AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF BACKROOM DEALS HRC FINALLY JOINS ACTIVISTS AGAINST DADT

On May 10th I posted a blog article chastising President Obama for not taking any visible action to end the DADT policy despite overwhelming public support to repeal it and his numerous and clearly stated intentions to do just that when he was elected.

Two days later, on May 12th, I posted another story about the new study published by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that said the President does, indeed, have the authority to end DADT on his own authority.

The study said that the Commander-In-Chief already has the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation.”

More importantly, the study also said that the provisions of the "stop-loss" law, which are granted by Congress, give the President authority to "suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.” This is something that can be done immediately by the President alone.

So, given the fact that it has been almost a full month since this new information was made public, why hasn't Obama issued that order?

Well, according to a video piece (see below) posted at The Daily Beast by award winning gay journalist Jason Bellini, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other "mainstream" gay rights organizations had reached an agreement with the White House to support delaying action on the DADT repeal until some of the other pressing GLBT rights legislation has been passed. To lend credence to this has been the HRC's somewhat milquetoast efforts to hold the administration's feet to the fire to get this repeal accomplished as promised.

Of course HRC immediately issued a statement denying that any deal was made. But despite that denial, many people in the gay community, especially the newest and youngest activists and activist organizations felt that there might be some truth to the accusation because blogs and websites burned up the internet with condemnations and accusations against HRC for not truly representing the goals of the now more fervent, in-the-street, activist movement.

In response to this growing maelstrom, HRC President Joe Solmonese finally came out and publicly called on President Obama to at least suspend DADT to stop the unwarranted and unwise discharges of sorely needed military personnel.

Gay News Net reported yesterday that when Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball last night asked Solmonese whether he believes Obama has the authority to sign such an order and whether he should do so, Solmonese said, "Yes he can and yes I do." Matthews repeated the question, asking "Do you think he should?" Salmonese confirmed, "Yes I do."

Solmonese also said that Obama should sign the executive order immediately to halt further firings like that of Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate who speaks Arabic. "The president has the opportunity to stop that from happening," Solmonese said. "We've asked him to do that and pressed him to do that and hope that he will."

If, in fact, the HRC did reach some kind of agreement to delay an all-out push for the repeal of DADT, I'm absolutely positive that there were no sinister, underlying motivations. I'm sure that they thought that strategy would be the most effective in securing all of the rights we're seeking. It's possible that they didn't even know about the recently revealed Presidential powers that Obama has to effect this change completely on his own authority.

Whatever reasons were behind HRC's past inaction, I'm glad to see them now using their substantial political capital to pressure Obama to suspend the firings. They're a good organization that has done a whole lot in advancing our causes in towns, cities, states and municipalities throughout the country. So let's not, as the saying goes, "throw the baby out with the bath water."

One thing for sure at this point - it is now almost impossible for the President and his administration to ignore the importance of immediate action on DADT. We're all watching Mr. President.

Below is Jason Bellini's video piece referred to above:

MILITARIZING THE BOY SCOUTS

This picture appeared above a New York Times article titled "Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More" which ran last Wednesday.

My first reaction to just the image alone was how startling reminiscent it was of the numerous pictures I've seen of the infamous Hitler Youth. However, as disturbing as this picture and others are, the article is even more so.

When I was a scout, the emphasis was always on doing your best and contributing to the good of the community primarily through public service projects and learning how to live within the natural world without harming it.

Now, however, according to the article:

The Explorer Scouts, which is a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.

The training, which leaders say is not intended to be applied outside the simulated Explorer setting, can involve chasing down illegal border crossers as well as more dangerous situations that include facing down terrorists and taking out “active shooters,” like those who bring gunfire and death to college campuses. In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.

“Put him on his face and put a knee in his back,” a Border Patrol agent explained. “I guarantee that he’ll shut up.”

