Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Tomorrow, President Obama and dozens of members of Congress will attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC. Unbeknownst to most, this seemingly innocuous event is hosted by a shadowy religious organization known as "the Fellowship," or alternatively, "the Family."They should not go.
The Fellowship has been cultivating an unorthodox brand of Christianity amongst the political, military, and economic elite of America and other countries for over 50 years, focused on meeting Jesus "man-to-man." The group operates in secret, away from the "din of the vox populi." Doug Coe, described as "The Stealth Persuader," has led the group since 1969. He has been praised for his "quiet diplomacy" by former President George H.W. Bush. That diplomacy has included forming relationships with some of the most ruthless dictators of the last half-century, including "Papa Doc" Duvalier of Haiti; Jonas Savimbi of Angola; Costa e Silva of Brazil; and Siad Barre of Somalia, considered a "brother" to the Family.
The one time of year when the Family emerges from the shadows is the annual National Prayer Breakfast, its signature event.
Oh, this was a thing of beauty to watch last night, as watching Andrea Mitchell's interview of Susan Collins earlier in the day left me spluttering:
MADDOW: "Republicans really thought they had a winning issue in the attempted Christmas day bombing. But their efforts to politicize the incident seem now to be blowing up in their faces, er, underpants... uh, it's just not working out. Sorry."
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (VIDEO): "Less than one hour - that's right - less than one hour. In fact, just 50 minutes. That's the amount of time that the FBI spent questioning Abdulmutallab, the foreign terrorist who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas day. Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees AMERICAN citizens, this foreign terrorist lawyered up and stopped talking.
GRAPHIC: "WRONG" (buzzer)
MADDOW: "Yeah, you know, that's just TOTALLY wrong. That was Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, delivering the Republican Party's weekly address on Saturday, and she's really, really factually wrong - a lot - just in that clip.
For starters, the right to have a lawyer does not just apply to American citizens. It applies to anyone being tried in America. That's why we call it the American criminal justice system. Even immigrants get lawyers. Even illegal immigrants get lawyers, if they're tried in America. Also, even if the alleged Christmas Day bomber were being held as a enemy combatant, under the rules of war, like Sen. Collins says he should be, he would STILL be entitled to a lawyer.
Also, the would-be bomber apparently has been talking to authorities, even with his Miranda rights having been read to him.
So, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Want to give it another shot, Sen. Collins?"
COLLINS (VIDEO): "When the Obama administration decided to treat Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal, it did so without the input of our nation's top intelligence officials. The Director of National Intelligence was not consulted. The Secretary of Defense was not consulted. The Secretary of Homeland Security was not consulted. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center was not consulted. They would have explained the importance of gathering ALL possible intelligence about Yemen, where there is a serious threat from terrorists whose sights are trained on this nation."
GRAPHIC: "WRONG" (buzzer)
MADDOW: "I, yeah, I hate to hammer this home here, but, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong, wrong. Actually NBC's Andrea Mitchell hosted Sen. Collins on her show today, so we're just going to let Andrea take care of the fact-check on this one."
ANDREA MITCHELL (VIDEO): "What the White House would tell you, and what they've been briefing reporters on - and we know there was a briefing last night - is that, first of all, there was a national security meeting which involved all of the principals, all of them signed off on the decision to proceed in a non-military way. Secondly, they say the Nigerian family would not have cooperated if this had not been done the way it was done. Thirdly, they point out, you know, even ignoring all the precedents in the Bush administration where they did proceed in the same exact fashion, the fact is that he would have been accorded an attorney because he was arrested in the United States. So, even if they would have proceeded under military procedures, he would have had a lawyer who would have been telling him, if not the Miranda rights, not to talk. Don't they have a point there?"
COLLINS (VIDEO): "Well, first of all, you've asked me about six different questions in repeating the allegations that the White House has made. Look, the military detainee and trial system provides much more flexibility and would have allowed him to be questioned without a lawyer telling him what to reveal and what to conceal."
GRAPHIC: "WRONG" (buzzer)
MADDOW: "Wrong. Wrong. Andrea Mitchell just said that was wrong. Just ignoring all the evidence of your complete and total wrongness does not make you less wrong.
The Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW), a local affiliate of Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, has been broadcasting a weekly half-hour radio show since at least May of 2009. The show has largely been used to promote FPIW's anti-gay agenda. According to their broadcaster, the American Christian Network, the show's Wednesday time slot is now FOR RENT.
