DoJ Ignores Legal Protests
Four federal district court judges and two Courts of Appeals judges have ordered the Department of Defense to recruit persons identifying as transgender, starting on January 1, 2018.
The Department of Justice failed to file an immediate emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing as their excuse a pending Defense Department “study” of the issue.
Department of Justice fails to protect servicemen.
Though under Article III of the U.S. Constitution the federal courts have no authority to make policy regarding the military, it has been brought to the attention of this newspaper that the Department of Defense has circumvented the elected government of the United States.
When asked for comment Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness said the following:
“The issue is not the military transgender policy alone, but who gets to decide what the policy will be. By failing to petition the Supreme Court to stay the lower court orders, the DoJ has tacitly conceded that federal judges can make military policy and establish medical standards for enlistments."
According to Reuters, an anonymous Justice Department official said that the Defense Department has committed to a stuy to investigate the issue. Donnelly continued;
"The DoJ’s reported strategy might be plausible IF the Defense Department “study” in question were truly fact-based and objective, and IF the DoD had taken steps to provide conditional enlistment contracts with transgender personnel who are recruited under the force of federal court orders. Neither expectation has been met."
In the opinion of this newspaper President Trump should not allow military policy to be dictated by relics of the corrupt regime of Mr. Obama.
Regardless of our personal opinions of transgenderism, we must accept that males and females are biologically different. Under Christ, women and men are in union, not transposable. The transgender people among us must be dealt with compassion and medical care- not weak indulgence.
Mrs Donnelly continues:
"In order to preserve prerogatives of the Commander-in-Chief, Secretary Mattis should direct that any new enlistment contracts with people who identify as transgender are written in conditional terms. Every accession or reenlistment contract involving a person who identifies as transgender, or has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, should include conditional language referencing compliance with court orders.
Accession and reenlistment contracts also should state that if the government prevails in the litigation, the accession or reenlistment contract will be voided, the person will be immediately released from active duty, and any subsequent applications for accession or reenlistment will be processed in accordance with duly promulgated accession standards.
The Justice Department’s irresponsible failure to appeal to the SCOTUS for a stay calls into question whether President Trump will be able to implement his own policies, which were announced with a Memorandum on August 25. There does not appear to be a strategy to fight on principle and win.
This situation gives rise to several questions which President Trump should ask of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Defense Secretary James Mattis:
- Why did Secretary Mattis assign Anthony Kurta, an Obama holdover with a record of LGBT activism before and after the Trump Inauguration, to chair the paenl of experts that is supposed to produce a report and recommendations on transgender policies by February 21?
- Why does the Justice Department think the courts will view the result of the Mattis “study” more favorably than the 2016 Ashton Carter/RAND report promoting transgenders in the military?
- Why have Justice Department attorneys essentially conceded that it is right for the courts to impose enlistment standards in the first place?
- Why have DoD officials been obsessing about what type of underwear transgender recruits should wear to the MEPS (military entrance processing station), instead of preparing conditional enlistment contracts that will protect presidential prerogatives?"
“The most important question is: How does any of this improve mission readiness and combat lethality?"
It is hard to disagree with Mrs. Donnelly's assesment. While we must not discriminate against people for their chosen identity, it does not follow that the security of the nation should come second to that identity. It may hurt some folks to hear it, but transgenderism is a mental disorder. We extend our sympathy to all sufferers from this syndrome.
Our military is the best. It must be the best. Mind and body. Transgenderism excludes one from service the same as myopia or diabetes.
We can all serve our country- whichever country that may be. Not all of us are fit and able to serve in the military.
God Bless our troops and veterans.