I'm getting fed up

[Mimosa]

There have been quite a few topic in GD over the past 6 weeks and longer which are not much more than gay baiting. I'm getting fed up. The situation is worse than it used to be. :(

[sabrina 1]

1. I can't say I have seen them Mimosa, gay-baiting I mean.

But what I have seen is an attempt to suppress anything that proves that Obama CAN put at least a two year moratorium on DADT and refuse to appeal the Judge's decision that DADT is unconstitutional.

For example, I posted this OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9318975 yesterday which makes it clear that the president can issue an EO legally and linked to the study that proves it, removing one of the excuses used for not doing so.

It was unrec'd so often by people who were not interested in discussion but clearly wanted to keep it from being read. The only reason I can think of for doing that is that whoever they were are either anti-gay, or are so loyal to one politician that they are willing to deny Americans their civil rights

What that made me realize was how difficult it must be for Gays to get support for ending this draconian law and that I need to make sure I send it to the most people I can possibly get it to so that as many people as possible refuse to accept the WH's disingenuous excuses for not doing so.

I didn't think it was gay-baiting so much as caring more about politician's careers than about an issue as important as this.

[davidinalameda]

2. gay baiting perhaps

but I do believe that there's an effort being made on here to shut us up

I've seen way too many gay threads that have been unrecommended to death

and of course, all these threads are critical of Obama and how he's treating our community

I voted Democratic in all the races this year (voted early since I'm working the polls on election day) and I can't imagine myself not doing it again in 2012 but I'll be damned if I'll vote for Obama for anything ever again and I doubt that I'm alone in that

[sabrina 1]

3. It was obvious that the thread was under attack and hard to

understand why. This is a progressive board isn't it? I would expect progressives to appreciate any information they could get that would help pressure our politicians to do what is right.

I put up OPs on many different topics and have received unrecs before, which I don't care much about, but this was an attack, an attempt to silence, to censor.

Obama is losing a lot of support and it's only two years since he was elected. He needs to start acting like a Democrat and stop trying to please Republicans. They cannot be pleased by anyone who has a 'D' after their name.

[TheWraith]

4. Sabrina, that "study" has been debunked by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

And the Palm Center retracted it. "Stop Loss" *specifically* excludes discharges based on homosexuality. Your thread got unrecced because it's the same set of facts that's been claimed and debunked dozens of times.

[sabrina 1]

6. Provide some links to the debunking of the study.

If people had evidence of that why did they not provide it? I have looked for something credible that debunks the study, and so far have found nothing. I would be interested in seeing legal reasons why this study is wrong. Not one person in that thread questioned the study btw. The silent unrec'ers should have done so if they could. I would want to know the facts and certainly would have retracted anything I knew was not reliable. But your post is the first to even suggest there has been a credible debunking of that study.

I have searched for anything that contradicts the study and have found the opposite. It has been used by many other reliable people to back up their own opinion that the President can use and EO to put a moratorium on DADT until it is resolved in Congress.

Besides no one needed that study to know that the President CAN use an EO to halt the dismissals. No one disputes that including the President. So I do not know what you are referring to, but would be interested to find out.

[sabrina 1]

7. Well, I have been to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

site and have found nothing on their site that even mentions the study. I might not be finding it, so if you have a link, I would appreciate it.

[joeybee12]

8. It hasn't been debunked...in fact, what that poster claims has been

debunked over and over and over...he's adverse to facts...even those staring him in the face...I don't know it's because of virulent homophobia or just sheer stupidity...I wouldn't waste my time responding to him/her.

[sabrina 1]

11. Thank you. I'm not familiar with the poster

but would have appreciated something to back up what he claims. Seems you are correct as so far, I have received no response from him.

[ruggerson]

9. sabrina

Two years ago, that poster kept denying that Donnie McClurkin had ever spoken at an Obama rally. He was provided with video of the event, but even after being show definitive proof, kept repeating his claim over and over and over.

[sabrina 1]

12. Well, that explains why I could not find anything to

back up his claim of the study being debunked. I have seen people defend the presence of Donnie McClurkin at an Obama rally, but I have never seen anyone deny he was there .... :-)

[keepCAblue]

13. I sent an email just now to the Palm Center & principle author of the study...

I am anxiously awaiting their reply. Will let you know what they have to say wrt to your assertions.

[sabrina 1]

16. Thank you. But in my OP I simply posted their findings.

I have linked to the OP in a comment above. I made no assertions myself, just provided theirs.

I still have not found the debunking of their expert legal opinion mentioned by the DUer above who has not yet returned with a link to back up his claim so I am assuming at this point, it does not exist.

I imagine the Palm Center will stand by their findings as they are still posted on their site last time I looked. But I would be interested to see their response. Thank you.

[keepCAblue]

20. Reply from the director of the Palm Center regarding "stop loss" study

This should shut the liars up once and for all ...

My email to the Palm Center:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: New Study: Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:56:22 -0700
From: xxxxx
Reply-To: xxxxxx
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Dear Palm Center,

I am trying to prove or disprove the rumor that the Palm Center and/or
authors of this study have, since its publication, retracted the
findings of this study in any way. The rumor states, in effect, that
"Stop Loss" specifically excludes discharges based on homosexuality. Is
this true and, if so, does this invalidate the findings of the study in
question. The same parties that are spreading the rumor of the Palm
Center's retraction of this study are also stating that the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has also denounced the study as
invalid and inaccurate based on the Stop Loss exclusion of homosexuality.