The show's hosts were Joseph Backholm (above, right) and Russell Johnson (below, right). Backholm is FPIW's executive director. Johnson used to be FPIW's director of governmental affairs but is not longer named on FPIW's "Who We Are" page. He was most recently listed as the executive director of Youth Revolution, an organization that appears moribund.
Backholm began the last-aired (January 27, 2010) show with a plea for financial support, something I'd never heard him do before. Apparently the situation was more dire than he let on. Emphasis mine.
And I would like to start off today's message with a small public service announcement, brought to you by the Family Policy Institute of Washington, and remind you that this is listener-supported radio. Not the other kind of listener-supported radio. We do bring you a different perspective. But this is listener-supported radio.
And we appreciate those of you who are with us and listening on a regular basis, or checking us out online, but we would like to make you aware of the fact that this program has been made possible and is made possible by the donations of generous people who think that this information matters and appreciate this service in their community and in their homes.
So if you would like to help keep family policy radio on the air, if you'd like to help keep our message going out to the eastern Washington area through the American Christian Network, we would greatly appreciate your support to make that happen.
And in order to do that, you can always call our offices at... Again we love doing this. We think this is an important message that Washington state needs to hear about what is happening to families in Washington state. And if you agree with us and want to support that and make sure it continues to happen, we'd love to hear from you.
Apparently not enough people "think that this information matters" enough "to help keep our message going out". With only 177 visits registered at the show's web page, I wonder if anyone even heard the plea?
It would be a mistake to think we've heard the last of Joseph Backholm, Russell Johnson or FPIW. On the contrary, they are still very much dedicated to hurting lesbian and gay families and controlling women's bodies. However, it seems likely that after their crushing Referendum 71 defeat, the organization is facing donor fatigue and is having to make some tough resource allocation choices.
The surprising thing about this development is that it isn't a surprise at all. After his little ACORN play pimp for the camera nonsense and an attempt to wiretap Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's phone lines, the fact that rising right-wing star James O'Keefe (now facing fed charges for the wiretap break-in) has attended a white nationalist confab -- and was photographed at it.
Once upon a time, right-wing pundits hailed the 25-year-old O'Keefe as a creative genius and model of journalistic ethics. Andrew Breitbart, who has paid O'Keefe, called him one of the all-time "great journalists" and said he deserved a Pulitzer for his undercover ACORN video. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly declared he should have earned a "congressional medal."
His right-wing admirers don't seem to mind that O'Keefe's short but storied career has been defined by a series of political stunts shot through with racial resentment. Now an activist organization that monitors hate groups has produced a photo of O'Keefe at a 2006 conference on "Race and Conservatism" that featured leading white nationalists. The photo, first published Jan. 30 on the Web site of the anti-racism group One People's Project, shows O'Keefe at the gathering, which was so controversial even the ultra-right Leadership Institute, which employed O'Keefe at the time, withdrew its backing. But O'Keefe and fellow young conservative provocateur Marcus Epstein soldiered on to give anti-Semites, professional racists and proponents of Aryanism an opportunity to share their grievances and plans to make inroads in the GOP.
...OPP covered the event at the time, sending a freelance photographer to document the gathering. Jenkins told me the table was filled with tracts from the white supremacist right, including two pseudo-academic publications that have called blacks and Latinos genetically inferior to whites: American Renaissance and the Occidental Quarterly. The leading speaker was Jared Taylor, founder of the white nationalist group American Renaissance.
And you knew a shoe like this was going to drop. I emailed Max and told him it was going to be either something like this -- or that O'Keefe was caught with his pants down soliciting a man at a rest stop. That's just how it goes with these wingers.
OpenLeft's Adam Bink scored an interview with PA Rep. Joe Sestak this morning and they discussed a possibly quick DADT repeal timeline. Some snips:
Adam: You talked about a "Z-Gram"- what is the fastest process that could and perhaps should be taken versus a long, drawn-out process?
Rep. Sestak: A "Z-Gram" was where the Chief of Naval Operations would say, here's the new policy. The best way to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is to call the flag leadership together and then they meet with their commanders, then those officers meet with their subordinate commanders, and through the chain of command there's an explanation of why and how this policy is going to be changed.
