Home ›

Elaine Donnelly

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Look Who's Joining TFP For DADT Press Conference

Submitted by Kyle on February 17, 2010 - 1:49pm

In my earlier post about the absurdly anti-gay Tradition, Family and Property "report" opposing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered who would be joining them at their press conference tomorrow to unveil it at CPAC.

Now we know: 

* Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
* Tom Minnery, Vice President, Public Policy, Focus on the Family
* Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
* Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
* David Keene, President, American Conservative Union
* Penny Nance, CEO, Concerned Women for America
* Matthew Staver, Dean, Liberty University School of Law
* Jordan W. Lorence, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
* Adm. James A. “Ace” Lyons, USN (Ret.), Flag & General Officers for the Military

Leaders from other prominent organizations, such as Eagle Forum, Let Freedom Ring, the American Family Association, Traditional Values Coalition, and Tradition, Values & Property (partial list) are lending support to the Military Culture Coalition, an informal network of individuals and organizations who support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.).

PFAW
Filed under:

DADT Must Remain In Order To "Keep Our Honor Clean"

Submitted by Kyle on February 17, 2010 - 12:40pm

Every so often, an obscure but well-heeled group called the American Society for Tradition, Family and Property pops up on the scene to make its case for ... well, tradition, family, or property.

Today it is out with a press release announcing a press conference tomorrow where it will release its lengthy defense of keeping gays out of the military

Reacting to the current push to force the U.S. military to accept open homosexuals in the Armed Forces, the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) published a well-documented study today, providing hard-hitting reasons to reject the proposal.

The group's statement is titled "To Keep Our Honor Clean: Why We Must Oppose the Homosexual Agenda for the Military."

News Conference: Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, and leaders of several major organizations will participate in a Thursday press conference to announce their support for the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military. The news conference will be held at the Marriott Wardman-Park Hotel (room 8216) in Washington, D.C. at 2:00 PM.

The document itself has already been posted on the TFP website and it is something to behold:

[D]uring wartime, men are in continual contact with each other’s blood. Therefore, the well documented increased disease rates of homosexuals would cause them to be perceived as a risk rather than an asset to unit survival.

This increased disease rate should not be underestimated. As Colonel Ronald Ray pointed out: “Despite the fact that they account for less than 2 percent of the total American population, a compilation of recent health studies shows that homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases.”

This increased disease rate has led some to refer to the homosexual lifestyle as a “deathstyle.” Inclusion of this deathstyle in our Armed Forces is a dangerous proposition, indeed.

TFP's citation for that 80% figure is "Colonel Ronald D. Ray, USMCR, Gays: In or out? (Washington: Brassey’s (US), 1993) p. 46."  I can't find the report itself ... but it doesn't matter because it is obviously nonsense.  To get a picture of the sorts of insanely anti-gay things Ray has written, just check out this essay he wrote entitled “Lifting The Ban On Homosexuals In The Military: The Subversion Of A Moral Principle,” especially the conclusion in which he warns to any effort to allows gays to serve in the military will cause God to destory America just like he did to Sodom and Gomorrah.

But the real reason that TFP opposes the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is because it would destroy the honor of our military: 

It is these values of uprightness, self-sacrifice and strength that project the military into a superior order of things. In a word, they confer an honor upon it, which is so identified with the archetype of the American soldier that our nation’s highest military decoration is called the Medal of Honor.

However, homosexual vice represents the opposite of this military honor. It violates natural law, epitomizes the unleashing of man’s unruly passions, undermines self-discipline and has been defined as “intrinsically evil” by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on numerous occasions.

That is why, in order to advance, the homosexual movement must blur the distinctions between virtue and vice; truth and error; good and evil. If this vice is imposed on our Armed Forces, it will necessarily bring this relativistic spirit with it.

In turn, this mentality would undermine the direct and straightforward mindset, so necessary to the military.It would sully the honor of all who serve and weaken society’s notion of the incompatibility between good and evil, so well represented by our Armed Forces.

I am really looking forward to seeing who those other "leaders of several major organizations" will be that will be joining TFP and Elaine Donnell at their press conference releasing this document tomorrow.

