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.
Heh -- you knew a credibility challenge was going to come down the pike from the Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee -- charges that the nine-month study of the impact of repealing DADT will be, oh, "pro-homosexual," and will simply validate the decision to jettison the policy (AP, via Steve Rothaus' Gay South Florida):
GOP lawmakers are likely to use the argument to try to chip away at the credibility of the assessment, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates envisions as the first comprehensive look at the policy in its 17-year lifetime.
Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and U.S. Army Forces Europe commander Gen. Carter Ham were expected to testify Wednesday before a House Armed Services subcommittee for the first time since being tapped to lead the study.
"Many of us on this committee have serious concerns with putting our men and women in uniform through such a divisive debate while they are fighting two wars," said Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the full committee's top Republican.
The statement by Buck McKeon, repeated frequently by other pols in favor of keeping DADT in place -- is getting old. It makes the assumption that asking service members a few questions and observing the forces will somehow disable them from doing their duties. We really must have a weak-kneed military if that's the case; why do these elected officials keep making appeals that sound like those serving in the military are delicate flowers that wilt at the drop of a hat? It's a real denigrating line of BS to drop.
Assailing the vendor selected to conduct the study is now the tactic being pulled out of the cultural dungeon of the GOP. The RAND Corp will handle the work; the AP obtained an email from a McKeon staffer outlining the purported "significant shortcomings" of the company citing one RAND staffer's research (not on work time) with a pro-repeal org, The Palm Center.
"Given RAND's track record on this issue, there is no way that any study it produces can be called credible or objective," staffer John Chapla wrote.
RAND spokesman Jeffrey Hiday said the company did not work side by side with the pro-repeal group last year. A RAND researcher did some work on her own time" for the Palm Center, Hiday said, and is no longer doing so. "RAND has no ideological perspective. We approach every problem by focusing on the facts and analyzing the facts."
But here's the reality check: the point of the study (to be completed by Dec. 1), as Sec. Def. Gates has stated publicly, is not about asking permission from service members to repeal the policy. What it is specifically:
"it will focus primarily on three areas: changes to legislation, education and training and policy...and led by a senior civilian and a one- or two-star general. Air Force Maj. Gen. Greg Biscone has been appointed the group's executive director.
Since the Congressman is hell-bent on pursuing this line of spin that the study is biased, will someone on the committee please ask Rep. Buck McKeon to challenge the qualifications and impartiality of Gen. Biscone regarding his leadership of it? Is the Congressman suggesting that Biscone's just there for show while RAND tosses the study? Look at the General's creds:
He is responsible for the development of Air Force policy, concepts, analysis and strategy for the next QDR. His organization continually re-orients the department's capabilities and forces to be more agile in times of war, prepare for wider asymmetric challenges, and mitigate risk against uncertainty over the next 20 years.
General Biscone is a 1981 distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. His assignments include combat crew instructor duty and wing command in the B-52; squadron, group and wing command in the B-2; advanced systems acquisition; and aide to the Commander, Air Combat Command. He also led the Joint Staff's Force Integration Branch, directed the Headquarters U.S. Executive Secretariat, and served as ACC's Assistant Director of Air and Space Operations. Prior to his current assignment, he was Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Central Command.
General Biscone commanded expeditionary forces and flew B-52 missions in operations Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom. He also commanded B-2 actions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with strikes from both continental United States and deployed locations. He is a command pilot with more than 3,800 hours.
Man up, Buck. Do you have a problem with Air Force Maj. Gen. Greg Biscone's ability to handle the working group?
Is it me or were we told there was a clear path to repeal? The level of political homophobia stinks like an upturned porta-potty. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) doesn't think so. In fact he thinks, despite polling and testimony by military officials that DADT needs to be flushed away, that a vote could fail.
When asked about equality advocates' concern that a moratorium on enforcement of the military's ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy would put off a vote on repealing policy this year, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said on Thursday, ''That's not my concern. My concern would be that the vote on ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' gets defeated.''