These are not the altruistic goals I remember being taught as a scout. This is clearly an attempt to turn the scouts into a militarily trained adjunct group ready to do the bidding of whatever military-oriented group that wishes to use them.

Membership in the Explorers has been overseen since 1998 by an affiliate of the Boy Scouts called Learning for Life, which offers 12 career-related programs, including those focused on aviation, medicine and the sciences.

But the more than 2,000 law enforcement posts across the country are the Explorers’ most popular, accounting for 35,000 of the group’s 145,000 members, said John Anthony, national director of Learning for Life. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many posts have taken on an emphasis of fighting terrorism and other less conventional threats.

“Before it was more about the basics,” said Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent here. “But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling.”

These are children! Children who aren't experienced enough yet to know when they're being used by someone or some entity that has other motives in mind.

The leaders claim that a child must be at least 14 to participate but obviously, they're willing to overlook that requirement if any one of them personally decides they want someone younger.

A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy in Imperial County, CA, said: "This is about being a true-blooded American guy and girl. It fits right in with the honor and bravery of the Boy Scouts.”

“I will take them at 13 and a half,” Lowenthal went on to say. “I would rather take a kid than possibly lose a kid.”

Something like this, depending on it's pitched, could easily attract many children for all the wrong reasons.

16 year old Cathy Noriega said she was attracted by the guns. The group uses compressed-air guns that fire tiny plastic pellets but they also shoot real guns on a closed range.

“I like shooting them,” Cathy said. “I like the sound they make. It gets me excited.”

BTW - if this isn't scary enough, consider who is currently the largest financial backer of the Boy Scouts and all of its programs and who has many of their own members on the scout boards. Yep. It's the Mormons. One of the biggest (next to the Catholic Church) and most virulently homophobic groups in the world.

I only touched the surface of this brilliantly articulate article. It's WELL WORTH taking a few minutes to read the whole thing. I guarantee that you'll sit there with your mouth hanging open at the end.

Go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?_r=4&th&emc=th

NEW STUDY SAYS OBAMA CAN LEGALLY STOP DADT WITHOUT CONGRESS

In my posting yesterday, I said that President Obama could end, or at least suspend, the DADT policy himself.

Well, imagine my delight this morning when I saw a new study published by the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that said the President does, indeed, have the authority to end DADT on his own authority.

In fact, according to the study, the President actually has several options available to him. Here is what the study itself said:

There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says. First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation” Under the law “the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”

The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense… in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation." Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members “if” a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”

Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law and another study co-author, said the presidential authority to stop firing gay troops, known as “stop-loss,” is different from the highly unpopular stop-loss policy that the Army recently announced it would phase out. “That use of stop-loss forcibly extends service by those who wish to leave the military,” she said, “whereas suspending discharges for homosexuality would do the opposite: allow ongoing service by those who wish to remain in uniform.” The study says the provisions of the stop-loss law, which are granted by Congress, are “sensible because they give the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.”

Mr. President, many of us who were, and still are, among your strongest supporters have been saying since the inauguration that we needed to be patient, that you needed time to settle-in. Well, now that we know, without a doubt, that you CAN do this, even our patience is beginning to wear very thin.

I'm sure you're aware that a healthy majority of your constituents, including military personnel themselves, from generals down to privates, have consistently said in numerous polls and public statements that they support the repeal of DADT. With those polls, the release of this study and the current disarray and even impotence of the right wing republican party, we're finding it more and more difficult to understand why this hasn't happened already. The overriding question we all have in our minds just became -- WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

Mr. President -- NOW IS THE TIME to stand up and BE the "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans" that you unambiguously promised you would be.

TWO VIDEOS OF NOTE...

Lt. Dan Choi is an active duty member of the United States Army, a graduate of West Point, a NY National Guard platoon leader, an Iraq veteran, and an Arab linguist. He and 38 other West Point graduates risked their careers by coming out publicly and forming an organization they call Knights Out.

