Ashley Broadway-Mack of the LGBT-activist AMPA has been at the forefront of claiming US military leadership has “opposed” President Trump’s ban on transgenders in the military. In a recent press release, she repeated the most common refrains — which are the AMPA’s conveniently twisted interpretations of what was actually said:

Military commanders have already gone on the record as being opposed to this move.

That statement is outright false. She does not cite a single “military commander” who is “on the record” opposing the President, and not one has.  To do so would have been national news, as a uniformed military officer opposing his Commander-in-Chief is a significant — and potentially criminal — offense.  It hasn’t happened, yet Broadway portrays it as foregone.  Further:

CNN has reported that Secretary Mattis worked against efforts to impose this policy via the National Defense Authorization Act.

That statement is mostly accurate, but it leaves out a key detail: Why did Secretary Mattis do some legislative lobbying on the transgender issue?  Mattis appears to have convinced Rep Hartzler that the military would take care of it on its own, without legislative intervention — though Hartzler reserved the right to re-engage if necessary. In a manner of speaking, Secretary Mattis telegraphed President Trump’s ban — he didn’t oppose it.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Joseph Dunford, issued a public statement that indicated policy would not be implemented on the basis of tweets.

Again, that’s sort of accurate in content, but not in intent. Gen Dunford did not say the President’s decision wouldn’t be implemented. He just said the military — not the President — needed to develop the implementation for it before it became policy. That’s a statement of process, not opposition, and anyone who has ever implemented the “order” of a General who just made a sideways comment knows that when the commander says something, that is policy.  You don’t tell him he has to put it in a memo — you figure out how to get it done.

Commandant of the Coast Guard, Adm. Paul Zukunft, made a point to indicate that he would stand by transgender service members.

Adm Zukunft’s statement is an interesting case of having cake and eating it, too. If Adm Zukunft is “military leadership,” as Broadway would claim to establish legitimacy, then some have said he is at risk over his apparent insubordination to the President as his Commander-in-Chief — if the phrase “standing by” is, in fact, considered “opposition” to Trump’s policy statement.  But most are saying Adm Zukunft is relatively immune because while he is part of the military, the Coast Guard isn’t part of the Pentagon, because he actually works for the Department of Homeland Security. (The Coast Guard’s relationship with the military can be complicated.)

If nothing else, Adm Zukunft’s statement bears slight resemblance to LtGen Benjamin Mixon’s about the repeal of DADT — something the homosexual movement denigrated at the time, and something for which Gen Mixon was reprimanded.

Broadway’s AMPA concluded with:

None of these public statements are likely to have been made if the Pentagon supported the President’s position.

As is evident, these statements are completely consistent with the Pentagon supporting the President’s opposition, Broadway’s characterization notwithstanding.  Broadway, as a homosexual activist, is trying to make it appear as though their sexual community has the backing of military leadership.  She might — but these statements don’t say that.

It would seem the LGBT community feels that sensationalism and less-than-truthful characterizations are the only way to win their culture war. Kind of gives an indication of the character of the activists in that community.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---