By Bryan Fischer
I’m in receipt of a copy of the official memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on implementation of the law repealing DADT, the newly enacted law that will normalize sexual deviancy in every branch of the military.
What jumped out at me as I read through it is that there is a way for the House to stop repeal in its tracks: simply defund the Repeal Implementation Team (RIT).
The RIT will require significant funding, since it is responsible for the entire process. The RIT is chartered with leading the process of implementation, and in so doing will be directed to develop plans, update policies, train and prepare experts, train and prepare leaders, train and prepare the force, issue progress reports, and assess implementation (pp. 2-3).
The materials they are to prepare, by the way, include a “standard content tool kit” with “training and education materials” (i.e, the brainwashing, indoctrination and re-education curricula). Every post will now become a re-education camp for the politically disfavored yahoos who still think homosexual conduct is immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy.
By the way, if you’re a servicemember with privacy concerns, forget about it. You will be forced to share open-bay showers with leering homosexuals and living quarters with fellow soldiers who may want to jump your bones. “The creation of separate bathroom facilities or living quarters based on sexual orientation is prohibited, and Commanders may not establish practices that physically segregate Service members according to sexual orientation.” That’s an “in your face” to General James Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who openly mused about the prospect of doing those very things. He’ll be looking for work before long.
The RIT has a big job. It’s time intensive, labor intensive and thus money intensive to boot. And this is where it gets interesting.
According to page 5 of Gates’ memo, “The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer will provide adequate funding for the RIT.”
Well, what if the House doesn’t give ‘em any money? According my copy of the Constitution, “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House” (Article I, Section 7). The GOP now controls the House, and neither the president nor the Pentagon can spend a dime the House does not first appropriate.
So the House Republicans can stop this disastrous repeal in its tracks by refusing to appropriate the gargantuan budget the RIT is going to require to jam this deviancy policy down the throats of the entire military.
Remember that House Republicans talked openly of slowing down ObamaCare by refusing to appropriate funding for parts of it. For example, they may well refuse to appropriate the funds necessary to hire the 16,500 additional IRS agents that will be needed to lock up their fellow American citizens who refuse to buy insurance and refuse to pay Comrade Obama’s fine for non-compliance. No money, no 16,500 IRS agents, no jail terms for freedom-loving Americans.
I see no reason why the same strategy could not be employed for the repeal of DADT. The House can put a serious crimp in the hose by simply cutting off funding for this RIT. No money, no implementation. It’s as simple as that.
The repeal of the ban on homosexual service was rammed down the throats of the American public in a shameful and undemocratic lame duck session of Congress, by lawmakers who had been voted out of power by the American people. The Democrats’ death rattle could be heard from coast to coast, but they reached out from the grave and grabbed the military by the neck in one final frenzied spasm.
Well, there is a new posse in town, many of whom campaigned as friends of the family and supporters of sexual decency. As Chris Christie has said, perhaps now is the time for pro-family Republicans in the House to “put up or shut up.” So who will step forward at this moment and demonstrate the leadership necessary to save America’s national defense from this disastrous exercise in social engineering?
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)