When asked if that meant the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman had concerns that such a vote would be defeated this year, Levin's response was blunt:
''Yeah, darn right I do.''
Levin made the comments following testimony Thursday morning by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and top military chiefs with the Navy and Marine Corps.
I'm tired of this sh*t. Name some names -- who up there on the Hill is waffling on repeal? This pathetic jiu-jitsu over moving on this is absolutely enraging and ridiculous at this point.
The Palm Center makes a pointed statement -- the military doesn't need permission from those who are serving to effect change. Polling their feelings about the matter is in the end, irrelevant -- all they need to do is look at other countries where gays and lesbians already serve. It's a top-down institution that shouldn't be governed by the sensitivities or bigotries of those who are in the military -- it's a bad policy, get rid of it. But decisionmakers -- and apparently lawmakers -- are bunching their panties over this.
In a conversation with Dr. Nathaniel Frank today, Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, acknowledged difficulties with the plan to poll U.S. troops on their personal feelings about serving with gays. "We've never assessed the force because it's not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not," Admiral Roughead told Frank in a discussion immediately following the Admiral's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "That gets you into a very difficult regime."
Frank, Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center, agreed with Admiral Roughead. "The military is a top-down institution for good reason," he said. "Acknowledging the concerns of the troops is important, but that's not the same as using an opinion poll as the basis for making policy." Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin has also said that, while it is important to remain sensitive to the concerns of service members, "An army is not a democracy."
This month, the Palm Center released a policy memorandum with eight research recommendations to the new Pentagon Working Group on gays in the military. One of the recommendations supports Admiral Roughead's observation:
Consult troops for relevant information rather than to ask their permission for reform. It is important to be sensitive to the concerns and anxieties of military members as options are weighed about lifting the ban on openly gay service. Yet it is crucial that, when uniformed personnel are consulted on this matter, the purpose of the consultations be made clear: Polls or anecdotes about the personal preferences of enlisted personnel and junior officers should not be used as a basis to determine policy, and they do not constitute evidence about the critical question of what impact lifting the ban will have on cohesion, recruitment, and effectiveness. In Britain and Canada, approximately two-thirds of troops surveyed said that they would not work with gays, yet when inclusive policies were implemented, just a handful of service members actually retired.
What sane minds want to see DADT left in place besides the professional anti-gay set? The people who love the closet...
Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy will retire after eight terms in office, bringing an end to his House career just months after his father, legendary Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, passed away.
Kennedy has easily held Rhode Island's 1st district since 1994 despite the occasional attempt by Republicans to knock him off.
Patrick Kennedy's retirement means that for the first time in nearly five decades there will not be a member of the Kennedy family in Congress. His father, who served Massachusetts in the Senate for more than four decades, died on August 25.
Kennedy's seat, which includes the northeastern reaches of the state, is strongly Democratic. President Barack Obama won the seat by 32 points in 2008 while Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) carried it by 26 points in 2004.
Among the Democrats mentioned as possible Kennedy replacements include: Providence Mayor David Cicilline, Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts and state party chairman Bill Lynch.
State Rep. John Loughlin was already in the race on the Republican side.
First elected to the U.S. House in 1994, Kennedy has been a steadfast supporter of the LGBT community. In 1996, he was among 67 House members to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. He also voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006.
Kennedy has co-sponsored hate crimes protections bills since at least 2001, and voted in favor of passing the legislation in 2007 and 2009. Kennedy has also co-sponsored versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act since his first year in Congress and voted for the bill in 2007.
The lawmaker has co-sponsored numerous other pro-LGBT bills, including the Uniting American Families Act and the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act as well as legislation that would repeal DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
A supporter of same-sex marriage, Kennedy voiced his support for marriage rights for same-sex couples in a statement when he announced in 2008 he would be a founding member of the LGBT Equality Caucus.
"Discrimination against any individual because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is simply unacceptable," he said at the time.