You have the chain of command, the leadership including the chief petty officers, who are the backbone of the Navy, understanding why. Then you set out, on this date certain, this will be the change. But the problem is they're going to study it for a year first, then there will be the implementation. And I just think that's an awful long time to study an implementation.
We are a military that understands processes very well. If anyone can go off and implement something rapidly, it's the military, because we do so many war plans, we do so many contingency plans, it's a part of our culture, we can take how to do this, stick it into a model, and do it in a fairly short timetable. I don't want to take away from the importance of having moved this out there, but at the end of the day, we know this is going to be done. The military is such a young organization, and we're well beyond any previous stereotypes. We can go about this business, and I would like to see Congress move on this rapidly. In fact, I believe it should be in the defense authorization bill, and that would take 2-3 months to get it through the process. It's about time to implement it.
Adam: If the Pentagon implemented the timeline that you outline, how long do you think that should take?
Rep. Sestak: I would say two to three months.
Love to see it!
And now for something completely different.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) speaks with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell in a rather wishy-washy, kinda supporting way about DADT repeal... doing his best not to commit himself too much.
Sigh. Orrin, you're fooling NOBODY- not even your Mormon constituency.
"I saw the swastika on the carpet and I felt like I had been kicked in the chest." --Vashti, LGBTQ Alliance volunteer coordinator
H/T Marie. Last weekend the office of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance at U Oregon at Eugene was vandalizd with Nazi symbols.
The University of Oregon in Eugene is a pretty fantastic place to be gay; winning a consistent five-out-of-five stars on the Campus Pride Campus Climate Index and boasting a thriving queer student community and Queer Studies program.
But this crazy-ass unacceptable shit happens, y'all, even in Eugene: over the weekend vandals attacked the University's LGBTQ office with black spray paint, leaving a four-foot square swastika emblazoned on the carpet and spray paint all over the office's TV and computer monitor. According to The Oregonian, there was no sign of forced entry and the office had last been used by Alex Esparza, co-director of the alliance, who locked the door when he left at 2:45 pm last Friday. The vandalism was discovered by a janitor at 1 A.M. on Monday morning.
The swastika painted on the carpet was four-foot square.
We heard a strong endorsement for repeal of DADT by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen at the hearing yesterday, and he's continuing to do a little a jab in the eye of Sen. John McCain, who has been caught flip-flopping about waiting for the military officials' opinions on DADT. The Arizona Senator put on a sad display at the Senate hearing that was out of step, bigoted and reliant on hoary "evidence" in a letter supplied to him by Elaine Donnelly (nuff said). From the American Forces Press Service at the DOD:
Mullen's Blog: My View on 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'
By Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Special to American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3, 2010 - "Over these last two months, the Chiefs and I have reviewed the fundamental premises behind 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' as well as its application in practice over the last 16 years. We understand perfectly the President's desire to see the law repealed and we owe him our best military advice about the impact this change in policy would have on the military.
"While the Chiefs and I have not developed our advice, we believe that any implementation plan for a policy permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces must be carefully derived, sufficiently thorough, and thoughtfully executed. The review group to be headed by Mr. Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham will no doubt give us that time and an even deeper level of understanding.
"My personal belief is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.
"I also believe the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change, but I do not know this for a fact. I will not deny that during a time of two wars, such a major policy change will cause some disruption in the force. It also seems plausible that there will be legal, social, and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made. These are some of the issues our review will address.
"But we would do well to remember that this is not an issue for the military leadership to decide. The current law and policy came from the American people through their elected officials. We will continue to obey that law, and we will obey whatever legislative and executive decisions come out of this debate.
"With Afghanistan, Iraq, and significant security commitments around the globe, our plate is very full. While I believe this is an important issue, I also believe we need to be mindful as we move forward of other pressing needs in the military. What our young men and women and their families want, what they deserve, is that we listen to them and act in their best interests.
"Balance and thoughtfulness is required. It's what the President has promised us, and it's what we ask of Congress as this debate moves forward."
The fact is Adm. Mullen is continuing to spread his message throughout military channels, and isn't running from the media on this, something he could easily have done. This is the kind of follow through that is needed to pressure Congress. Adm. Mullen throws down the gauntlet at Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's feet. Now it's our turn to work our representatives on the Hill.
Want more reaction from those personally involved, John McCain?
