Center for Military Readiness

The debt crisis might be the focus of most of the nation right now, but nothing can distract Elaine Donnelly from her campaign to prevent gay and lesbian soldiers from serving openly and honestly in our armed forces. Friday she told Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Everyone in Washington is distracted by the debt crisis, and it is a crisis, but I think the damage done to our only military is much more serious because we can always fix the economy when things go wrong, most of the time, but once you undermine and destroy the culture of the military-what makes it better than any other armed forces in the world-once you make it a social experiment as a political payoff to the LGBT left, then you create problems.

. . .

The day and the hour that the president puts his hand to a paper, certifying no problems to the military, he will own the San Francisco military that he has created.

Donnelly may not agree with San Francisco’s politics, but perhaps she should stop and think before she degrades a “San Francisco military.” Does she just want to mock the sacrifices of service members from the Bay Area who are putting their lives on the line right now? Or is she just disparaging service members from San Francisco who have given their lives for our country? 

In the past, Elaine Donnelly has shown no compunction about denigrating gay and lesbian service members—after they’ve sacrificed for our nation, she’s pushed hard not to thank them, but to fire them. I guess today she’s added a new category to the men and women in uniform who aren’t worthy of her respect.

Legal scholar Goodwin Liu, President Obama’s nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is receiving a second hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Liu, who is an Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the Berkeley School of Law and a renowned legal scholar, has unsurprisingly found himself to be a top target of right-wing activists.

Ed Whalen of the Nation Review accuses Liu of “trying to fool senators and get himself appointed to the Ninth Circuit, where he would (among countless opportunities for mischief)” overrule California’s Proposition 8. In addition, a coalition of right-wing groups including the Judicial Crisis Network, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, the Media Research Center, the Traditional Values Coalition, Americans for Limited Government, and Citizens United have signed on to a memo condemning Liu for representing the “extreme liberal agenda of judicial activism.”

But Richard Painter, the Associate Counsel to the President during the Bush Administration, points out that while many ideological right-wing activists oppose Liu, prominent conservative legal minds like John Yoo, Ken Starr, and Clint Bolick endorse his confirmation and corroborate Liu’s qualifications. “The attacks are rife with extravagant and tendentious readings of Liu’s record,” Painter writes, “and they are based on selective quotations of Liu's writings that even then don’t prove the point”:

Liu's opponents have sought to demonize him as a "radical," "extremist," and worse. National Review Online's Ed Whelan has led the charge with a "one-stop repository" of attacks on Liu. However, for anyone who has actually read Liu's writings or watched his testimony, it's clear that the attacks--filled with polemic, caricature, and hyperbole--reveal very little about this exceptionally qualified, measured, and mainstream nominee.

…

Far from being radical, Liu's view probably comports with the intent of the framers who bequeathed the Constitution to their descendants with the intent that it be a useful document. Few if any of our ancestors would have intended that we run our businesses, farm our land, educate our children, or live our lives exactly the way they did, even if they did intend that the Constitution give us principles of self-government that would last for generations. Liu's perspective may be more realistic than that of some of his opponents; his view is certainly not radical.

…

In sum, Liu is eminently qualified. He has support from prominent conservatives. He would fill a judicial emergency vacancy, and he would add important diversity to the bench. He is pragmatic and open-minded, not dogmatic or ideological, as his support for school vouchers shows.

Many, though by no means all, of his scholarly views do not align with conservative ideology or with the policy positions of many elected officials in the Republican Party. (This might not have been the case thirty years ago, but many moderates have since left the Republican Party.) Nevertheless, his views are part of the American legal mainstream. The independence, rigor, and fair-mindedness of his writings support a confident prediction that he will be a dutiful and impartial judge.

Last February the Media Research Center’s director of media analysis Tim Graham defended the American Conservative Union’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) from a charge that the event was “once a venue for the radical fringe.” Today, the Media Research Center joined other groups in boycotting the conference because it isn’t conservative enough. While the Heritage Foundation announced on Wednesday that it would be boycotting CPAC, the Media Research Center, led by notable right-wing activist Brent Bozell, is both the latest and one of the best-known organizations to join the boycott movement.

Back in November, the far-right American Principles Project declared that it would not take part in CPAC as long as GOProud, a conservative group that supports some gay-rights initiatives, remains a participating organization. GOProud’s status as a “participating” organization prompted many Religious Right groups to boycott CPAC, including: American Values; American Vision; the Capital Research Center; the Center for Military Readiness; Concerned Women For America; the Family Research Council; Liberty Counsel; Liberty University, and the National Organization for Marriage. The American Family Association, which boycotted CPAC last year over GOProud’s more limited involvement, has decided to sit out this year’s conference as well.

