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.
Yes, Ed, I'm sure WH Spokeshill Robert Gibbs is well-aware that the era of Rahm has produced a huge amount of rage in the progressive base, but thanks for letting it all hang out. The radio show host had a recent confrontation with Gibbs. (Think Progress):
SCHULTZ: I told him he was full of sh*t is what I told him. ... And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb. ... I told Robert Gibbs, I said "And I'm sorry you're swearing at me, but I'm just trying to help you out. I'm telling you you're losing your base. Do you understand you're losing your base?"
I'm sure that Kerry has thought of dozens of ways to ask WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs questions that he cannot weasel out of (which usually results in "I don't know, I'll get back to you with an answer" -- that means it goes into the black hole). Today she tried again, this time to find out what the status of the review of DADT repeal given the President just said he's sending 30K troops into Afghanistan when our forces are depleted -- and gays and lesbians continue to be discharged.
The Advocate: Some people have analyzed the number of troops available to deploy and said that sending 30,000 troops is tantamount to deploying nearly every U.S. Army brigade possible. Given that about 10,000 soldiers are already in stop-loss, do you know where Defense secretary Gates is with his review of softening the discharges on "don't ask, don't tell"?
Robert Gibbs: Well, I have not heard an update from the secretary on that. I know that obviously the president wants that policy changed. In terms of - I mean, obviously it's not just Army. This is Army and Marines, as well as - well, Army and Marines. They are - this was very specifically asked in terms of whether force flow options would interrupt either Marine or Army policies that have been instituted to give longer breaks for tours of duty and then return home. The Joint Chiefs, to a commander, all told the commander in chief that they could meet the force requirement without interrupting what they had instituted in order to provide that time at home and away from the tour of duty.
The Advocate: But the troops are stretched thin. I mean, it's not -
Gibbs: No doubt. And I think that the president was very clear in wanting to see the Joint Chiefs to, quite frankly, ask them very directly whether that was the case. There's no doubt that there has been for many, many years a strain on our forces, that that strain has caused repeated tours. And only recently has Secretary Gates and others instituted policies that ensure that we had time outside of a theater of war and that they believe was necessary to maintain an all-volunteer force, which they think obviously is tremendously important, as well as just dealing with the stress physically and mentally on them.
Almost the same slop served, different day. You'd think after the President left the strong impression that he was moving on DADT repeal, and along with news that Obama and Sen Joe Lieberman were commiserating on legislation, we'd learn something new. Unfortunately, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had the rusted key turned in his back to belch out the same tired song, albeit with a tiny ray of light signifying he needs to come up with a better answer to replace the FAILing chip in his back.
Q Senator Lieberman's office confirmed yesterday that he has had talks with the White House about a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal bill. Have you asked him to carry the bill, to take the lead on the bill? And have you been in discussions with any other senators about doing the same?
MR. GIBBS: Let me ask. I meant to do this last week, and I'll find out that answer today.
Q The President pledged on Saturday night to repeal -- or to end "don't ask, don't tell" was his exact words. Do you have a -- I mean, is there any sense of timing on that? Do you guys have any sense of when you're going to start moving forward with legislation, et cetera?
MR. GIBBS: I don't. Let me get a better answer.I should have done this last week. I'll reiterate again, the President obviously, as he said on Saturday, believes that the policy is unfair. He said that when he was a candidate for the Senate in 2003 and 2004, as well as a candidate for President. He has a strong belief on this. I also think -- we talked a little bit about this Friday -- I think also Saturday gave the President an opportunity to reiterate another important priority of his that will soon become law, and that's hate crimes legislation, which is long overdue in ensuring people protection.
Well we can only hope that The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld, our voice in the press room, will receive that extra information from Gibbs before it ends up at the bottom of his info pile and forgets until he's asked again.
At the briefing yesterday, ABC's Jake Tapper asked, but didn't receive, a coherent answer from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the reason for Obama's opposition to marriage equality, given former President Bill Clinton announced he had changed his mind about the issue.
TAPPER: Former President Bill Clinton recently said that he's basically in support of same-sex marriage. "I think it's wrong," he said, "for someone to stop someone else from getting involved in same-sex marriage." Has President Obama heard these comments? Does he have a reaction? And why is Bill Clinton wrong about this issue?