"That's why I'm so proud to be a founding member of this caucus. The LGBT Equality Caucus will provide a crucial platform in our fight for comprehensive hate crimes legislation, marriage equality and an end to workplace discrimination. At this point in history, we have a unique opportunity to advance the cause of equality."
Type: Causes - Rally
Network: Global
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010 Time: 12:05am - 12:55pm Location: Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Today, February 2, 2010 Senator Carl Levin, the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee is holding a special hearing on moving forward to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.
It is reported that after the hearing, he and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has been called to testify at the hearing will be making an important announcement (one that is likely to spark a surge of calls from conservatives and bigots).
It is important that each of your senators hear from you today, urging them to support the repeal.
Call their offices directly, or through the Capitol Hill Switchboard (202) 224-3121.
Ask the staffer specifically where the senator stands on the issue, and then log that response on the Act on Principles website, where a citizen whip count is being created to track where we stand in the Senate -- and where we need to still apply pressure -- http://actonprinciples.org
And finally, please go to the Voices of Honor joint campaign by Servicemembers United and the Human Rights Campaign to send an email to your Representative and sign up to meet with them at their district office -- http://www.hrc.org/sites/voice...
Note: If you are a resident of the District of Columbia and have no senators to call, you can direct your calls to Senators Levin and Reid, urging them to use their leadership positions to move the repeal effort forward!
Congresswoman Chellie Pingree critical of Supreme Court decision on campaign finance
Says decision shows that "the system is broken"
Congresswoman Chellie Pingree criticized a Supreme Court decision announced today that would allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in Congressional and Presidential elections.
"This decision paves the way for big corporations to buy elections," Pingree said. "Powerful special interests like banks and insurance companies already have too much influence in Washington, and this Supreme Court decision will only make it worse."
"This means that big banks, credit card companies and the insurance industry can start pouring money into campaigns to elect their friends and defeat those who are fighting for reform," Pingree said.
This week Pingree wrote a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, signed by over 50 of her colleagues, calling for passage of a campaign finance reform bill Pingree introduced last year.
"This decision today shows how badly the system is broken," Pingree said.
"The ultimate solution to campaign finance reform is to provide public financing of campaigns. We've done it in Maine and it's been very successful. It's time to take the lessons we've learned here to the rest of the country and get big money out of campaigns."
Pingree's bill, The Fair Elections Now Act, is a voluntary system that would limit contributions to $100, emphasize grassroots support and bring campaign finance reform into the 21st Century.
Maine has a "Clean Elections" system that allows candidates for the Legislature and Governor to raise small contributions as seed money and then receive public financing to pay for the remainder of their campaign expenses. Clean Elections candidates hold 85% of the seats in the Maine Legislature.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced two versions of the bill last year-one for the Senate and one for the House. Both proposals require candidates to raise a minimum level of small individual contributions to qualify. Once they have qualified, they will have to abide by strict fundraising restrictions and disclosure requirements in return for public funding based on the average costs of winning campaigns in recent elections.
Below the fold, the letter she and over 50 other members of Congress signed and sent to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
There is obviously a split in opinion on the left about whether the current iteration of the massive health care reform bill in the Senate amounts to any real reform. No, let me rephrase -- substantial positive reform that addresses the health care industry's strangle hold over your wallet, and ability to dump customers that cost them too much.
The question for you, the reader, is whether this matters, given the more palatable House version has yet to be reconciled with the Senate bill, or this is just the harbinger of what is to come and so the Senate bill should die and the process on that side needs to be rebooted. The facts do give one pause:
Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill
Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
The Senate bill isn’t a “starter home,” it’s a sink hole. It needs to die so something else can take its place. It doesn’t matter whether people are on the right or the left — once they understand the con job that’s about to be foist upon them, they agree. That’s why Harry Reid and President Obama are trying to jam it through as fast as they can, before people get wise. So email the list to your friends and family, tweet it and spread the word.
