Pres. Obama has Not Betrayed LGBT, But Congress Has

This is another take on the story from a gay attorney on the issue of Pres. Obama and how he has "sold out" the LGBT on the issues. I have maintained and posted and argued that just isn't true. But, here is someone with maybe a little more authority than me.

Obama hasn't left us

Then, this past Friday, I awoke to word at AmericaBlog, the Web site of gay activist blogger John Aravosis, that "Obama defends DOMA in federal court" and "invokes incest and marrying children." I was appalled. Aravosis also wrote in another post that the DOJ was "lying" when it said that Justice "generally ... defend[s] the law on the books in court." Then I looked at the brief. I agreed with Aravosis that the brief went too far in some of the language it used in its defense of the statute. But, looking at the law and past cases, I disagreed that the Obama administration had a real choice about whether it would defend DOMA in court and that DOJ's brief "compared us" to incest and pedophilia. And, because some in the community have kept pushing those stories -- despite contrary opinions from Laurence Tribe, Nan Hunter, Robert Raben and others -- I've spent the past week attempting to dispute those claims..

It is clear that the brief defending DOMA, despite whatever legal and political realities might underlie its filing, struck a nerve with the LGBT community. It was an old nerve -- Clinton's DOMA signing -- scraped raw once again. People have felt genuinely, personally injured by the very fact that the brief was filed, and their defenses have led them to fight. But the brief is not reason enough for a rupture between President Obama and the gay community. For those who believe in full equality for LGBT people in our country, it's time to move the discussion beyond the fight over that DOMA brief.

Wednesday night, President Obama -- sitting in the Oval Office with Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solomonese and out gay Reps. Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank, among others, behind him -- took the first step toward moving the discussion forward. He signed a memorandum ordering agency and department heads to, among other steps, "extend the benefits they have respectively identified to qualified same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees" where possible under current law. Even Michelangelo Signorile, the longtime LGBT activist who once outed then-closeted Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams to point out the first Bush administration's hypocrisy, agreed that these actions have shown that "we have made our point."

I think we have made our point. Fair, consistent, vocal criticism leveled against those who do not help advance LGBT equality works. Whether spread on the Internet or across statehouses or at a march, we have shown -- and they have shown -- that our voices send a strong message to this White House. Rep. John McHugh, the Army secretary nominee, himself has issued a statement affirming his desire to change the law that doesn't allow gay people to serve openly in the military.

Wednesday's events made it clear once again that the Obama administration has heard us. The administration has taken a step forward, and so should we. Demonizing Obama or openly gay leaders like Frank, Baldwin or Solomonese (which is not the same as fairly criticizing them when we disagree with their actions) is not the way to move the ball forward.

Despite criticisms of Obama's memorandum issued Wednesday, it was a solid, if small, step forward in which he shared with the nation his desire to see DOMA repealed and, before that even, the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act passed in Congress. As Rep. Baldwin explained Wednesday evening on "The Rachel Maddow Show," Obama's voiced support for the bill sends a strong signal to Congress -- one that she believes will help propel the bill forward.

I am not saying we don't have to hold his feet to the fire, but as I have pointed out before, Pres. Obama is just ONE part of this chain. He can't do this alone. It is very easy for people to say, "oh, he can just sign an executive order and fix it", well, no he can't. DADT and DOMA are LAWS, and they have to be overturned by LAWS, and that takes action by Congress, so as I have pointed out before, call your congress person.

We have 2 openly gay people in Congress, Reps. Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank, and yet neither of them are pushing any kind of legislation through for either of these laws to get them overturned.

If you are gay, and you feel betrayed, why don't you contact them? They are betraying you much more than Pres. Obama is. How long are you going to wait for them to act in your behalf? Pres. Obama, once again, stated he would sign the legislation when it got to him, that's what he is supposed to do. Now, the ball is back in Congresses lap. Get him a bill.

Urgent All Hands: Daschle/Dole compromise

This post from DailyKos is what I have been talking about. Read it and then tell me I am crazy. This is what we have to do. It goes right along with what I have posted below and what I have posted before.

If we don't stay after this we won't have health care for all this year, and we can't let this happen. We have to stay after our Congressional leaders.

Thanks all.


Urgent All Hands: Daschle/Dole compromise & HELP Comm. needs spine & calls [Update]

Posted using ShareThis

New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Option Health Care

There has been a lot of talk about how people don't really want a Public Option Health Care. Well this poll, EBRI, shows that is wrong.

According to this poll, which was sponsored by several businesses which you wouldn't think of as being the ones doing the study, finds that 83% want a public option.

The list of businesses are a diverse group including insurance companies, telecommunication companies, oil companies and others. Here is the list from the site.

This survey was made possible with support from AARP, American Express, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Buck Consultants, Chevron, Deere & Company, IBM, Mercer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Principal Financial Group, Schering-Plough Corp., Shell Oil Company, The Commonwealth Fund, and Towers Perrin.

Not exactly who you would think of when you think of someone supporting the option the President wants for all Americans now is it. And not exactly what I would call a "Liberal" group.

Here are the numbers for your perusal:

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the following:
Creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase:
• Strongly support—53 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—5 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent
Having national rules requiring insurance companies to cover all people, regardless of their health problems:
• Strongly support—55 percent
• Somewhat support—25 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—9 percent
Expanding government programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid:
• Strongly support—45 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—9 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent
Requiring all employers to pay toward subsidized health insurance for employees:
• Strongly support—42 percent
• Somewhat support—33 percent
• Somewhat oppose—10 percent
• Strongly oppose—12 percent
Requiring everyone to participate in some kind of health insurance plan:
• Strongly support—38 percent
• Somewhat support—30 percent
• Somewhat oppose—13 percent
• Strongly oppose—16 percent

Once again, it is amazing to me how our representatives in Congress can ignore the will and the voices of the people. Yet they are. But, with the amount of money that flows from the insurance companies to our representatives it is not really a surprise, because they don't want anything that might interrupt that cash flow.