GIBBS: Well, I'm not going to get into anybody's opinion -- I'm not going to criticize anybody's opinion, least of all a former President of the United States, on something like this. I am not clear whether the President has seen that. I don't know where that was from, so I don't know if the President has seen it.
TAPPER: But President Obama holds a different opinion?
TAPPER: President Obama holds the same opinion he has earlier today.
TAPPER: Which is that same-sex marriage is wrong.
GIBBS: He does not support it. He supports civil unions.
TAPPER: Why does he feel differently than President Bill Clinton?
GIBBS: Because they don't agree on the issue. (Laughter.) I've not obviously spent a lot of --
TAPPER: That's not really an explanation of why he feels differently. That's another word for it.
GIBBS: Well, I mean, I'm happy to -- I mean, I think the President has answered this question a number of times. I can't form a basis for why former President Clinton -- I've obviously not had a conversation with him on this issue, so I don't know what -- it's hard for me to compare some of this because I don't have the basis by which he's making that decision.
Have you noticed that Gibbs comes prepared to answer a wide range of questions on many topics, having been briefed in detail on them, yet when someone asks about LGBT issues, he suddenly 1) hasn't spoken to President about it or 2) he hasn't read/heard/seen about the given event that spurred the question.
Do you get the feeling that he thinks he's going to "catch the gay" if he dares do a little research into policy issues? It's not as if LGBT legislation and DOMA lawsuits aren't in the queue, and states adopting marriage equality.
At this point Gibbs will continue to look like a kid on a stool with the dunce cap on if he thinks the reporters in the room, including Jake Tapper, have run out of questions in this area. It's the press secretary's own fault because because he never competently answers them. Being or feigning that you're clueless isn't working, Bob.
UPDATE: Robert Gibbs getting grilled on Hardball today:
***
While the VIP LGBTs were waiting for the President to meet and greet, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was taking a pummeling today at the daily presser about the inaction of the administration regarding several LGBT issues on the back burner. Clearly it's more than just the "whining homos" wondering why the President talks a good game but seems quite passive about doing anything concrete. Gibbs does his usual song and dance saying the Pentagon and Congress have to be involved, but that the President hasn't met with the people in the Pentagon or Congress. Sounds like a circular reference to me.
Q Robert, I have a question on today's event in the East Room. On "don't ask, don't tell," how much is the President personally involved? I mean, I know you've said that he sort of turned that policy change over to the Pentagon and you're letting them and Congress work on that.
MR. GIBBS: I've said that -- I mean, the President hasn't, himself, been involved in meetings with the Pentagon. A solution has to include working with the Pentagon. But it's something that the President has been involved in since coming to this administration.
Q How much of a priority is this for him?
MR. GIBBS: Well, it's something that --
Q I mean, is there a timeline or --
MR. GIBBS: When we can get it done. The President has talked about this -- and I've talked about the fact that to have an enduring solution this had to be done legislatively. That, I think most people recognize, is going to take some time to do, working with both Congress and the Pentagon. I think the President will address this in remarks at the event a little bit later today.
Q Change in policy?
MR. GIBBS: Pardon me?
Q A change?
MR. GIBBS: No. But, again, in order to have that enduring solution, this is going to have to be done legislatively.
As in no administrative changes will be worked out with the Pentagon in terms of implementation of DADT, and there will be no executive order. And then he was directly asked about the foot-dragging with Congress.
Q Robert, today the President is going to celebrate Gay Pride at the White House for the first time. Even so, the gay community is somewhat divided over whether or not the President has done enough, the pace of change is enough. What does the President intend to say today, and can you talk a little bit about his thinking about how much he has to mollify a community that's been very supportive during the campaign?
MR. GIBBS: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on mollifying a community, but that's not the way the President looks at important issues. I think if you go back and look at the campaign -- either his campaign for the Senate or his campaign for the presidency -- he takes stands that he believes are consistent with his values.
We didn't play a lot of interest group-based politics in the presidential race, I think that was denoted by the fact that we didn't get a lot of endorsements in the presidential race.