Did you see that under this bill, Congress has gone out of its way to coddle the womb-controllers and curtail or eliminate federal funding for abortion, a legal procedure in the country.
And look at how long it will take for those with pre-existing conditions to see relief? And when the insurance companies do have to offer coverage; there is nothing stopping them from charging rates so high that one can't afford the policy. If you decline (and you can if the policy is more than 8% of your income), the coverage you may receive might still be so expensive because of co-pays and co-insurance that you won't be able to use it. Effectively that's health care rationing in another manner.
That's not reform. Real reform should produce a healthier overall population, not just everyone mandated to get into substandard plans because of economic discrimination. What is the point of giant risk pools if you're going to screw over people with pre-existing conditions. It's punish the patient all over again.
Look at it this way -- if you take the optimistic view and say that this is just the first step towards single-payer, then what that viewpoint reflects is "have patience, trust me (the government)" Given the lofty equality/fierce advocate promises versus the level of commitment to the LGBT community has seen so far from this administration and Congress, would you trust them to resolve the serious problems of these compromises in a reconciled bill? Just sayin'.
The Women's Media Center is encouraging women to surf to NotUnderTheBus.com, a comprehensive landing place created for anyone looking to know the latest news in the health care debate. As you know, the next two weeks are going to be crucial for activists to make sure their concerns are heard about this bill as it gets voted on in the Senate and moved back to the House for reconciliation. The restrictions on abortion in the bill are a severe threat to women's choice and we'd like to ask you to help us get the word out about this by posting the video to your blog. We will continue to update you on the latest from NotUnderTheBus.com over the next two weeks so you can share with your readers when appropriate.
While the short term goal is to keep abortion restrictions out of health care reform, NotUnderTheBus.comis a long term project that will be working to move the conversation about health care back to the original problem - the Hyde Amendment.
Keith, as usual, tells it like it is...the health care proposal has been stripped of substantial reform, and it was a casualty of elected officials beholden not to their constituents.
These members of Congress stalling real reform are all in the pocket of the lobbyists and cash of Big Health. How can the average citizen counter that? And Keith calls out the right wing for politicizing reform using fear and smear to derail change.
Wow. Just Wow. With the naked drama and paranoia over Obama's senior domestic policy aide Melody Barnes's simple statement about marriage equality, and the slow movement on LGBT issues by the WH and Congress, I guess we should be happy that these nuggets of wisdom keep coming out that justify the DNC donor boycott/"pause".
A Blender emailed me yesterday about a reception for Rhode Island U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D), and the lawmaker was asked about both the boycott and his viewpoint on the progress on civil equality. The senator's candid response tells the whole story about what "change" means from this Democrat's point of view.
I'm really glad I asked him about the gay bloggers and their boycott of the DNC. I told him you were all angry over a lack of progress on issues like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a repeal of DOMA, etc.
I like Sheldon a lot, and I have much respect for him, but his response to my question was bullshit. His whole spiel was "Oh politics is messy and complicated, blah blah blah....." And then he said Congress has to get health care done, then fix the economy, do climate change, etc. Great, and the civil rights of 30 million people are being denied. I guess gays and lesbians don't matter. I wish someone had said that to him.
Then I mentioned that the gay bloggers believe the Democratic party takes the GLBT community for granted and keeps delaying votes on our rights. I really pressed Sheldon on that. He said we should all feel fortunate that we have Obama in the White House and a Congress which supports him. He said the Republicans were obstructionists, and added amendments to bills, etc.
I felt very disillusioned listening to that. He didn't seem to have a real explanation why the Democrats haven't moved faster on gay rights. Politics is unwieldy? Do you and Joe Sudbay and the others buy that argument? Should we?
Whitehouse's view probably represents that of many of his Hill colleagues. I have to say that the senator's response is exactly why a boycott donations to the DNC is under way (along with the DSCC and DCCC, IMHO). There is no excuse for the lack of movement on so many minor (low-hanging fruit listed by our advocacy orgs), let alone, major LGBT issues by this admin and by Congress.
