Peter J. Smith


Ann Coulter and the real Wikileaks culprit: gay soldier Bradley Manning

Peter J. Smith

Poor Julian Assange. The whole world now is going after him for exposing the secret world of U.S. diplomacy (which I expect is not that different from the way diplomacy is done in general), as if it were all his fault. But the white-haired Aussie would have little claim to fame were it not for the one petulant homosexual soldier who downloaded 260,000 cables of classified information before shuttling it off to Assange’s Wikileaks whistleblower site.

Pfc. Bradley Manning is still in the brig at Quantico – I’m sure the Marines will take good care of him while the military sorts out his trial. The current charges for selling out his country would put him in prison for the next 52 years – although some say “treason” merits a harsher punishment.

However, Manning’s name – and his sexual orientation – is appearing very little these days in the news. Probably because he doesn’t quite fit in the Pentagon’s patriotic-gay-lesbian-Americans-suffering-silently-under-DADT meme.

(By the way, has anybody pointed out that just opening up the military to gay and lesbian Americans unfairly discriminates and marginalizes transgenders and bisexuals who are suffering silently, etc.? When will the lawsuits come around to a soldier identifying as a woman and demanding a right to bunk in the women’s barracks?)

But hooray for Ann Coulter! She has a column on that absolutely devastates this meme with her typical candor and razorsharp wit. Coulter makes the case that Manning represents a threat to national security that is inevitable with a small percentage of homosexuals who “are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.”

“According to Bradley’s online chats, he was in ‘an awkward place’ both ‘emotionally and psychologically,’ continues Coulter. “So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.”

Here’s another excerpt: “Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?”

And Coulter mockingly asks what actually does merit a DADT investigation anymore? “Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?”

Coulter nails this one on the head, and it’s worth reading here.

But the magnitude of the damage wreaked by Manning’s petulance and world-savior complex cannot be underestimated. The German daily Der Speigel reported that the raw data of classified US diplomatic information is so vast that it would fill 66 years worth of weekly Der Speigel magazines.

The most egregious thing is that Manning was so open about his homosexuality – on Facebook no less – and the US Army did … nothing. People get fired from their jobs over what they post on FB, but not Manning.

Instead, he had quite enough time as an intelligence specialist to have access to sensitive information and play freelance spy for the whole world – courtesy of Wikileaks. And with a simple download, Manning really accomplished with a few clicks and some CDR-W discs – jamming out to Lady Gaga’s hit-song ‘Telephone’ to cover up what he was doing – what the Russians couldn’t do in years with the lovely Anna Chapman and a handful of other domestic spies.

Read Ann Coulter’s “Bradley Manning: Poster Boy for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’”

Share this article



Rep. Chris Smith: Lord Windsor’s article a “must read” for pro-life, human rights advocates

Peter J. Smith

Lord Nicholas Windsor’s article in the ecumenical journal First Things calling for a new abolition movement to end legal abortion has now circulated into the official record of the U.S. Capitol.

Pro-life and human rights advocate US Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) had Windsor’s article entered into the Congressional Record on Tuesday evening, calling it a “brilliant essay” and a “must read for those who treasure and promote human rights.”

The great-grandson of King George V of England argues persuasively that legal abortion is a “mortal wound to the heart of Europe” that poses a far greater threat to civilization than al-Qaida and Islamic extremists. He also says that the lessons of history on industrialized killing have been lost on Europe, and abortion has become so accepted that is almost invisible in European politics.

Windsor’s essay was covered by LSN this past Monday, and it is worth revisiting.

Windsor’s article, which Rep. Smith had entered in full into the Congressional Record, is available here at First Things. Smith, I should mention, is an ardent defender of human life and human rights, and is the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Human Rights Committee, a position he held before when the GOP last had control of the House.

The essay deserves to be read widely in the pro-life community and discussed. As Rep. Smith pointed out in his remarks before entering it into the record, Windsor’s essay is “equally applicable to us.”

It’s an essay of warning and an essay of hope. I’ll just quote the last lines, because it reminds us that the goal of the pro-life movement cannot be just to end abortion, but also to support human life and flourishing in a way that makes abortion an unthinkable option.