According to The Advocate, Knights Out is intended to be a support group offering help to their alma mater to educate future Army leaders on the need to accept and honor the sacrifices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender troops. Their goal is to form a connection between gay troops and Army administrators to provide an “open forum” for communication between gay West Point graduates and their fellow alumni. They would also like to serve in an advisory role to West Point leaders when the disastrous "don't ask, don't tell" policy is repealed.

Knights Out joins two other similar groups formed by graduates of the U.S. Naval and Air Force academies - the U.S. Naval Academy’s USNA Out and the U.S. Air Force Academy’s Blue Alliance.

Below is an interview Lt. Choi gave to Dr. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last week.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It will be interesting to see whether or not the military pursues discharges for these courageous service men. Considering how badly the more than 12,500 discharges under DADT have already hurt the military's readiness and the fact that President Obama is actively working with the pentagon to end DADT, I would hope that NO ONE ELSE will be added to that discharge list.

Thanks also to Lez Get Real for their article and the video.


Portia De Rossi Apologizes For Marrying Ellen DeGeneres...
The following video is currently running on YouTube and has cumulatively received more than 50,000 hits so far. It's hilarious! Thanks Portia. Enjoy...

Right-Winger Stuns Congressional Hearing On Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In arguments meant to persuade congressional leaders, Elaine Donnelly, founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, stunned everyone at the House Armed Services subcommittee hearings on the now infamously famous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

According to a Washington Post story, Ms. Donnelly was called to testify before the committee but instead of making her case to retain the DADT policy, she launched into amazingly bizarre and far-fetched arguments that had just about everyone staring at her with their mouths hanging open.

The Washington Post story said:

Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of "transgenders in the military." She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading "HIV positivity" through the ranks.

"We're talking about real consequences for real people," Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," the prospects of "forcible sodomy" and "exotic forms of sexual expression," and the case of "a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault" a fellow soldier.

At the witness table with Donnelly, retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian, rolled her eyes in disbelief. Retired Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, a gay man who was wounded in Iraq, looked as if he would explode."

Ms. Donnelly not only didn't make her case she was an embarrassment to herself and her organization. In fact, she did more to generate sympathy for the repeal than just about anyone else who testified.

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) called her comments "just bonkers" and "dumb" and her comments about an HIV menace "inappropriate." Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), a veteran of the war in Iraq, called her words "an insult to me and many of the soldiers" by saying they "aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their military mission."

To read the full story (it's worth taking a few minutes to read) go to: Washington Post

DON'T ASK DON'T TELL - TO BE OR NOT TO BE

There have been several articles lately zeroing in on the democrat's failure to do anything about the infamous Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy now that they control congress. Many activist want them to take action NOW. But I'm not so sure that would be the smartest thing to do while "the bush" is still in the oval office and would certainly veto whatever congress might pass. And, there are still enough homophobic republicans left in office to block a veto override.

''We know this is an issue that would not be met with a lot of enthusiasm on the part of the administration. That's a big reality,'' said Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee. ''You want to spend time on the things you can move.''

Although that's a somewhat insensitive way of saying it, I do agree with Rep. Davis' comment. It would be much more politically astute to wait until after the November elections. I strongly feel that by then there will not only be a sane, rational and intelligent person in the White House but there will also be a substantial change in the senate and congressional make-up. If by some fluke or political underhandedness that doesn't happen then, yes, of course, we comeback at them in full force and with every political and activist trick we have.

One thing I learned from being one of the radical gay activists of the 70's is that the most effective approach to achieving our goals is a balanced combination of in-your-face radicalism and well thought out political strategy. At this point, I feel that between now and November it would be much wiser to put our considerable talents, energy and know how into getting ALL of those people who support us into office. Including local level offices!

If you disagree with me, post a comment or send me an email. I'll make sure your voice is heard here as well. Unless, of course, you start spouting religious fanaticism. In that case, you won't make it onto this blog. Ever.

The above quote was from a AP story posted on 365gay.com.