Monday, March 29, 2010 – David Satter, Caroline Glick, John Bolton

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow David Satter talks with Frank about the recent terrorist attacks in Moscow, who’s behind it, and what it means for us. Secure Freedom Radio regular and Center for Security Policy fellow Caroline Glick updates Frank on the ongoing dispute between the Obama Administration and Israel. Frank then dissects the Obama Administration’s obsession with ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and what it may mean for the good order and discipline of the armed forces.  Former UN Ambassador and AEI Fellow John Bolton wraps up the show with analysis on the new START treaty.

MONOLOGUE – March 29, 2010

Well that was the President of the United States at Bagram Airforce Base yesterday in Afghanistan. A very secret mission into a war zone, the President dropped by to pay a visit, chat with, break the knees of (depending on who you talk to) President Karzai of Afghanistan and also spend some time with the troops. He gave a quite moving tribute to them, to give him his due, but it contrasts so sharply with something else he’s doing as Commander-in-Chief that I think is important for us to take of the very stark difference between the commitments that he expressed repeatedly yesterday to supporting our forces, to acknowledging their sacrifice, to enabling them to perform their mission, and otherwise to express a commitment to them that is both deserved and laudable.

What is as I say in contrast, is the President’s determined effort to repeal the law currently on the books that is arguably critically important to those troops, to their ability to perform missions, to supporting them in a time when they’re being asked to make great sacrifices; namely, the law that is currently the law of the land prohibiting openly homosexual individuals from serving in the United States military. And the difficulty with that, as we’ve talked about here a fair amount of late, is to the extent that forces, like those the President met, live day in and day out in circumstances of forced intimacy—where they, in other hands, have little choice but to be in close quarters with one another. To have individuals who may have sexual attraction to you, individuals of the same sex or for that matter of the opposite sex, in those close quarters is a formula for trouble.

And this isn’t a homophobic statement, this just a statement of human nature. And to the extent that we try to ignore human nature, or suspend it in some feat of social engineering involving the United States military, we invite terrible problems for those in uniform who will have to put up the effects of those sorts of experiments. Now it was striking to me that when a very highly-regarded officer, a three-star general Lieutenant General Benjamin Nixon (the commander of US Army Pacific), wrote a letter to Stars and Stripes expressing his own opposition to this idea of repealing the law prohibiting this kind of social experimentation, this kind of imposing on the military the agenda of the gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, intersex community; and calling on others in the uniformed services to do the same in light of the fact that if they don’t, it’s very likely that this law will be repealed and the interests, the sensitivities, the concerns, the needs of the military will be damned.

An argue of that is o the extent that we can, we need to support the troops; not impose these kinds of hardships on them, not be indifferent to them—but the Secretary of the Defense, Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, last week went to some length to make clear that they considered the expression by General Mixon of his views to be inappropriate. And not only that, Admiral Mullen went further to say, “that if that is his view, he should vote with his feet.” That means get out, leave the military.

Now it’s okay of course for Admiral Mullen to say that he supports the repeal of this legislation, but anybody who disagrees apparently has no place in the military. And unfortunately, that’s what’s likely to flow from this Presidential effort is a zero-tolerance policy towards anyone who disagrees with the President, anyone who believes that what he’s doing is in fact a wrecking operation against the United States military. Now it’s now increasingly clear isn’t it, that the President of the United States has been on something of a wrecking operation for some time with respect to other institutions of this country: the financial sector, for one, the automobile industry, for another, now most recently the health care industry and the student aid programs. But it seems as though the United States military is in his cross-hairs as well.

And it struck me that it’s worth recounting something, some months ago now we talked with David Horowitz: a remarkable guy, formerly a radical leftist who decided that he loved his country and the leftists were wrong, and he has been one of their most effective radicals after since. David recently published a pamphlet called, “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: the Alinsky Model.” And it lays out the connection between Saul Alinsky, one of the most virulent revolutionaries this country has ever produced, and the man who is now the President of the United States.

Let me just read from a passage of this pamphlet: “Alinksy’s advice can be summed up in the following way: even though you are at war with the system, don’t confront it as an opposing army; join it and undermine it as a fifth column from within. To achieve this infiltration, you must work inside the system for the time being, Alinsky spells out exactly what this means in his book Rules for Radicals ‘any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.’”

Horowitz goes on to say, “in other words, it is first necessary to sell the people on change itself, the audacity of hope, yes we can, you do this by proposing moderate changes that open the door to your radical agenda. Again in Alinsky’s words, ‘remember once you organize people around as commonly agreed-upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there, it’s a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution.’” In other words, Saul Alinsky’s designs included very much destroying the United States military, the “Pentagon pollution” as it were. Saul Alinsky’s strategy for doing it involving being deceptive, working as a fifth column inside the system. I submit to you, that what this President is doing now by trying to impose the homosexual agenda on the United States military over the advice of every single one of the service chiefs, that is to say the chiefs of staff of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps; is going to be destructive of our armed forces, of this all-volunteer force, the only one we have in a time of war, one we cannot afford to jeopardize with this kind of destructive social experimentation.

I hope you will join us here at Secure Freedom Radio in opposing this effort, letting your members of Congress know that repeal of the ban that is currently the law of the land on avowed homosexuals serving in the United States military must not be changed and that the armed forces must have confidence that they can continue to perform their jobs in the way that they have for years now: that is to say the best fighting force in the world. That’s where we come down on it, how about you? Let us know here or the Frank Gaffney twitter or facebook accounts let us know.