DADT, Congress Needs To Act NOW, UPDATED/ UPDATE II

Image stolen from Willis @ Old & N The Way I think he got it from The Chive. But, I will credit it to Willis..
It just really touched me when I saw it. So I had to get it from him..

People, come on. We need to do something about this. Write, call, email, go to the offices of your Representatives or Senators and let them know you want this overturned.

Pres. Obama has stated, over and over he will sign this legislation to overturn this unfair and prejudicial law. Look what we are losing by having it still in effect. Here is a link to the letter he received from a service member and the answer he hand wrote and sent to her.

*************************************************************************
UPDATED
This morning in my mail from Progressive Review I received this.

Obama Won't Oppose Ruling Weakening "Don't Ask"
by: Bob Egelko
The San Francisco Chronicle

The Obama administration, criticized by gay rights
advocates for not following through on a campaign promise
to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on military
service, has taken a quiet step to allow a federal court
in San Francisco to limit enforcement of the policy.

Without fanfare, the Justice Department told congressional
leaders last month that it would not seek Supreme Court
review of a May 2008 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals. The ruling cast doubt on the constitutionality
of discharging gay and lesbian soldiers from the military
for revealing their sexual orientation and required
military officials to justify each dismissal.

President George W. Bush's administration had asked the
court to reconsider the ruling but fell short of the
majority vote needed for a new hearing in December. The
Obama administration was given extensions of time to file
a further appeal but let the deadline expire May 3.

The decision not to appeal was made "after extensive
consultation with the Department of Defense," Attorney
General Eric Holder said in the letter to Congress. He
said the Justice Department will defend the policy when
the case returns to a trial court to determine whether
an Air Force officer should be discharged because of a
lesbian relationship. In the meantime, the ruling is
binding on federal courts in California and eight other
Western states covered by the nation's largest appellate
circuit.

"This decision makes it significantly easier to strike down
at least the application of 'don't ask, don't tell' in many
if not most cases," gay rights attorney Jon Davidson, legal
director of Lambda Legal, said Tuesday. Davidson filed
arguments supporting the Air Force officer in the case.

"We're happy that this is not going forward to the Supreme
Court at this point," Davidson said. He said many opponents
of the policy would prefer to steer clear of the high court
during a period of international tension when the justices
are likely to defer to military decisions.

"Don't ask, don't tell," approved by Congress and President
Bill Clinton in 1993, replaced a ban on gays in the
military. It bars the armed services from asking members
about their sexual orientation but requires the military
to discharge those who acknowledge being gay or engage in
homosexual activity. At least 12,500 gays and lesbians have
been discharged since the policy took effect.

President Obama said during last year's campaign that gays
and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the
military. But he has not made the issue a priority, and
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told an interviewer in late
March that any change was "down the road a little bit."

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Tuesday that Obama
still wants the policy repealed and is consulting with
military officials to see that "this change is done in a
sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our
national security."

But until Congress changes the law, LaBolt said, "the
administration will continue to defend the statute" in
court.

The appeals court ruling, the first of its kind in the
nation, came in the case of Maj. Margaret Witt of Spokane,
Wash., a decorated flight nurse, who was suspended without
pay in 2004 and discharged in 2007 after the Air Force
learned of her longtime relationship with a civilian woman.

In reinstating Witt's lawsuit challenging her discharge,
the appeals court relied on its interpretation of the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2003 ruling overturning state laws against
gay sex.

That ruling established a new level of constitutional
protection for gays and lesbians, the three-judge appellate
panel said. It said courts can no longer accept the govern-
ment's claim that all openly gay service members weaken the
armed forces, and instead must require the Air Force to
prove that discharging Witt would promote troop readiness
or unit cohesion.

But until Congress changes the law, LaBolt said, "the
administration will continue to defend the statute" in
court.

Let's look at that quote I pulled out right there.. That's what I keep talking about. congress has to change the law.. The Administration is BOUND BY LAW to defend this statute in court just as they are doing, until Congress changes this horrendous law. This was a flawed violation of the rights of LGBT service members from the day Clinton signed it into law.