Writes Windsor: “We must also creatively envisage new and compelling answers to the problems that give rise to this practice, when the easiest solutions may be destructive or distorting ones. And the goal is that human life, without any exception, may be as treasured and respected as the highest moral thought has perennially called for it to be, and as our consciences surely sound the echo.”

Merry Christmas. 

Share this article



Justice Willie Brennan, abortion, and the dereliction of Congress’s duty

Peter J. Smith

Gregory J. Sullivan has written a valuable article for the Witherspoon Institute on the influence of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, jr. upon American jurisprudence – especially on abortion and the “right to privacy” that paved the way. Guided by the idea of a “living constitution,” Brennan made his own singular contributions to crafting a constitutional and cultural revolution in the United States from his bench on the nation’s highest court.

Sullivan’s analysis of Brennan’s legacy is prompted by a new biography of Brennan, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion, by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel. The authors write that Brennan was the real architect behind inventing the “right to privacy.” This “right” is the driving force behind the high court’s decision to overthrow the States’ restrictions on contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965) and abortion (Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, 1973), to make homosexuals eligible as a protected class (Romer v. Evans, 1996), to outlaw sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and will soon be used to overturn their marriage laws – unless Congress intervenes.

Brennan’s own road as a “liberal champion” began in 1956 with his almost unanimous confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, and ended in 1990. Only one U.S. Senator voted against him, anti-communist Sen. Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, because Brennan said in a speech that anti-communist investigations amounted to “witch hunts.”

The liberal jurist died in 1994, leaving an indelible mark on American jurisprudence that has changed the fabric of the republic and its society – and not for the better.

But ultimate responsibility for this constitutional wreckage from the court belongs to the U.S. Congress, not Brennan or the Warren Court.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority in Art. III, sec. 2 to restrain and rebuke the court by withdrawing its appellate jurisdiction from certain types of cases. It certainly could have done so for Griswold, Roe, Doe, Romer, Lawrence, and can do so now for Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

It’s not too late. But the pro-life community and pro-family community had better get the conversation going that Congress should take the court out of these controversial social decisions. There is a clear way in Art. III. But anything like a constitutional amendment – or even harder, like the impeachment of judges – is about as profitable as waiting for Godot. (In case no one has read the play by Samuel Beckett, Godot never arrives, but he is always expected.)

The responsibility of tackling tough questions on social policy and morals belongs to the Congress and the States – not the courts. The people and their legislatures must engage in rigorous debate to change hearts and minds in order to effect new social policy and laws for the common good. It is a hard, arduous process – but it is an indispensible dimension of government “by the people” that is also “for the people.”

Our nation’s politics is at such a fevered pitch over abortion, and will get even worse if the high court crafts a right to same-sex “marriage” out of Brennan’s “right to privacy” and other such mystic judicial nonsense. Congress should intervene – even if it is to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution from the federal judiciary’s delusions of grandeur.

Read: William Brennan and the Creation of a Right to Abortion 

United States Constitution, Article III (on the Judicial Branch).

Share this article



Col. Oliver North: We could lose 20 percent of military over ‘don’t ask’ repeal

Peter J. Smith

The U.S. military could face enormous losses of troops in this ninth year of the “War on Terror” – and al-Qaida has nothing to do with it. But what’s stunning is the cavalier attitude Pentagon leaders have displayed at the prospect, because right now, nothing is more important to them than making sure homosexuals can serve in the U.S. military.

Lt. Col. Oliver North, a retired Marine Corps officer, has written an illuminating piece for National Review Online, attacking the breathtaking hubris of Admiral Mike Mullen on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. Mullen is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed by President Obama to that position, and recently said that if troops start leaving the U.S. military over DADT repeal, they can “find another place to work.”

