The Pentagon is about to deploy 23,000 troops — but not for the mission you’d expect. According to the Defense Department, that’s how many service members it’ll have to train to deal with the first wave of transgender recruits. Although the Trump administration is actively fighting the court’s order, military officials are bracing themselves for the monumental distraction set in motion by Barack Obama.

As a top human resources official explained to The Washington Times, the policy is a huge drain on the military’s real priorities, since it involves a top-to-bottom education in “preparation, training, and communication” with processing stations and others who will need “a working knowledge or in-depth understanding of the requirements for accepting transgender enlistees.” As of this moment, the White House is frantically pushing for an emergency stay on the ruling from one unelected judge, who’s taken it upon herself to decide what’s best for national security — over the objections of the president, military leaders, active-duty troops, and the 62,984,825 voters who entrusted these decisions to Donald Trump.

It’s a dangerous case of judicial activism that could have real-world consequences for millions of American service members, who are just as opposed to the change as their commander in chief. Lernes Hebert, the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for military personnel policy, argues that rushing this policy wouldn’t just risk our troops’ safety but the people trying to enlist. “As a result, an applicant may be accessed for military service who is not physically or psychologically equipped to engage in combat or operational service.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to matter to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whose biggest concern isn’t the military’s safety or effectiveness but the Left’s political agenda.

While the case makes its way to a court that respects the executive branch’s authority, the training will go on. And that’s time our military can never get back. Every hour (and dollar) our troops waste on this over-the-top sensitivity sham, FRC’s Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) argues, is time they could have been on the range or practicing combat maneuvers. “Talk to any service member today,” he says, “and you will find that a majority of them will express great frustration with the amount of time that they spend in these lectures at the expense of preparing for war.” And, he points out, “this latest gender free-for-all is on top of the classroom hours they spend on diversity, tolerance, inclusion, sexual assault, and white privilege instead of the military Code of Conduct.”

Then consider the result, he says, shaking his head. “When do you train for battle when you’re bogged down with these politically correct mandates? You don’t. You go out and crash ships or get captured by Iranians, because you were never prepared for war. Policies like these degrade our readiness.”

If liberals were as focused on the world’s threats as they are on LGBT activism, America would be the safest, most powerful country in the world. Instead, they’re desperately trying to preserve Obama’s radical legacy and jeopardizing the whole of national security in the process. And for what? So that a group of people with legitimate health concerns can self-actualize? The military’s purpose is to fight and win wars. Does the integration of men and women confused about their gender make us better prepared to defend our nation? If the answer is no (and research suggests it is), why are we even considering it?

Originally published here.

Chai Tees Up Debate Over EEOC

The president can’t personally oversee the hiring of 4,000 political appointees — which might explain the latest news. In a shock to conservatives, the Trump administration wants to give one of the most liberal LGBT activists of the Obama years another term.

Plenty of Republicans will remember the name Chai Feldblum, Obama’s head of the EEOC. She came to the administration with an impressive resume of radicalism — complete with jobs at the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, and a clerkship with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the Roe v. Wade decision. She not only wrote the deceptively named “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA), which is a threat to religious freedom in the workplace, she openly vowed to implement ENDA by regulations if Congress didn’t pass it. At one point, Chai even signed on to an online petition, “‘Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,’ which advocates for polygamy and government recognition … for … diverse kinds of partnerships” — a view she later disavowed.

But perhaps Feldblum is most remembered for pulling back the curtain on the same-sex marriage agenda. Asked what would happen if religious liberty clashed with the “rights” of people who identify as LGBT, she brazenly stated that she’d have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” That’s chilling, FRC warned at the time, since as head of the EEOC, she would act as the head referee on disputes over workplace discrimination. If Americans were hoping for neutrality, they certainly didn’t get it under Chai’s leadership.

Based on the last six years, Feldblum hasn’t earned our trust — or another chance. When she was asked about the rights of Christians hiring employees of their choosing, she replied, “Gays win; Christians lose.” That’s in complete contrast with President Trump’s beliefs and stated objectives, which leads me to believe that he wasn’t briefed on Feldblum’s activism or involved in her nomination. The last thing this president wants on his EEOC is an arch enemy of his agenda on religious liberty. Even if the commission is required to have a certain number of Democrats, the White House doesn’t have to take just anyone (or, in this case, the worst possible option).

We urge the administration to withdraw Feldblum’s name from consideration and find a candidate with at least a veneer of objectivity.

Originally published here.

Trump Gets Under the Media’s Spin

There may be fake news, but there’s no making up the media’s loathing of Donald Trump. The press has been unrelenting toward this president since day one — and Media Research Center’s data proves it. Even the 89 percent negativity from his early months almost seems benevolent now, with numbers in the 91-93 percent range (the latter, according to Harvard).

“Our latest numbers show that coverage of Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in September, October and November was more than 90 percent negative (our methodology counts only explicitly evaluative statements from reporters or non-partisan sources)” MRC explains. “In September, there were just 31 pro-Trump statements on the Big Three vs. 359 negative. In October, the number of positive statements grew to 41, while the negative statements swelled to 435.”

The hostility is tough to ignore, spilling over into fiery White House press briefings and a line of questioning more combative than most Hill hearings. “Add it all up,” MRC reports, “and coverage of Trump has been 91 percent negative during the past three months. Our study of news in June, July and August found an identical rate of 91 percent negative, which means TV news is unchanged in its hostility toward the president.”

And the bias isn’t just in conservatives’ heads. Former President (and Democrat) Jimmy Carter knows a little something about dealing with the press as the leader of the free world. Even he agrees: “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” he told The New York Times. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The reality is that to date the president has systematically gone about fulfilling his campaign promises — and that’s what’s driving people opposed to a conservative, pro-American agenda crazy.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.