Here you go- again, from yesterday's mailbag:
GAY ACTIVE DUTY OFFICERS RESPOND TO DADT PROPOSAL
"I wish the Chiefs could see the Army from the lowest levels - we're ready for the change"
WASHINGTON, DC, February 2, 2010 - In the wake of Secretary Gates's proposal today to study the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and ways to implement its repeal, gay and lesbian active-duty officers are hopeful - but impatient.
The quotes that follow come from SAGALA, the Service Academy Gay and Lesbian Association, a group of more than 400 gay and lesbian service academy graduates that was founded in 1991.
They cannot speak for themselves because of the current policy.
1LT, US Army: "Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen set the tone for a professional response to the repeal of DADT across the military. As a Soldier and an officer, I applaud the gentlemen for filling an overdue void in leadership on this particular issue of discrimination in the Armed Services."
1LT, US Army - "I wish the Chiefs could see the Army from the lowest levels--we're ready for the change and few people support DADT anymore."
Lt Col, USAF - "Americans demand and deserve the best military on the world, yet for too long [the military] has been hamstrung, rendered less effective, by this policy. Resources have been wasted, valuable personnel distracted or lost, and missions not accomplished in a timely manner. Unshackle gay servicemembers so the whole DoD team can be as capable and effective as possible. One team, one fight, let's get it done!"
1LT, US Army - "The faster the ban is repealed, the better for all of our forces in the fight. We need as many capable and proficient soldiers - gay or straight - to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan as possible."
2LT, US Army - "Everyone knows we [LGB soldiers] exist and work side-by-side with our counterparts--very few have an issue with it and most agree that we might as well lift the ban."
Ensign, US Navy - "This policy has damaged many honorable Americans who have served their country well. They -- we -- deserve better."
LCDR, USCG - "I think the Chiefs view would rather punt this down the road. In the six commands that I have served at, including my own, I have never witnessed nor heard of any harassment of gay personnel or degradation to morale. Many 'Coasties' are aware of my status or at least suspect. I think it is absurd to believe that gays and lesbians are not serving honorably throughout the military, with no widespread reports of degradation to morale."
Anonymous, US Army, serving in Iraq at remote Forward Operating Base - "I am glad the Commander in Chief recognizes the need to change the law which is inhibiting our unit from being 100% effective. I, along with other gay service members in the unit, am constantly worried that at any minute I will be outed and thus removed from fighting this war. We are an effective fighting unit, most of the middle level NCO's and below know who we are and think it is time for the 'top brass' to realize they can trust units to move beyond DADT and truly become ARMY STRONG."
1LT, US Army - "DADT has and always will be an abomination to Army Values. Not only does it inspire fear to live as one chooses, it spreads hateful message to our brothers and sisters in arms. Being denied certain legal rights in order to maintain effectiveness as military members is one thing, but being denied our humanity is another. All we ask for is understanding and equality in our occupation to better serve this nation."
2LT, US Army - "I have a group of straight friends who all know about my sexual orientation and do not make second judgments about my performance as a soldier. My coming out to them made our friendship stronger than ever before. DADT is a policy that contributes to discrimination, lies, and dishonesty among service members. Our armed forces are prepared to move forward as one and continue to defend our freedoms."
LT, USCG - "When I'm on a SAR (search-and-rescue) case in the middle of a stormy night - I don't ask for the gender, race, religion or orientation of the folks on the sinking fishing boat or who are struggling to stay conscious in sub-freezing water temps... I don't ask if they've paid their taxes, have a college degree, or whether they are even a citizen of this country... My crew and I launch into the darkness to help them because that is what I have been trained to do. When I would look behind me at the individual being hoisted into the cabin of the helicopter I don't see their personal attributes. I see someone who was in peril that I managed to save from severe injury if not death. This effort, this mission - to save lives - doesn't discriminate. Why should the Coast Guard be bound by a flawed policy that dictates who is suitable to perform such a noble mission based solely on their orientation??"
---------
Most of these quotes are from junior officers - because the longer gays and lesbians stay in, the less willing they are to hide or lie about their lives. So these talented and experienced officers often leave the service they love.
ADM Mullen is right: "It comes down to integrity... (A)llowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."
We at SAGALA look forward to speedy and clear-headed decisionmaking from our military leadership, to give our troops clear, uncompromising guidance.
