President Obama Could Address Gays in the Military During State of the Union Speech

[darrels joy]

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: Will President Obama announce new policy regarding the sexual orientation of people serving in the military during his State of the Union address Wednesday?

Sen. Carl Levin, who chairs the Armed Services Committee thinks so.

Levin told reporters today that he has delayed plans to hold Senate hearings to examine the current “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy at the request of administration officials. Why would they want him to hold off?

The officials Levin talked to said they expect the President will address the issue of homosexuals serving in the military during the State of the Union Address.

"I don’t know if it was the White House, but somebody representing them from the Pentagon said that the President was expected, they thought, to state that policy in the State of the Union and they thought it made more sense for him to state the policy and for us to have a hearing right before the policy with the people who will be defending that policy. They don’t know what it is,” said Levin, who added that he hopes any new policy is well-thought-out and that senior military leaders are on board.

“It will be helpful to have the commander in chief and his military leaders support something because it’s going to be a lot more difficult to change if they don’t,” said Levin.

To recap – it is not entirely clear that the President will address the policy in the State of the Union Address. Even if he does, it is unclear what that policy will be. But it is a fact that Sen. Levin has held off holding Senate hearings on the issue because he is under the impression that it will come up in the State of the Union Address.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...on-speech.html

[darrels joy]

Gay Activists Read Obama's Lips, Not His Words


In early November 2008, when gay activists were mounting a fundraising boycott of the Democratic National Committee, Barney Frank announced that a provision repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy would be attached to the defense appropriations bill to be voted on in the spring or summer of 2010. DNC Boycott over.

I said, doubtful:

"Next year" is one of the lamest dodges in existence, but it's all Democrats are willing to give right now. And considering that "next year" is an election year in which Republicans are ascending and Democrats are in full-blown defensive mode, "next year" may just have to wait, again

It is looking like next year has become "several years." How could that be, you ask, since Barack Obama in his State of the Union speech last week promised to repeal DADT this year. Read the words very, very carefully:

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

Obama did not say DADT would be repealed this year. He said that "this year" he would "work with Congress and our military ...." The professor-in-chief sure knows how to pen a sentence.

Just days after the SOTU speech, it became clear that "this year" likely means "several years" of review before DADT would be repealed:

The Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military....

While the review is likely to take the better part of this year to complete, and even more time to implement, its initiation will advance President Barack Obama's goal of repealing the ban and bring a divisive issue for the military back to the fore.

So "work with""this year" doesn't necessarily mean "repeal""this year" to the amazement of some:

I read today that the Pentagon's timetable for repeal of DADT is "several years" long. If this is true then their timetable does not live up to what the President promised in the State of the Union Address.... THIS YEAR he said. If repeal takes until 2012 to implement then it isn't happening THIS YEAR and the Pentagon is making a liar out of the President.

Do not call my President a liar, please. He meant what he said, and he said what he meant. You just weren't listening carefully enough.

The Democratic Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee understood Obama quite clearly:

Rep. Ike Skelton -- chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- repeated his opposition today to repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays and lesbians serving in the armed services.

"We're in the middle of two wars," Skelton told reporters. "And I don't want anything that is disturbing or upsetting to the troops."...

Skelton said the Military Personnel Subcommittee would hold hearings on the issue, although none appear to be scheduled so far.

I wonder if those hearings will be on C-Span.

Don Surber points out that DADT was a Democratic law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President with the support of Democrat Ted Kennedy, and ends with this astute observation: "Why gay activists trust teh Democrats is beyond me."

Cynthia Yockey sees Obama's strategery:

Obama does not play games he hasn’t rigged.... So I think Obama has rigged a crushing defeat for any attempt to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and his homosexual patsies on the Left — I’m talking to YOU, Human Rights Campaign! — don’t see this betrayal coming.... I also think Obama is counting on an outcry from the Right in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” to give cover to the bigotry of the Left.

Please check your in-boxes, there are e-mails from the DNC and Organizing for America seeking donations "this year."

And for donations, the DNC and OFA really mean this year, as in 2010, as in give them your credit card number right now to make sure they get your money this year. What do you not understand about this year?

