DADT Activisits Subpeona The President

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 06-30-2010 11:34 PM

Dan Choi is my hero these days, and GetEqual is turning in to the Gay Rights organization the movement has needed ever since HRC turned in to a cash cow group that has completely lost touch with the community and urgent goals for equality - NOW.

~snip~

WHY DID WE SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT?

Defendants in the above-captioned cases seek the testimony of Barack Obama, President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, to testify about statements made by him, regarding his support for public pressure to abolish the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and official policy regarding gay and lesbian members of the US Armed Forces. In particular, statements made on June 1, 2009 (Remarks for Pride Month), June 29, 2009 (Remarks for Pride Reception), October 10, 2009 (Human Rights Campaign Dinner).

Below we highlight several, but not all, remarks that will be relied upon for the defense. These remarks are necessary for the defense in that they reflect that Defendants were following and obeying lawful orders or directives by their President and Commander in Chief, and therefore under an obligation and authority to act as they did in order to pressure him in a non-violent visible way, on this important public issue. President Barack Obama's testimony is also necessary for the defense to prove the defense of necessity (which may excuse "illegal" actions which were taken to prevent a greater harm).

"I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight. For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot - and we will not - put aside issues of basic equality. Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again - it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. We are moving ahead on 'don't ask, don't tell.' We should not -- We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we're fighting two wars. We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford - for our military's integrity - to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and the Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you." --"Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again - it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago," he said.

"And that's why it's so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders - including me - and to make the case all across America," Obama added."

Pams House Blend

racehorse · Post by **racehorse** » 06-30-2010 11:57 PM

Kaz, while I am sympathetic to ending DADT, the defendant's legal arguments are weak in the extreme and have no chance to be successful. For this reason, the Subpoena of the President will be quashed, as it should be.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 07-01-2010 12:05 AM

You're right, it probably wont work - but it's the principle, as matched to the President's own words as quoted in their argument.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 07-01-2010 12:33 AM

This is also about the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality of DADT.

As far as I am concerned, it is people like Dan Choi that are closer to the spirit and promise of Obama '08 vs. the apologists of Obama '10.

Bobbi Snow · Post by **Bobbi Snow** » 07-01-2010 01:33 AM

Kaz, if he had GWB's "personality" he would have written a Signing Statement. But he's NOT. We wanted CHANGE. President Obama is not like GWB, and as much as I believe he wants to take away the discrimination, I believe he wants to do it in a way that some other new President, one day, cannot overturn it, with just another "signature." Please, all of you - give him the time to do this right.

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 07-01-2010 10:03 PM

racehorse wrote: Kaz, while I am sympathetic to ending DADT, the defendant's legal arguments are weak in the extreme and have no chance to be successful. For this reason, the Subpoena of the President will be quashed, as it should be.

I agree Race.

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 07-01-2010 10:38 PM

BTW I am an active member of HRC who Daniel Choi told to "**** themselves" careful what you wish for.

Dan Choi to HRC: You're Useless, You're Irrelevant, And You Can Go **** Yourselves

http://www.queerty.com/dan-choi-to-hrc- ... -20100322/

I have just stopped my membership with them and will go **** myself as Daniel Choi said. Meanwhile President Obama has done more than he has gotten credit for. We are in two wars and yes that does matter.

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 07-01-2010 11:18 PM

Anyone that would like to see what is going on with DADT, can see it here.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ll-policy/

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 07-01-2010 11:22 PM

The House vote was 234 to 194. Most Democrats voted for it, while most Republicans voted against it. There were a few who broke ranks: Five Republicans supported the measure, while 26 Democrats opposed.

Take it up with those that are against you, don't bite those that were working with you for your rights.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 07-01-2010 11:40 PM

There are many in the Gay Rights community who would agree with Dan Choi's remarks about HRC - I certainly do.

HRC can indeed go **** themselves. They are a bull**** cash cow Washington DC insider organization that is useless. They have effectively forgotten their mission. They are more a business than a civil rights organization. I lost ALL respect for them when they began contemplating the idea of dropping transgender from the umbrella of Gay Rights as it tends to have a more negative connotation amongst the general public. Screw HRC.

On the flipside, your rationale for dropping donations to HRC is posed almost as if a punishment for activists in this community having the nerve to criticize this particular President - what was your motivation for dropping them from your list of groups that you donate to? I know why I wont fund them anymore, but am curious as to your reasons.

With the exception of a little something I send to GLAAD (not that they register on the issues radar much anymore), all of my donations go to GetEqual.org - a group putting HRC to shame in the fight for equality.

As for being in two wars and how that ties in to equality for all Americans, I strongly disagree. I do not believe that their is ever an excuse of any kind that is acceptable to delay the progress of civil rights for anyone.

I would venture to say that most people, were they not permitted to serve their nation in an open and honest fashion, if they were not permitted to marry, to adopt children, to donate blood, if their youth were committing suicide at extremely alarming rates compared to the rest of society, if they were subject to legally being terminated from employment based upon their choice of a life partner, subject to harrassment and threats etc..... would not be so patient as some suggest the Gay Rights community be.

GetEqual.org

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 07-02-2010 07:15 AM

Kaztronic wrote: On the flipside, your rationale for dropping donations to HRC is posed almost as if a punishment for activists in this community having the nerve to criticize this particular President - what was your motivation for dropping them from your list of groups that you donate to? I know why I wont fund them anymore, but am curious as to your reasons.

My reasons are very simple I don't like being told to go f... myself, that those involved are "useless and irrelevant". Its not a punishment I have been told that my time signing petitions etc, with HRC is a waste didn't have any issues with them until I saw this comment from Daniel Choi. It has nothing to do with the President.