###
SAGALA (Service Academy Gay and Lesbian Association) is an organization of gay and lesbian alumni of US service academies, including the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO, the US Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT, and the US Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point. SAGALA was formed in 1991.
In the almost seventeen years since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. The principal issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks.
I strongly believe that this is a judgment to be made by the current military leadership and the Commander in Chief. It is also a judgment Congress must make. For the past two years, I have expressed the view that it was time for the law to be reviewed by Congress.
I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will be closely following future hearings, the views of the Service Chiefs and the implementation work being done by the Department of Defense.
A press release from HRC:
Gen. Colin Powell Adds his Powerful Voice in Support of Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Powell, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Supported Law in 1993 but now "Fully Support(s)" Secy Gates and Adm. Mullens' Strategy for Repeal
WASHINGTON - Today, the effort to repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell law received a monumental boost of support from General Colin Powell. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1990's, who supported the law's passage back in 1993, changed his position in a statement sent out today saying, "attitudes and circumstances have changed". In voicing his support for the law's repeal, Gen. Powell threw his full support behind, "the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen."
"General Powell has made clear that his position is about effectiveness in the military," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
"His powerful voice for ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a tipping point in favor of the brave men and women who are serving our nation in silence. The support of respected present and former military leaders brings us closer to repeal, signaling that we're moving forward and will get there soon. Opposing repeal now means second-guessing some of our nation's top military leaders, including the Joint Chiefs chairman who opposed open service in the 1990's when Don't Ask, Don't Tell became law."
Gen. Powell's announcement today of his support for repealing the law joins that of current Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, who yesterday became the first Joint Chiefs chairman to ever speak out in support of repeal since Don't Ask, Don't Tell became law back in 1993. Gen. Powell's statement today cited that, "the principal issue has always been the effectiveness of the Armed Forces and order and discipline in the ranks."
Solmonese continued, "I want to ask the senators and members who are speaking out against this repeal-what do you know about military effectiveness that General Powell, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the Commander in Chief don't know? The truth is that there are no more excuses, the death knell for Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been rung and now is the moment to send this law into the history books where it belongs."
The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
In the wake of yesteday's Senate hearing on DADT repeal, there were tons of reactions out there, some posted here. There are two out that drew my attention. One was the lunatic WSJ op-ed by foreign policy journal editor Mackubin Thomas Owens. He took umbrage at the thought that heterosexual soldiers were capable of serving openly with gays and lesbians. The old saw of unit cohesion came up again, with this infantile, *sshat statement by Owens:
[T]he military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia -- friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.
Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena -- cohesion, morale and discipline -- are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.
The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros -- which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive -- will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.
Wow. Owens' eruption really needs deconstruction and discussion because it raisese several questions:
1. Then what about eros and women in the military? All of the above also true - and came up time and again when women were being integrated into the military. In fact the whole line in the sand barring combat service for women has been blurred as they are practically on the front lines anyway, subjected to the same levels of lethal force in Iraq, for example. Does Owens want women out of the military?
2. Owens renders our fighting men weak, ignorant and guided only by their "little brains." (It's clear women aren't even considered in Owen's op-ed, so let's set that aside.) If our mlitary is so strong and powerful, how can its capabilities be undermined so easily by their pee-pees? From the POV of Owens, if gay service members come out of the closet, the barracks will instantly become a cruising bar, complete with a disco ball and rocket-propelled grenades and IEDs. In his mind the soldiers can't tell the difference between comradeship and bonding under stress-filled, life-threatening conditions and a pick up line.
3. Apparently theUniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) is a useless document. Owens alternately views the military as an institution of rules and regulations and as a lawless outpost. It's clear he's afraid that all this potential aggressive man-on-man cruising will lead to sexual assault that will go unprosecuted. Hmmm. Well he may be on to something -- women who serve are being assaulted and raped at record levels, with their male peers going unpunished or receiving a slap on the wrist. If Owens envisions that scenario, he should spare his wrath against those who want to repeal DADT and direct it to those in the Pentagon that don't take sexual assault and harassment seriously. It doesn't matter whether it's same- or opposite-sex criminal conduct -- both should be prosecuted under UCMJ, including fraternization.
The other piece to take a look at is David Mixner's "DADT: They Are Killing Us Softly With Their Song." His position is that while we finally have the President and his military leaders Defense Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen strongly on the record for repeal in a very public way, it's not time for a happy dance by any stretch of the imagination.