That a sitting senator hasn't any problem giving the "you should be grateful" statement is BS -- implicit is that LGBTs need to keep opening our wallets over and over and be happy about any progress is ludicrous. The President made promises, we're holding him and the party to dealing with them. The problem is there's always going to be an excuse that also revolves around timelines for midterms, re-elections, etc., so the best time to deal with the "hard" issues is now. These leaders can multitask. They choose not to.
So what are your thoughts? Anyone else attend their Congresscritters events and heard BS like this?
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN), and other House Republicans will hold an online town hall meeting on Thursday, November 5, 2009. This online health care forum named "Pelosi Plan Exposed" will run for 12 hours and expose the 12 truths of Nancy Pelosi's health care bill. House Republicans will also promote and discuss the GOP health care legislation introduced in the House this week.
During this unique and interactive online broadcast, Americans will be able to ask questions and interact with Members of Congress through Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail starting Thursday at 1:00 PM EST, and ending Friday at 1:00 AM EST.
The punchline will be the laughable GOP health care reform plan that ensures that health care insurance companies can continue to deny coverage to people.
The alleged complications in this case underscore the danger of: 1) the closet, 2) that DADT reinforces the closet and foments fear of being shoved out of it to a deadly level, and 3) the military engages in secrecy because of the homophobia that instituted Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the first place.. (Dallas Voice):
The aunt of August Provost, a bisexual Navy seaman from Houston found murdered at Camp Pendleton last month, told Dallas Voice this week that the family has received information suggesting that her nephew’s killer is a gay sailor who somehow feared being outed by Provost.
Rose Roy, of Beaumont, the sister of Provost’s father, said in a phone interview Tuesday, July 14 that she’s “not at liberty” to identify the source who provided the information to the family. But Roy said the source told the family Provost had a heated argument with the suspect a week before his murder, and that the sailor now being held as a person of interest by the Navy has a history of mental illness.
“This guy went the extra mile to make sure that my nephew would never be able to speak about his [the killer’s] sexuality,” Roy said. “My nephew died for reasons other than what the military is saying.”
If this is the case, then it's not a hate crime, as the military asserts, but the inquiries by a member of Congress for clarity on the matter are going unanswered.
“What I know about the murder is what the Navy so far has told us, which is not very much,” [U.S. Rep. Bob] Filner told Dallas Voice. “I think they ought to be far more open and far more in detail. They keep saying they know it’s not a hate crime, but they don’t give me enough information for me to agree with that or not. If they don’t do it right, we will have an independent congressional inquiry. There are several of us in Congress who are calling for that, and we’ll figure out a way to do it if we need to.”
The reason for the lack of information being released by the Navy and the Marine Corps about whether sailor August Provost's murder was a hate crime related to his sexual orientation is because, according to a U.S. Congressman from California, it would raise questions about consequences of DADT and the inability for any gay or lesbian to report harassment without outing themselves. Here is the Navy Times take on the status of the case.
A sailor remained the top suspect in the June 30 murder of a fellow sailor with Assault Craft Unit 5 at Camp Pendleton, Calif.
...Navy officials said they don’t believe the shooting was gang- or terror-related. They also continued to dispute rumors that Provost was killed because he was gay, despite contentions raised by several relatives and gay advocacy groups who claim the sailor had been harassed at the unit because he was open about his homosexuality.
While Navy officials have denied that the shooting was a hate crime, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., has asked Navy and Marine Corps officials for additional investigations into Provost’s death. Provost “made the selfless and courageous decision to serve his country, regardless of his sexual orientation; he should be treated with honor and respect,” Filner wrote in letters to Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway; Col. Nicholas F. Marano, who is Camp Pendleton’s base commander; and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.
Filner said he was frustrated with a lack of information from the Navy and the Marine Corps, particularly over the suspicion that Provost’s sexuality might be connected to his death, which would raise questions about consequences of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
“They don’t want that discussion to take place,” he said.
