, a more efficient delivery of services and more rapid creation of jobs.

Not just that, he knows, as he has written on his campaign website, that the “current explosion of government spending and debt is not sustainable and imperils our nation’s future.”  And he has been a strong voice against Obama/Reid/PelosiCare, opposing greater government control over health care. Instead, he has put forward a 5-point plan for health care reform, favoring policies which reduce government intervention in this growing sector of our economy and do not impose additional costs or mandates on the American people.

In short, he’s solid on “Tea Party” issues.  He is thus easily distinguishable from Dede Scozzafava who supported the “stimulus” and backed card check.  Some in the media claimed conservatives deserted Dede in droves because she was good on gay issues, supporting, for example, state recognition of same-sex marriage.  They wanted to paint a picture of Republicans obsessed with social issues and disinterested in small government matters.

Back then, I speculated that most conservatives would have stuck with the Republican nominee in NY-23 despite her stand on gay marriage had she been solid on fiscal issues as well.  Now, in Virginia’s Eighth Congressional Districts, conservatives have a chance to show that fiscal issues are their real concern by backing a candidate who comes from the Ronald Reagan wing of the party, but who happens to be gay.

Let us hope Northern Virginia conservatives look to Matthew’s positions on the issues central to our party’s rank and file.  He’s a good man who is not a newcomer to the idea of small government.  He has long known why they’re good for our country.  Once in office, he won’t flinch.  You can support this small-government Republican by joining me in contributing to his campaign.

Perhaps, given the energy generated by the Scott Brown campaigns in such a short space of time that the rules of political campaigns in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century have been thrown out the window.  Maybe a candidate won’t need to announce until a few months before the election.  Still, I think that any candidate who wishes to win statewide office in this November’s elections will have to have lain the groundwork for his campaign by the end of this month.

Right now, in four of the winnable Senate seats for Republicans, Indiana, New York (Gillibrand), Washington State and Wisconsin, there is no particularly strong GOP candidate who has tossed his hat in the ring or is readying a run.  With seven Democratic seats (ND, DE, NV, AR, CO, IL and PA) solid GOP or trending Republican, the Republicans need only three more seats to recapture the majority.  No wonder Democrats were so eager to get Chris Dodd out of the picture.  Were he still running for reelection, there would be eight likely GOP pickups.

Wonder how many Democratic House seats would be ready to flip if strong Republicans challenged the incumbents. A number of Republicans are lining up to take on Bill Delahunt in Massachusetts 10th Congressional District.  But, in the wake of Brown’s victory, he’s not the only Democrat in the Bay State who should be nervous, Jim McGovern, Niki Tsongas and John Tierney all represent districts where Brown did well, two of them represented by Republicans as recently as the 1990s, the other where a Republican ran strongly in a 2007 special election.

So, keep your eyes peeled this month.  See if any Republicans are launching Senate bids in a few states and congressional bids across the country.  This month could well determine the size of the Republican wave this fall.

In my previous post, I linked a piece at the left-wing site, “Think Progress,” but should perhaps have included the opening line of their piece, “During the Senate special election in Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown was criticized for his lack of support for LGBT rights.”  Note the passive construction.

Now, I’ll grant that that good man probably doesn’t support every item on HRC’s wish list, the standard measurement for determining one’s support of “LGBT rights,” but then again, I don’t support most items on that list, as I dare say would a fair number of gay Americans, at least the majority of those of us on the right side of the political spectrum.   So, technically, Amanda Terkel, who penned the post, was right.

That said, his absence of support for HRC’s agenda does not make Brown “anti-gay” (as some gay activists have suggested).  Indeed, in his interview with Barbara Walters, not only did he show a great deal of flexibility on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell*, he has also repeated recently a position he made clear in the campaign.  He believes that gay marriage is settled law in the Bay State:

And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

California and other gay leaders may denounce Scott Brown and he may not be the HRC ideal (well, to do that, he’d have to change his party affiliation), but he has not criticized gay people and has shown an openness on gay issues (consistent with conservative principles)  that I wish we would see in all Republicans.

———–

*If people know ways I can lobby him to support repeal, I would be delighted to do so.