The problem is that DADT isn't going to end in the near future - not even this year. These new converts are asking for a year long study and then maybe at least another year before implementation. After all is said and done, the implication is that once they 'study' us one more time, they might slowly integrate us into the Armed Forces over the next few years.
What do they mean they have to 'study' for a year our impact on the military if we are allowed to serve openly? How offensive is that?
Along with the unnecessary study about the impact of DADT on the agenda, the focus needs to be on Congress and its foot-dragging. Flip-flopping John McCain, who said he "needed to hear from the generals first" before his final decision, looked positively feeble and fossilized up there at the hearing. He offerws up discredited Elaine "homo flow chart" Donnelly's letter w/1,500 flag officers supporting DADT. A letter signed by officials mostly over 70 years old, four of whom passed away even before the letter was published. The side of discrimination has no credibility left -- what is Congress waiting for?
[T]he fact still remains on a daily basis we must lie who we are to our family, friends and those who lives depend on us. We must never acknowledge a loved one at home nor admit that we have a life like anyone else. We must continue to dehumanize ourselves for the comfort of others for an antiquated policy that should have never been implemented in the first place. Our soldiers who die in combat have to think of their partners who will be denied full rights in their heroic deaths. Who will not be even allowed to accept the flag as their loved one is buried. What kind of change is this? Not much of a one!
...Congress should act immediately for the full repeal of DADT and we should refuse to support or give money to anyone who does not support such an effort. In less than a year, we will face a Congress that is less friendly than the one now. Do we really believe our chances will be much better next year than this year?
Repeal it now. Stop the crap and deal with us as full American citizens. The policy is offensive, obscene and immoral. There is no reason to study us; just embrace our talents, gifts and patriotism.
From GLAD, a quick background about Rhiannon O'Donnabhain's landmark case:
Ms. O'Donnabhain deducted costs related to her sex reassignment when submitting her federal tax forms in April 2002. She received her tax refund in June 2002, but six months later she was audited.
Ms. O'Donnabhain contacted GLAD, whose attorneys assisted her in appealing the tax examiner's decision. After an initial indication by an Appeals Officer to allow the deduction, the local IRS office decided to seek a decision from Washington. The IRS Chief Counsel issued an Advice Letter on October 14, 2005, once again denying the deduction and the matter progressed to US Tax Court, where trial took place July 24 - August 23, 2007.
Both sides completed filing proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and responses to those submissions in February, 2008.
Now the press release:
GLAD Wins Case vs. IRS on Sex Reassignment Deductions U.S. Tax Court Sets Precedent, Says Treatment is Medical Care
The U.S. Tax Court today issued a long-awaited decision in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ruling that treatment for gender identity disorder (GID) qualifies as medical care under the Internal Revenue Code, and is therefore deductible.
"This decision treats Rhiannon O'Donnabhain the way she deserves to be treated -- like any hard-working American taxpayer with medical expenses," said Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which represented Ms. O'Donnabhain.
"From the start, this has been a no-brainer. Every mainstream medical authority from the American Psychiatric Association to the National Institutes of Health recognizes the legitimacy of providing medical care for transgender people. Dismissing these medical expenses as illegitimate and not deductible was discrimination, pure and simple."
In an opinion reviewed by the full bench, the United States Tax Court affirmed that medical treatments for GID, including surgery and hormone therapy, are deductible medical expenses. Moreover, the Court stated that the IRS's position that such treatment is cosmetic in nature "is at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances that is thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence."
"I'm overjoyed, not only for me, but for other transgender people," said Ms. O'Donnabhain. "We deserve respect, equal treatment for our medical care, and fair treatment by our government."
Born biologically male, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain began having conflicted feelings about her gender identity as early as age 8. After decades of deep suffering, O'Donnabhain was diagnosed in 1996 with GID and undertook a course of professionally prescribed medical treatments that included her 2001 sex reassignment surgery. She claimed the cost of her treatment as a deductible medical expense on her federal income tax return - but the Internal Revenue Service said no, calling the surgery "cosmetic."