The President makes those decisions, again, based on his values. I won't get ahead of what he's going to say later today, but he will, I think, address a number of issues and reaffirm the commitments that he's made.
Yes, ma'am.
Q Following on that, the President has talked about repealing "don't ask, don't tell," and also the Defense of Marriage Act. So I'm wondering if you can tell me what specific steps has he taken to do this? What is his timeline for doing it? And also --
MR. GIBBS: I think we got a fairly similar question a minute ago, but I'll try to --
Q -- there's legislation apparently moving through House to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," I think it's H.R. 1283, and he hasn't endorsed it. Why not?
MR. GIBBS: I can certainly talk to legislative affairs about what that piece of legislation would do. As I said earlier, the President has been involved in, personally, meetings on this topic with stakeholders, including those at the Pentagon.
Q What about members of Congress?
MR. GIBBS: I don't know if he's met specifically with members of Congress on that. I know that -- I can try to get a list, I know that staff has worked here on the issue. It's a commitment that he intends to keep.
Q Can you talk a little bit more about the meetings that he's had, what --
MR. GIBBS: No.
Q -- and how recent has he been in these meetings?
MR. GIBBS: Since January 20.
So which is it -- has the President been in meetings with the Pentagon or not? Anyway, compare this presser to the Obama Speech at today's reception. A key section is below the fold.
Hot from today's WH press briefing (via email), Robert Gibbs discloses that the WH currently has no plan to reject or change the heinous defenses in the DOJ DOMA brief. Or rather, he's not aware of any -- nothing like floating the whole plausible deniability statement, but given the matters at hand, dust has probably collected on the brief.
Q Robert, on the issue of the DOMA brief, one of your colleagues over the weekend, Lisa Brown, said that she didn't think some of the language that was in that brief should have been in there. Can you clarify from last week whether that brief was clear here at the White House, whether it represents the White House's view?
MR. GIBBS: Lisa is the Staff Secretary. You didn't ask her?
Q It wasn't a press conference; it was a panel discussion. But can you clarify whether it was cleared --
MR. GIBBS: I don't know the answer to that.
Q And do you know if there is any discussion underway about maybe modifying it or changing it?
But Lisa Brown says it could've been worse! Barack Obama's staff secretary said the Department of Justice's lawsuit response to DOMA was "an awful lot better that the brief that was written in the Bush administration," adding, "There's no question - personal statement - that there were some cites in there that should not-that should not have been in there...They were trying to...essentially eliminate arguments that the Bush Administration had made."
Speaking at a panel discussion for the American Constitution Society, Brown's words were joined by Vice President Joe Biden's chief of staff Ron Klain, who noted: "I understand why people are impatient with the pace of progress. We have only been here 125 days, and in those 125 days have many irons in the fire. ... I hope that next year when we have this conference and that question gets asked it doesn't elicit the same kind of applause that it elicited this time."
The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld is our eyes and ears in the White House press briefing room; she sits in on what has to be an excruciating experience these days -- watching Robert Gibbs constantly dissemble and evade basic questions about WH policy re: LGBT issues. I nudged her today to see what nonsense eminated from the podium. Apparently he was asked about DADT twice and he delivered the non-answers you've come to expect and detest from the "straight-shooting" admin. From her report "White House Not Moving on DADT" --
When would the White House push Congress to repeal the policy? The answer from Gibbs:
"He does not think the policy is working in the national interests and is working with the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon, and others to bring about a change in that policy."
and...you've got to love this:
Another reporter noted that although Gibbs keeps saying the President is working for repeal, he had been told by staffers for the chair of the subcommittee (probably the military personnel subcommittee) that the House repeal bill isn't likely to come up for a vote until next year.
"Sometimes the legislative process doesn't move that quickly," Gibbs responded.
The same Politics Daily reporter then puzzled at why the President wouldn't put a moratorium on discharges if he truly thinks the policy runs counter to national interests.
"The President and legal team here believe that in order to have a durable solution to this, legislation is the only way to go," Gibbs said.
Kudos to Jake Tapper of ABC. He wouldn't let Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodge a question about the President's position on whether civil unions are a violation of the Equal Protection clause -- something the federal lawsuit filed by Olsen and Boies points to. Gibbs has nowhere to run this time. Let the embarrassment and jackassery begin (again)...