Now back to topic, I posted the vote in the House on DADT, I think my time and others is better spent working on those that voted against it.

I will check out the group that you posted later today.

Not sure if you are aware of this one:

http://www.thetaskforce.org/

OMG · Post by **OMG** » 07-04-2010 12:59 AM

Bobbi Snow wrote: and as much as I believe he wants to take away the discrimination, I believe he wants to do it in a way that some other new President, one day, cannot overturn it, with just another "signature." Please, all of you - give him the time to do this right.

I actually think that is very correct. So it doesn't look like a Prez hand all over it, but that it's from within the ranks. With it going that route it's much more difficult to overturn it. What I do find obvious is that we have a political party who have supported and is behind gay right issues, and we have a political party who campaigned against gay rights. Unless we get a genuine third Libertarian party (who view something like gay rights as an equal importance to NRA rights) until that happens, being against the party that is actually supporting the issue that important to you because you don't like the way they are doing it, all you are doing it supporting the other side.

But this is a problem that is going on within Lib groups for the longest time. I make mean comments about Conservs all the time, but heck I can admit the group I relate best to in Libs can be as short-sighted and selfish too. The Gay groups are jealous that health care got priority, if the Dems focus on gay rights, then the enviornmentalists get angry that they are being ignored. If you deal with enviorment issues than immigration rights people feel short changed. The "My issue first, my issue now" attitude is what keeping the Dems from every having a long run in charge to push progressive issues. Then we fall a decade behind because the other side wins, and all those groups I mentioned here (and other Lib groups) scratch there heads thinking "Why isn't this nation progressing? Why the issue I feel important seem to be standing still or even taking steps backwards"

As for activism, I think most activists start from a real good place and right cause. But I have seen my fair share of activist leaders (mostly self-appointed) who in time become drunk by their own celebrity and start losing touch on what the cause they are fighting for. I see a lot that care more about "the battle" than the actual solution. I don't know Choi very well, but from afar he is gradually moving from this impressive guy fighting for a cause he believes in (and lives with) with intellect and integrity, to a guy who cares more about "the fight" and to get his name out there by any gimmick or grandstanding gesture even though it doesn't help the cause he claims is so important to him, but actually takes some credibility away from it.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 07-07-2010 11:56 PM

Lt. Dan Choi is going to lose his job because he is a Homosexual. He is actively fighting to overturn the discriminatory policies that will cause him to lose a job he appears to love. Is he really the one losing credibility here for his actions, or are those who are dragging their feet on this issue losing theirs?

When African-Americans took to the streets to demand equality, who were they trying to pressure? Those who would never support their rights, or those who would and could?

I have read several times that Gays should take up their problems with the Republicans who oppose them. Even President Obama dismissed the community with this line that isn't even remotely logical - the Republicans made no promises, have not declared themselves "Fierce Advocates", have not spoken of the "urgency" of passing these initiatives while the political window to do so existed.

Newsflash: the Republicans as a whole are NOT going to get on board - not until Gay Marriage equality is long established, DADT is ended, Gay families can legally adopt and raise children, and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act has been passed and is established law. Until those things happen, and until enough time passes to prove the stances against extending civil rights to the Gay Community were in fact discriminatory and nothing more - they will not get on board. The African-American Civil Rights movement proved this.

Taking the fight to the Republicans is a waste of time. It is those who CLAIM to support Gay Rights, and those who CAN affect change but tepidly advance that need to be pressured to follow through on their potential.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 07-08-2010 12:16 AM

OMG wrote: The "My issue first, my issue now" attitude is what keeping the Dems from every having a long run in charge to push progressive issues.

I could not disagree with this sentiment more.

The facts do not at all agree with this conclusion - otherwise those issues pushed forward first, and with zeal would in fact reflect progressive ideals.

The fact of the matter is this: their was no progressive agenda when it came to this Administration, or the Democratic Party upon reclaiming control of government. The results just don't match the rhetoric. Every single legislative agenda, from the climate bill, to healthcare, to banking reform has been sold out to special interests & lobbyists. No one can look at the House version of Cap & Trade and claim any progressive agenda lurks inside that pro-corporate legislation. No one can look at the healthcare legislation that makes drug and insurance companies ever richer, while marginally improving healthcare services for Americans as any type of progressive vision as existed in 2008 (I wont even detail how the Dems toyed with doing more harm to abortion rights than any conservative Republican could have hoped to achieve during the previous Administration).

The Democrats made a deal with the devil to regain control in the first place. How did they gain control, how did they win those seats in traditionally Republican areas? Schumer put together a strategy to win those seats by putting forth CONSERVATIVE Democrats to win those seats.

The only true hope for Progressive ideals existed in the White House - which rather than lead, chose instead to delegate major issue after major issue to Congress, never truly outlining any type of progressive agenda, never putting forth a framework for what legislation must contain to meet with the potential and promises of this Administration.

Starting at the top, the Democratic party has utterly lacked true leadership for the last two years when it came to moving forward with meaningful change, and I suggest that is what will cost them their run at power - more than any selfish groups that might still be fighting for them to live up to their promises and potential.

Kaztronic · Post by **Kaztronic** » 07-08-2010 12:32 AM

I will leave this issue with this, a post based more upon emotions than politics - because we are speaking of basic human rights that most here accept as a given.

I am 33 years old.

I want to get married.

I wish to adopt & raise children with my Husband.

I've seen the window of opportunity for some of those goals close for older friends.

How much longer do I have before those opportunities realistically begin to close for me?

Tell me to be patient and wait my turn.......