The trial in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue began on July 24, 2007 in Boston, and concluded with post-trial briefing in March 2008. At the trial, Ms. O'Donnabhain testified about her life-long struggle with her gender identity, and her health care providers testified that the treatment was critical to her mental health and ability to function at all levels. Experts testified about Gender Identity Disorder and its treatment.
Ms. O'Donnabhain paid approximately $25,000 out-of-pocket for her care, including therapy, hormone treatment, and surgery. The amount of the deduction she is seeking from the IRS is about $5,000.
"In this landmark ruling, the Tax Court affirmed the consensus position of the medical establishment that transition-related medical care is essential for many transgender people," explained Jennifer Levi, Director of GLAD's Transgender Rights Project.
Loewy, along with Levi and GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Bennett Klein, represented Ms. O'Donnabhain along with lawyers from the Boston law firm of Sullivan & Worcester, who are serving as cooperating tax counsel in the case.
###
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and HIV status. GLAD is active in all six New England states.
NPR interviewed Rep. Duncan D. Hunter -- the son of the former Rep. Duncan Hunter who ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2008 -- regarding his take on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. NPR described their audio segment Rep. Hunter: Repealing 'Don't Ask' Will Hurt Military this way:
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) says repealing the law that bans gays from openly serving in the military will hurt the cohesiveness of the armed forces. Duncan, who served in the Marine Corps in both Afghanistan and Iraq, says most people in the military would be uncomfortable if the "don't ask don't tell" policy were repealed.
Interviewer: Today we turn to California Congressman Duncan Hunter. He's a Republican, and a former U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressman Hunter, welcome to the program.
Rep. Duncan Hunter: Great to be with you.
Interviewer: You are not in favor of repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Why not?
Rep. Duncan Hunter: No, because I think that it's bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units. And, especially for those in close combat -- in close quarters -- in country right now. It's not the time to do it. I think the military is not civilian life. I think the folks who have been in the military, that have been in those very close situations with each other -- there has to be a special bond there. I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders; to hermaphrodites; to gays and lesbians.
Interviewer: Transgenders and hermaphrodites.
Rep. Duncan Hunter: That's going to be part of this whole thing. It's not just gays and lesbians, it's the whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you're going to let anybody in, no matter what preference -- what sexual preference -- they have, that means the military is going to probably let everybody in. It's going to be like civilian life. And, I think that would be detrimental for the military.
Well boy howdy! The "transgenders" an "hermaphrodites" are going to be part of the "everybody" who are let into the military! Are you afraid yet of this scary possibility? -- A "scary" possibility that really isn't what repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell addresses at all?
Hmm. Do you don't think this argument of Rep. Hunter's against repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell might be a straw man argument, do you? Or perhaps an appeal to fear, maybe?
Well, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not going to result in transsexuals -- or other transgender people -- having the ability to serve openly in the U.S. military. And, perhaps this may be news to Rep. Hunter, but intersex conditions are not a sexual preference; I'm pretty damn sure too that intersex people are already allowed to serve in the military.
Jeebus. Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals would be allowed to serve in the military if Don't Ask, Don't Tell were repealed; transsexuals and other transgender people would still not be allowed to openly serve.
Let's please stick to the actual issues and actual facts about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and not make-up straw man and/or appeal to fear arguments, shall we Rep. Hunter?
With Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council going on Hardball to declare that homosexuality needs to be recriminalized (overturning Lawrence v. Texas) in the wake of getting the bad news that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen said Don't Ask Don't Tell needs to go, you knew there would be a Freeper explosion.
And yes, the gloves come off in a primal scream of terror as these knuckledraggers cover their privates, worrying about dropping soap in the shower. Where were all these Freepers when heterosexual enlisted men were raping their female peers? Oh wait, they don't want women in there either...
WHY DO FREEPERS HATE AMERICA AND ITS MILITARY COMMANDERS?!?! OH NOES!1101
I've linked to the Google cache just in case the thread "disappears." See the misogyny and paranoia run wild. It's beyond laughable. They know their side is going down in the long run, no pun intended.
Easy to say General Mullen when you don't have to bunk or shower with these individuals.
"... it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."
So - Mike Mullen agrees with Congressman Joe Sestak. Who knew?
you cannot defend your fellow citizens when you are preoccupied with having swordfights in the showers. Eww, I just grossed myself out. This article reeks of leftist politics. No military man in his rigfht mind would approve of gutting the military, which is exactly what this amounts to.