PFAW
Filed under:

Liberty University Hosting Two Day Anti-Gay Conference

Submitted by Kyle on February 4, 2010 - 1:55pm

Mat Staver, Matt Barber, Elaine Donnelly, Alan Chambers, Robert Knight and various other anti-gay activists will be gathering at Liberty University for two days next week to discuss all things gay ... or rather, the threat that the "homosexual agenda" poses to this nation:

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”

The first day of the conference will focus on the issues underlying same-sex attractions with personal and ministry insights shared by Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International. Conference leaders will then discuss the American Psychological Association Task Force Report on counseling people with same-sex attractions. Current research and therapies will be discussed by experts from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and the American Association of Christian Counselors. The first day is designed for lay people, counselors, pastors, educators, attorneys, and those interested in learning more about the subject. The second day will focus on the legal implications arising from the clash between the quest for homosexual rights and freedom of speech, religion and association.

This two-day long symposium begins at 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 12, in the Vines Center of Liberty University at Liberty’s convocation service during which Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, will speak. The afternoon event, titled “Understanding Same-Sex Attractions and Their Consequences,” begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Supreme Courtroom of Liberty University School of Law. Speakers include Alan Chambers; Julie Harren-Hamilton, President of NARTH; Tim Clinton, President of the American Association of Christian Counselors; Rena Lindevaldsen, Associate Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law, and Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law.

The symposium reconvenes at 9:00 a.m., Saturday, February 13, at the School of Law, and ends with a banquet held in the Grand Lobby of Liberty University, located in DeMoss Hall, at 5 p.m. Saturday speakers include: Professor Lynne Marie Kohm of Regent University School of Law; Professor Lynn D. Wardle of Brigham Young University and J. Reuben Clark Law School; Elaine Donnelly, Founder and President of the Center for Military Readiness; Robert H. Knight, Senior Writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and Senior Fellow for American Civil Rights Union; Matt Barber, Associate Dean at Liberty University School of Law, and others.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The clash between free speech, religious and homosexual rights is a like the grinding of two tectonic plates. It is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attractions and the broader homosexual agenda. Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict. The politicized radicalism of the homosexual agenda on the other hand is aggressive and intent on trampling upon the fundamental freedoms of anyone who may disapprove. That is why this conference at Liberty University is vitally important.”

PFAW
Filed under:

Who Are You Calling a "Civilian Activist"?

Submitted by Kyle on January 28, 2010 - 1:46pm

Despite the fact that she is something of a joke and prone to making ridiculous claims, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness has somehow become the leading opponent of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and so it is no surprise that she would show up in articles about the President's pledge to repeal the law:

"Civilian activists do not understand or respect the culture of the military," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a think tank that opposes allowing gays in the military. "I'm sure the troops will be disheartened by this."

What is it exactly that Donnelly means by "civilian activists"?  Considering that, as her own bio makes clear, Donnelly has never actively served in the military, doesn't that make he also "civilian activist"? 

Donnelly likes to portray herself as someone whose deep concerns about the integrity and cohesion of our military require her to oppose allowing gays to serve openly when, in reality, she is little more than a professional right-wing activist who uses military issues to push her anti-gay agenda.

PFAW
Filed under:

Pots Calling Kettles "Radical"

Submitted by Kyle on October 9, 2009 - 10:14am

It is amazing to see militantly anti-gay right-wing extremists like Peter LaBarbera and Elaine Donnelly claiming that President Obama's upcoming speech at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner will somehow "alienate" people because he is associating with "radicals."

But, once again, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel takes the cake, slamming Obama for forcing "taxpayers" to foot the bill and adding an attack on his Noble Peace Prize just for good measure:

President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak Saturday night at a fundraising event for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a far-left lobbying group that promotes forcing Americans to accept and applaud homosexual behavior. The group regularly lobbies to force Americans to affirm homosexuality and targets youth with weekly "Queerly Speaking" YouTube videos to advance its agenda. Obama's appearance at the fundraiser raises questions about the propriety of a President speaking at such an event, when taxpayers must pay the cost for his travel and security.

...

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Obama is the most divisive President in American history. He seems to relish in promoting radical policies and ideas that drive a wedge between people who hold contrasting beliefs and values. Obama will be known as President of the Divided States, because he has taken a radical stance in the culture war. He is on the wrong side of life, morality, and liberty. Although Obama was recently given the Nobel Peace Prize, he has done nothing to advance peace in this Nation or abroad. When abroad, he apologizes for America and is embarrassed by American exceptionalism. Domestically, Obama promotes a culture war. He is not the symbol of peace."

PFAW
Filed under:

Donnelly Still Peddling Bogus MOAA Survey

Submitted by Kyle on August 24, 2009 - 3:12pm

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about a survey conducted by the Military Officers Association of America that purportedly showed that members of the military overwhelming oppose efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Elaine Donnelly immediately seized on it as "proof" that repealing DADT would destroy the US military because huge numbers of service members would leave the armed services.