There is zero incentive for the Pentagon to admit this was a sexual orientation-related hate crime. I do hope that all of the relevant information comes out, because clearly there is no national security risk if the facts come out. The real risk out there is the one the Pentagon put the country in by discharging qualified gay and lesbian personnel.
Seaman August Provost, 29, is dead. His body was found on June 30 at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in San Diego, CA. At this time the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is calling it an apparent homicide and are looking for a "person of interest" in custody. There is evidence that this could be a hate crime.
Rep. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista) said today he had asked the U.S. Department of Defense and the Marine Corps to investigate whether the killing of a sailor, who was gay, at Camp Pendleton was a hate crime...Gay leaders in San Diego had asked Filner to intervene. Nicole Murray-Ramirez, chairman of the San Diego Human Relations Commission, said Provost's family said the sailor had been harassed by other personnel on the base.
Filner said initial indications are that Provost was shot and his body burned. He said his committee also will investigate the case.
Provost's partner found out about the death from a newspaper reporter, Murray-Ramirez said.
Provost enlisted in the Navy in March 2008, and was a boatswain mate seaman who worked on hovercrafts. Provost's Facebook page confirms he is 29-years-old and interested in "men and women." On his MySpace page, Provost referenced dating men and identified another Houston man as "the love of my life."
...The homicide of August Provost III came on the same day Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed the Pentagon hoped to make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" investigations-and attitudes toward gay and lesbian servicemembers-more "humane."
Well, now this young man is dead. So much for humane policy. HRC, which has just launched a DADT repeal tour, put out this statement:
"Our thoughts are with the Prevost family at this time as authorities work to learn what happened in the early morning hours this past Tuesday," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "The Human Rights Campaign has confirmed Congresswoman Susan Davis has been in touch with officials at the base and is tracking the investigation. We know that every day members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community are targeted for simply being who they are. Furthermore, our gay or lesbian soldiers struggle with the extra burden of not serving openly and honestly based on the discriminatory policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' As we monitor the investigation, our community must continue to raise awareness on a law that we know hurts military readiness and national security while putting American soldiers at risk."
In the SD Union-Tribune, the real crux of the story is revealed:
Provost's partner, Kaether Cordero, said Provost was openly gay but kept his private life quiet for the most part.
"People who he was friends with, I knew that they knew," Cordero said from Houston. "He didn't care that they knew. He trusted them."
Provost had recently complained to family members about a person who was harassing him, so they advised him to tell his supervisor, said his sister, Akalia Provost of Houston.
If Provost was gay, then clearly if he went to complain to his supervisor, he would have to "Tell" about his sexual orientation. How on earth are service members placed in this position supposed to ask for help? I hope someone asks Robert Gibbs about this at the next presser -- or the President or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. How should a harassment dilemma of this kind should be addressed if one is to be truthful? If Provost's death turns out to be a hate crime, the blood will be on their hands for the inaction -- leaving gays and lesbians in uniform in harm's way for the sake of affirming homophobia in the ranks.
Wow; I can't wait for The Peter's take on that Roll Call headline. Anyway, this article is about yesterday's meeting with Speaker Pelosi, her team and Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jared Polis (D-CO) to discuss what legislation to move forward. Apparently everyone was keeping tight-lipped about the details.
According to sources, the Members discussed workplace discrimination, health care benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees and a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays from openly serving in the military. The lawmakers also discussed how to help the Senate pass hate crimes legislation that has already cleared the House.
I'm not sure what to make about this quote from Frank about ENDA:
Asked what has shifted in the last year, Frank said Democrats picked up 21 more House seats and held a first-of-its-kind educational hearing on transgender issues last summer.
In addition, "the transgender community stopped yelling at me and [Pelosi] ... and started lobbying sensibly," Frank said.
Oy. Can he ever sound like he's not picking a fight?