I have heard people say it was better than nothing, but I am not so sure. Sometimes I think it was better before. This just made an excuse to kick out well qualified military individuals who otherwise were serving for years quietly. Yes, they served as liars and that's what Clinton was trying to fix. But is it any better now? I really don't think so. They either lie now or get kicked out.

We have lost so many because of this flawed law. I still think, if these high minded officers who say they support the overturning of this flawed law, really wanted to, they could and would just turn their backs and say they didn't hear a thing when soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel come to them and speak out. That would be one way to stop it until Congress gets brave enough to act.

But, if you fine people who expect to hold Pres. Obama to the fire, he has to have help. Hold your Congress people to the fire too. Get pro-active and get this done. Help support our military as you say you do. This is part of it. Show your support. Don't just put that yellow ribbon on your car like the Conservatives do, get involved. Do something.

************************************************************************

UPDATE II

This is from an interview with Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Q: THE WHITE HOUSE HAS MADE NO SECRET OF ITS DESIRE TO CHANGE THE “DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL” POLICY. UNTIL RECENTLY, PENTAGON SPOKESPERSONS IN PUBLIC COMMENTS SAID NO ONE WAS DOING ANY SPECIFIC PLANNING TOWARDS THAT END, BUT THEN [PENTAGON SPOKESMAN] GEOFF MORRELL MADE SOME COMMENTS LAST WEEK THAT YOU AND SECRETARY GATES ARE WORKING TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE’S BROADLY STATED GOAL. WHAT ARE THOSE CHALLENGES? WHAT ARE YOU AND THE JOINT CHIEFS AND [THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] DOING TO ADDRESS THEM AND WHERE DOES THAT STAND NOW?
MULLEN: The President has made his intent very clear, that he wants to see this law and policy change. It’s important that we all constantly recognize this is a law so not even the President himself can change it. He’s got to go to Congress and ask that it be changed. And in recognizing that, I have had discussions with the chiefs about this and what it might mean.

I am the principal military advisor to the President, and I owe him two things on this. One is an assessment of the impact if and when the law changes, and two is an implementation plan, and I’ve done internal work on my staff with respect to that, but I haven’t created a study group, and I haven’t created a group to go out and survey or do anything like that.

So that’s really where we are right now. We’ll see, you know, I recognize again the intent of the commander in chief, and if and when the law changes, you know, we’ll follow the law, as we do now.

Q: WITHOUT NAMING NAMES, COULD YOU BROADLY CHARACTERIZE THE VIEWS OF THE CHIEFS ON THAT ISSUE?
MULLEN: No, I just wouldn’t do that. Those are [internal] discussions. I don’t discuss that stuff with anybody on any subject.

Q: IS IT CONTENTIOUS? OR IS IT, WITHOUT CHARACTERIZING THE SPECIFICS, IS THIS AN ISSUE THAT WILL GO, COULD GO RELATIVELY EASILY OR AN ISSUE THAT’S GOING TO BE VERY CONTENTIOUS AND DIFFICULT?
MULLEN: What I said this weekend, and I’ll just repeat, as the senior military leader of a force that is in its eighth year of war and pressed, as we’ve talked about, I think it’s important that as we move forward in this debate, that it not become a polarizing debate that has the force in the middle, and that’s going to take responsible leadership on every aspect of this discussion.

I want to emphasize” responsible leadership. … We’ve had preliminary discussions. I’ve had preliminary discussions with the President about this. And I think it’s important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn’t disrupt the force at a time where it’s under a lot of stress, and that to me means in a measured, deliberate way over some time to be determined. And I don’t know what that would be.

Right now, again, we follow the law as it is obviously in place and we’ll continue to do that no matter what it is.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY EVERY ASPECT OF LEADERSHIP, YOU MEAN MILITARY, CIVILIAN, DEFENSE, CONGRESS, WHITE HOUSE?
MULLEN: Broader. I think —

Q: BROADER THAN THAT? BROADER THAN THAT WOULD BE WHAT?
MULLEN: We have a process in this country that I — I’m sure you all cherish — I cherish. We have laws. Those laws get passed by Congress. Those individuals are elected by the American people, and if the American people want to change this law, it comes up through them, they change the law, we comply.