Now I leave open the possibility I am wrong, and that Obama will bring to bear all of his political resources to get DADT repealed this year. But I wouldn't bet on it. Because whether DADT is repealed this year or not, Obama will have kept his word.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...s-not-his.html

[1CAVCCO15MED]

You know, don't ask don't tell is a policy that allows gays in the military. There have always been gays in the military, atl least until they are caught doing something they ought not do. We had one in my company in Vietnam. He never did anything but we knew and he knew we knew. He was an, excuse the expression, a brown noser. He would pick at us and then run to Mama (the 1st Sgt) for safety. Since we had the dumbest 1st Sgt that ever lived he never caught on so there we were. It was his way of rubbing our noses in it. Just look at any gay pride parade and you will see the in your face attitude which would rip an unit apart.

[darrels joy]

Gates to unveil plan to abandon 'don't ask, don't tell'

Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to unveil the Pentagon's plan for rolling back the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay and lesbian service members on Tuesday.
During last week's State of the Union address, President Obama made clear he wanted a change.

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," he said, to a healthy round of partisan applause.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff sat stone-faced as the president made the announcement and have been quiet on the matter since the State of the Union speech.

A senior Pentagon official told CNN the military leaders are expected to support the president, but also will tell him to what extent they think allowing gays to openly serve will hurt the morale and readiness of the force.

"All they want is a little bit of time" to come up with ideas on how to implement a change in the policy, if it's approved by Congress, the official said of the Joint Chiefs.

The policy, implemented by President Clinton in 1993, bars openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from serving in the U.S. military, and prevents the military from asking them about it.

It was more like "don't ask, don't tell, don't happen to be found out any time, any place, in any way."

--Alex Nicholson, discharged from Army for being gay



Gates is expected to appear Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. As a first step, he is expected to call for no longer discharging people whose sexual orientation is revealed by others.

"'Don't ask, don't tell' to many people, including myself, seemed so reasonable," Alex Nicholson, a former Army intelligence officer discharged for being gay, told CNN's "American Morning."

"I knew I was gay going in, and I knew about 'don't ask, don't tell,' but you know, 'don't ask, don't tell' as a sound bite sounds very reasonable. It sounds like nobody will inquire as to your sexual orientation -- as long as you don't throw it in anyone's face, you won't have a problem.

"But after I got in, I realized that 'don't ask, don't tell' was much more all-inclusive and all-encompassing," said Nicholson, who now is the executive director of Servicemembers United, an advocacy group that opposes the policy. "It was more like 'don't ask, don't tell, don't happen to be found out any time, any place, in any way.' "

After about a year, Nicholson said his sexual orientation was found out within his unit. "That information spread, and then the command was forced into a corner in which they had to discharge me," he said.

Since the policy was implemented, more than 13,500 service members have been discharged, according to Rep. Jim Moran, D-Virginia. In 2009, there were 428 discharges under the policy -- the lowest rate of discharge since implementation of the policy, he said. The highest year was 2001, with 1,227 discharges, he said.

"This shows that during wartime, DADT is not being pursued aggressively because one's orientation has nothing to do with their ability to fight," Moran said in a written statement Monday.

Defense officials have said privately that the will to enforce the law is declining.

Another military official familiar with the discussion said some of the issues to be considered by the military include the cost of implementing a new policy, benefits for gay spouses, potential hate crimes, and even logistical questions such as the possible need to renovate barracks to separate straight and gay troops.

[Rank and file troops] are not necessarily at the vanguard, in many cases, of accepting alternative forms of lifestyle.

--Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institute






According to the official, separate housing or showers were not considered serious possibilities, but would be discussed in order to be ruled out.

Nicholson acknowledged there are legitimate concerns, but said some of the issues raised, such as showers and housing, are merely delaying tactics used to mask "reasons that people really don't want to see this happen."

Previously, Gates has said the transition from the existing law should be done gradually and "very, very carefully."

"The president has been clear about where he wants to go and what he thinks needs to be done," Gates said in April at the U.S. Army War College, when asked about changing the law. "But I think that he is approaching this in a deliberate and cautious manner, so that if we do go down that road, we do it right and we do it in a way that mitigates any downsides, problems that might be associated with it."

At least one member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps -- has expressed reservations about repealing the law.

"Our Marines are currently engaged in two fights, and our focus should not be drawn away from those priorities," Conway said in November through a spokesman.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a former Navy pilot, released a statement after the State of the Union address, saying "it would be a mistake" for the policy to be repealed.

"This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels," McCain said.

But others support the change. Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said it was time to repeal the law.

"As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger, more cohesive military,"
Shalikashvili wrote in a letter to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who supports repealing the policy.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute said the real test will be in the barracks, with the rank-and-file members of the military.

"We can talk about this delicately or we can just be fairly direct," O'Hanlon said. "There are a lot of 18-year-old, old-fashioned, testosterone-laden men in the military who are tough guys. They're often politically old-fashioned or conservative; they are not necessarily at the vanguard, in many cases, of accepting alternative forms of lifestyle."