The decision by the Media Research Center and the Heritage Foundation to leave CPAC represents the most noteworthy achievement for the boycott movement since Concerned Women For America and the Family Research Center joined the cause. Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink remains a chief sponsor of the event, however, CitizenLink’s head Tom Minnery said that his group will only remain in CPAC to limit GOProud’s influence and may boycott next year’s conference. Minnery told The Washington Times that “the influence of social conservatives has been missing and there needs to be more of it,” but “if the ACU can't manage this problem that they’ve brought upon themselves, we’ll have to make another decision.”

WorldNetDaily, the right-wing publication which has been attacking CPAC since the conference refused to hold a WND-sponsored panel that would showcase “birther” conspiracy theories about President Obama’s birth certificate, has been rallying behind the boycott movement. Joseph Farah, the editor-in-chief of WND, called for a “purge of the conservative movement” that would begin with CPAC’s organizers since “conservatives need God’s help, not GOProud’s.” Today, WorldNetDaily broke the story about the MRC’s decision to pull out of CPAC:

Two more big guns of the conservative movement confirmed today they are not participating in the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because of the continued participation of the homosexual activist organization GOProud.

The Heritage Foundation, the largest think tank in Washington and not known as part of the religious right, confirmed that it is not taking part in what has been the largest annual gathering of conservatives in the country. Heritage has been an active participant in CPAC every year for the last 10.

"We have withdrawn," said Mike Gonzalez, vice president of communications for the Heritage Foundation.

"We have been there for many, many years at the highest level of participation. "We believe in the traditional definition of the family,"

Gonzalez explained. "We believe in defending the family against any threats that come against it. We're not for gay marriage. We don't think institutions that have existed for millennia can be done away with at the drop of a hat." Gonzalez emphasized that the "three pillars" of conservatism, economic liberty, national defense and social conservatism, are "indivisible."

In addition, the Media Research Center, led by Brent Bozell, a longtime associate of the hosting organization, the American Conservative Union, announced it was dropping out.

"We've been there 25 years, since our inception," said Bozell. "To bring in a 'gay' group is a direct attack on social conservatives, and I can't participate in that."

…

The Christian ministry American Vision and related businesses Vision for America and Patriot Depot also said they have dropped out of CPAC because of GOProud.

"Homosexuals can get involved in the conservative movement any way they want, but to come in and push an agenda that's contrary to biblical values, traditional values and rational moral values, that's another thing," said Gary DeMar, president of American Vision and Vision for America. "We wouldn't exclude adulterers from participating, but if there were a group of adulterers who said 'we want adulterers' rights,' we're going to say no."

Bozell said GOProud is not a genuine conservative organization, and suggested inviting homosexual activist groups into the conservative movement could drive social conservative activists to the political sidelines.

"They attack the Family Research Council, they attack Concerned Women for America, they are proponents of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell," he said of GOProud. "If you don't believe in the traditional family, you're not a conservative."

Last week the American Principles Project announced that it would boycott the next CAPC convention if organizers allowed the gay conservative group GOProud to participate.

Now, the APP has gotten other Religious Right groups to sign on to a letter to announcing their intent to likewise withdraw from the event:

A coalition of conservative groups led by the American Principles Project today sent a letter to David Keene, Chairman of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and his fellow board members announcing their withdrawal from participation in the 2011 CPAC.

The letter, signed by leaders of American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage, cites the decision to allow GOProud to participate in CPAC, explaining that the inclusion of this group that stands in diametrical opposition to a core principle of conservatism made it necessary to take action.

“This is the line in the sand,” stated Frank Cannon, President of the American Principles Project, an organization dedicated to upholding our most fundamental American Principles. “True conservatives and conservative organizations are rejecting the efforts to destroy conservatism from within by those attempting to marginalize social conservatism. And if that means rejecting CPAC, these conservative leaders have the courage to stand by their principles.”

In the letter, the leaders of these organization actually compare GOProud to the John Birch Society:

Exclusion of GOProud would not be without precedent in the modern history of conservatism. In 1962 William F. Buckley, Jr., called on the Republican Party and the conservative movement generally to dissociate themselves from the John Birch Society. There was no doubt then that the Birch Society embraced such principles as anti-communism and limited government. Yet Buckley and others rightly recognized that there were views its founder and leader possessed, and transmitted to the organization, that, as he wrote in the pages of National Review, were “far removed from common sense.” Buckley concluded, “We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner.”

A political generation ago, the John Birch Society embraced conspiracy theories about President Eisenhower, challenging his anti-communist credentials. Today GOProud describes Jim DeMint’s culturally conservative views as “bizarre.”

You know what is the greatest thing about this comparison? 

Last year, the John Birch Society was a co-sponsor of CPAC.