Q: BUT IN YOUR VIEW AND AS SOMEONE WHO HAS TO ADVISE THE SECRETARY AND THE PRESIDENT, ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE LAW AS IS?
MULLEN: My view, quite frankly, isn’t important here. My responsibility is to carry out the law. That’s what I’m doing. And that’s what I will do and that’s what the military does and will do.

Q: BUT YOUR VIEW IS IMPORTANT AS AN ADVISORY ROLE AND SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE MILITARY.
MULLEN: But my advice is private advice. It’s private advice not just on this subject; it’s private advice on every subject. And you would ask me to give my private advice now on what I tell the President publicly. I’m not going to do that.

Q: HOW WOULD IT HAVE CHANGED YOUR TIME AS A SERVICE CHIEF HAD [“DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL”] BEEN REPEALED WHEN YOU WERE THE [CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS]? HOW WOULD IT HAVE CHANGED THE NAVY WHEN YOU WERE A SERVICE CHIEF IF YOU HAD HAD TO OPERATE UNDER THE NEW PLAN?
MULLEN: It’s a hypothetical. It didn’t.

Q: YOU SAY YOU THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO PROCEED IN A DELIBERATE WAY, ESPECIALLY DURING A TIME OF WAR, ON THIS ISSUE. IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT, CAN YOU SAY WHETHER HE’S HEARD THAT? HAVE YOU COMMUNICATED THAT TO HIM IN TERMS OF PRESSURE TO MOVE THIS, CHANGE THIS POLICY, KNOWING HIS VIEWS, KNOWING, YOU KNOW, THAT HE WANTS THIS CHANGE?
MULLEN: Again, I’m not going to talk about what I talk to the President about, not on this subject or any other.

Q: DO YOU FIND HIM TO BE RESPONSIVE TO VIEWS THAT HE DOESN’T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH? IF HE WERE TO HEAR FROM THE TROOPS, FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE DON’T WANT TO CHANGE THIS, WOULD YOU SEE HIM CHANGING HIS MIND ABOUT HIS OPINION?
MULLEN: Let me not talk about “don’t ask, don’t tell” with respect to that. I have many opportunities to speak with him. He listens. He is a man who listens to a diversity of opinions. I think that’s pretty well known. I can only confirm that from my own personal experience he does, and then, and then takes all that in and like any president, he makes hard decisions.

That’s how he has approached it, and I’m very comfortable with that, that he does listen, and that I have an opportunity as a senior military advisor to advise him, and then he makes a decision, and we follow.

Q: YOU SAY YOU’VE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE SERVICE CHIEFS, BUT YOU HAVEN’T GONE OUT AND DONE A GENERAL ASSESSMENT AMONG THE TROOPS. IS THERE MAYBE A PLAN TO DO THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO? CANVAS THE FORCE?
MULLEN: What I want to do, what I would like to achieve, is an objective assessment of the impact, and I think I owe that to him, and the specifics of how, I’ve made no decisions on exactly how to do that.

End of UPDATE

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

Again, I say call, write email, or go to the offices of your Representatives or Senators and let them know you want this overturned. That is the only way we can get this taken care of. Here is the link to find the contact information for your Representative or Senator.

Pres. Franklin Roosevelt told his supporters, to make him do the things he had promised to do. Well, maybe that's what we need to do with Pres. Obama too. He stated he wanted this overturned and that he was waiting for Congress. Congress is waiting on the sky to turn some color we have never seen before I guess.. or else they are waiting for Pres. Obama to write the bill for them, or hold their hand while they write it, or who really knows. So we have to force them too. Do it! If you care, if it's what you want, DO IT!

It only takes one to put forth a bill, then it just has to wind its way through the process... so lets get it done.