RED ALERT: And for those of you who don't think shutting the gAyTM makes a difference...they have been taking us for granted, and don't let them tell you otherwise:
Democrats also see the power of the gay community's purse.
On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council is hosting a fundraising event with Vice President Joseph Biden. Frank, Baldwin and Polis are among those headlining the 10th annual event; the cost to attend ranges from $1,000 to $30,400 per person.
Democratic consultant Mark Nevins said the gay community is a "compelling voting bloc" for Democrats, particularly because of their strong organization and financial backing.
"They are organized. They work hard. They vote and they have money," Nevins said. "They are a powerful financial institution."
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the religious motivation for the law is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Congress over-reached its authority under the law and discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause and it should be repealed immediately to help reconstruct the economy.. Supporters of DOMA argue that the act is a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the act does not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
On June 21st, 2004 an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office called “The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages“, was sent to Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives at his request. The analysis stated that recognizing same-sex marriages by the Federal government would affect federal revenues through both the individual income tax and the estate tax. Revenues would be higher: by $400 million a year from 2005 through 2020 and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014. A billion dollars earned from Federal tax revenue is what would be added to the U.S. Treasury every three years if same sex-couples were allowed to file Federal Income tax forms.
The stock market keeps on crashing as I predicted with my words of warning written in the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 31, 2007. No one listened. Not lawmakers, not President Bush, not Vice President Cheney. Exactly a year later after my warning, Christian evangelicals gathered around the Merrill/Lynch bronze bull sculpture, the standing one with shiny low hangers to pray for a bull market.. The organizer of the prayer group stated to Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, “This is so severe in the economic area because we are facing judgment from the actions, not only for our stance towards Israel, but our blatant sin against Him in passing laws such as the one allowing homosexual marriages.”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has released its roundup of the 2008 Most Embarrassing Re-Elected Members of Congress. My friends in the Golden State, you have sent a disproportionate number of these losers back to the Hill, lol.
Members are not ranked, but rather listed in alphabetical order. The top 10 list includes:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
The full report is here (PDF). Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, had this to say:
From Rep. Bachmann's smearing of president-elect Barack Obama to Rep. Buchanan's serious FEC violations -- these members of Congress stand out for their inability to conduct themselves in a manner that respects the office they hold. By highlighting those officials who have been an embarrassment to their constituents, the institution of Congress and in some cases, the United States of America, we fervently hope that they do more to better represent those who voted them into higher office.
(It is time to get mad, folks. This has all gone way out of wack. - promoted by Julien Sharp)
"You've been able to pocket close to half a billion dollars and my question to you is that fair for a CEO of a company that's now bankrupt? It's just unimaginable to so many people," Waxman asked Fuld.
Source: AFP Aw, but it wasn't really that much. It was a much more imaginable number:
An open letter, sent to Senators Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, and Representative Jerry Weller and crossposted on Facebook, Pam's House Blend, and Trans-cendental
Dear Senators Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, and Representative Jerry Weller.
I am a registered voter in the 11th congressional district of Illinois.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I am appalled at the idea that the congress would even consider ceding its authority to the executive without congressional and judicial review, as stated in section 8 of the proposal from the Bush administration:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
"The senator embraces 'earmarks' as a way to help N.Y. She's received campaign funds from project beneficiaries."
If you like our congresspeople frequently bypassing the normal, annual budget process to insert narrowly drafted spending provisions directly into legislation (without public review), and then receive sizable campaign contributions from the beneficiaries of the 'earmarked' legislation -- well, then you should love this story about Sen. Clinton from the Los Angeles Times.
...One thing is clear, however: Destiny is a classic example of how New York's junior senator has embraced old-fashioned pork-barrel politics, first to build power in the state, then to extend it nationwide as she becomes a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And to fuel her rise, Clinton has relied on the controversial funding device known as "earmarking." The earmarks enabled her to win favor with important constituents, many of whom provided financial support for her campaigns.