The only problem was that the MOAA quickly repudiated the "resuts" of the survey, saying its "results were too skimpy and unreliable to be of any validity ... and therefore not a reliable indicator of how a population feels about an issue."

At the time, I said that "I highly doubt that will stop Donnelly from continuing to cite it as 'proof' in her campaign to protect the military from the scourge of homosexuality." And guess what? She's still citing it and claiming that the survey's findings were, in fact, valid:

The Military Officers Association of America, a large and influential veterans group, has even stifled such voices. In 2008, the association correctly anticipated efforts to repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, which frequently is mislabeled “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The association invited readers of its magazine, Military Officer, to participate in an online opinion survey on gays in the military. The professionally designed survey tabulated the ages and military background of respondents, as well as their answers to three questions about professed gays in the military and attitudes toward homosexuality in general

Survey results did not make news until July, when Washington Times Base News Editor Grace Vuoto reported that they revealed strong support for current policy (16 percent) or an even stronger law excluding homosexuals from the military (52 percent).

The same combined percentage, 68 percent, expressed the belief that repeal of the 1993 law would have a very negative effect (48 percent) or a moderately negative effect (20 percent) on troop morale and military readiness.

Contrary to stereotypes about the views of younger men and women, the survey of 1,664 respondents included a significant number of younger, active duty, or drilling reserve/guard personnel who were largely tolerant of homosexuality in other situations.

Vuoto included in the story a statement from a Military Officers Association of America official expressing concerns about military readiness, but deferring to “senior military leadership” on pending legislation to repeal the 1993 law. A few days later, association officials issued a new statement describing the survey as “statistically invalid” because there were only 500 responses in the first 11 days, and “some non-members” may have passed the survey around to friends in order to “skew results.”

All data was erased from the Web site mentioned in the original Washington Times story, bringing to mind an Andy Rooney aphorism, “To ignore the facts does not change the facts.” The survey was not invalid, but it was inconvenient.

MOAA yanked the survey because the response rate was low and utterly unreliable, as well as out of suspicion that "some non-members were passing the survey around to their friends in an effort to skew the results," yet Donnelly is still citing it as proof of her position, despite the fact that MOAA itself says the survey is meaningless.

It is not MOAA that is ignoring the facts about this survey because they are inconvenient, it is Donnelly.

PFAW
Filed under:

MOAA Debunks Its Own DADT Survey

Submitted by Kyle on August 6, 2009 - 2:18pm

The other day, the American Family Association's OneNewsNow ran an article claiming that a recent poll conducted by the Military Officers Association of America showed that members of the military overwhelming oppose efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

One of the leading activists opposed to homosexuals serving in the U.S. military says she's pleased that a recent poll of military officers shows overwhelming support for the 1993 ban enacted during the Clinton administration.

The poll was conducted by the Military Officers Association of America, or MOAA, with the results recently published in The Washington Times. By a two-to-one margin, the MOAA survey respondents favored the current policy or an even stronger law regarding the ban of homosexuals from military service. The survey also found that 68 percent of respondents believe that repeal of the law would have a negative effect on troop morale and military readiness.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says this survey has effectively torpedoed the high-powered PR campaign for homosexuals in the military.

"What they're saying here is, 'Mr. President and Congress, we support this law. We think it would be disruptive to repeal it. And we ask that you support the law or certainly not go along with any efforts to undermine or repeal that law,'" she notes.

The Washington Times article in question noted that while the "organization consists of about 370,000 members representing every branch of the armed forces," the web-based survey it conducted only "received 1,664 responses." But that was apparently enough for the paper to declare that the "majority of American service members oppose integrating gays openly in the military" and for OneNewsNow and Donnelly to declare that the "survey has effectively torpedoed the high-powered PR campaign for homosexuals in the military."

Not so fast, says Col Marv Harris, MOAA's Director of Public Relations, who sent a message to David Hart explaining that the survey was "statistically invalid [and] not a reliable indicator of how a population feels about an issue":

To seek some member input, MOAA developed a five-question survey for MOAA members and put it on the MOAA web site and highlighted it in the legislative update. Web surveys aren't a reliable tool, but it was our only option to let members respond because we did not have time to develop a mail-out survey to a statistically valid random sample of members before the November meeting.

As it turned out, only about 500 people took the survey over 11 days. Because of the low response and indications that some non-members were passing the survey around to their friends in an effort to skew the results, we concluded that the results could not be considered a valid representation of member views and removed the link to the survey from our web site. Only recently did we learn that the data was still accessible if someone had written down the original link to it. We've since removed it.