What happened to the rights of "straights" to privacy?
I urge everyone to call their Senator and Congressional Representative TODAY!! Everyone I know in the military is outraged at Obama's attempt to inject active homosexuality into the barracks and showers of the armed forces. Here we go again with another Dem idiot trying to social engineer the military.
But forcing people to accept this societal abomination is just honky dory? The military has lost its bearings. It is adopting self destructive polices and behaviors.
"Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse," Casey said
I fear too many of our higher-ranking officers appear to have been selected for their PC-compatibility rather than for their military competence. . .
If the ban is lifted homosexuals will flock to the military and overrun it and have the full force of military law behind them, the military will be theirs.
Didn't Mullen say like 6 months ago that the policy shouldn't be changed? Oh, that was before Obama said he wanted to change it. Now it's good. Man, this guy is such a suck up it's disgusting. Between him and Gates I don't see who has the stones to defend the military from the "I loathe the military" democrat powers that be.
Wonder what he would think if he has to share a shower room and toilet room with those people ? He has his nice private shower and toilet. The rank and file don't.
It ought to be intresting keeping up with HIV exposure in the ranks.
No Navy admiral (or Air Force general) should ever be made head of the JCS. That responsibility should be left to the Army or the Marines. Or barring that, to the Coast Guard.
Please note that Mullen said he was speaking for himself not for the other service chiefs. The CNO hasn't come out either way yet. Mullen is the CJCS not the CNO.
Except that the Marines are a Department of the Navy. There are whack jobs in all branches. Clearly this Admiral has no clue what it's like to be a an enlisted on a combatant vessel. I do.
The Marines are older than the Navy, think in the spirit of Hope and Change that we can the Dept of Navy and replace it with the Dept of the Marine Corps.
Except that the Marines are a Department of the Navy. A bumper sticker for sale at a local gun show reads: The Marine Corps is a department of the Navy. The men's department. It amused me, but I didn't bring it home. My dad retired as a Commander in the Navy. My son served in the USMC.
OK Admiral Mikey Mullen. IF we do away with the old fashioned ways then lets quit SEGREGATION in WOMENS' quarters from MENS' quarters Let the straights have the same perspective as the gays.I doubt women will enjoy being leered at in the showers as well as straight men will be by gays And Face it, the Homo's will eventually pair up and have sex in the foxholes(or bunks in the navy)while the straight men will be denied such companionship. How's that for creating Esprit De Corps
On today's episode of Hardball, Family Research Council spokesperson and board member Peter Sprigg said that he believes that Lawrence vs. Texas (the Supreme Court decision that struck down the sodomy laws) was "wrongly decided" and that "gay behavior" should be criminalized.
His comments were in the middle of a debate with Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's Aubrey Sarvis.
Freudian slips about the lgbt community are nothing new to Sprigg. Two years ago, he said that he would prefer that the United States "export" gays and lesbians.
The entire video is below and Sprigg's comments about "criminalizing gay behavior" are at the end (the exchange begins at 7:40), but I would suggest that you watch the entire thing. Sarvis totally destroys him.
And it proves the point that in a head-to-head debate with facts on hand, religious right groups can't get away with their nonsense.
MATTHEWS: What should a young woman or man, 22 years old, out of college, officer material, they want to serve their country. But they’re gay. What should they do? They want to serve their country?
SPRIGG: Well, they should serve it in some civilian capacity, and not join the military.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
SPRIGG: Because the presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion. That’s exactly what Congress found in 1993 and that’s what the law states!
[snip]
SPRIGG: Don’t ask don’t tell is the Clinton compromise policy which is actually incompatible with the law that was passed by Congress. There’s almost universal misunderstanding about that. I’d like to see us do away with this don’t ask don’t tell, and simply enforce the law that was passed by Congress.
[snip]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Peter, do you think people choose to be gay?
SPRIGG: Uh, people do not choose to have same-sex attractions, but they do choose to have homosexual conduct [...]
MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly-
MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
The Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW), a local affiliate of Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, has been broadcasting a weekly half-hour radio show since at least May of 2009. The show has largely been used to promote FPIW's anti-gay agenda. According to their broadcaster, the American Christian Network, the show's Wednesday time slot is now 
Backholm began the last-aired 
Mullen's Blog: My View on 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'
The other piece to take a look at is David Mixner's "