Since taking office in 2001...
Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.
All told, Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects in her state since her election to the Senate...
So, how many of you out there have a member of Congress on this list from Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington:
CREW's List of the 22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress:
Members of the Senate: Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Members of House: Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA) Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA) Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA) Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA) Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) Rep. David Scott (D-GA) Rep. Don Young (R-AK) Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM)
...Also worth noting is that the entire Alaska delegation is now on the list. Senator Stevens and Rep. Young are both under federal investigation, and an ethics complaint was filed against Sen. Murkowski by the National Legal and Policy Center.
Sadly, despite an election in which Democrats ran on a platform of eradicating the “culture of corruption” and the fact that voters overwhelmingly turned against members with ethics problems, very little appears to have changed. Members of both parties have boasted of Congress’ progress on this front, yet only tepid ethics reforms were passed and no new enforcement mechanisms were added. The bi-partisan House ethics task force, originally charged with reporting back by May 1, 2007, has yet to issue any recommendations, and the ethics committees in both Houses remain loathe to consider the unethical conduct of their colleagues unless, of course, gay sex is involved as we learned watching the Senate Republicans’ radically disparate treatment of the crimes committed by Sen. Craig and Sen. Vitter.
Speaking of Diaper Dave, you have to surf over to the General for his latest letter to Mitch McConnell in light of sex worker Wendy Cortez's press conference about her business relationship with Vitter. A snippet:
Cortez also said that his "little senator" was actually a "very tiny senator." I think we both know what it feels like to hear that. I can't count the times a woman, brainwashed by the tales humongous members in femislamunistofascist organs like Cosmopolitan, pointed at my normal sized Private Johnson and broke into unstoppable laughter. It can be very humiliating.
That brings us to David's law, a bill sponsored by Sen. Vitter, that would set standards for what is considered to be "big" and what is considered to be "normal" (the breaking point being 2.5 inches). I see the hearing as being a huge media event that'll destroy the "The Great Size Lie" once and for all.
Picture it. We get Cortez to testify that Sen. Vitter is very small. Then we have the senator whip it out, perhaps even displaying it resting in the palm of your hand to provide scale (I understand you are experienced in the proper display of another man's member). Can you think of a more dramatic visual than that? I certainly can't.
(This guest post on the Project comes to us from Governor Bill Richardson. He's pretty supportive of LGBT equality, and he's right there for ENDA, the law to ban employment discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity. Enjoy!)
I am thrilled that ENDA will finally get the committee mark-up we have all been waiting so long for. It's about time. It's been a long, thirteen year struggle. Together, let's make sure that we do not wait one year more. We should also make sure that the Senate finally passes a decent hate crimes law that protects LGBT Americans from heinous, hate-motivated crimes.
For me, these issues are about basic civil rights. LGBT Americans have been denied their civil rights for too long. And all Americans suffer because of it. I think that Dr. King put it best when he wrote that "Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere." Until the rights of every American are guaranteed, the rights of all Americans are demeaned.
He is responsible for the development of Air Force policy, concepts, analysis and strategy for the next QDR. His organization continually re-orients the department's capabilities and forces to be more agile in times of war, prepare for wider asymmetric challenges, and mitigate risk against uncertainty over the next 20 years.
A Blender emailed me yesterday about a reception for Rhode Island U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D), and the lawmaker was asked about both the boycott and his viewpoint on the progress on civil equality. The senator's candid response tells the whole story about what "change" means from this Democrat's point of view.
The alleged complications in this case underscore the danger of: 1) the closet, 2) that DADT reinforces the closet and foments fear of being shoved out of it to a deadly level, and 3) the military engages in secrecy because of the homophobia that instituted Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the first place.. (
While Navy officials have denied that the shooting was a hate crime, 
RED ALERT: And for those of you who don't think shutting the gAyTM makes a difference...they have been taking us for granted, and don't let them tell you otherwise:
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has released its roundup of the 