Q Okay. And just a separate question. Today in California, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General for President Bush, and David Boies, are introducing a lawsuit against the state of California, saying that by denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the ability to marry they are violating the Equal Protection Rights under the U.S. Constitution for same-sex couples. Why are they wrong?
MR. GIBBS: I have not read the opinion or --
Q The President supports the idea that people should be able to -- same-sex couples should be able to enter in civil unions. Boies and Olson -- a very conservative lawyer -- are saying that is a violation --
MR. GIBBS: Olson. (Laughter.)
Q Not Boies, right -- Olson, a very conservative lawyer, saying that is a violation of the Constitution. It is also the position the President holds, that there should be civil unions, not same-sex marriage. Why is it not a violation of the Equal Protection clause?
MR. GIBBS: Jake, let me have somebody take a look at the pleading that they're going to make. I don't know what they're arguing --
Q Generally. Just forget the specific argument; I'm just talking about their general argument is that by having -- by not allowing same-sex couples to marry, it is a violation of equal protection.
MR. GIBBS: Right, well, again --
Q And that's the President's position, so --
MR. GIBBS: But let me -- well, the President's position, we're all aware of. I hesitate to be general about the legal underpinnings of an argument based on some portion of the Constitution. I think that they may be somewhat hard to generalize. So let me have somebody take a look at that and see if we have anything based on what Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies are doing.
Yes, sir.
...Q But today's context includes the financial crisis there and the controversy over Proposition 8. The President, as far as we know, is not going to speak out on any of these issues while he's in California. Do you think that's appropriate?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let's try not to mix up the questions here and let me see if I can keep them straight. I think the notion that the President isn't concerned about the economic conditions of this country I don't think holds a lot of validity, given the actions that he's taken to get our economy moving again; to get the resources that California needs to invest in their infrastructure and to take care of their citizens; to ensure that kids have health care. I think he's taken steps to do that and I think most people in California are confident in that, as well.
That last question he flat out doesn't answer re: Prop 8.
The White House Press Briefing was rife with questions about the SCOTUS pick and North Korea, and as expected, the wind was out of the media sails re: Prop 8. Only at the end was one question asked about the decision on Prop 8. Here's the comment from the official transcript.
Q Robert, do you have any reaction to the California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8?
MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to the President about it. I think the issues involved are ones that you know where the President stands.
Meanwhile, members of the crackerjack press team at the WH are on top of this heavy hitting news (just landed in my inbox):
Hypocrisy much? Take a look at this excerpt from the President's speech at the United States Naval Academy Graduation today. I just received the transcript in my inbox.
Remarks of President Barack Obama
United States Naval Academy Graduation & Commissioning
Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium
Annapolis, Maryland
May 22, 2009
...Honor. Courage. Commitment. These are the values that have defined your years in the Yard and that you'll need in the years ahead. As you join the fleet. As you lead Marines. As you confront the ever-changing threats of an ever-changing world.
For history teaches us that the nations that grow comfortable with the old ways and complacent in the face of new threats-those nations do not long endure. And in the 21st century, we do not have the luxury of deciding which challenges to prepare for and which to ignore. We must overcome the full spectrum of threats. The conventional and the unconventional. The nation-state and the terrorist network. The spread of deadly technologies and of hateful ideologies. Eighteenth century-style piracy and 21st century cyberthreats.
So, SEALs and special operations forces-we'll need you for those short-notice missions in the dark of night. But we'll also need you for the long-term training of foreign militaries so they can take responsibility for their own security.
Marines-we need you to defeat the insurgent and the extremist. But we also need you to work with the tribal sheik and local leaders from Anbar to Kandahar who want to build a better future for their people.
Naval aviators and flight officers-we need you to dominate the airspace in times of conflict, but also to deliver food and medicine in times of humanitarian crisis.
And surface warfare officers and submariners-we need you to project American power across the vast oceans, but also to project American principles and values when you pull into that foreign port-because for so many people around the world, you are the face of America.
You need them -- unless they are lesbian or gay. What's really insulting is this bit of business:
Yesterday I visited the National Archives and the hall that holds our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I went there because as our nation debates how to deal with the security challenges that we face, we must remember this enduring truth: the values and ideals in those documents are not simply words written into aging parchment, they are the bedrock of our liberty and our security. We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to. Not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe.
Because when America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops. So as Americans, we reject the false choice between our security and our ideals. We can and we must and we will protect both. And that is just what you will pledge to do in a few moments when you raise your right hand and take your oath.
And he continues to put our security at risk by discharging trained, capable men and women who wish to serve who are gay. He needs to be honest -- there have been a lot of false choices going on so far -- and the discharges continue, now on his watch. It's amazing the BS that can be doled out in any given setting, isn't it?
The next Robert Gibbs pummeling WH Press Briefing is at 12:15 ET today. I wonder if anyone will bring up this speech?
Now this is what I'm talking about. I received today's transcript from the White House Press Briefing and Robert Gibbs might as well be standing up there in his underwear -- he's that exposed. More than that his skivvies are on fired as he is getting torched on almost a daily bases now as the questions about the ludicrous policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell are blasting him like a flamethrower.
Today's performance was absolutely humiliating, as a reporter (I don't know who yet it was Air America National Correspondent Ana Marie Cox), asked Gibbs why if Harry Truman could desegregate the armed forces without a law by Congress, what the hell is this President's problem with eliminating discharges under DADT.
Q So you had said that the President is working with the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on "don't ask, don't tell," but earlier this week the Pentagon said that the conversations were "initial" and that there is "no sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell.'" So I wanted to give you a chance to correct the Pentagon on that.
And I have two other questions. What other policies are there --
MR. GIBBS: If you ask like that you're going to get bumped up to, like, the first row. (Laughter.)
Let me address the first question because, if I'm not mistaken, the Pentagon did correct that statement on efforts regarding the reform on "don't ask, don't tell."
Q So there are active conversations happening now?
MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes.
Q Okay. And then I wanted to know if there are any other policies that the President believes to be, as you said yesterday about "don't ask, don't tell," not in our national interest but is content to let Congress take the lead on? And second, President Truman didn't see it necessary to clear desegregation through Congress, so how is this different?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe I was -- maybe I used some poor language, but the President is involved in these discussions. It was the President's commitment to overturn the policy that's not in our national interest that is the reason for these discussions and for the effort to overturn this. So I think the notion somehow -- the reason Congress is involved is the only durable and lasting way with which to overturn the policy is to do it by law. That's the --
Q So when can we expect a durable policy on racial desegregation in the military, since that's never gone through Congress?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm out of my depth as a lawyer. And I'm not exactly sure the timing of when President Truman did that, but my sense is that there were also some legal proceedings around that. Try as one may, a President can't simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America. I think that's maybe been the undercurrent of some of the conversations we've had over the past few days on Guantanamo Bay.
But if you're going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress.
Q And so there's pending legislation? I didn't see any.
MR. GIBBS: I don't know what's been introduced in Congress.
Oh snap. Gibbs just got pwned by that reporter.
You can read about the chronology of desegregation of the military at the Truman library web site. A snippet:
Immediately following July 14, 1948: While his staff is drafting an executive order that would end segregation in the armed forces, President Truman decides to include in the order the establishment of a presidential committee to implement the order.
July 26, 1948: President Truman signs Executive Order 9981, which states, "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." The order also establishes the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services.
July 26, 1948: Army staff officers state anonymously to the press that Executive Order 9981 does not specifically forbid segregation in the Army.
July 27, 1948: Army Chief of Staff General Omar N. Bradley states that desegregation will come to the Army only when it becomes a fact in the rest of American society.
July 29, 1948: President Truman states in a press conference that the intent of Executive Order 9981 is to end segregation in the armed forces.
So where is our fierce advocate?
This is why we need to support The Dallas Principles. Aren't you tired of the BS?
UPDATE: I've added more commentary to the post. (Also, a little funny bit -- I actually reported on this before The Advocate got it online.)
Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate finally got a crack at White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today at the daily press briefing:
KERRY ELEVELD: The President supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act during the election. Now that same-sex couples can marry legally in five different states, what is the President doing to make sure those marriages are recognized at the federal level, and what's the timeline for something like that?
ROBERT GIBBS: I...I will have to go check on that. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
Just an FYI, a few of the press releases I've received Monday from the White House, indicating they are "checking on" these burning issues...
* Statement of President Barack Obama on Haitian Flag Day
* Remarks by the First Lady at the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at the Metropolitan Museum of Art American Wing
* President Obama to Deliver Commencement Address at US Naval Academy in Annapolis
Seriously, does Gibbs think we believe him when he has to check on what the President's plan on DOMA is, given we've seen a string of states enact marriage equality, and even seen a U.S. Senator, Tom Harkin of Iowa, publicly change his mind to support marriage equality after having voted for the federal DOMA?
"We all grow as we get older, and we learn things and we become more sensitive to people and people's lives. And the more I've looked at that, I've grown to think differently about how people - how we should live. And I guess I'm at the point that, you know - I'm to that point of live and let live.
"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Governor Baldacci said. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."
"Article I in the Maine Constitution states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against.'"
"This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State," Governor Baldacci said.
President believes this is an issue that's best addressed by the states.
The White House also agrees with this commenter over at Huffington Post, who wrote this in response to my post on homophobia in the black community and Obama:
The States should & can handle social issues and are doing so what's the problem! Some people can just not be happy anymore without confrontation to to sad. I do not believe in gay marriage and do not hate anyone nor do I fear anything--- I Let Go and Let God have the Judgment day not my problem or am I in control of who loves who!
In response to this insanity, I reminded this misguided soul that if we left matters of civil rights to the states, Jim Crow would still be in effect, Obama's parents would not have been able to marry, and poll taxes would still exist. How soon we forget.
This is the level of ignorance and interpretation of this Administration's position that is allowed to go unchallenged by the President and through his mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs.
The 4x married, ex-con former mayor Marion "The bitch set me up" Barry also holds the President's position on the matter. Barry, in his current role as DC Councilmember was the lone vote against DC recognizing same-sex marriages outside of the District:
The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that."
"I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."
That quote, by the way, was used by proponents of Proposition 8 in California in a robocall to highlight the President's "position" (even though belatedly candidate Obama said he opposed the measure, drawing attention to his inconsistent position).
I guess Gibbs has truly morphed into Scotty McClelland.
The absurdity of the answers Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is forced to deliver in defense of DADT (or rather, the President's "helplessness" to do anything about the continuation of discharges on his watch), is pathetic. Here is today's jackassery, via Kerry Eleveld @ The Advocate:
The first questioner Friday lumped President Obama's failure thus far to address the gay ban into a group of other pledges that the president has changed course on, such as his decision this week not to release the photos of detainee abuse. In other words, some in the mainstream press are starting to view the president's inaction on "don't ask, don't tell" as the reversal of a campaign promise. Gibbs avoided answering the DADT piece of that inquiry by responding more directly to the issue of releasing the photos.
Q Well, the President says that releasing the detainee photos poses a danger to our troops, but doesn't dismissing otherwise qualified soldiers also pose a danger? Is it a question of degree?
MR. GIBBS: No, no. What I talked about in terms of "don't ask, don't tell" was the President -- the President, as you know, supports changing that because he strongly believes that it does not serve our national interest. He agrees with former members of the Joint Chiefs in that determination.
But unlike photos, the only durable solution to "don't ask, don't tell" is through a legislative process, and the President is working with Congress and members of the Joint Chiefs to ensure that that happens.
Q But couldn't he in the meantime put a moratorium on these discharges until that can be accomplished?
MR. GIBBS: But again, the President has determined that that's not -- that's not the way to seek any sort of lasting or durable solution to the public policy problem that we have.
Q Then how would you respond to the criticism, though, that dismissing a qualified linguist endangers the troops?
MR. GIBBS: I think I would respond by saying that the President has long believed that the policy doesn't serve our national interest.
The White House is backed up against the wall and cannot give a reasonable, logical defense to continue a policy that is hurting our military effectiveness. He can stop the discharges right now, while Congress moves in its not-so-deliberate speed on the matter.
This is embarrassing for the "fierce advocate", but quite frankly it's irresponsible as commander in chief to act as if he can't do anything right now.
President Obama's absurd strategy on LGBT issues has left his press secretary Robert Gibbs completely unprepared to handle questions from journalists about marriage and DADT. At today's press briefing Gibbs was hit yet again with questions about the administration's untenable, illogical position that our Constitutional scholar President believes that separate is equal when it comes to marriage.
Q Okay. And the second question on a completely different topic -- the President opposes same-sex marriage, but he supports giving same-sex couples the same rights as married people.
MR. GIBBS: And benefits.
Q Same rights and benefits. What's your response to critics of his policy who say this is exactly separate but equal?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to the any number of times that he was asked this during the campaign and addressed it.
Q I don't think he was ever asked is this separate but equal.
MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, it was asked on multiple occasions, and I can pull you something on that. It's the President's belief -- he strongly supports civil unions, and supports ensuring that they have access to the rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation and things like that, that are enjoyed by others.
Uh, in other words, separate but equal. Own it, people. That's exactly the President's position, and it's bullsh*t.
Jill Dougherty then calls the administration out on its disingenuous position that it cannot do anything to stop the discharges under DADT:
Q And a question on another subject. Even some of the President's friends are now saying that he is hedging on his promises on "don't ask, don't tell." He said he would overturn it, and now -- and you're saying, you have said, the President will keep his promise. But we heard from General Jones saying that "I don't know" when he was asked when it would be overturned. And some people feel that it's really on the back burner.
And also, cases of people -- there's a group now of people who were in the military who are gay who have come out, who are -- we're doing a profile on one who's a linguist, Arabic linguist, who's been kicked out because -- precisely of that.
MR. GIBBS: I think that case, in fact, shows why the President, why former members of the Joint Chiefs, and why the administration believe that the policy isn't working for our national interests.
Now, in terms of keeping his promise, I would note that many of the questions that have been asked here require more than the snapping of one's fingers. To get fundamental reform in this instance requires a legislative vehicle. The President made a promise to change this policy; he will work with the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the administration and with Congress to ensure that we have a policy that works for our national interests.
And Bill Press continues the pummeling on DADT on just that point.
Q Robert, back to "don't ask, don't tell," you indicated that the President wants to change the policy, but that some legislative vehicle would be necessary. He is the Commander-in-Chief. I mean, if the President and the Secretary of Defense can bring about a new leadership in Afghanistan, replace the commanding general there, couldn't the President and the Secretary of Defense delay any more people getting fired under "don't ask, don't tell"?
MR. GIBBS: Well, there have been discussions about the best way to move forward, and the only sustainable way to do that is through -- sustainable and durable way -- is through legislation, which the President has promised and has continued to work for.
Q Is he willing to let other men and women in uniform, then, be dishonorably discharged simply because they're gay and lesbian while he's waiting for legislation?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Bill, as I said a few minutes ago, I think the President believes now, as he believed -- has believed for quite some time, that the process does not serve our national interest. You've seen many speak out in opposition to it, and the President is working with the Joint Chiefs and members of Capitol Hill to come to a durable legislative solution.
Oh, that was a crap dodge by the White House. The administration set itself up to look foolish during the campaign, and was clearly caught off guard by the equality advances and the MSM's willingness to broach the issue.
If the MSM can smell the foul stench of these pitiful excuses, there is nowhere to run, friends. They need an improved reality-based 2009 playbook in the White House, not some old tattered one that instructed the Dems to avoid dealing realistically with questions about equality at all costs.
The Advocate: Some people have analyzed the number of troops available to deploy and said that sending 30,000 troops is tantamount to deploying nearly every U.S. Army brigade possible. Given that about 10,000 soldiers are already in stop-loss, do you know where Defense secretary Gates is with his review of softening the discharges on "don't ask, don't tell"?
Q Robert, I have a question on today's event in the East Room. On "don't ask, don't tell," how much is the President personally involved? I mean, I know you've said that he sort of turned that policy change over to the Pentagon and you're letting them and Congress work on that.
Hypocrisy much? Take a look at this excerpt from the President's speech at the United States Naval Academy Graduation today. I just received the transcript in my inbox. 
