|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
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.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Mon May 11, 2009 at 17:45:00 PM EDT
|
 I would love to see a White House response to the arguments in this study, but I'm sure we'll continue to get chirping crickets. It makes the excuses for why the Obama Administration thinks it can do NOTHING about DADT is pure baloney.
A new report released today, "How to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment," sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, clearly presents a way the President can stop the discriminatory discharge of gay and lesbian service members without Congress passing a law. It boils down to three points (the full release is below the fold).
1) 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."
Check on that front. How many tours have reservist gone on now?
2) Don't Ask, Don't Tell 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."
All President Obama has to do is tell Bob Gates to stop discharging gays and lesbians from the military's ranks.
3) Don't Ask, Don't Tell 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."
Again, the witchhunts can be stopped; all the President has to do is tell the Pentagon to knock it off.
There really isn't any excuse except for political cowardice a desire to expend political capital when it best suits the administration, and apparently that's not any time soon.
Read the release below the fold. |
| Pam Spaulding :: Report: Obama can stop the discharge of openly gay and lesbian service members now |
The Palm Center web site:A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. The idea of ending the ban by executive order has gained momentum in the wake of news that mission-critical personnel, including Arabic language speaker Dan Choi, continue to be fired under the Obama administration because they're gay. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order to end the ban on Saturday and National Security Adviser James Jones was asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. The report, "How to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment," is sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said "The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light."
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."
The other four authors of the study in addition to Mazur and Belkin are Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a Palm researcher and author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America"; Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis; Dr. Elizabeth L. Hillman, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law; and Bridget J. Wilson, who practices law at Rosenstein Wilson & Dean in San Diego. The report will also be published in a forthcoming book, "Department of Defense Social Policy Perspectives 2010," edited by James Parco, David Levy and Fred Blass. |
|
|