North uses the data from the Pentagon’s own study to show that the potential losses of military servicemen from DADT repeal dwarf any potential gains of a few openly homosexual servicemen. It’s sheer madness, and North hits it on the head right here:

“Secretary Gates, Chairman Mullen, and other proponents of changing the law have concluded that ‘limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention’ is ‘an acceptable risk’ — even in the midst of a long and bloody war. They claim that any problems arising from repealing the ban will somehow be ameliorated by ‘careful planning, training and good leadership.’ What they cannot do is explain how the possibility of losing even 20 percent of today’s active-duty military — more than 250,000 troops — could be anything but an unacceptable risk.”

The full Oliver North article at NRO is here.

Additionally, I would recommend Adam Paul Laxalt’s frank assessment of DADT repeal. Laxalt is a former US Navy JAG officer with experience prosecuting sex-related crimes in the military – a problem that has increased with the integration of women in the ranks. But even then the situation with women is far different: homosexuals open about their sexuality will train, eat, shower, and sleep in close quarters with those whom they are sexually attracted toward, should DADT be repealed. And the Pentagon has made clear that separate facilities are out of the question.

So Laxalt makes several points plain: “men still love to have sex” despite the constraints of culture, “the military cannot tolerate sex in combat,” and the military “cannot tolerate the tensions that surround sexual relationships or potential ones.” 

“Allowing homosexuals to ‘live out’ their sexuality and their relationships in the military would cause many problems. Along with more sex comes more assaults, more sexual tension, and more of everything we already battle on a daily basis.”

[See Laxalt’s article at NRO here]

Can the United States afford to lose 10 – 20 percent of its 250,000 strong all volunteer force, while fighting two full time wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maintaining its outposts across the globe? Can we really risk losing 25,000 to 50,000 troops in a matter of years?

Who needs al-Qaida to bring the US military to its knees? The cultural left knows no ideological truce in a time of war, and is now poised to inflict such losses on the greatest military power in the world that only live in the dreams of men hiding out in barren Afghan caves.

Share this article



DADT repeal positive for US troops? Studies and troops say…no.

Peter J. Smith

The cultural left is on the march to wreck the military, but hopefully the Senate’s impasse over tax cuts and the budget will run out the clock on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal. Anyway, Family Research Council has done some great work exposing misinformation getting repeated throughout the mainstream media (MSM) – such as that the majority of troops have no problems with DADT repeal. 

Consistently, the MSM has ignored the inconvenient truth about the 70 percent figure in the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) study saying troops found repeal of DADT would have “positive, mixed, or no effect.”

FRC analyst Peter Sprigg has been closely mining the data of the CRWG study and shows that it does not actually make a compelling case for repeal. In fact, the study’s data really argues against it, esp. considering the United States military – an all-volunteer force – has been at war for nine years and stretched to the brink maintaining its presence all over the world.

The reality is that only a minority of troops in the study say repeal would have no negative effects on the military. Those saying the change would be positive were 18.4 percent; those saying no effect were 19.9 percent.

On the other hand, 29.6 percent said repeal would be negative, while 32.1 percent said repeal would effect units “equally positively and negatively.” Taken together, Sprigg says that means close to 62 percent of troops believe repeal will have some kind of negative effect on the military and its culture.

He also points out, “the results of the survey are dramatically clear—those who foresee a negative consequence from repeal outnumber those who foresee a positive consequence on virtually every question.”

US combat troops in the survey are overwhelmingly opposed to repeal – Sprigg breaks down that information here in a different analysis.

But Sprigg’s analysis also shows that losing a handful of homosexual specialists and military personnel is pretty slight compared to the effect that DADT repeal would have on the military’s ability to recruit and retain their current personnel. The number of those who would consider leaving the military earlier than they planned or immediately on DADT repeal was “more than six times higher than the number who would stay longer or consider doing so.”

Oh, yes, and one more tidbit from Sprigg. Apparently the Pentagon felt so confident about repeal that it just thought to mention on page 49, one other inconvenient truth: “The majority of views expressed were against repeal.” Link here.

It’s pretty clear that not even an eight ball would convince the Pentagon that signs point to ‘no’ on the question of whether or not repealing DADT is a remotely good idea.

Let’s just hope the Senate actually reads the report (or even a “CliffNotes” style summary) before getting down to a vote that might profoundly alter the most powerful fighting force in the world.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook