I'm sorry, but my tax dollars shouldn't pay for drunken, nude, lewd contactors

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 14:30:00 PM EDT

This continues in more detail -- and NSFW fashion -- below the fold.

Elaine Donnelly whines about Congressman Patrick Murphy and DADT

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

In the current issue of Human Events, the doyenne of discrimination bleats:

Murphy has replaced former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) as the new lead sponsor of H.R. 1283, a bill that would repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.  That law, Section 654, Title 10, frequently is mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Murphy's bill would replace the 1993 statute with a new law forbidding discrimination in the military "based on homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived."  

The open-ended language in "Murphy's New LGBT Law" would mandate accommodation of professed (not discrete) sexual minorities in all branches and communities of the military to include Army and Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALs, and submarines.  This would be tantamount to ordering military women to live with men in close quarters offering little or no privacy on a constant basis.  

Men and women are human, and therefore imperfect.  Homosexuals are no more perfect than anyone else. Sound military personnel policies encourage discipline rather than indiscipline, but Murphy's New LGBT Law would have the opposite effect.  

If Congress passes Murphy's New LGBT Law, the armed forces would have to disregard the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters. Unprecedented male/male and female/female sexual tensions will ensue, but the military will try to override them with mandatory sensitivity training courses. Corollary "zero tolerance" policies would deny promotions and end the careers of thousands of military personnel who disagree for any reason.  

I tried to present comprehensive testimony on the history and purpose of the 1993 law and the consequences of repeal.  But Murphy and other committee members demonstrated little concern about predictable problems.  Instead, they diverted attention from serious issues by trying to bully me with derogatory comments or questions.  Their dismissive behavior proved my point about intolerance in the name of "tolerance."  

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

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

..."Like a woman who is stared at, her breasts are stared at," Donnelly explained. She further explained the "absolutely devastating" effect of homosexuals "introducing erotic factors" and made a comparison to Sen. Larry Craig's adventure at the Minneapolis airport. She said admitting gays to the military would be "forced cohabitation" and a policy of "relax and enjoy it."

BREAKING: Harry Reid backs DADT moratorium amendment, calls for permanent suspension

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:38:33 PM EDT

Reid declared his support for the amendment when asked about it by the Blade at a news conference Tuesday.

"I feel on this issue that we're having trouble, we're having trouble getting people into the military and I think that we shouldn't turn down anybody that's willing to fight for our country - certainly based on sexual orientation. I feel strongly that - I support the president. I support the members of the Joint Chiefs who have not spoken out publicly. If Kirsten offers this amendment I will support it, at least as far as I understand it. What you've just told me, it would basically change the current policy for 18 months, is that right? I would support that. My only difference I would have is I would make it permanent."

More detail on it, from The Advocate:

A "don't ask, don't tell" repeal bill has never been introduced in the U.S. Senate, which means there's no point of reference on support for repeal. Gillibrand's potential measure would be even more of a wild card because it does not amount to full repeal but rather a temporary cessation of the policy. On the one hand, it could attract the senators who are leaning toward full repeal but want more time to study the long-term implications. On the other, senators who want to overturn the policy entirely might view the measure as an inadequate fix.

But [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey] Sarvis said it's one way to stop the discharges while a more thorough review process ensues.

"This would keep the pressure on Congress and the White House to vote on full repeal," Sarvis said.

"Directs the Secretary of Defense to instruct the Secretaries of each of the armed services that there may be no investigations of or inquiry into, of any administrative action relating to, conduct described in 10 U.S.C § 654(b), 'Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed services,' until the end of the 111th Congress, provided that, this shall not limit the authority of the Secretaries of the armed services with respect to conduct that would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

HRC, Servicemembers United kick off National DADT repeal tour today

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

It kicks off with an announcement event today at the National Press Club.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), announced today the launch of "Voices of Honor: A Generation Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'" The national tour highlights the discriminatory law that hurts military readiness and national security while putting American soldiers fighting overseas at risk.  To learn more online, visit: www.hrc.org/VoicesOfHonor.

"This tour focuses on the voices and stories of the qualified, patriotic gay and lesbian service members who are forced out of the U.S. Armed Services simply because of who they are," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  "Poll after poll continues to show the vast majority of Americans, including the majority of active members of the Armed Services, support the right of gay and lesbian service members to serve openly and honestly.  We must repeal this discriminatory policy and ensure that our military can recruit and retain the best and the brightest troops regardless of their sexual orientation."

SCOTUS rejects DADT challenge with admin approval; Gallup poll shows conservatives approve repeal

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 12:30:00 PM EDT

Just in. Can't wait for Robert Gibbs to step up to the podium and answer questions about this "WTF" moment in our "fierce advocate" administration's history:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting an Obama administration request to maintain the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" directive.  The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's policy.

...In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion." Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy "implements the law."

"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement.

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won't stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

The action taken today was denial of certiorari, which ultimately means that there were not at least four justices willing to accept the case.

So, today's action was not a decision on the merits of the case; the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

What's more, the decision, particularly coming right now, likely tells us little about what the members of the Court actually think about the constitutionality of the policy.  Why?  Because a justice, say Justice Ginsburg, might believe the policy is unconstitutional but could vote against cert because she was uncertain of the Court's other members' views and did not want to risk losing the argument.  Additionally, with the Court is in the midst of a personnel change, I'd think we're unlikely to see many high-profile, likely 5-4 case, cert grants before a new justice takes the bench.

But the Obama administration's support of retaining the policy will be defended -- what we will hear is that only Congress can repeal DADT, and he "can't" do an executive order (even though the admin hasn't said that there is any legal reason it cannot). But look at this...

Gallup poll: 58% of conservative favor dumping DADT...um, where's the action?

So how high do the poll numbers have to rise before Obama, Reid, and Pelosi get a clue -- do they need 100% of the American people to think they are damaging national security by continuing this discriminatory policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell? (Gallup):

The finding that majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%), conservatives (58%), and Republicans (58%) now favor what essentially equates to repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy implemented under President Clinton in 1993 is noteworthy for several reasons. First, the data show that these traditionally conservative groups are shifting on this issue, supporting it to a far greater extent than they support legalized gay marriage. Second, it suggests the political playing field may be softer on this issue, and President Barack Obama will be well-positioned to forge ahead with his campaign promise to end the military ban on openly gay service members with some support from more conservative segments of the population. To date, it is estimated that more than 12,500 servicemen and servicewomen have been discharged under the policy, including more than 200 since Obama took office.

Overall, the groups most in favor of allowing openly gay service members to serve in the military continue to be liberals (86%) and Democrats (82%), followed by Americans 18 to 29 (78%) -- whose support registered a nine-point jump in support from 2004.

While men (64%) and Americans 65 and older (60%) have levels of support more in line with right-leaning groups than with left-leaning groups on this issue, they join virtually all other demographic segments of the population in registering an increase in support since 2004.

On the other hand, the right has been working hard to bring the bathroom debate front and center with ENDA and that will be a PR battle that we have to be ready for. If the White House and Congress is so gun shy on DADT, I don't believe that they will grow a spine to help us sell a fully inclusive ENDA when the bathroom hysteria sh*t hits the fan if we don't lay enough groundwork and political cover for them, sorry to say. What do you think?

Knights Out Calls For President To Issue Stop-Loss Order

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:00:00 PM EDT

One of Knights Out's members is Lieutenant Dan Choi, the active duty Infantry officer, Iraq vet, and Arabic speaker who has been told by the military (under President Barack Obama as Commander in Chief), that he will be discharged for violating DADT.

Knights Out, an organization of 400 straight and gay West Point graduates, former staff and faculty, and allies, respectfully calls on our President to sign a stop-loss order immediately to allow Lieutenant Dan Choi, and all other gay and lesbian soldiers, to continue to serve without risk of expulsion under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Dan Choi, on The Rachel Maddow Show (May 7, 2009).

Expelling gay and lesbian soldiers compromises military readiness.  These are soldiers we need to win our wars.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromises unit cohesion.  Forcing soldiers to lie about who they are, and who their families are, tears down trust, and erodes the bonds that make military units strong.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is dishonorable.  Integrity and honor are, and should be, central to our military code.  The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy forces soldiers to choose between their honor and their military duty.

We are confident that our military leaders and soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will manage this change with the professionalism that marks the finest military in the world.

Mr. President, we call on you as our Commander-in-Chief to exercise your leadership and sign a stop-loss order today allowing our gay and lesbian soldiers to serve without compromising their honor.

Report: Obama can stop the discharge of openly gay and lesbian service members now

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon May 11, 2009 at 17:45:00 PM EDT

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.

Another example of the deranged 'logic' for keeping DADT in place

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM EDT

First, people who will not send their sons on overnight camping trips with openly homosexual male scoutmasters, and this is most people, will do everything they can to keep their sons from enlisting. That widespread social attitude was decisively demonstrated in the recent election in California where Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage, passed by a comfortable majority.

Next, discouraging heterosexual males from service will change the culture of the services. This fact is well established by the parallel example in my Catholic Church. Faithful Catholic writer Michael Rose's study of Catholic seminaries, "Goodbye, Good Men," presents overwhelming evidence that a lavender mafia emerged in the post Vatican II Catholic Church, gained control of admissions in many seminaries, and literally pushed away young, strongly faithful heterosexual men who gave their full assent to the church's teachings on sexuality.

Now imagine what can happen in the military, another hierarchical organization but one where leaders have much more authority, when openly homosexual men and women are allowed to serve. This will drastically change and cause great harm to the cultural cohesion of the military and naval services. As noted above, heterosexual male enlistments will drastically decline, and just like the church, homosexual leaders will emerge to influence promotions and leadership assignments. At least in the church they have to hide their sexual perversions, but if allowed to operate openly in the military, they will achieve positions of authority where they can coerce their subordinates, something which happens now regularly with women serving in close situations with men.

The sorry thing about this is that Congress and the president are so concerned about the reaction of bigots like this (particularly if they are retired military brass) that they are reluctant to move to repeal an onerous policy like DADT.  

SLDN's Sarvis pens open letter to President Obama re: stalling on DADT repeal

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 10:30:00 AM EDT

President Obama is a brave man. He doesn't hesitate to take great political risks. He asked Congress for billions to save the banking system and more billions to stimulate the economy - and Congress handed them to him. Not everyone looked happily on the trillions we'll be facing in debt, but in a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Sunday he still got a 69 percent approval rating - the highest of any president at the 100-day mark in 20 years - and 72 percent of Americans said they have a favorable impression of him. Not since Ronald Reagan's first 100 days has a president done so well. Obama is not only living up to most Americans' expectations, he's exceeding them.

So here we have a decisive president who's not afraid to act boldly on the economy. He takes the enormous risk of allowing the release of the torture memos, and even so more Americans approve of that controversial act than disapprove. Majorities say that that the country has turned around and is now headed in the right direction, and that he's kept his campaign promises.

That's a lot of political capital, and political capital is political power. The president may never have a better moment. There is, however, one campaign promise he's been silent on since he was elected in November: the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." It's still up there on the White House website.

Sarvis continues below the fold.

Retired military officers to the President - keep kicking out gay and lesbian service members

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 00:00:00 AM EDT

More than 1,000 retired military officers, including several who were top commanders, are urging President Barack Obama and Congress to maintain the law that bars gays from serving openly in the armed forces.

Obama is consulting with the Pentagon on the issue and says he supports eventual repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prohibits gays in the military from being open about their sexual orientation. A bill that would allow gays to serve openly has been introduced in Congress.

A statement issued by the retired officers Tuesday said passage of that bill "would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

The signers of this sad petition are mired in the fears and politics of the past. More than 75 percent of the American public, including most younger service members as well as many active duty flag officers, realize the question is not if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed but when and how. We hope President Obama will take advantage of his first real opportunity, coming in May during the defense budget process, to stand firm in his campaign commitment of getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

As for the petition's claim on unit cohesion, there is no evidence, data, or research supporting the claim that gays and lesbians serving openly disrupts unit cohesion. Actually, many are already serving openly, without incident. And the serious studies on the subject show unit cohesion actually improves.

We deeply appreciate the service of these retired officers but what they are expressing here are irrational fears. Unfortunately, some invariably have a hard time understanding that times have changed--and so have people.

No doubt in 1948 hundreds of flag officers opposed President Truman's Executive Order to end racial segregation in the ranks. Their insistence on calling for continued discrimination wasn't valid or right, nor did it make for a stronger military. Likewise, today, for these retired flag officers to call for official and continued discrimination in the ranks will hardly make our country and our military stronger.

We should be ashamed that 26 nations permit open service and manage it successfully, while the United States, a beacon of democracy and with one of the strongest militaries in the world, lags behind.

SLDN responds to Sec. Defense Gates on 'go slow' approach on DADT repeal

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 19:35:47 PM EDT

"Sec. Gates hardly gave a sound reason for kicking 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' down the road -- or essentially back tracking on a campaign promise made by his Commander in Chief," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "I trust the secretary was not speaking for President Obama, who, hopefully, will issue the call for repeal when he sends his Defense Department budget to Congress in a few weeks. This is about timely leadership."

Sarvis continued. "It's also called multitasking. Right now is the time -- while we're engaged in two wars -- we need the most qualified men and women serving. This is not the time to keep firing linguists and intelligence analysts because of their sexual orientation. The longer the president and Pentagon delay the issue, the fewer linguists and intelligence analysts the Pentagon will have to call on to fight terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

More than 800 hundred mission-critical service members (linguists, intelligence analysts) have been fired under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. Almost 13,000 total service members have been discharged since 1994.

"It's not easy or cheap to replace mission critical personnel," said Sarvis. "And the serious felons we're now recruiting probably don't have a command of Arabic or Farsi, or know how to analyze intelligence."

Gates: postpone DADT repeal, continue funding discharge of gays and lesbians

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 14:35:04 PM EDT

Yep, here we go. With poll numbers across the board supporting repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Obama administration, through Bush holdover Defense Secretary Robert Gates, say they will still go slow on things and has appropriated funds in the FY10 budget to continue booting openly gay and lesbian service members from the military.  (via Raw Story/PageOneQ):

In January, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would end the policy, but didn't give a time frame when he would do so.

"I think the president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now, and let's push that one down the road a little bit," Gates told Fox's Chris Wallace.

When Wallace asked Gates why there is money in the proposed 2010 budget to enforce the "don't ask" policy, the former Bush administration official said the Pentagon will enforce whatever policy is the law.

"Any change in the policy would require a change in the law," Gates said. "We will follow the law whatever it is. That dialog [to end the ban]... has really not progressed very far in this administration."

Pelosi: inclusive ENDA will pass, no DADT timeline

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 14:00:00 PM EST

Today, in a breakfast meeting with progressive bloggers and writers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated that repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, which prohibits openly gay and lesbian citizens from serving in the armed forces, is a priority that will be passed "when we have the votes." The Speaker said there was no timeline for the bill to be brought the House floor.

Responding to a question asked by Advocate news editor Kerry Eleveld, the speaker referenced the work of Rep. Ellen Tauscher, the member who introduced a bill this week to reverse the law. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was passed during the Clinton administration and signed by the president into law in 1993. Eleveld asked the Sepaker if she thought the bill would be voted on by the end of 2009.

"The priorities have been Hate Crimes and ENDA, fully inclusive legislation in those two areas, so we'll have to have our strategy work around on how we can get those passed, as well as move forward on Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Pelosi said.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher to introduce DADT repeal bill today

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 10:30:00 AM EST

This news is from The Politico. I chose this source because you have to see the reference to the current policy known as DADT:

On Monday, buoyed by a stronger Democratic majority in Congress, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation to overturn the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, a Tauscher aide said.

Clinton's handling of the issue was widely condemned, and the entire fiasco became a textbook example of the sort of avoid-at-all-cost political controversy that can seriously undermine a new president. For Clinton, it knocked him off message, sapped him of auathority, damaged his popularity ratings and left him with a reputation for being wishy-washy that stuck.

And it left the military with a policy that no one really likes - the "don't ask, don't tell" regulation that allows gays to serve in the military, as long as they don't flout their homosexuality.

But as we know, the Obama administration is already queasy about doing anything at this time:

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said as much in a January YouTube video.

"There are many challenges facing our nation now, and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy," Gibbs said. "So not everything will get done in the beginning, but he's committed to following through."

Kansas Army National Guard gives lesbian soldier the DADT boot

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM EST

Amy Brian, who served nine years in the Guard, including a stint in Iraq, was investigated and "separated" last month after a civilian co-worker told authorities they had seen her kissing a woman in a Wal-Mart checkout line.

Brian joins almost 12,500 other lesbian, gay and bisexual service members discharged from 1994 to 2007.

This is a propitious moment for seeking change: a nation at war needs all its most talented troops. Last year the principal architects of "don't ask, don't tell," former Gen. Colin Powell and former Senator Sam Nunn, said it was time to "review" the policy.

That's a polite way of saying they've changed their minds. So have many of us who wore the uniform in 1993 and supported a policy that forced some of our fellow troops to live a lie and rejected thousands who told the truth.

There are other aspects of history that may be helpful as well. The armed forces initially resisted President Harry Truman's 1948 order to integrate the ranks. But the Korean War forced trials by fire - in fact, the units with the highest casualty rates in Korea integrated the swiftest - and the Pentagon ultimately acknowledged that recruiting from across America's socio-economic spectrum produced the best force. After that, the military swiftly set the standard for race relations.

Servicemen continue to be fierce believers in the idea that diversity equals strength, yet during the Clinton effort on gay troops most of us rejected analogies to racial integration. The homosexual threat to good order and discipline was behavioral, we argued, not physiological, and therefore unrelated.

It was a flawed argument. The underlying fears were the same as with integration: homosexuals jeopardized unit cohesion not because of their own conduct - after all, military law and command discretion encompass behavioral breaches - but because of the perceived reaction of those xenophobic troops who didn't want to cohabitate with people different from themselves. Today, this sounds like one of the "worn-out dogmas" President Obama identified in his inaugural speech. And it does a disservice to the ranks.

A front-page Boston Globe article by Bryan Bender, titled "Obama Seeks Assessment on Gays in Military," reports the news that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is going to sponsor a bill to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. This is significant, since there has been no Senate bill in the past. There is one condition--Kennedy is looking for a Republican to co-sponsor to provide political cover. According to the CNSNews, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin also wants to vote for a bill repealing the 1993 law during the coming year.

Liberals in Congress are pressuring the Joint Chiefs to say something-anything-that might give them political cover as they move to fulfill Obama's campaign promise to repeal the law.

Elaine Donnelly unglued over possible gay pick for Secretary of the Navy

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EST

"Frankly I think it would show poor judgment on his part to make this type of an appointment," she shares -- and admits White's name coming up was "something of a surprise" to friends of hers to know White, like him, and appreciate his work.

Elaine Donnelly"[But] if he is identified as [being considered for Navy secretary] and becomes a symbol of the issue of gays in the military, that could distort the debate in Congress -- and that's what I'm concerned about," laments the military watchdog. "Congress needs to look at this very objectively."

"I don't think it ought to be a purely political appointment," she says of the Navy secretary's position. "[But] the fact that there is no military experience there would argue that he was appointed for some other reason -- and if that reason is perceived to be support for repeal of the law on gays in the military, that would be the problem."

BTW, Elaine, who has no military background and zero qualifications of any kind to speak with authority on the subject, went on live TV and gave bigoted, fact-challenged testimony before Congress that was ridiculed not only by the people in the hearing room, but on The Daily Show, and in the mainstream media.

More below the fold.  

Elaine Donnelly blows a gasket over Powell endorsement of Obama

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM EDT

The normal human desire for privacy and modesty in sexual matters has not changed-particularly in what the law describes as "forced intimacy" in close combat units. Colin Powell, however, may have changed in the face of relentless criticism from gay activists.  Wrote DeYoung, "He had never been attacked by liberals before, particularly as a bigot; it bothered him far more than he had anticipated."

...If General Powell is not concerned about the consequences of repealing the law, he cannot be described as a conservative or even the credible leader of the military that he used to be. If Powell does not favor all of these consequences, why has he announced his intent to vote for Senator Obama, who has promised to push for repeal of the 1993 law?  Either way, General Powell is letting down the men and women of our military.

Following a blistering rebuke earlier this year on Capitol Hill - where she was called "just plain dumb" by one lawmaker - and a Pulitzer-worthy pounding in The Washington Post, one would think that Elaine would be holding all of her opinions for secret tribunals. But instead, she has elevated her attacks on military personnel one decibel higher.

This time, Elaine has her hairnet in a bundle over one of her former heroes: Retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell.

...It's no wonder why Elaine is worrying her well-coiffed head. Among lawmakers who have said they support continuing to exclude LGBT personnel from the armed forces, most have cited Powell's continued support for the same position as their justification. And earlier this year, following Powell's statement that the day would soon come when the ban would be lifted, Senator John McCain (who has also cited Powell as a reason for supporting the ban) modified his own position somewhat, saying that he would now consider reviewing the law.

..."Like a woman who is stared at, her breasts are stared at," Donnelly explained. She further explained the "absolutely devastating" effect of homosexuals "introducing erotic factors" and made a comparison to Sen. Larry Craig's adventure at the Minneapolis airport. She said admitting gays to the military would be "forced cohabitation" and a policy of "relax and enjoy it."

* Busted - Elaine Donnelly's secret, desperate meeting to preserve DADT
* Don't Ask, Don't Tell supporter Donnelly provides comic relief during House hearing

Busted - Elaine Donnelly's secret, desperate meeting to preserve DADT

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM EDT

So what to do? Well, the doyenne of discrimination has decided to do a little Black Ops meeting with veterans service organizations (VSOs) to figure out how to turn up the Homosexual Terror Alert. Fortunately Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) received the secret memorandum on this briefing, and you've got to read the cloak and dagger BS. The Blend has obtained a scan of the memo and transcribed it for your reading pleasure.

Because I admire your organization's work in support of our nation's armed forces, I am writing to ask you a question. The determined campaign to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military is gaining ground. In this critical battle over the culture of our military -- the only one we have -- do you care who wins?

Homosexual activists are pushing hard to impose their agenda on our military, regardless of the impact on morale and discipline. They are pleased that pro-defense and veterans organizations, which helped to pass the law in 1993, appear to be missing from the field this time. Organizations such as the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and the ACLU are well-funded and politically powerful, even though they have no arguments that withstand scrutiny.

Given your organization's long-standing commitment to military readiness and the high standards and sound policy that promotes it, I hope I can count on you in joining CMR to defend the law regarding homosexual conduct in the military. We need to talk about what can be done, and why, face to face.

I am writing to invite you and other concerned organizations' leaders to a private, off-the-record briefing to discuss this critically important national security issue. Please join us at the CMR office in Washington DC:

Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008
Where: CMR Conference Room, 1615 L Street,  NW, Suite 650
Time: 12:00-2:30 PM (Light lunch will be served)
RSVP: Executive Director Tommy Sears, 202/347/5333, tommy@cmrlink.org

Due to this issue's urgency, this invitation is not transferrable to casual observers, interns or other non-executive support staff. This PowerPoint briefing, which includes short video excerpts of the July 23 House Armed Services Committee hearing on gays in the military, will cover everything you need to know to provide the type of principled, engaged leadership that only you can give. I would welcome new ideas and commitment that could turn the situation around.

We are not without advantages. On our side we have the 1993 law, several court decisions declaring the law constitutional (the most recent in June, 2008), credible facts, common sense, and, I believe, majority support among men and women in uniform.

Elaine is moonstruck over Sarah

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 17:00:00 PM EDT

The opinions of the Republican vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, on these issues have not been determined as yet, but she is the mother of an infantry soldier about to deploy to Iraq.  She has already taken on extreme environmentalists whose sentimentality about remote oil fields and even polar bears threatens to interfere with the energy needs of the nation and the economy of Alaska.

These positions are a sign of sensitivity combined with sound priorities.  Given Governor Palin's record of withstanding political intimidation, it is reasonable to expect that she will support the Republican platform and apply the same sound priorities to military social issues after she takes office as Vice President of the United States.

Related:
* Elaine 'forcible sodomy' Donnelly scorched by WaPo for ludicrous DADT testimony
* Don't Ask, Don't Tell supporter Donnelly provides comic relief during House hearing
* Elaine Donnelly honored on The Daily Show  

Elaine's still giving it all for DADT

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM EDT

She forges on, oblivious to the fact that her unhinged testimony managed to get a write up in the WaPo and a scorch by The Daily Show. In a Chicago Tribune op-ed, she paints a horrifying picture of life in the military if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed.

This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men at all times, regardless of the impact on discipline and morale. Stated in gender-neutral terms, in conditions of "forced intimacy," people will be exposed to people who may be sexually attracted to them. Sexual tension of any kind is inherently disruptive, but those affected would have no recourse, short of leaving or avoiding the military altogether.

The military does not do things halfway. Following historic precedent, officials will issue orders giving special, unprecedented rights to professed homosexuals, and enforce a corollary policy of "zero tolerance" of anyone who disagrees. Complaints about inappropriate, passive or aggressive actions conveying a homosexual message or approach, short of physical touching and assault, could be met with career-killing presumptions and counter-accusations questioning the motives of the complainant. In messy, emotionally charged disputes, commanders who side against homosexuals could be accused of "intolerance" that violates the zero-tolerance policy.

And no one has explained how this radical cultural change would improve discipline, morale or readiness.

First and foremost, Ms. Donnelly's arguments seem to be made with no knowledge of, or expertise in, the Uniform Code of Military Justice or other rules of conduct within the armed forces. If a straight colleague is harassed by a gay service member, she proclaims, they "would have no recourse, short of leaving or avoiding the military altogether."

In fact, the truth is that the UCMJ prohibits such behavior, period, regardless of whether it is same-sex or opposite-sex conduct. Advocates of allowing gay Americans to serve openly have consistently, and always, advocated applying conduct rules and regulations to every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine equally. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" doesn't give anyone a pass for unacceptable conduct. It simply means everyone gets treated - and punished - the same.