So it is up to you, you have to let your voices be heard. Remind your Congress person who they work for.. not the insurance company, but you, you pay their salary, you vote them into office and you can vote them out.

Most of us want this and we need to remind them we do. It is time to let Congress know where we stand.

h/t Bob Cesca

Remember When the Republicans said the Democrats Hated the Military? UPDATED! UPDATE II

Yeah, I know.. it's supposed to be the proper thing now to say we aren't funding this war effort.. well sorry, you will never hear me say that. We have military in harms way. We have troops who need funding. This needs to be done. I don't want to hear your crap.

I remember this mess from Cindy McCain during the campaign and it made me so angry when she pulled this 2 faced nonsense. John McCain as Senator didn't vote for the GI Bill, and didn't vote for most of the supplementals during his time in the senate. His record on Veteran affairs was terrible. Yet, this is what she said about then Sen. Obama, when he voted against a supplemental bill, because there was no deadline for withdrawl in it.

Cindy McCain today joined in the stepped-up attacks on Democrat Barack Obama.

"I'm proud of my sons, but let me tell you, the day that Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body," she said, drawing a chorus of boos.

"Let me tell you: I would suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day, and see what it means, and see what it means to have a loved one serving in the armed forces, and more importantly, serving in harm's way."

McCain, who said Tuesday that Obama has "waged the dirtiest campaign in American history," is referring to a vote that Obama cast last year against a defense funding bill because it did not include a timeline for pulling out of Iraq. He subsequently voted for a version that included a timetable.

Jimmy McCain, then 18, served with the Marines in Iraq last year before returning in February.

Now, lets see what happens when the new bill comes up for vote tonight or tomorrow in the house and the senate. Will Sen. McCain vote for the new supplemental bill? Or will he stand in lock step with the rest of the hypocritical republicans and let his sons stand on the battlefield with no money?

UPDATE As of 5:43 PM CDT, June 16, 2009 the bill had passed the House 226 to 202. Now it is on to the Senate to see what they will do.

UPDATE II Around 5:00 PM CDT June 19,2009 the bill passed the Senate with a vote 91-5, voting against the bill were Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Russ Feingold, D-Wis.; and Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.

Finally Torture Architects and Psychologists are Fired

According to ABC news blotter post the two psychologists and architects who helped develop the program of torture for the CIA, and were paid very well for their time doing it, were fired finally.

I say what took so long. If the program of torture stopped in 2004 or so, why were we still paying these guys up till 2009? And at the stunning rate of $1,000 a day. EACH. Yes, that's right, I didn't stutter on that one.

According to the story, the phone number has been disconnected and the address listed for the offices of these guys is now empty. They have also refused to be interviewed and have issued no statements.

Their names are Dr. James Mitchell and Dr. Bruce Jessen, and also according to the "Blotter":

Their firings came during a purge by CIA Director Leon Panetta of all contractors involved in the interrogation program. In early April, Panetta told CIA employees that contractors involved in the interrogation program and secret prisons were being "promptly terminated."

-snip-

The company had at least 120 employees as of 2007, according to a recent Senate investigation. One former military psychologist tells ABC News that Mitchell & Jessen charged the CIA roughly $500,000 a year for their services. It was this source's understanding that the money was largely tax-free and did not include expenses, which the agency also paid for.

This is just part of the legacy of the Bush/Cheney Mis-Administration. So lets see, $500,000 a year for 8 years, let me do some math here.. That looks like $4,000,000 tax free. Plus expenses, of which I am sure there were many. Look at that again.. That is 4 MILLION Dollars.. But, for what they did, which was stand around and tell people what to do, how to torture people. I would say that was good money. Especially when you take into consideration that they didn't even know what they were doing.

In April, ABC News reported that neither Mitchell nor Jessen, both former military psychologists, who were part of a military training program that taught U.S. soldiers how to withstand harsh interrogation techniques, had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before they were hired by the CIA. The two, and later with additional employees, however, recommended so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Air Force Colonel Steve Kleinman, a former colleague of both Mitchell and Jessen and an expert interrogator, told ABC News that the two knew virtually nothing about conducting interrogations.

"They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience," said Col. Kleinman. "They are not interrogators."

I, for one am glad these two are off the government payroll, but I have to ask one question.

What the hell took so damn long?

Support David Letterman

Support David Letterman against the lies of Sarah Palin.

Here is a link to the David Letterman support group on FaceBook against the lies of Sarah Palin.

This all started last week when Dave made some questionable jokes about Palin and her daughter. Yes, the jokes were of questionable taste, and yes they were out of line. But the response of Palin was also out of line and in questionable taste.

Dave has walked it back, said he was talking about the 18 year old daughter, who gave birth to a child, and has been in the public eye recently talking about of all things abstinence.

This makes a lot of sense when you have just given birth to a child, out of wedlock, and have no plans at this time to marry the father of your child. Yet, Palin didn't let it drop there, she had to take it one step farther and say that Letterman was talking about her 14 year old daughter.

Then she makes an innuendo of pedophilia toward Letterman, saying she couldn't trust her daughter with him so she wouldn't be able to accept his invitation to appear on his show to accept the apology he was giving.

Then, one of the groups that seem to rabidly follow her attacked Dave and called for his firing and formed a group on Facebook. Already it seems one advertiser has withdrawn.

We have to make sure Dave is supported and can't let Palin win in her vile attempt to bash Dave. He has issued another full apology which will air tonight on his show. It is a gracious and kindly worded apology and should end it all here, if she will let it. Time will tell.