In closing, I thank you for your assistance in settling this matter.

Respectfully,

xxxxxx


Palm Center's reply:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Stop-loss
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:00:31 +0000
From: Aaron Belkin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: xxxxxx


Hi xxxxx -

The law that grants the President the authority to suspend "don't ask, don't tell" says that the President can use an executive order (a stop loss order) to suspend any law relating to military separations during national security emergencies.

The Palm Center has not retracted this conclusion. Several prominent members of our community have made incorrect claims about this matter in the public realm.

Aaron Belkin
Director, Palm Center

[keepCAblue]

15. Have you read the text of 10 U.S.C. 12305?

From the Palm Center report:

"The President has the authority to issue an
executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305
(“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement,
and Separation”), Congress grants the President authority to suspend the separation of
military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a
reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty."

Here is 10 U.S.C. 12305, in its entirety:

§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, 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.
(b) A suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) shall terminate
(1) upon release from active duty of members of the reserve component ordered to active duty under the authority of section 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, as the case may be, or
(2) at such time as the President determines the circumstances which required the action of ordering members of the reserve component to active duty no longer exist, which­ever is earlier.
(c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age, length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the termination of the suspension or within 90 days after the date of such termination.

It is the above U.S. Code that is colloquially known as "stop loss". No where in this code is there any reference to or exclusion of homosexuals.

You are likely confusing "stop loss" with George W. Bush's executive order on Sept. 14, 2001, in response to 9/11 (Executive Order 13233: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13223). In this E.O., Bush also mad no specific reference to or exclusion of homosexuals. But because his E.O. allowed administration of the stop loss to the discretion of the Secretaries of each branch of service, it was at THAT level that homosexuals were by policy excluded from stop loss. But the purpose thereof was to prevent STRAIGHT service members from claiming to be homosexual in order to get out of extended duty.

If you have any official amendment to U.S.C 12305 which states specifically that GLBTs are excluded from any application of stop loss, then PLEASE DO share it with us. Otherwise, stop perpetuating falsehoods regarding stop loss, the Palm Center and the SLDN.

[sabrina 1]

17. Thank you. That distinction between what most people think of

as 'stop loss' and the one referenced in the study, was made in my OP. Anyone who read the OP and didn't simply react because it was asking the President to simply take a stand, would have know that.

Thank you for posting it again, but the individual to whom you are speaking has not provided anything to back up his claims that the study was debunked. He is the only person I have ever seen say that and I believe he cannot provide a link which is why he has not returnedto the thread.

The President could end DADT today by doing two things, not appealing the recent decision calling it unconstitutional and issuing an Executive Order to halt dismissals until Congress resolves the issue. That would make DADT ineffective for two years at least, and maybe for six.

As one Gay Fighter Pilot said to Rachel Maddow, if he did that, after two years it would be accepted policy and would be very hard to put back in the box.

Every excuse coming from the WH at this point just makes them look weak, unwilling to take a stand. This is the perfect time to do it with the public behind it, the recent ruling and a Democrat in the WH.

I don't know why he hasn't done it already. The military does not need to 'adjust'. As one Commander in Afghanistan said when asked about that 'the troops have a lot more to worry about than DADT. They probably don't even know about all these rulings etc. or care'. I think he's right.

[Touchdown]

19. Debunking means facts are given. Nobody on DU has.

All you count as "debunking" is conjecture. Your arguments are not self evident and unimpeachable simply because Obama must not be dissed.

[Creideiki]

23. Checks and balances

The military, as part of the Executive, can always choose how, when, or IF to enforce any law that Congress makes. This happens all the time--look at how people complain about lack of regulation done by the EPA. This is part of the reason why the person who is President matters iff (that's if and only if for the non-logic/math minded out there) he or she chooses to utilize that check. So, yeah. Basically, the military doesn't have to kick out anyone for being gay unless they so choose.

The Legislative's check on the Executive is the Power of the Purse.

Of course, you know this, Wraith, because because you're wise and all-knowing and passed at least a basic high school level civics class. Or at least, you would know this if your high school level civics class were on par with what's required in the State of Illinois.

[ruggerson]

10. You just hit the nail on the head

"I didn't think it was gay-baiting so much as caring more about politician's careers than about an issue as important as this."

[LonePirate]

5. Agreed! The lack of support for LGBT civil rights here on DU is sickening.

Politics should never trump civil rights but I am reminded every that it does when I read the LGBT threads here. If our own party cannot rally around this cause, it's no wonder the LGBT community is so rightfully disappointed in Obama and the party.

[mitchtv]

14. Oh, there have been a few

like the list of Obama's "pro Gay" accomplishments " titled Obama hates gays or somesuch. They crop up regularly remember "The Best of DU"?

[Touchdown]

18. Yeah, there is, but we have to fight anyway.

Other people are reading those threads. We cannot allow one opinion to dominate.

:hug:

[MNBrewer]

21. bump

The baiting continues unabated. it's all a feverish reaction to the impending election I think... gotta get the scapegoats all lined up.

[racaulk]

22. +1

It is insulting and sickening and, unfortunately, shows no signs of stopping.

Time to scapegoat the gays! It must be election season or something.

Sigh.