Nicholson predicted the matter will become a "non-issue," saying his organization knows of gays serving openly in the military now.

Asked whether he would return to the military if the policy is repealed, Nicholson said he would not hesitate and that he has wanted to return since his discharge in 2002.

"I speak five languages, including Arabic," he said. "There's nothing more that I'd love than to go back right now."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/...litary/?hpt=T1

1CAVCCO15MED,

I agree with you. Darrel does not.

More money will be spent and we don't know what the end result will be.

Joy

[1CAVCCO15MED]

The problem will be in what the differences in what is considered "acceptable" behavior. Gay men are still male. The unbridled sex drive of males is to have as many sex parteners as possible. It is the female and the influence of her mothering instinct that mitigates the male drive into something that will propagate and protect families. Without that influence the male pattern of the gay man devolves into aggressiveness, audacity and pursuit that will in many cases be imposed onto a straight male population that can explode into violence.

[darrels joy]

Since I've been alive for a couple of years, I have also met aggressive gay women. I wouldn't want to go to sleep anywhere near these people, male or female.

(edited for a family site)

Joy

[darrels joy]

Obama vs. DOJ on DADT

In short, DOJ just called Obama a liar.

http://ace.mu.nu/

[darrels joy]

Blackout: Police chase reporters away from covering protest outside White House

posted at 4:50 pm on April 20, 2010 by Allahpundit


Via Ben Smith, who’s told by his reporter pals covering the WH beat that this is “extremely unusual” police behavior. Maybe the protest got out of hand and the cops shooed the media away for their own safety? Doesn’t sound like it: Apparently, the “protest” was nothing more than six servicemen handcuffing themselves to the fence to object to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I don’t know D.C. well enough to tell if these are city cops or some type of federal security service that might conceivably coordinate with the White House. Any readers know? We certainly don’t want to accuse a president who’s peeved at gay-rights protesters and who’s known for excluding the media from traditional press opportunities of quashing unfavorable coverage without good reason.

Exit question: On a scale of one to 10, where would this rate on the Crushing-of-Dissent-o-meter if it had happened under Bush? (Exit answer: Eight!)

YouTube- White House closes Lafayete Park due to...

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/2...e-white-house/

[darrels joy]

A Deal on DADT?

Meetings on "don't ask, don't tell" took place at the White House and on Capitol Hill Monday that could lead to a legislative compromise on repeal.

By Kerry Eleveld

The Advocate has learned that concurrent meetings took place Monday morning at the White House and on Capitol Hill that could help clear the way for “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal to be attached to the Department of Defense authorization bill later this week.

LGBT groups met with officials at the White House while legislative affairs representatives from the White House and the Department of Defense met with the staff of House and Senate leadership offices on Capitol Hill along with those of Rep. Patrick Murphy and senators Carl Levin and Joseph Lieberman.

A White House aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity confirmed the White House meeting. "Our understanding is that Congress is determined to act this week and we are learning more about their proposal now," said the aide.

A Democratic leadership aide called the development "promising" but said discussions were ongoing. The House Democratic leadership is expected to meet to discuss the proposal later this afternoon.

According to one person familiar with the White House meeting, the proposal that is being considered would legislatively repeal the statute this year, but the current policy would remain in place and implementation of repeal would not occur until after the Pentagon’s working group study is finished in December. Further, completion of repeal would require certification from President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen that the new law will not have a negative impact on readiness, recruitment, retention, and other key factors affecting the military.

The language would not include a nondiscrimination policy but rather will return authority for open service by gays and lesbians to the Pentagon.

A Statement of Administration Policy is expected to be released this week, potentially as early as tomorrow.

One repeal advocate welcomed news of the agreement.

“Every single one of the groups around that table agreed that this is an amazing step forward,” said the advocate, who was close to the discussions at the White House and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The news came at the outset of a week that will be make or break for repeal, with critical votes scheduled to take place Thursday and Friday on the National Defense Authorization Act on the House floor and within the Senate Armed Services Committee. Murphy is expected to offer a repeal measure as an attachment to the NDAA on the House floor, and Levin has made no secret of the fact that he will move forward with an attachment in committee if he has the votes.

Murphy has long said he has the 217 votes necessary to pass repeal in the House, and Hill insiders have said for weeks that Levin is one or two votes away from the 15 needed to attach the measure in committee.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N.../Deal_on_DADT/