The Board, in determining its position, considered inputs from members of the Board (particularly those currently serving), the Currently Serving Advisory Committee, and the MOAA staff. They agreed that the survey results were too skimpy and unreliable to be of any validity.

...

We are declining to provide a copy of the survey or discuss the results. The survey was statistically invalid for the reasons stated above, and therefore not a reliable indicator of how a population feels about an issue.

To its credit, MOAA is refusing to stand by the "results" of this survery, but I highly doubt that will stop Donnelly from continuing to cite it as "proof" in her campaign to protect the military from the scourge of homosexuality.

PFAW
Filed under:

Right Wing Leftovers

Submitted by Kyle on February 9, 2009 - 4:51pm
  • Former McCain adviser Meg Whitman plans to run for Governor in California, while Joe Scarborough suggests he might be interested in running for the Senate from Florida.

  • Elaine Donnelly says that if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed, President Obama "will bear full responsibility for consequences that would devastate the volunteer force."

  • Norm Coleman says God wants him to be in the US Senate.

  • Phyllis Schlafly and Kay Bailey Hutchison are both scheduled to speak at the Denton County [Texas] Republican Party's annual Lincoln-Reagan dinner.

  • You know what America needs now? A conservative answer to Doonesbury published by Richard Viguerie.

  • Grover Norquist is angry that some Governors did not declare last Friday "Ronald Reagan Day" and is accusing them of putting "pusillanimous petty partisanship above patriotism."

  • Finally, Richard Land responds to reports that President Obama will issue an executive order reversing President Bush's ban on federal funds for stem cell research, likening it to cannibalism:

    • Reduced to its basics, killing the tiniest human beings in their embryonic stage of development for the possible medical benefits of older and more developed human beings is quite simply high-tech cannibalism in which we devour our own young for the sole purpose of treating other human beings who are merely fortunate enough to be older and able to defend themselves in a way the tiniest human beings are not.

PFAW
Filed under:

Right Wing Leftovers

Submitted by Kyle on January 12, 2009 - 4:21pm
  • Mike Huckabee welcomed Ann Coulter to his television program and things got a little tense, with Huckabee demanding to know if she though he was stupid before Huckabee was humiliatingly reduced to defending his conservative credentials by proclaiming that he is "definitely not pro-sodomy"

  • The Catholic League is not happy that Eugene Robinson has been chosen to participate in inaugural events.
  • Steve Benen catches Elaine Donnelly fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
  • Joseph Farah warns that "America is being judged" because there is a "lack of discernment about the eternal and unchanging laws of God" and that "this path leads only to destruction."
  • The National Review calls upon Barack Obama to re-nominate some Bush judges as an act of bipartisanship and Quin Hillyer sees it as evidence of a "groundswell."
  • Don Feder lists the "Best and Worst Developments Affecting the Family in 2008." The worst development? "The Election of Barack Obama." The best? "Sarah Palin, Pro-life Woman Is Vice Presidential Nominee."
PFAW
Filed under:

No Experience Necessary

Submitted by Kyle on December 22, 2008 - 1:38pm

Last week, The Washington Times reported that William White, who is openly gay, was being considered for a position as Secretary of the Navy.  And because any story having anything to do with gays and the military seems to require a quote from Elaine Donnelly,  she was asked her opinion and it was, not surprisingly, disapproval:

Supporters of the ban said nominating Mr. White would send the wrong signal.

"It's a matter of judgment, and I think that would be very poor judgment on the part of the commander in chief," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes gays serving in the military. "It would be very demoralizing to the troops."

Today, Donnelly takes her complaints in a slightly new direction, telling OneNewsNow that her main concern is that, on top of White's homosexuality, he doesn't have any military experience:

Donnelly says while there is no requirement that a Naval secretary have military experience, she thinks it would be better if they did. That way, she argues, the individual would better understand the stresses and burdens imposed on those who volunteer to serve in the military.

"I don't think it ought to be a purely political appointment," she says of the Navy secretary's position. "[But] the fact that there is no military experience there would argue that he was appointed for some other reason -- and if that reason is perceived to be support for repeal of the law on gays in the military, that would be the problem."

Of course, as we've pointed out before and as her own bio make clear, Donnelly also has no military experience.  Yet, for some reason, she considers herself an expert on what is and is not "demoralizing to the troops" and what sort of experience is required of potential nominees.

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content